A few inconvenient facts
1. Consensus science claims Big Bang and Evolution are fact – stellar evolution, solar system evolution by nebular hypothesis, life from nonlife by chemical evolution, humans and all other life by biological evolution. Also it is claimed that geology proves there was never a global flood.
2. Plain reading of Bible shows:
– Adam and Eve real people created directly by God
– All humans descended from Adam and Eve
– Earth about 6 thousand years old
– Noah’s flood was global
– no death prior to sin of Adam and Eve
– different languages directly caused by God at Tower of Babel
– Jesus conceived miraculously
– Jesus resurrected from the dead
– New Testament treats all above as factual
3. obviously these can’t both be true…
4. secular scholars think the Bible is nonsense…
5. many Christian scholars are so convinced that science has proven its claims that they therefore think they must reinterpret the Bible to accommodate these facts.
- liberal scholars just claim that the Bible is myth and not true
- some who say they believe the Bible is true, will tell you that the Bible does not really teach anything about history, God just use stories to convey “spiritual truths“
What is the difference between a spiritual truth and any other truth?
The logic employed by many evolutionist Christian scholars seems to be the following:
A spiritual truth may be conveyed by false statements about the real world. For example, Genesis 1 clearly conveys the idea of a 6 day creation but liberals claim it doesn’t mean that at all, but only the spiritual truth that God is the creator (or something). Of course this logic, taken further allows the claim that even though the NT says Jesus was raised from the dead, this didn’t really happen. These Biblical statements really convey the spiritual truth that Jesus’ teachings continue on today (or something). So clearly, there is something very wrong with this logic…or the liberals are correct and there is no resurrection.
Why would God not use true accounts to convey these spiritual truths?
It is often claimed that the OT was written by and for “pre-scientific” people who were unable to understand the real truth.
With his co-author, Stephen Hawking wrote in The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time on page 134 that scientists, “are not able to make cosmological models without some mixture of ideology”.
What does this mean? Simply that the ideology Hawking is speaking of is the assumption that there is no purpose to the universe — an explicitly anti-Bible assumption. It is usually called the Copernican (or Cosmological) Principle and is essentially the assumption of uniformity — that is all points within the universe are essentially the same, there are no special places at all.
Is this ideology required to do the science of cosmology?
Not at all, consider what George Ellis wrote:
Who is George Ellis? from Wiki:
George Francis Rayner Ellis, FRS, Hon. FRSSAf, (born 11 August 1939), is the Emeritus Distinguished Professor of Complex Systems in the Department of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics at the University of Cape Town in South Africa. He co-authored The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time with University of Cambridge physicist Stephen Hawking, published in 1973, and is considered one of the world’s leading theorists in cosmology.
Scientific American profiled cosmologist George Ellis quoting him stating that:
“People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations… For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations… You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds… What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”
–Wait a minute: that would make the Earth a special place and contradict the Uniformity….
** Are they the only ones making such statements?
How about Richard Feynman: from wiki:
Richard Phillips Feynman (May 11, 1918 – February 15, 1988) was an American theoretical physicist known for his work in the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics, the theory of quantum electrodynamics, and the physics of the superfluidity of supercooled liquid helium, as well as inparticle physics (he proposed the parton model). For his contributions to the development of quantum electrodynamics, Feynman, jointly with Julian Schwingerand Sin-Itiro Tomonaga, received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965. He developed a widely used pictorial representation scheme for the mathematical expressions governing the behavior of subatomic particles, which later became known as Feynman diagrams. During his lifetime, Feynman became one of the best-known scientists in the world. In a 1999 poll of 130 leading physicists worldwide by the British journal Physics World he was ranked as one of the ten greatest physicists of all time.
‘… I suspect that the assumption of uniformity of the universe reflects a prejudice born of a sequence of overthrows of geocentric ideas. … It would be embarrassing to find, after stating that we live in an ordinary planet about an ordinary star in an ordinary galaxy, that our place in the universe is extraordinary … To avoid embarrassment we cling to the hypothesis of uniformity.’
Feynman, R.P., Morinigo, F.B. and Wagner, W.G., Feynman Lectures on Gravitation, Penguin Books, London, 1999. P.166
So I hope you see that the BB is philosophically based and is not a proof of the existence of God.
What about Biology: Is it based upon objective data?
Richard Dawkins, Oxford zoologist:
It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).
In his book The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins wrote “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose”, then proceeds to argue that they were not.
Life *cannot be* designed, because Dawkins believes there is no Designer. His worldview overrides the obvious conclusion of his scientific observations.
Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University
‘Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic’
Panspermia-Theory.com defines the Directed Panspermia Hypothesis as
Directed Panspermia suggests that the seeds of life may have been purposely spread by an advanced extraterrestrial civilization, or can be spread from Earth to other planets by humans
Why was this made up?
‘The late Nobel prize winner Professor Francis Crick, OM FRS, along with British chemist Leslie Orgel proposed the theory of directed panspermia in 1973. A co-discoverer of the double helical structure of the DNA molecule, Crick found it impossible that the complexity of DNA could have evolved naturally.’
Crick still believed that life must have risen naturalistically, but under conditions different than the Earth.
He put the problem beyond observation, and so beyond ‘science’.
***notice this contradicts the assumption of “Uniformity” — according to Crick natural laws must operate differently or the conditions must be very different somewhere else in this universe so that life *could* have evolved from non-life without a creator.
As for the idea that evolution and religion can coexist, don’t forget what atheist biology professor, William Provine said: ‘ … belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.’
I’ve previously noted that theistic evolutionists seem to basically just say “God used evolution” but I can’t find any real details. I believe it’s fair to say that this view is “indistinguishable from atheism” as far as how it views the physical world.
So you must understand that there are two competing sets of assumptions that can be used to interpret the data:
1. materialism, or at least “functional materialism” regarding the evolution of the universe and life
2. Biblical worldview in which the Bible is true – and it claims that there is evidence of the Creator contained within the creation itself, and that we can understand it.
What we can do is to look carefully and see how well these competing belief systems match with our observations of the data around us.