WHY ARE WE DISCUSSING SCIENCE?
Because evolution impacts many people's faith in Creator God.
Over the past 160 years, since Charles Darwin, many people's confidence in the Bible has been badly shaken because they think that science disproves what the Bible says about the creation of the universe and of humans and animals.
In fact, evolution has caused some people to stop believing in God completely.
Example: Darwin's great-great-grandchild said –
“I don’t believe in God: how could I, given my great, great grandfather’s theories?” (Anonymous 2000).
https://answersingenesis.org/death-before-sin/did-death-of-any-kind-exist-before-the-fall/
Did Death of Any Kind Exist Before the Fall?
What the Bible Says About the Origin of Death and Suffering
by Simon Turpin on April 3, 2013
This is an example of why Jesus says:
Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.
Matthew 10:37-39
Neither our parents nor our children can give us eternal life. There is only one who can do that.
So we must love God first, even above ourselves.
But isn't science about science, and faith is about faith?
Aren't the 2 unrelated?
For some people, what science says does not trouble their faith.
For others, the 2 are very related.
[Jesus said:] "I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?"
John 3:12
If our confidence in the truth of any part of the Bible is weakened, it is difficult to believe in other parts of the Bible. This lessens or destroys our confidence in God and in his Word.
If we cannot trust God's account (at the beginning of the Bible) of how he made the world, which we can see, how can we trust his promises about heaven (at the end of the Bible), which we cannot see (until we get there – or fail to get there)?
But now, you can see God's creation with your own eyes! And your faith is tied to what you see!
You must have faith.
But your faith is tied to real events:
Jesus' death and resurrection.
God creating the world.
What may be known about God is plain to them [to everyone], because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Romans 1:19-20
Your knowledge of what you cannot see (the invisible God) is tied to what you can see (his creation).
Confidently believing the Bible is crucial.
The statements and explanations on this web site are based on the foundational belief that every word in the Bible (as originally written) is True.
But, of course, different parts of the Bible, written in different literary forms, should be interpreted appropriately.
For example:
• Jesus' parables:
These are stories he told to illustrate a spiritual point.
The spiritual point is true, but the events in these stories may not have actually happened, but may have been made up by him.
• Poetry:
Poetic language is oft picturesque and should not necessarily be taken literally.
• Language based on our human perspective:
"The sun rises," and "The sun sets," is what we say. But this is not literally true, because it is actually the earth that rotates.
So every word of the Bible is True when understood according to its intended meaning.
If every word is not true, we are left to our own shifting opinions – and what good is that in the face of difficulties and death? And what good is this web site!
Jesus, himself, stood firmly behind the truth of the Bible – and specifically the Books of the Law.
[Jesus said:] "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law and the Prophets [Jesus' term for the Old Testament]; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
Matthew 5:17-18
Interesting Point:
The account of how God made the world is at the very beginning of the Bible in what is called the Books of the Law (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy).
So if Materialistic Science seems to refute the Bible, it can cause you to lose your faith in God's Word – and therefore in God, himself.
Your faith matters!
[Jesus said:] "Be it done to you according to your faith."
Matthew 9:29 [NAS]
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
Hebrews 11:3
SCIENCE IS NOT THE FINAL JUDGE.
It's knowledge is limited – it is often wrong before it is right.
It is not objective, but is biased toward materialistic answers.
There are many things that it has no way of investigating.
Science is not an objective judge – because everyday it bumps up against areas of faith.
Of course, science's main job is to observe all material things and identify, measure and describe them, and explain their function.
But explaining the details about material things keeps running scientists into the big question:
How did those things get here?
Who or what put them here?
As we have already seen, these are questions that Materialistic Science has great difficulty answering.
Scientists cannot go back in time before the Big Bang – or the creation of the universe.
Even Materialistic Scientists have to rely on their unproven beliefs to try to answer these kinds of questions.
So they have no choice but to slide into the area of faith.
For example: The universe looks intricately designed.
Many scientists will acknowledge that the universe and living organisms "look" intricately designed.
This is an obvious scientific observation.
The universe certainly doesn't look random and disorganized.
In fact, the orderliness and consistency in the universe is what makes science possible in the first place!
Without orderliness and consistency we could discover no Scientific Laws of Nature –
everything would be random,
and there would be no science!
But why the universe looks so well designed becomes a big problem for Materialistic Science!
Design implies a designer.
A designer implies God.
God is not made of matter, but is supernatural.
And Materialistic Science cannot accept anything supernatural.
For them, this is a matter of belief.
So, for them, rejecting design and rejecting God becomes a matter of "science."
So, the "faith" that Materialistic Scientists' have makes them unwilling to explore the implications of everything in our universe looking like it has been intricately designed.
So Materialistic Science needs to find a provable alternative to design.
First, it must answer the underlying question:
Without a Designer-Creator how did the universe and life get here in the first place?
Scientists were not actually there at the very beginning!
Yet Materialistic Scientists must find a non-supernatural explanation for how everything that we see came from Nothing.
It is so difficult that, unsurprisingly, their explanations can sound more like faith than science.
Then, Materialistic Science must answer a more down-to-earth question:
Why does the universe look amazingly designed if, as they say, it isn't?
If the universe just came about on its own, why does the aftermath of the Big Bang look so amazingly and intricately ordered?
Example: The Periodic Table
The Periodic Table is a chart that organizes the 118 known Elements that make up everything in our universe.
It is so complex that it took about 200 years for science to discover the elements and organize them.
The elements on the chart have the complex interrelationships of a Rubik's Cube.
The elements are lined up in a very orderly, horizontal progression with each element having exactly 1 more proton than the element before it.
So, for example, gold (79 protons) sits between platinum (78 protons) and mercury (80 protons).
Adjacent elements are in perfect sequence in other amazing ways as well – even having vertical relationships with one another on the Table.
But Materialistic Science believes that these elements were not designed to be that way, but happened that way by a kind of chance process that somehow was guided by the consistent Laws of Nature (which they believe were not designed to be that way either!).
So the complex order in the universe came about by a kind of self-guided Chance –
a chance process that knew where it was going!
They have no idea what caused this to happen.
So, it came about by dumb luck guided by a set of unchanging rules (Laws of Nature and Science) that exist by dumb luck!
Ironically, these "chance" Laws of Nature and Science are so consistent and unchanging that they allow these same scientist to base complex theories on them.
For example, some of their theories about the origins of the universe are based on the consistent way that atoms are thinly dispersed throughout outer space.
To believe that self-guided Chance could produce our universe takes great faith!
But scientists, who believe in God, believe that the universe looks designed because it actually was designed by Creator God who made everything. And the Laws of Nature and Science are there because God designed them to be there. And the universe and life operate according to these laws because God designed everything to operate that way – except as he chooses to intervene from time to time by his miraculous power.
To believe this also takes faith.
(Can) Materialistic Science Claim the Laws of Nature for Their Own(?)
Who owns the Laws of Nature?
Materialistic Science takes the Laws of Nature for granted.
They believe the Laws of Nature exist because they see them everyday.
But this isn't real faith.
To see what is in front of your eyes isn't faith –
It is just observation.
Their faith is this: Believing that the fact of the Law's existence is perfectly consistent with their view of the universe.
• Faith, for a Materialistic Scientists, is believing (or unconsciously assuming) that these Laws of Nature fit logically within their view of the universe –
that their understanding of the universe can account for the existence of these Laws of Nature in the first place – that their view of the universe even allows for the existence of Laws of Nature –
that their view of the universe has a logical explanation for how and why these Laws exist.
In other words, they believe that there is a satisfactory "scientific," materiali answer to the question:
How can intricate, comprehensive Laws of Nature exist in a universe that was not designed?
Despite having no satisfactory answer to this question, only various hypotheses, they have faith that these Laws of Nature can legitimately be pulled into their conception of the universe.
In so many words, they are saying:
The Laws of Nature are ours! But we don't know why.
That is faith.
They don't account for or explain these Laws' existence.
They just take these Laws of Nature for granted – the Laws are just there.
Yet, everyday, they use these Natural Laws as though the Laws belong to them.
They seem to assume, maybe unconsciously, that the Laws of Nature are theirs –
that these Laws fit naturally into their world view.
Yet they don't seem to consider that these Natural Laws are inconsistent with their world view.
Remember: Materialistic Science does not believe in anything that has been designed.
So Materialistic Science is totally dependent on something that they shouldn't even believe in.
But Materialistic Science has no choice but to claim the Laws of Nature as their own:
Probably because science's whole existence is dependent on them –
without them science wouldn't exist.
They do not attribute or credit these Laws of Nature as coming from anything or anyone.
Illustration:
This is like:
• Taking the main idea for one's scientific research paper from someone else and never crediting that person.
• Building something with another kid's Legos and claiming that they are your own – and never returning them.
The following quote says it very well:
The very term the laws of nature expresses something that seems clearly true. As opposed to parking restrictions or drug legislation, those laws don't belong to us humans, they belong to nature. In fact, they are completely independent of us. Even if we weren't around, apples would still fall to the ground just as the law of gravitation predicts they should.
What makes an equation a law of nature?
Not only are the laws independent of us: they also appear to sit over and above all other objects to which they apply. "In some sense [the laws of nature] are not part of the Universe," says George Ellis, a mathematician and cosmologist at the University of Cape Town. "They underlie the Universe because they control how matter behaves, but they are not themselves made of matter. Laws of physics aren't made of lead or uranium or something." So it appears that the laws of nature exist in some abstract realm of their own.
Who made the laws of nature?
Submitted by Marianne on October 8, 2014
https://plus.maths.org/content/laws-nature
Without the unchanging Laws of Nature there would be no science.
Scientists could not do successful experiments without the existence of these Laws!
The task of Science is bound up in:
• Observing the affect that these Laws of Nature have on all things.
• Discovering and defining what these Laws of Nature are.
• Applying these Laws to useful purposes.
Materialistic Scientists are even dependent on the Laws of Nature to try to disprove the existence of God!
They need the Laws of Nature to drive the evolutionary process.
Materialistic Scientists say that evolution is not just the result of blind Chance operating over immense periods of Time.
This is because random Chance is more often destructive than constructive.
So it would make the evolution of all things, from a one-celled organism to humans, extremely improbable.
So evolution needs something that will actually guide the evolutionary process.
Without a guide, living things would evolve in a destructive direction rather than a constructive direction – and Species would go extinct.
The Laws of Nature provide this direction:
Without these Laws there would be no evolution.
So evolution is guided by the Laws of Nature as they operate through the process of Natural Selection.
(Natural Selection is simply the natural competition for survival that favors living things that are best adapted to their environment.)
(Evolution has actually been observed to operate within Species – and, maybe, even more broadly within "Kinds."
This happens in nature when chance genetic mutations sometimes result in physical changes that enhance a living things opportunity for survival.
In nature, these positive changes are favored by the competitive nature of Natural Selection.
The living thing now has a greater chance of survival, so there is a greater chance that the genetic change will be passed on to its offspring.
In time these changes can spread throughout that entire Species living in that particular area.
Actually, evolution within Species can be seen much more commonly when guided by the conscious choices of humans:
Domesticated animals, edible plants, flowers, and trees have undergone significant evolution when guided by man's breeding choices.
So evolution operating on the Species level (whether natural or man-induced) has been frequently observed.
But evolution transforming one biological Family into another biological Family has not been observed. to work more broadly, transforming one "kind" of living thing into another "kind" of living thing.)
They need the Laws of Nature to drive the Big Bang.
Without the Laws of Nature how could the universe be what it is today?
Scientists use the Laws of Nature to explain every step in the development of the universe from its origin to today.
The Laws of Nature appear to be amazingly designed.
Though these Laws of Nature, which define how everything in our universe operates, are amazingly complex and intricate, Materialistic Science does not consider these Laws to have been designed.
These Laws of Nature are the very thing that makes the universe and all life forms look designed!
These Laws make everything that happens on a physical level appear to have purpose.
These Laws actually direct all the chemical processes, biological process, and genetic processes in our bodies and in our world.
Why is our universe so orderly?
Einstein said, “The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.”
There is no natural explanation for it!
But it is not at all surprising or incomprehensible to one who believes the Bible.
Where did these Laws of Nature come from?
[Creator God asks:] "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundations?"
[God asks:] "Do you know the laws of the heavens?"
Job 38:33
[God says:] "Have you ever given orders to the morning, or shown the dawn its place?"
Job 38:12
God owns the Laws of Nature.
This is where faith comes into secular Materialistic Science!
Materialistic Scientists just believe that the universe is orderly because it is.
They have no answer for where the Laws of Nature come from.
But they still use the Laws of Nature everyday to do their research.
And they still use the Laws of Nature to try to disprove the existence of God.
Dr. Paul Davies, a cosmologist at Arizona State University, wrote that:
"[S]cience, not unlike religion, rested on faith, not in God but in the idea of an orderly universe. Without that presumption a scientist could not function."
As summarized by Dennis Overbye
Laws of Nature, Source Unknown, Dec. 18, 2007
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/science/18law.html
Emphasis added
"Since cosmologists don’t know how the universe came into being, or even have a convincing theory, they have no way of addressing the conundrum of where the laws of nature come from."
Laws of Nature, Source Unknown
By DENNIS OVERBYEDEC. 18, 2007
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/science/18law.html
Emphasis added
So Materialistic Scientists possess a kind of secular faith – a kind of "scientific" faith.
They have faith in something they cannot explain and in things that they cannot prove!
If it is okay for materialistic scientists to have faith, why should we be criticized for having faith?
Is it unreasonable for us to have faith in Creator God?
Of course not.
God runs his universe in a predictable way.
[He promises:] "As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease."
Genesis 8:22
It is completely reasonable to believe that the Designer of the universe would run it according to predictable Laws.
It is also reasonable to believe that he can do miraculous things in our world as he chooses.
Then the word of the Lord came... "I am the Lord, the God of all mankind. Is anything too hard for me?
Jeremiah 32:26-27
Jesus replied, "What is impossible with men is possible with God."
Luke 18:27
"Does it matter that we don’t know and that most scientists don’t seem to know or care where they come from?"
Apparently it does matter, judging from the reaction to a recent article by Paul Davies, a cosmologist at Arizona State University and author of popular science books, on the Op-Ed page of The New York Times.
Dr. Davies asserted in the article that
"science, not unlike religion, rested on faith, not in God but in the idea of an orderly universe. Without that presumption a scientist could not function."
His argument provoked an avalanche of blog commentary, articles on Edge.org and letters to The Times, pointing out that the order we perceive in nature has been explored and tested for more than 2,000 years by observation and experimentation. That order is precisely the hypothesis that the scientific enterprise is engaged in testing.
Laws of Nature, Source Unknown
By DENNIS OVERBYEDEC. 18, 2007
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/science/18law.html
The words we have used so far — "control" and "should" — hint at something else too: the idea that the laws actually govern, or dictate, how nature should behave. "In this view the laws are active," explains Barry Loewer, a philosopher at Rutgers University in New Jersey. "They take the state of the Universe at a time and produce subsequent states."
This, in a nutshell, describes what Loewer calls the governing view of the laws of nature. The idea that those laws are fundamental elements of our reality, separate from all the material "stuff" out there, and that they dictate natural processes. This raises an immediate question. Where do those laws come from? Who made them? "When this notion of governing law was originally introduced in the 17th and 18th century, it went along with the idea that there are god's laws," says Loewer. "That god [made] the laws, and that the laws are god's way of making or controlling the motions of material bodies in the Universe. By conceiving of the Universe as governed by god's laws physicists could see themselves as involved in the task of discovering the laws that god chose."
Today the idea of god sits uncomfortably with many of us, which leaves the governing view of the laws with some explaining to do. "Once god drops out of the picture this does become very puzzling," says Loewer. "What does it really amount to, to talk about the laws governing the evolution of the state of the Universe?
Who made the laws of nature?
Submitted by Marianne on October 8, 2014
David J. Gross, director of the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics in Santa Barbara, Calif., and co-winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, told me in an e-mail message, “I have more confidence in the methods of science, based on the amazing record of science and its ability over the centuries to answer unanswerable questions, than I do in the methods of faith (what are they?).”
"Since cosmologists don’t know how the universe came into being, or even have a convincing theory, they have no way of addressing the conundrum of where the laws of nature come from" or whether those laws are unique and inevitable or flaky as a leaf in the wind.
Laws of Nature, Source Unknown
By DENNIS OVERBYEDEC. 18, 2007
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/science/18law.html
Fallacies in the creationist probability arguments
One major fallacy in the alpha-globin argument mentioned above, common to many others of this genre, is that it ignores the fact that a large class of alpha-globin molecules can perform the essential oxygen transfer function, so that the computation of the probability of a single instance is misleadingly remote. Indeed, most of the 141 amino acids in alpha-globin can be changed without altering the key oxygen transfer function, as can be seen by noting the great variety in alpha-globin molecules across the animal kingdom (see DNA). When one revises the calculation above, based on only 25 locations essential for the oxygen transport function (which is a generous over-estimate), one obtains 1033 fundamentally different chains, a enormous figure but incomparably smaller than 10183.
A calculation such as this can be refined further, taking into account other features of alpha-globin and its related biochemistry. Some of these calculations produce probability values even more extreme than the above. But do any of these calculations really matter? The main problem is that all such calculations, whether done accurately or not, suffer from the fatal fallacy of presuming that a structure such as human alpha-globin arose by a single all-at-once random trial event. But generating a molecule "at random" in a single shot is decidedly not the scientific hypothesis in question -- this is a creationist theory, not a scientific theory. Instead, available evidence from hundreds of published studies on the topic has demonstrated that alpha-globin arose as the end product of a long sequence of intermediate steps, each of which was biologically useful in an earlier context. See, for example, the survey article [Hardison2001], which cites 144 papers on the topic of hemoglobin evolution (note: this reference is now 17 years out of date -- many more have been published since then).
In short, the creationist-intelligent design argument claiming that scientists assert an all-at-once "at random" creation of various biomolecules, and then asserting that this is probabilistically impossible, is a classic "straw man" fallacy. Scientists do not believe this, so this line of argumentation is completely invalid. In other words, it does not matter how good or how bad the mathematics used in the analysis is, if the underlying model is a fundamentally invalid description of the phenomenon in question. Any simplistic probability calculation of evolution that does not take into account the step-by-step process by which the structure came to be is almost certainly fallacious and can easily mislead [Musgrave1998; Rosenhouse2018].
What's more, such calculations completely ignore the atomic-level biochemical processes involved, which often exhibit strong affinities for certain types of highly ordered structures. For example, molecular self-assembly occurs in DNA molecule duplication every time a cell divides. If we were to compute the chances of the formation of a human DNA molecule during meiosis, using a simple-minded probability calculation similar to that mentioned above, the result would be something on the order of one in 101,000,000,000, which is far, far beyond the possibility of "random" assemblage. Yet this process occurs many times every day in the human body and in every other plant and animal species.
Is evolution a "random" process?
It is also important to keep in mind that the process of natural biological evolution is not really a "random" process. Evolution certainly has some "random" aspects, notably mutations and genetic events during reproduction. But the all-important process of natural selection, acting under the pressure of an extremely competitive landscape, often involving thousands of other individuals of the same species and other species as well, together with numerous complicated environmental pressures such as climate change, is anything but random. This strongly directional nature of natural selection, which is the essence of evolution, by itself invalidates most of these probability calculations.
When biologists ascribe to evolution the ability to craft information-rich genomes, they are neither speculating nor guessing. The basic components of evolutionary theory are empirical facts. Genes really do mutate, sometimes leading to new functionalities. The process of gene duplication with subsequent divergence leads to the creation of information by any reasonable definition of the terms. Selection can string small variations together into directional change. On a small scale, this has all been observed. And if small increases in information are an empirical reality on human timescales, then what abstract principle of mathematics is going to rule out much larger increases on geological scales?
Then here come the ID [intelligent design] folks, full of swagger and bravado. They say the accumulated empirical evidence must yield before their back-of-the-envelope probability calculations and abstract mathematical modeling. Evolution should be abandoned in favor of the new theory of intelligent design. This theory states, in its entirety, that an intelligent agent of unspecified motives and abilities did something at some point in natural history. Not very useful.
Does probability refute evolution?
David H. Bailey
Updated 31 March 2019 (c) 2019
https://sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/probability.php
(Can) Materialistic Science Claim the Beauty of the Universe for Its Own(?)
Why is the Universe So Beautiful? Materialistic Science has no satisfying explanation?
How did the stunning beauty of the inorganic universe get here?
What could be the cause of the extravagant beauty of non-living things?
Why isn't everything just a shade of gray?
Is it just a very lucky accident?
What would cause materialistic processes to result in such beauty?
Why should sunsets be so beautiful?
Why should the water of lakes and oceans be so beautiful?
How did the extravagant beauty of living things get here?
Evolution is stingy by its nature!
Natural Selection only favors what is useful for survival – it focuses on the practical.
And evolution only parcels out benefits in very tiny increments
It has no vested interest in extras – like beauty.
Evolution only gives living things enough to survive.
A certain amount of beauty is useful for survival –
For example, flowers attracting insets for pollination.
But the extravagance we see everywhere around us is beyond what is necessary for survival.
Evolution, and the process of Natural Selection, has no mechanism within itself to drive living things to be over-the-top gorgeous.
God is generous by his nature!
No eye has seen, no mind has imagined what God has prepared for those who love him.
God who can do far above what we could ask or imagine.
God...gives us everything for our enjoyment.
God said, "You may eat from every tree in the garden."
God overdoes things!
Jesus used his miraculous power for more than was necessary:
Water into wine
12 baskets full left over
He ended up with more than he started with!
Materialistic Science has no way of explaining the beauty of the universe and of living things.
Once again, Materialistic Science is playing with someone else's Legos.
There is no materialistic reason for the universe to be beautiful.
All Material Science can do is acknowledge that beauty exists – and then, somehow, claim it for itself.
If beauty came about by materialistic processes, it would be nothing more than luck.
It would be more reasonable to expect a universe made of dingy shades of gray.
But God is beautiful by his nature.
To behold the beauty of the Lord
That extravagantly gorgeous things would have been created by him, is fully consistent and logical with who he is.
In fact, an ugly, colorless world would be totally unexpected from him.
Which faith logically leads to the universe that we see today?
Imagine going back to the very beginning when nothing in our universe exists.
If you were standing at the beginning of time, which process would seem most likely lead to the complex universe and life forms that we see today.
Process One:
Starting from nothing with only self-guided Chance to direct the process, who would ever predict the existence of the immeasurably immense, magnificently beautiful, intricately complex universe that we see today? And who would ever predict the existence of such a great variety of living things, including beings as mentally sophisticated as we are with the capacity to create and love like we have?
Does this seem likely to you?
It would be a "miracle" without a cause.
And it would take a lot of faith to believe that a materialistic process could cause all this to happen.
Process Two:
Starting with the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving God of the Bible, is it reasonable to predict that he would turn nothing into the wonders that we see all around us?
Does it, then, surprise you that the Bible starts with ...
In the beginning God ...
It's Your Turn to Decide:
Whose faith seems the most reasonable to you?
When you look at the world around you, when you think of your own identity and your human nature, when you think about the relationships that you have with other people –
Does it match how God describes things in the Bible?
Or, does it match what Materialistic Science tells you?
Is it reasonable or unreasonable for you to have faith?
Both, scientists who believe in God and scientists who do not believe in God, do scientific research and make scientific observations about life and the universe.
Both, at times, enter the realm of faith when arriving at their conclusions.
In other words, their faith impacts how they interpret the scientific evidence – especially concerning the origin of the universe and the origin of life.
So, if scientists at times make "scientific" conclusions based on faith, don't you have the same freedom to make conclusions based on faith?
Is there any reason why you should feel intellectually inferior because you have faith?
No. Your faith in God is actually a great intellectual advantage.
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
Your word makes me wiser than all my teachers.
So –
Don't let people deceive you by fine sounding arguments.
It is wise for those who believe in God to also be humble:
Don't assert more than the Bible clearly says:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
Genesis 1:1-2
The Bible does not tell us how far back in time this situation existed.
It doesn't say whether it was a long period of time or a short period.
The next verse just says ...
And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. ...And there was evening and there was morning––the first day.
Genesis 1:3, 5
This began the first of 6 days of creation, which ended with the creation of man.
But before "the first day" there is no indication of any time frame:
Many people who believe the Bible and study science have theories about how old the earth and the universe are.
But no one knows for sure how long "the earth was formless and empty" after "God created the heavens and the earth."
Is it wise to be dogmatic about things that the Bible does not say?
[God asks:] "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?
Job 38:4
Since none of us were there, it seems wise not to make dogmatic statements, based on the Bible, about either the age of our earth or the age of the universe.
WHY ARE WE DISCUSSING THIS TOPIC HERE?
Because evolution impacts faith.
Over the past 160 years, since Charles Darwin, many people's confidence in the Bible has been shaken because science is said to disprove what the Bible says about the creation of the universe, the earth, and of humans and animals.
Why does it matter? Isn't science about science, and faith is about faith?
Aren't the 2 unrelated?
No.
Because, if our confidence in the truth of any part of the Bible is weakened, it is very difficult to truly believe in other parts of the Bible. This lessens or destroys our confidence in God and in his Word.
[Jesus said:] "I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?"
John 3:12
If we cannot trust God's account of how he made the world, which we can see, how can we trust his promises about heaven, which we cannot see (until we get there – or fail to get there)?
But now, you can see God's creation with your own eyes! And your faith is tied to what you see!
What may be known about God is plain to them [to everyone], because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Romans 1:19-20
Your knowledge of what you cannot see (the invisible God) is tied to what you can see (his creation).
Your knowledge is also tied to his Word.
Confidently believing the Bible is crucial.
The statements and explanations in this web site are based on the foundation that every word in the Bible is true. If every word is not true, we are left to our own shifting opinions – and what good is that in the face of difficulties and death? And what good is this web site!
Interpret poetry as poetry, etc.
Jesus, himself, stood firmly behind the truth of the Bible – and specifically the Books of the Law.
[Jesus said:] "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law and the Prophets [Jesus' term for the Old Testament]; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
Matthew 5:17-18
Interesting Point:
The account of how God made the world is at the very beginning of the Bible in what is called the Books of the Law (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy).
Your faith matters!
[Jesus said:] "Be it done to you according to your faith."
Matthew 9:29 [NAS]
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
Hebrews 11:3
Science is not just about material things – because everyday it bumps up against areas of faith.
Of course, science's main job is to observe all material things and identify, measure and describe them, and explain their function.
But explaining the details about material things keeps running scientists into the big question:
How did those things get here?
Who or what put them here?
As we have already seen, these are questions that Materialistic Science has great difficulty answering.
Scientists cannot go back in time before the Big Bang – or the creation of the universe.
Even Materialistic Scientists have to rely on their unproven beliefs to try to answer these kinds of questions.
So they have no choice but to slide into the area of faith.
For example: The universe looks intricately designed.
Many scientists will acknowledge that the universe and living organisms "look" intricately designed.
This is an obvious scientific observation.
The universe certainly doesn't look random and disorganized.
In fact, the orderliness and consistency in the universe is what makes science possible in the first place!
Without orderliness and consistency we could discover no Scientific Laws of Nature –
everything would be random,
and there would be no science!
But why the universe looks so well designed becomes a big problem for Materialistic Science!
Design implies a designer.
A designer implies God.
God is not made of matter, but is supernatural.
And Materialistic Science cannot accept anything supernatural.
For them, this is a matter of belief.
So, for them, rejecting design and rejecting God becomes a matter of "science."
So, the "faith" that Materialistic Scientists' have makes them unwilling to explore the implications of everything in our universe looking like it has been intricately designed.
So Materialistic Science needs to find a provable alternative to design.
First, it must answer the underlying question:
Without a Designer-Creator how did the universe and life get here in the first place?
Scientists were not actually there at the very beginning!
Yet Materialistic Scientists must find a non-supernatural explanation for how everything that we see came from Nothing.
It is so difficult that, unsurprisingly, their explanations can sound more like faith than science.
Then, Materialistic Science must answer a more down-to-earth question:
Why does the universe look amazingly designed if, as they say, it isn't?
If the universe just came about on its own, why does the aftermath of the Big Bang look so amazingly and intricately ordered?
Example: The Periodic Table
The Periodic Table contains the 118 known Elements that make up everything in our universe.
It took about 200 years of scientific discovery and effort to bring the Periodic Table to its current form.
The chart has the complex interrelationships of a Rubik's Cube.
The elements are lined up in a very orderly, horizontal progression with each element having exactly 1 more proton than the element before it.
Adjacent elements are in perfect sequence in other amazing ways as well – even having vertical relationships with one another on the Table.
But Materialistic Science believes that these elements were not designed to be that way, but happened that way by a kind of chance process that somehow was guided by the consistent Laws of Nature (which they believe were not designed to be that way either!).
So the complex order in the universe came about by a kind of self-guided Chance –
a chance process that knew where it was going!
So, it came about by dumb luck guided by a set of unchanging rules (Laws of Nature and Science) that exist by dumb luck!
Ironically, these chance laws are so consistent and unchanging that they allow these same scientist to base complex theories on the origins of the universe on the consistent way that how atoms are dispersed throughout the space of the universe.
To believe that self-guided Chance could produce our universe takes great faith!
But scientists, who believe in God, believe that the universe looks designed because it actually was designed by Creator God who made everything. And the Laws of Nature and Science are there because God designed them to be there. And the universe and life operate according to these laws because God designed everything to operate that way – except as he chooses to intervene from time to time by his miraculous power.
To believe this also takes faith.
But which faith leads to the most predictable outcome?
Let's assume that Nothing exists.
Which process seems the most reasonable?
1. Starting from Nothing with only self-guided Chance to direct the process, who would ever predict the existence of the immeasurably immense, magnificently beautiful, intricately complex universe that we see today? And who would ever predict the existence of such a great variety of living things, including beings as mentally sophisticated as we are with the capacity to create and love like we have?
It defies common sense.
It would be a "miracle" without a cause.
Because their belief system could never predict the existence of the unchanging, complicated Laws of Nature – there is no place in their system of thought for the Laws of Nature to exist.
2. Starting with the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving God of the Bible, is it reasonable to predict that he would turn Nothing into the wonders that we see all around us?
Does it, then, surprise you that the Bible starts with ...
In the beginning God ...
It's Your Turn to Decide:
Whose faith seems the most reasonable to you?
When you look at the world around you, when you think of your own identity and your human nature, when you think about the relationships that you have with other people –
Does it match how God describes things in the Bible?
Or, does it match what Materialistic Science tells you?
Is it reasonable or unreasonable for you to have faith?
Both, scientists who believe in God and scientists who do not believe in God, do scientific research and make scientific observations about life and the universe.
Both, at times, enter the realm of faith when arriving at their conclusions.
In other words, their faith impacts how they interpret the scientific evidence – especially concerning the origin of the universe and the origin of life.
So, if scientists at times make "scientific" conclusions based on faith, don't you have the same freedom to make conclusions based on faith?
Is there any reason why you should feel intellectually inferior because you have faith?
No. Your faith in God is actually a great intellectual advantage.
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
Your word makes me wiser than all my teachers.
So –
Don't let people deceive you by fine sounding arguments.
WHAT DOES THE BIBLE TELL US ABOUT THE CREATION OF THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH?
God did it.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Genesis 1:1
Do the Physical Sciences disprove this?
Astronomy postulates a Big Bang:
This is based on evidence that the universe is expanding outward at a rapid speed from a massive explosion of highly condensed matter that occurred at one point in space at one point in time
So it does point to the universe having a clear beginning –
at a certain point in space
and at a certain point in time!
Where did all that highly condensed matter come from?
Astronomy has no idea –
because no one was there to see it
because they can't investigate what existed before such a massive explosion
Astronomy can only speculate –
and speculation is not science
Speculation is speculation!
So Science has met a limit beyond which it cannot go.
What else is very difficult for the Physical Sciences to explain?
Periodic Table
Amazing design and mathematical order!
They can describe it
But they can't explain how it happened
So, again, science has met a limit beyond which it cannot go.
But has the Bible also met a limit at this point?
No, it is very reasonable to think that a Designer could easily do this.
God created life forms, each after their own "kind."
This is actually how humans see them today – arranged according to "kinds."
We do not see a continuum – like with the color spectrum.
Take a reddish purple color for example:
[Illustration]
Does it fit in the red category?
Or does it fit in the purple category?
The choice is unclear. We cannot be sure where one color begins and another color stops.
But the difference between "kinds" of living things is quite clear.
For example:
An elementary school child can fairly easily identify all the "kinds" of farm animals and common pets.
This is true even if there are many similarities between "kinds."
For example:
Goats have similarities with cows (split hooves, horns, large ears that stick out from the sides of their heads, udders on females) yet they are distinct.
The similarities between "kinds" rarely confuse us as to whether a particular animal belongs to Kind A or Kind B.
Kinds are amazingly differentiated from one another.
"Kinds" are very important to God:
When God destroyed the earth with the Great Flood, he intentionally preserved all the various "kinds" of living things.
[God told Noah:] "I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life. ...You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. ...[So] they had with them [on the ark] every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its kind and every bird according to its kind."
Genesis 6:17, 19-20; 7:14
So humans don't see life forms as a continuum –
even though macro-evolution claims that they are arranged this way.
This, of course, is one of the main arguments against macro-evolution (large scale evolution).
1. Today, we clearly see life forms as divided into "kinds."
2. Today, we don't see the many transitional forms (for example, between Kind A and Kind B, and between Kind B and Kind C) that we would expect to see if there was actually a continuum of life forms from a one-celled bacteria to a human being.
3. We see a lot of "kinds" in the fossil record. But we don't see enough transitional forms in the fossil record to satisfy many of us that life is a continuum from bacteria to human. That's why we call them "missing links" – because they are missing from the fossil record.
Of course, evolutionists disagree.
They believe that the gaps in the fossil record are not significant.
We believe that the gaps are very significant.
Either way, it is a matter of interpretation, which makes it a matter of belief or faith.
If it is a matter of belief
IT IS LOGICAL THAT LIFE WAS DESIGNED BY A DESIGNER-CREATOR:
Does a Cladogram Demonstrate Evolution or does it Demonstrate Design?
This is a Cladogram (or scientific diagram):
These cladograms have been used by science for
It shows the relationship between all living things.
But it can be interpreted 2 different ways:
1. Evolutionists point to it as evidence that all living things are connected by evolution:
Through minute genetic changes over millions of years, living things higher up on the cladogram evolved into the organisms below them.
So, through many intermediate steps, one-celled organisms eventually evolved into human beings.
The diagram shows the
But this diagram can also be used to show the
Cladogram/Diagram of the Development of the Wheel / Vehicles
This diagram looks like the cladograms in biology that show the relationship between all life forms.
But, instead, this diagram shows the technological development of means of transportation.
What the Diagram Tells Us.
• Each object in this diagram was designed by a designer.
This is the cause for the similarities and differences between each object.
• Good ideas are reused later:
~ Workable materials are reused – like wood, steel, rubber, gasoline, leather, cloth, glass.
~ Workable components are reused – like wheels, engines, steering, seats, lights.
The same features appear repeatedly in different objects.
This is true because designers reuse good ideas from older objects when they design new objects –
so certain great ideas (like the wheel!) are reused in every new object.
As a result, great ideas become common features in all future objects.
But this doesn't mean that those objects have any evolutionary relationship with each other.
They are only related through the mind of the designer.
• So, no newer model evolved from an older model.
Although someone might look at this diagram and claim that having similar features proves that a newer model evolved from an older model,
we know for a fact that that is not true.
We know that one model did not magically morph into the next model.
We know that each model was individually designed.
Two different models may look a lot alike, but we know that there is no direct relationship between them – except through the mind of the designer.
• This illustrates to us that design, alone, can be the reason for similarities between two objects.
In other words, a similarity between two things does not have to be the result of evolutionary activity –
or some other morphing activity.
This applies to cladograms of living things in biology:
They can legitimately be viewed as diagrams of Creator God's design choices when he created life on this earth.
• As this diagram illustrates, designers' conscious choices are what led to advances in vehicle technology. Likewise, cladograms (diagrams) in biology just as easily illustrate how the Designer-Creator's choices resulted in the similarities and differences between the life forms that we see today.
Cladograms were in use (before Charles Darwin popularized evolution) to group all the different "kinds" of living organisms into their appropriate Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. The various "kinds" were grouped together according to their similarities and separated from one another according to their differences.
As was discussed earlier, the distinction between "kinds" is so strong that this barrier is rarely crossed.
Each Family and Species has its clear identity.
This is supported in the cladograms, even today, by the relative lack of transitional forms.
For example, in the Cat Family we see distinct Species of large, wild cats, but we don't see transitional forms between two different Species of big cats.
So cladograms were not originally interpreted as illustrating an evolutionary continuum.
But evolutionists use the same basic cladistic system, but interpret the cladograms differently:
They focus on the similarities between living things, and minimize the differences between them, and claim that one living thing evolved from another.
So they believe that the cladograms show an evolutionary continuum of all life forms from one-celled bacteria to humans.
So two people looking at essentially the same cladogram can come up with very different interpretations.
Some see a cladogram as illustrating the design decisions of Creator God.
Others see a cladogram as illustrating the continuum of one Species evolving into the next Species.
Both are looking at the same scientific information –
But the position one takes often depends on what one believes.
Scientists also have faith.
It is reasonable to think that Design can produce exactly the life forms that we see
The Bible answers the question of the source of all things.
In the beginning God created ...
Genesis 1:1
This is a question that science cannot answer.
And the Bible focuses on the source when explaining how everything was created.
God said, "Let there be... And there was."
Genesis 1:3, 5
How everything was created was:
• By God.
• Through the power of his word.
This is the most important thing for us to know and believe.
The Bible does not focus on the technical aspects of how God created –
for example, the action of atoms, molecules, elements.
These are things for science to discover.
This is science's realm.
If scientists do not know how something happened, how can they say that God did not do it?
They are making a statement of belief, not a statement of science.
SO FAITH IN GOD AND THE BIBLE IS REASONABLE:
Don't ever let a Materialistic Scientist convince you that your faith in God is unreasonable or "unscientific."
• Materialistic Scientists also have faith:
They believe in certain fundamental ideas that they have never conclusively verified.
Belief is not "science." It is simply belief.
• Belief in Creator God is easily as reasonable as believing that the universe and all livings things simply got here by chance or by some unknown cause.
Two Crucial Question:
• What explanation of the universe fits best with everything that you see around you?
• And more importantly: Who do you choose to trust?
God who made everything – and loves you?
Scientists who weren't there at the beginning – and don't even know that you exist?
Without faith it is impossible to please God because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
Hebrews 11:6