ORIGINS: FAITH AND SCIENCE



ORIGINS: FAITH AND SCIENCE

Seminar 1

• Introduction:

➢ Faith is exercised whenever we make decisions based on limited knowledge

▪ Wisdom => we are all limited in knowledge!

▪ However, true faith has no fear of knowledge (we must fearlessly lift every rock)

• Personal Introduction: God's calling to me to communicate and write origins

➢ It seems that God has placed a strong desire within me to investigate the question of “origins”

➢ I was thereby motivated to get further education

➢ I soon realized my limitations (many in this audience are far more knowledgeable about the various disciplines of science)

➢ But once again, true faith must not fear of knowledge

• We are told, by nonChristians and Christians alike, that we must believe one of three things:

1. An evolutionary view of origins, or--

2. A creation view of origins, or--

3. That we can not be sure of any view of origins

- After I first became a Christian:

➢ I assumed that evolution was a fact and I wasn’t really clear on why it would matter.

➢ After learning more about the Bible, and the importance of understanding our purposeful creation, I came to believe what I call “simple creation,” that is, six-day creation including a worldwide flood, though I was concerned that the evidence for this might be weak. (By “simple” I mean that you read the text, in context, and accept what it appears to say.)

➢ Next, I entertained what is called “progressive creation” which is supposed to have occurred over billions of years and where God intervened with acts of creation when needed and spaced over aeons of time. “After all, secular science can’t be wrong… can it?”

➢ I finally came to realize that it was not the evidence, but my presuppositions that were weak.

➢ Now I do not want to interrupt by force the development of your own view on these matters, however, I do believe we need to examine our presuppositions, and only then can we honestly address the evidence in accord with faith and science.

➢ Therefore, over the next few weeks I intend to clarify what we mean by “origins research” so that we may see the sharp distinction between “historical, origins theories” and “scientific theories.” In the end, I believe it will be clear that the “simple view of creation” is not only reasonable, but that the supporting evidence is very strong.

• Let me start with my claim that you all have a “paradigm” based on your presuppositions about “origins”

➢ (See: We all have a paradigm) (You may not have a “pair of dimes,” but you all have a paradigm.)

➢ Of course, this term is now a cliché that is over used and abused. Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

- A paradigm like a pair of glasses ( the blended-bifocal glasses)

• From childhood we learn all of the “truth claims” for evolution:

▪ Millions of years are assumed

▪ Every sort of change is called evolution. (For instance, we sometimes hear of “evolutionary design.” Now I have to ask if we really mean that our design process proceeds by random chance and accident over eons of time? I personally believe that improved time-to-market will be achieved by “creative design.”)

▪ Dinosaurs are treated as though outside the scope of the Bible

▪ Ape-men are assumed to be real

▪ Science and the Bible are thought to be in opposition

➢ Sadly, few Christians have learned the evidence for a Creation view of origins

- Take for instance the supposed “war between religion and science.”

- Now, the historical fact is that all the key disciplines of science arose out of a Biblical worldview. (See: Founders of the Scientific Disciplines)

- Isaac Newton (Dynamics), Johann Kepler (Astronomy), Robert Boyle (Chemistry), Lord Kelvin (Thermo-dynamics), Louis Pasteur (Bacteriology), Matthew Maury (Oceanography), Michael Faraday (Electro-magnetics), Clerk Maxwell (Electro-dynamics), John Ray (Biology), and Carolus Linnaeus (Taxonomy).

➢ These Christian founders of modern science would simply have been astonished at a world view so obsessed with asking the how of origins that it failed to ever ask the why, thereby ensuring the exclusion of knowledge from God--the only One who knows both the how and the why. The "scientific world view" now being advocated by many scientists is diametrically opposed to the Biblical worldview from which modern science arose. In so doing these scientists are, so to speak, cutting off the branch on which they have been sitting.

➢ Now if modern Christians don’t know the evidence, how much less the nonChristian?

♦ (UW Professors and creation resources)

At the Base There are really just Two World Views

- Naturalism versus Supernaturalism

➢ Naturalism is the philosophical/religious view that “nature is the cause of nature.” Here, the universe alone is eternal.

➢ Supernaturalism is philosophical/religious view that “God is the cause of nature." Here, God alone is eternal.

- I claim that one of these views is supported by observation the other is not. However, our thinking must be clear.

➢ Just because the word “god” is used we should not assume that we are talking about the Biblical Creator.

♦ All religions suppose that something they call “god” created the universe.

♦ They assume that some substance existed beforehand and it was from this eternal material that “god” and the universe arose. On this view, god and the universe are “one.”

➢ On the other hand, the Biblical view is that God alone is eternal and therefore, he “transcends” space and time, which means that he is not only preexistent, but also independent of the universe. On this view, God and the universe are distinct.

- These two views exhaust all the possibilities and are presupposed by anyone who would consider the origin of the universe. And as we will later see, while we cannot “scientifically prove” any view of origins, we can judge whether the evidence agrees best with one or the other.

➢ I claim that in the end, the evidence for an intelligent Creator is overwhelming and that this is generally conceded by nonChristians and atheists alike. Because of this, those who hold to naturalism confine their criticisms to a “straw man” version of Biblical creation. But in so doing they have complemented Biblical creation since they are reduced to using irrelevant arguments and evasive maneuvers. In the next few weeks, we will look past the “straw man creator” to a satisfying view of Biblical creation.

• Now I believe we need to further motivate our discussion of origins:

➢ We know naturalism today through the so-called “theory of evolution.” Supernaturalism is known through the “origins theory” of creation.

➢ Each of these foundational world-views will bear certain fruit. (See: Foundations)

1. The Fruit of Evolutionism (See: “How to Build a Bomb”)

a) With evolution: Humans are counted as equal to the animals

➢ Abortion justified, euthanasia used as an escape or weapon, sexuality a mere animal instinct, racism inevitable (since evolutionism has no built-in protection against it)

b) With evolution we have: No Hope of God's Help in Trouble

➢ We must fend for ourselves (survival of the fittest), fear of the future

c) With evolution there is: No meaning or purpose to life

➢ Living for today only

➢ Death is the end of ones personhood (even in religious evolutionism)

d) With evolution there is: No Hope of Meaning for Knowledge

➢ No hope of unification of knowledge

➢ No answer to the question of "Why?”

➢ Not even confidence in the question of "How?”

e) With evolution there is: War (See: Darwin and his children)

➢ Imperialism: The "Survival of the Fittest" or most "civilized"

➢ Communism: Political Evolution (Marx & Darwin) (Mao & Stalin)

➢ Nazism: The Master Race or Most evolved Race

➢ There have now been hundreds of millions killed due Social Darwinist experiments conducted in the affairs of men.

f) And finally, Evolution is One of the Most Significant Challenges to the Christian Faith

➢ Huston Smith, the great philosopher at MIT said the following: One "is probably right in saying that 'more cases of loss of religious faith are to be traced to the theory of evolution ... than to anything else." ("Evolution and Evolutionism", Christian Century, July 7-14, 1982, p755)

2. The Fruit of Creationism (See: “How to Diffuse a Bomb”)

a) With creation we have: Human Dignity Since We Are Created in the Image of God: Gen. 1:26,27 “And God said, let us create man in our own image. In the image of God he created him, male and female he created them.”)

➢ Every person has value: old/young, strong/weak, rich/poor, black/white, male/female, born/unborn

b) With creation we have: Fellowship with God: John 1:14, “And the word (God) was made flesh and dwelt among us.”

➢ Fellowship with the Creator in Christ

c) With creation we have: A Purposeful and Fruitful Life: Jeremiah 29:11, “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you; plans to give you a hope and a future.”

➢ This is the answer to our need to accomplish things that give peace and have eternal value

d) With creation we have: Knowledge that is unified and with meaning: 2 Cor 10:5, says that, “we demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.”

➢ Created in the Image of God, we can think the thoughts of God after Him.

➢ We have moral standards to live by

e) Finally, with creation we have hope for the future: 2 Tim 1:12 “Because I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him for that day.”

Now in order to proceed with our consideration of the relationship between faith and science, we need to ask and answer an important question:

What is Science?

➢ In my church I work with youth and many of them would say: cutting up frogs, spaceships, computers, fossils, cloning dinosaurs in Jurassic Park, etc...

The Scientific Method

The Baconian Scientific Method is given as follows and applies only to naturally recurring processes that occur in the present.

The Scientific Method: (See The Scientific Method)

1. Observation: Direct or indirect in the present.

2. Problem: Question posed about natural process that is relevant and testable in the present.

3. Hypothesis: An educated proposal for an explanation of naturally recurring processes in the present and for the future.

4. Experiment: Direct test of hypothesis in the present, which is possible to repeat in the future.

5. Theory: Hypotheses about the present and future confirmed by experiments in the present. Scientific theories are judged by their predictive value for the future.

Now, since the scientific method deals only naturally recurring processes that occur in the present, historical events are by definition outside of the scientific method. In other words, since history is not repeatable under observation, we simply cannot apply the word "scientific," even as an adjective, to the study of historical events. Therefore such views on origins as Evolutionism and Creationism are inherently outside of the scientific method since they both require the study of ancient history in an effort to find evidence for or against their central claims. This is not to say that such views cannot motivate or "inspire" the formulation of hypotheses in accord with their view of origins, however, in order to classify these as scientific it must be possible, at least in principle, to test them through repeatable observations in the present.

The Priority Of Sources Of Knowledge

1. How do we receive knowledge? (Evolutionists today advocate “deconstruction” of knowledge to get down to what they imagine is most reliable, though still uncertain. I would like to promote a “constructive” view of knowledge based on a Biblical ascription of priority. (See: How Do We Receive Knowledge: A constructive view)

Definition of Methods of Reception

|Source |Method of Reception |Scope |Priority |

|1. Man |Scientific (Nature) |Narrow (impersonal) |4 |

|2. Man |Intuitional (Reason/Conscience) |Narrow (personal) |3 |

|3. Man |Historical/Evidential |Inclusive |2 |

|4. God |Revelational |Unifying |1 |

1. Nature: Ps. 19:1 “The heavens declare the glory of God.”

2. Personal:

➢ Reason Isa. 1:18 "Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD.”

➢ Conscience: Rom. 2:14,15 “The requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness.”

3. History: Ps. 46:8,10 “Come and see the works of the LORD, the desolations he has brought on the earth. ‘Be still, and know that I am God; I will be exalted among the nations, I will be exalted in the earth.’”

4. Revelation: Dt. 29:29 “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.”

2. Now what is wrong with the "Evolution is science/Creation is religion," argument so often used in the public schools and the media?

a) Now define a paleontologist. (Ken Ham says, “A person who studies dead things.”)

➢ Pop Quiz:

▪ Now is a paleontologist a scientist? (Obviously, scientific knowledge is required, but is he a scientist?)

▪ Well then, is an archeologist a scientist? (NO, a HISTORIAN!)

▪ There is ultimately no difference!

b) So evolution is not really a scientific theory since it cannot be observed in the present.

➢ You see, the idea that dead matter can self energize and self organize into life is inherently a matter of a faith, the faith called naturalism.

▪ Remember, naturalism is a philosophy that “material/energy shaped by chance is the final and only reality.” It demands that natural processes can only have a natural origin.

▪ On the basis of naturalism, evolution is often claimed to be the only valid approach to the origin of life. The reasoning goes as follows:

1) natural processes are assumed to be the only things that exist

2) evolution claims that natural processes are all that are required

This is nothing more than circular reasoning. Note: Obviously, creationists do not take issue with the idea of natural processes, but only with the origin of those processes.

▪ As a creationist I believe that both the creation view of origins and the evolutionary view of origins can motivate scientific hypotheses about nature, therefore it is valid to refer to both "scientific evolutionism" and "scientific creationism," however only those hypotheses that refer to natural processes in the present and that can be confirmed by observations in the present can be classified as scientific theories. Then, when we consider the scientific evidence we find that the scientific theories of evolutionism are consistently disconfirmed, whereas the scientific theories of creationism are consistently confirmed. Beyond this we must utilize “historical theories” for which, I claim, the Bible is a source of consistently credible and reliable historical evidence.

And finally, the Christian also has personal confirmation from the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:16) that the Bible is the true revelation from God who alone was a witness of the events surrounding the origin of the universe and who alone has testimony worthy of our trust.

c) Too Often, there is a Confusion of Science, Reason, and History

• Now “prove” to me, scientifically, that Abraham Lincoln was President of the United States. How about the resurrection of Jesus Christ?

➢ All singular events in history must be evaluated by the historical/evidential method!

• There are many examples of this confusion of the various categories of knowledge.  Another relates to the use of the word "proof" in application to scientific evidence. It turns out that the term “proof” is only used correctly in application to the realms of reason called mathematics and logic. This is valid when mathematical or logical formulations show that certain things are by definition equivalent. For this category of knowledge, when a single valid proof is found no other is required. Science on the other hand, deals with "evidence" which can only increase or decrease the probability of a certain theory being true, but never prove it being so. Yet we often hear of "scientific proofs" of evolution even from those who should know better. A flagrant example is seen in the Scientific American cover story (July 92) about the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) where it was boldly asserted that such observations were "More Proof for the Big Bang."

• In any and all cases, we must understand that “faith” is the necessary means by which we all make decisions based on limited knowledge. And again, who is not limited in knowledge?

➢ However, whatever the beliefs that are held, faith can never be the means by which one denies the facts!

▪ In the end we do not expect the evolutionist to reject evolution on the basis of the evidence alone, but rather, he will need to question his commitment to naturalism and only then can he consider the creation of the Creator.

E. What Do Christians Believe about Creation

- Many views. Some very controversial. (See “Evolution and The Bible?”)

➢ Book Creation or Evolution (Howe & Dobson). Example of how Christians should differ on controversial matters.

1. Ancient Earth Views of The Beginning

a) Theistic Evolution

➢ Presumes the theory of evolution is a fact and attempts to reconcile the Bible to evolutionary principles.

➢ God used death and the “survival of the fittest” to bring about life.

➢ The Non-Christian version, used by the New Age, is that god is the creation, self creating and self organizing through-out eternity. Religious naturalism.

❖ Scientific Problem: Second Law of Thermodynamics teaches that this god will die. (Explain)

❖ Another problem. Any Christian attempt to “compromise” with evolution is completely rejected by the majority of evolutionists.

b) The Gap Theory

➢ Primeval creation with Pre-Adamic Race and earth followed by 5 billion years of geologic history.

- Great worldwide cataclysm caused by the fall of Satan

- Depends on a certain reading of Gen 1:2 which says, "And the earth was without form, and void." (KJV) They translate it as, “the earth became without form, and void.”

- This is an effort to slip billions of years in between two verses (1&3) in Genesis chapter one.

❖ Biblical Problem: The Bible teaches that there was no death or dying before the sin of Adam. And therefore Romans 5:12 says, “Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned.” And 1 Corinthians 15:21 says, “Death entered the world through one man [Adam].”

❖ Biblical Problem: This supposed “explanation” for the geological earth history requires the effect of a world-wide cataclysm that is not even mentioned in the Bible, but does not allow for the effect of the world-wide Flood that is central to the Bible.

❖ Scientific Problem: Evolutionists do not accept any kind of world-wide cataclysm as an explanation for geologic earth history.

c) The Day-Age Theory/Progressive Creation, etc.

➢ Days of Genesis are taken as "Ages" that are billions of years long.

- The alleged scriptural support is found in 2 Pet 3:8, "One day is with the Lord as a thousand years."

➢ God accomplishes creation over millions and even billions of years

- He creates in steps that roughly agree with the steps of evolution

➢ Biblical Problem: Again, they have death and dying over millions of years before Adam’s sin. Massive extinctions are supposed to be part of God’s “creative plan.” (See: Very Good Creation) Hand out “What’s wrong with ‘progressive creation?’”)

➢ Remember that I said I had once entertained Progressive Creation. Then I learned the following:

❖ Dual Revelation (See Fig. “Dual Revelation”)

- "Theory" of evolution is placed on the same, or even a higher level, than the Bible

- All scripture is interpreted through the current interpretations of evolutionary scientists. It is this that they call the “facts of nature.”

- One advocate of this view actually calls these so-called “facts of nature” a “67th Book of the Bible.”

➢ Hugh Ross: "God's revelation is not limited exclusively to the Bible's words. The facts of nature may be likened to a sixty-seventh book of the Bible.” (Creation and Time: A Biblical and Scientific Perspective on the Creation-Date Controversy, (NavPress, 1994) pp. 56-57.))

❖ There are many other Biblical Problems as follows:

1) Because they advocate the "Big Bang" origin of the universe, the days of creation occupied a total of 16 billion years. (Note: In every one of 359 cases where the Hebrew word “yom” is used with an ordinal modifier (a number as in v.4 “the first day”), the meaning is a 24-hour day.)

2) Noah's Flood was a local event. (See Genesis 6:17, “I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.” Also see Genesis 7:19, “All the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered.”)

3) Sin has only a regionally limited effect on the world. (See Romans 8:21-22, “The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.”)

4) Man-like creatures that behaved much like us -- and painted on cave walls -- existed before Adam and Eve, but didn't have a spirit and thus had no salvation. (See Matthew 19:4, Jesus said, "Haven't you read…that at the beginning the Creator `made them male and female'’” Remember that Progressive creation would have us believe that “at the end the Creator made them,” that is after 16 billion years, but Jesus said that, “at the beginning the Creator made them.”)

5) Over millions of years, God created new species as others kept going extinct. (Genesis 1:31 “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning--the sixth day.”)

>>>And much more.

❖ The Bible warns of this pattern of scripture twisting:

2 Pet. 3:3-9: “First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. [4] They will say, "Where is this `coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." [5] But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. [6] By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. [7] By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. [8] But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. [9] The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.”

Note: The previous misuse of verse 8. The context warns us that denial of the worldwide flood is a very serious error that will arise in the “last days.”

❖ Scientific Problem: Evolutionists claim that step-wise changes that occur over time are explained by an evolutionary theory called “punctuated equilibrium.”

2. Young Earth View

a) Literal Creation (Simple Creation)

➢ Genesis is understood as a historical account of real events.

➢ Bible taken to be describing the creation in straightforward non-symbolic terms.

➢ Order of events taken in the sequence given and the days are taken as literal 24-hour days. (See: “Days of Creation in Genesis One”)

1) Day 1: Creation out of nothing. Time, space, matter, and energy. And God said, “Let there be light. And there was light.” (Rev 21: 23, New Earth, God is light)

2) Day 2: Water and sky, or “the expanse.” We will learn more about this later.

3) Day 3: Land and vegetation.

4) Day 4: Creation of the “luminaries,” or sun, moon and stars.

5) Day 5: Creation of sea animals, birds, and fish.

6) Day 6: Creation of land animals and creation of man in the Image of God. Gen 1:31 "And God saw all that he had made and it was very good."

7) Day 7: Creation acts complete. God rested from His work and blessed the seventh day.

➢ A summary of all this is found in 4th of the 10 commandments. (Written by the hand of God.) Ex 20:11,"For in six days the Lord made heavens and the earth, the seas and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

I have often been asked if it is possible to believe in creation and evolution. What we are beginning to see, and will see more clearly in the weeks to come, is that it is not only possible to believe in a literal (or simple) creation, but all the evidence points us to that necessary conclusion!

➢ And thousands of scientists agree!

Summary: The Christian should have a high view of the scientific endeavor, and we can always respect the place of the scientist, but there is only One in whom we should put our faith—and his name is Jesus.

Prayer: Rev 4:11 "You are worthy our Lord and our God to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being."

The Science Class

Teacher: And now class, science has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, that life evolved on earth 2-3 billion years ago and has progressed upward through primitive life forms to become primates and eventually man. Are there any questions?

Tom: Yeah! I believe the Bible, and it says we were created by God and I'm no monkey's uncle!

Teacher: Well that's fine Tom but this is a science class and we deal with questions of science and not religion. Does anyone have a question about science?

Tom: Well I think that evolution is just a theory and theories aren't facts.

Teacher: Well actually scientific theories deal with observational evidence that either supports or undermines theories. Evolution is one of the single most supported theories in all of science.

Tom: Well you're probably just an atheist and don't believe anything the Bible says. That's why you believe in evolution.

Teacher: Well as a matter of fact, I have a deeply personal and private spiritual life that I have learned to keep separate from my professional life and I don't try to impose my beliefs on anyone. Now could we please get back on track with questions about science class?

Tom: Uhhh .... OK, I'm ... uh sorry. I guess I'll just be quiet.

(Teacher looks away and points to another student.)

Teacher: Yes, Susan, you had a question?.................

Postage Stamp Version of PowerPoint Slides

[pic]

-----------------------

Fig 8

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download