Inspired by a very interesting conversation with a very interesting coworker.
Increasingly there seems to be conflict between the world of religion and the world of science. We are told that the Bible represents a pre-scientific world view and are faced with a choice between the facts of science and the fantasy of scripture. This conflict partially stems from the fact that science frequently oversteps its bounds - instead of being a method of discovering knowledge it has become an all encompassing world view. In truth, there are only conflicts between science and the Bible when science begins to speculate on origins and destinies. But those things are not subject to observation and experimentation, which brings the entire discussion into the world of religion.
Herbert Spencer was a non-Christian scientist who died in 1903 and was best known for coining the phrase "survival of the fittest." His greatest achievement, though, was his discovery of the categories of the knowable. That is to say, everything that exists fits into one of five categories: time, force, action, space, and matter.
With this in mind, take a look at Genesis 1:1. "In the beginning [time], God [force] created [action] the heavens [space] and the earth [matter]." No conflict with science there! The real test you are facing is not whether science is "right" but it's as simple as do you believe the Bible? Not what somebody says about the Bible, but what the Bible actually says? Take into account that the Bible does not say when creation took place, simply that it did. You can't get through the first two chapters of the Bible without facing this test repeatedly.
Now, the statement that may shock some folks: there is no such thing as creation science. Because there is no scientific way to explain creation. It was a brief series of monumental supernatural events that cannot be explained by science. Science is based on observation and there were no witnesses to creation. Science is based on verification by repetition and creation cannot be repeated. So any attempt to explain or prove creation by scientific means is bunk.
Let’s say you were in Galilee the week after Jesus fed the five thousand men, plus women, plus children, the loaves and the fish and you wanted to know where in the world did He get that ability to do that? How did He do that? How did He feed those people with loaves and fish, how did He do that miracle? And you decided that you were going to go up there and you’re going to interview all those people and you’re going to ask them about what they felt while they were eating it and how it was digested and any experiences that they might have had after having that meal. It wouldn’t do any good if you were in the process of that investigation trying to figure out how Jesus made fish and bread out of nothing. You see, that is analogous to the issue of creation. You can observe the way things are now but that doesn’t tell you anything about how they became what they are. Creation cannot be understood any other way than by believing the revelation of the creator. And that’s your first test when you open your Bible.
So, having rejected the Bible and God's authority, science had to come up with something to explain how we got here. Evolution is simply mankind's latest attempt to suppress our innate knowledge of God and the fact we are accountable to Him. Yet evolution has never been observed or verified through repeatable experimentation. Here I am speaking of macro evolution, a change in kind, not simply a change within a kind. Yes, there is a difference. Yes, that difference is enormous.
As for the age of the universe? I don't know, but I'm in the "young Earth" camp. Maybe six thousand years, maybe ten thousand, I'm not really picky on that. The Bible doesn't give a date, so I'm not going to force one on it. All the different arguments about the age of the Earth from both camps come from the fact that the great flood in Genesis messed up our ability to determine the age of things that existed before the flood. Again, an event that is not repeatable.
So, again, the question for everybody is, do you believe Genesis 1-2? If not, where does the Bible start being true? Chapter 3? Chapter 4? Maybe in Exodus?
Some things simply cannot be proved by man, and all man's attempts to prove them have resulted in failure.
Fantastic blog Matt, I really like this one since it's a subject near and dear to my heart. One minor point. The Bible doesn't give a date for the age of the Universe, but it does give a record of how old Earth is. If you've ever wondered why God gave us an account of how long folks lived before the great flood, after the great flood, all the way through the time of Christ, it's a road map. Without trivializing the time it takes, it's simple math to calculate when the flood occured and how old the Earth is. I did it as an excercise once and don't remember the exact number, but something around 6,700 years old is the answer.
ReplyDeleteIt is definitely interesting to see this viewpoint and I won't refute faith based on science. But I do have a first question - from which maybe we can delve deeper into other aspects of your blog:
ReplyDeleteCan you explain how/why the Flood made it impossible to understand what cam ebefore it - especially in fossil records deep within the crust of the earth? I admit to being confused here.
Right, sorry, that's what I meant when I said the post still needed some editing. I have corrected it to say we can't determine the age of things that existed before the flood. This is due to 1) the cloud canopy that covered the planet before the flood may have changed the rate of absorption of the isotopes being measured in current dating methods (again, not observable or repeatable) and 2) thousands of feet of water covering the entire surface of the planet would have some kind of effect on what was below. Oil and coal have been formed in very short periods of time using relatively low pressure (see http://discovermagazine.com/2008/nov/25-anything-into-oil); what kind of game-changing processes would have occurred with over 20,000 feet of water covering the planet for six weeks? Maybe all the carbon got squeezed out of everything during that time, making it all appear older than it really is. We'll never know for certain.
ReplyDeleteOK - so the statement here you made here is a key statement: "Some things simply cannot be proved by man, and all man's attempts to prove them have resulted in failure."
ReplyDeleteSince no one was around to observe the beginning of the universe we don't know how it came into being.
The question is, for me, is "should we try to understand at all?"
Many people say that "in God's image" means the capacity for rational thought, the choice of compassion, and the ability to love. If we focus on rational thought as being a part of "in His image" for a moment - why would God use magic to create the universe? Why would he deliberately bait and switch us on understanding the universe He creates?
Or is that not, in your opinion, what in His image means?
Those are all valid aspects of in His image. Focusing strictly on rational thought, you're right, it doesn't make much sense to use "magic" and then just expect us to go with it. But we also have the ability to believe, and this is also a major part of in His image. Faith is such a huge part of God's design and plan that it simply cannot be ignored. Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David, Samuel, the list goes on of the ancient heroes who lived by faith. By grace you are saved, through faith. You know the verses as well as I do. So rather than a bait and switch, it's the foundation of everything. "Have faith that I created this system; it has order, and beauty, go discover it."
ReplyDeleteAs for the "why" God did this: to bring glory to Himself. He is God, after all.
Always had trouble with this sequence:
ReplyDelete(http://www.biblestudytools.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=ge+1&version=niv&showtools=0)
First Day:
Creation of generic "light"
"Day" and "Night" established
Second Day:
Separation of sky from waters
Third Day:
Separation of waters from land
Creation of plants, seeds, fruit, vegetation
Fourth Day:
Creation of the Sun, Moon, and Stars
a) How was there "evening and morning" separating the days before the creation of the sun?
b) How did plants grow before the sun existed?
c) If the Earth predated the Sun, how did it end up orbiting the sun?
Another simpler puzzler of "Science (Math) vs. Scripture" is 1 Kings 7:23:
"And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."
Any object 10 cubits in diameter would have a circumference of greater than 30 cubits, even rounding to the nearest unit, 31.41 cubits at worst would be expressed at 31 cubits. I find this scripture troubling if I try to accept Scripture as God-breathed and infallable,
Anon: the simplest answer to a, b, and c is that the rules governing the system God created were not put in place until the system was finished, or in a state where they could be applied. For example, if I create a software object, and a rule of this object is "property x must be between 1 and 5" first I must create the property. The property now exists, and can have any value I wish to assign to it, because the rule has not yet been applied. Is my creation invalid, because for some limited period of time this rule could be violated? No, it is simply not complete.
ReplyDeleteAs for your math problem, rather than reiterate the many available solutions I will point you to http://creation.com/does-the-bible-say-pi-equals-30.
Matt:In fairness, I can see how rounding can be applied to both the diameter and circumference to explain the math problem. The page you referred to addresses the question and I buy the logic.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the sequencing of creation and the establishment of rules I don't find the explanation reasonable.
The way I read that explanation, it suggests that plants could live and produce fruit and seed without the existence of the sun simply because God didn't yet create the rule that says a plant needs light to live. I would say that such an object would not, definitively, be a plant.
It is scientifically provable and verifiable that plants cannot live without light. The only other possibility is that God used their (yes, plural, just like "Elohim") countenance to bask the alleged pre solar earth with god-light.
Also, point "a" asked how evening and morning could have passed on Earth prior to the Sun's existence. That doesn't require God to establish a rule, the concept of evening and morning are human words and concepts and are defined in terms of sunrise and sunset... thus impossible without the existence of the Sun.
All in all, the entire concept that the Sun was created after the Earth simply does not come anywhere close to passing a reasonableness test if evaluated with all available scientific data. Ergo, science and scripture are at odds on this one.
Of course, faith inherently is the act of believing something without absolute proof. Science inherently tries to prove something in a way that does not require absolute faith. Thus the entire point that it's a sticky wicket when one tries to reconcile both universally with each other.
As for the Bible, many people embrace it and I do believe on the whole there are far more people who live better lives because of it than there are people who use it for evil (e.g. the crusades). I just don't personally take the Bible as the literal "gospel truth." That's my cross to bear, so to speak, and pun intended.
Most everyone who follows the Bible picks and chooses what to belive and does their own interpretation, we have Martin Luther and Gutenberg to thank for that.
I pick and choose like anyone else. For example, I find Lot to be a scoundrel who should have been turned into a pillar of salt, I don't know why his wife got the shaft. ;-) I also think the Gospel of Thomas was unrighteously suppressed from the canon. I also have a little respect for Paul's writings or authority (a major chunk of the NT) but considerable respect for Timothy's.
On all of the above, I am just one person, this is opinion, and your mileage may vary.