What Was the Star of Bethlehem?

"There have been many attempts to explain the Christmas Star scientifically, and three will be mentioned here." - AiG

1125 reads

There are 3 Comments

GEaston's picture

"The conclusion is that the Star of Bethlehem cannot be explained by science!"

Well, duh. That's because anything deemed to be "supernatural" is not science.

Which leads me to something I have said for years: Creation is not science. The Bible is not a science textbook. To devote an entire ministry to "Creation Science" is as disingenuous and misleading as preaching the "Prosperity Gospel." You can't call The Star a "miracle" and then switch gears and call Creation "science."

"Sometimes the road less traveled is less traveled for a reason."

Larry's picture


Greg, I have always understood "Creation science" to be science in light of creation. It is the scientific explanation of the world we live in with the foundation of special creation. I don't think that contradicts miracles. It assumes the supernatural and shows how it explains the world we live in.

GEaston's picture

Once you introduce the supernatural or miracles into the equation, science and reason go out the window. Reminds me of the old Far Side cartoon where the scientist has an equation solved by writing "and here a miracle occurs" on the chalkboard, therefore solving his equation.

Creation, as described in Genesis, cannot happen scientifically. Therefore, it must have been a miracle and not science. To me, that's fine. Just don't call it science because it is not. Just like The Star -- there is no astronomical or scientific explanation -- so AIG calls it a supernatural event. Fine. So it was. Just like Creation. A miracle - not science.

Yet, Ken Ham's entire ministry is built on what he calls Creation Science... As I see it, he's trying to have it both ways, and that is disingenuous.

"Sometimes the road less traveled is less traveled for a reason."