We’ve referenced science a few times in the previous posts. Even though this isn’t a series on Christian evidences, it’s still important that we place science in the right framework in light of the Creation.
Here are a couple of verses to ponder –
(Rom 1:20) 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.
(Psa 8:3-4) When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, 4 what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him?
God says that we can learn about him from his Creation. And that is surely true even if we use a telescope or a chisel to take a very close look deeply into space or the rocks.
Therefore, there can be no contradiction between God and science. God made science. And if they seem to us to contradict, the flaw is in our understanding.
God speaks to us not only through his word, but through his Creation. And God helps us know him better as we view his handiwork. And we instinctively recognize this.
I mean, ask a hunter or fisherman why he enjoys his sport, and many will speak of how nature speaks to them of God. Being in the wild naturally brings our hearts and minds toward God. We can’t help but see him in natural beauty.
As we reflect on this bit of God’s glory, which is all of God we can bear to see, the Spirit helps us understand that this is from God and that the Creator is far more glorious than the creation.
I well remember visiting Yosemite National Park 25 years ago and being utterly drawn toward God — seeing the unspeakable beauty he’d made for our enjoyment.
And we’re moved to poetry, because if words were good enough, we wouldn’t need the Spirit to help us –
(Isa 40:21-31) Do you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not been told you from the beginning? Have you not understood since the earth was founded? 22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in. …
25 “To whom will you compare me? Or who is my equal?” says the Holy One. 26 Lift your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one, and calls them each by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing. …
28 Do you not know? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no one can fathom.
29 He gives strength to the weary and increases the power of the weak. 30 Even youths grow tired and weary, and young men stumble and fall; 31 but those who hope in the LORD will renew their strength. They will soar on wings like eagles; they will run and not grow weary, they will walk and not be faint.
And if the Creation speaks to us of God, obviously enough, we have a certain responsibility toward it.
Therefore, all efforts to set science and Christianity at odds are doomed to failure — indeed, are anti-Christian. Rather, science is a subset of theology. We learn about God by studying his Creation.
We have nothing to fear from cosmology, quantum physics, and such. Whether it’s string theory or plate tectonics, science reveals God.
Christians should be among the most dedicated, committed scientists. We should delight in each new discovery and reflect on its meaning for the nature of God.
Of course, this hardly means that we must accept all conclusions reached by a scientist. Scientists can do bad science just as theologians can do bad theology. But we don’t reject either science or theology because some make mistakes.
“We have nothing to fear from cosmology, quantum physics, and such. Whether it’s string theory or plate tectonics, science reveals God.”
Indeed, and also we have nothing to fear from evolution. The way that our world has unfolded these past four billion years reveals something about God’s nature, pun intended. We should not fear the science but we should respect and act on what it says about the rapid injection of CO2 into the atmosphere. We must and we will.
I think it would help greatly if we got the nature of Gen. 1 creation right. If it has nothing to do with the creation of the physical universe, but actually refers to a temple dedication, then the days of Gen. 1 are the days of the dedication of an already built temple. The text then says nothing about the years of physical construction.
JLV…that’s the most unique interpretation of Gen 1 I’ve ever heard.. In fact, in all my years I’ve NEVER heard that…
Jay, IMHO, the refusal to accept what science has proven overwhelmingly (as opposed to just theory) does great damage to our influence in society. The Hebrew language allows for a long earth position.. There is no benefit whatsoever to dig in one’s heels to insist that faith in God in only consistent if one accepts a earth that is 6,000 years old.. It makes God out to be the Great Deceiver…to have made it “appear” to be old when in fact it is not…
I hate to burst everyone’s bubble but the Bible clearly teaches that God created the universe in 6 literal days. As an example in Exodus 31:15-17 it says,
“Six days may work be done, but on the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Therefore the sons of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, for an everlasting covenant. It is a sign between me and the sons of Israel forever. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested, and was refreshed.”
This verse compares our six days of work with God’s six days of creation. Now one may ask how this is scientifically possible and many believe that since they can’t reconcile it with science then the scripture can’t be taken literally. I studied solar system astrophysics in college and one of the observations of the universe was an inflationary period where the universe expanded faster than the the speed we see today. Cosmologist can’t explain the fast inflation of the universe but it does explain that time slows down. I believe God is fully capable of creating the known universe in 6 literal days and through “inflation” could make it appear to be older. Sorry, but I can’t get around Exodus 31 and thus take the Bible’s version of creation over scientist’s version.
Hey Price —
Scroll down and read the post: Creation 2.o: Creation and The Temple Of God. Read the comments — JLVaughn and JKratt unpack their view of “Covenant Creation” a bit more down there.
To say the least, it is interesting and intriguing. You strike me as a guy that isn’t scared away by new concepts, so you’ll probably really dig it. I did.
Skip, we have had our differences, but I have to agree with you on this. Why would we believe in, and put all our eggs in a basket that the bible is true, if during the opening salvo there was nothing but lies, and deception.
Price and others:
Price said, “There is no benefit whatsoever to dig in one’s heels to insist that faith in God in only consistent if one accepts a earth that is 6,000 years old.. It makes God out to be the Great Deceiver…to have made it “appear” to be old when in fact it is not…”
Notice, what Paul said, especially verse 11 and 12
2 Thess 2:3 (NIV) Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.
4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.
5 Don’t you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things?
6 And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time.
7 For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way.
8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming.
9 The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders,
10 and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.
11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie
12 and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.
2 Thess 2:11 (KJV) And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
God has given us his word that he will not lie. He gave us an account of the beginning of the universe in the very first verse of the Scriptures. Man has devised his own method of dating evidence and sees that the result does not agree with the time stated by God. Therefore he disagrees with God, and believes the lie that was created by his own method of dating the earth. God placed a special provision into his Word that states, paraphrased, if you chose to believe a lie he will provide the evidence to continue your own disbelief of his Word.
It is the nature of man to continue into sin further and further. A man that lies does not stop at one, if he steals he cannot stop at once, if he is an adulterer he does not stop at one, etc:, after repeated sins eventually he is caught up with and others can see what he has done. Eventually, others may be able to cause him to see what he has done, therefore he may repent of the wrong he has been doing. By God leading man further and further into this deception eventually he may realize how far he has drifted from truth, and recover. You see the further you go down the road in distorting what the scriptures say the more scriptures you will encounter that you will have to distort. The scriptures will never support the lies. God also stated his judgment on those that persist in following the lie.
Let me hug you, Skip! It is a terrible shame that some theologians try to support a decidedly materialistic and anti-theistic theory by ading God wherever the theopry simply does not work. I also refuse to accept this compromise. It’s clearly against what has been written. Take it or leave it, I say. Evolution develops through struggle anbd death – thus (in this concept) is good and necessary. Death is an enemy that entered creation through sin. Once you blend these two concepts, you make death a tool in the hand of God to create life in all its diversity. The “idea” of re-interpreting death as a mere “spiritual death” is a novelty and clearly CLEARLY not what is meant.
Alexander
P.S.: I don’t fear science – but the eviolution theory is a theory, not a fscritific fact. It is a model to interpret creation without a creator. Therefore it is absolutely unsuitable for any Christian thinker or scientist.
I always enjoy these discussions, especially since many of the early church fathers stumbled at a literal 6 days of creation because it took too long (why not created in an instant but explained in a chronological phase?). While they believed the earth was younger rather than older, there was not a consensus on the issue. For the record, I lean more towards 6 literal days, but understand there are issues with all of the views. I appreciate your last words, Jay. Scientist can do a poor job, no different than theologians. Creation does testify to God’s creation and science can help reveal it. Yet science often changes and can be wrong, even when dealing with cosmology. Many treat science (e.g. cosmology) as an infallible interpreter to Scripture, so I am glad you leave some room for fallibility.
We are so arrogant to believe our accumulated knowledge, in actuality but a grain of sand as compared to our Creator’s realm(s), could begin to comprehend the intricasies of His creation. Getting closer, “yes”, and thank you God for the gifts given to “scientists” that have helped your creation. But I have one question: Could not the Creator have created a 4,000,000 year old rock?
There is one who deceives, but it is not The Creator God. Jesus, The Creator, is not the deceiver. Rather, the Uncreated Jesus is The Truth. His actions point to Truth, reveals The Truth, and is The Truth. What God created he called good. The creation is a reflection of The Creator. The Creator does not deceive us but allows us to deceive ourselves.
Satan, however, is the deceiver. All deception is a reflection of evil . . . of Satan’s heart. Deception is a tool of the devil. It is not godly.
Normally when I hear Christians say God may have created the world to appear as if it had taken millions or billions of years to create – it is propositioned that God did this to test faith . . . to test whether or not we believe in the young earth theory (“I created the world in six 24-hour days”) or if we are tempted to consider other alternatives to the young earth belief.
Says God, “Although it will only take me six 24-hour days to create the world and man, I will make it look as thought it took longer. I will make the evidence look as though it took millions or billions of years. Then when the people read my Word, if they don’t believe creation took six 24-hour days to create, their unbelief will be manifest! Woe to those who do not believe in the young creation account! Although I love these people, I will deceive them so as to surely damn them.” Hmm.
Although it is certain that God tests us, we can be sure that God does not use deception when he does. It isn’t in the nature of God for him to use deception. Truth and deception do not abide together. Truth is of God. Deception is of the devil. Whatever contemplation we take in regards to creation, we should address the thought that God created the world in a deceptive way with the understanding that God does not contradict himself . . . and move on to other possibilities, whether they support young earth or old earth belief.
Respectfully,
I just can’t wrap my fingers around how the ground was cursed because of Adam if according to OEC death and disease already existed in the world for billions of years before him.
Remember Paul said poetically in Romans 8 that the creation now groans(has literally been subject to slow and steady deterioration but will be redeemed upon the restoration of all things).
God would not deceive on purpose. We on the other hand are pretty good at twisting.
God could of made the earth out of pieces of debris from who knows where and how old it was and if pieces of bone or other things scientist discover was in the ingredients.
I build buildings out of rock, brick, cement, young and old wood, and if you looked at any individual piece, by scientifically deciphering the age of that particular pieces age guess the whole building was that old when it was built only 6 days ago.
WE just don’t know. Interesting to think about and guess and let our imaginations run wild, but, in the end we will not know as it really doesn’t matter so God didn’t tell us.
Want to get more into the thinking about this type of creation and other things we guess about? Sit down with Native Americans and hear their explanations of these things.
Their belief in God or Great Spirit is far more spiritually minded and close to their hearts than most white folks looking for facts.
The earth is a revelation of The Creator. It reflects its maker. I suppose God could have made the earth out of the debris of prior worlds and included the bones of ancient creatures and ancient peoples from those worlds. If so, I wonder what The Creator is revealing about himself by doing so.
I believe it is possible that given enough time, if it is God’s will to give mankind enought time, that mankind will continue to discover more about the world and the universe and how our bodies work, etc.. Regarding the many current theories that scientists have developed, some will be disproven . . . and some will be proven.
But no matter what man finds, I believe the scriptures will always stand as a testament to The Truth. Our understanding of what those scriptures mean may change. Given enough time . . . we should not be surprised if they do. Just ask those who used to insist that the earth was fixed and could not be moved . . . that the sun orbited aroung the earth. An honest pursuit of truth prevailed. And guess what? The truth did not contradict The Truth. Realizing the truth about how the earth cirles the sun does not contradict The Truth revealed in Jesus Christ.
The scriptures and the honest pursuit of knowledge and understanding through science are linked. They are linked because they both are connected to The Truth. Truth reflects The Truth. All truth finds is meaning in The Truth . . . Jesus Christ.
We should watch scientists with interest and patience. Yes there are scientists who try to force the pursuit of knowledge to prove their desire to have a godless universe. After all of their efforts, they have failed. They will keep trying, and they will keep failing.
But the honest pursuit of truth . . .whether in studying scripture or through science . . . can do nothing but ultimately point to Jesus . . . The Truth.
How long is six days if there is no sun until the fourth day? The writer of the creation story did not forget that the cycle of the position of the sun in the sky marks days. He was telling us something that science and theologians have yet to understand.
Here is something to ponder.
There are people who say that the earth was created in six days and there are those who say that the earth is millions of years old.
If you read Gen 1 CLOSELY the earth and heavens were created before the 6 day period. We cannot know how much time passed between verse 1 and varse 2. Time is irrelevent to God with the exception of what it means to us as mortals. v.1
God Created light and darkness v.3 “Day One.”
God separated the waters from above and below the expanse [the waters on the planet and the waters (water canopy) above our atmosphere] (Heavens) v,6-8 “Day Two.”
God separated the water on the planet from the land on the planet and created the vegitation v. 11-13 “Day Three.”
God created the Sun, Moon, and stars which he set in the heavens. [It is interesting to note that God created light and darkness and called it day and night before creating the sun and moon to rule over the day and night. Our lunar cycle [time as we know it] started on this day. v. 14-19 “Day Four.”
God created the birds of the air and the sea life v. 20-23 “Day Five.”
God created the land animals and man v. 24-31 “Day Six.”
God Rested “Day Seven.”
It is quite possible that God created the earth long [as we know it] before the 6 day period. If millions of years passed before he decided to go any further with it, what is that to God? After all, according to our reckoning, isn’t 1000 years as a day with God?
At the same time [according to our calandar] roughly 6000 years have passed since the 6 day period. Isn’t it possible to accept our time here as a 6000 year period and the earth itself could still be older. I don’t see this as a contradiction to scripture.
Growing up I was always a science buff – loved science, spent seven years in the Naval Nuclear Power Program (enlisted and officer), and received a BS in Mechanical Engineering. I became a Christian in 1996 and never even thought about creation. I just assumed that the Earth is billions of years old and God used evolution since science has “proven” evolution and the age of the earth. It wasn’t until about two years ago that I read some YEC books and discovered that the scientific evidence actually supports a young earth.
Now I’m not here to argue the scientific evidence, but I want to point out the limitations of science when talking about origins. The first thing to understand is the distinction between origins science and operational science. Operational science involves discovering how things operate in today’s Creation—repeatable and observable phenomena in the present. This is the science of Newton. However, origins science deals with the origin of things in the past—unique, unrepeatable, unobservable events. There is a fundamental difference between how the two work. Operational science involves experimentation in the here and now. Origins science deals with how something came into existence in the past and so is not open to experimental verification / observation (unless someone invents a ‘time machine’ to travel back into the past to observe). Studying how an organism operates (DNA, mutations, reproduction, natural selection etc.) does not tell us how it came into existence in the first place. Both evolution and creation fall into the category of origins science. Both are driven by philosophical considerations. The same data (observations in the present) are available to everyone, but different interpretations (stories) are devised to explain what happened in the past. (http://creation.mobi/its-not-science)
To put it in my own words, image you’re watching a TV show like 48 Hours mystery where someone is dead and someone else is on trial for murdering them. The evidence might be the dead body with pools of blood and blood spatter, a murder weapon, gunpowder residue, etc. The prosecutor addresses the jury and calls numerous experts to testify how all of the physical evidence shows that the defendent murdered the victim. The prosecutor tells a story of how the defendent committed the murder. Then the defense gets up and calls their expert witnesses to testify how the physical evidence does not show that the defendent murdered the victim. The defence tells their story of how the defendent is innocent. Same evidence, but completely different stories! Expert witnesses on both sides using “science” to prove their case, but opposite conclusions! And the jury, who was not there to witness the victim dying, has to weight the evidence and decide which story makes the most sense and fits the evidence the best. The evidence doesn’t speak for itself; it has to be interpreted! Ultimately, the jurors have to decide which story is true and deliver a verdict, but they have to do it on faith! It’s a faith based on evidence, but ultimately it is by faith, and the jury has no idea if they made the right call.
It’s the same with creation and evolution, both sides have the same evidence, but the interpretations (stories) are completely different. I’ve spent two years pouring through the evidence, and I’m convinced that what God said he did in Genesis 1-11 best fits the scientific evidence, and it allows a straightforward reading of Genesis 1.
It saddens me that more and more Christians are not only embracing old ages for the earth, but are becoming militant supporters of it, when the old earth ideology stems from late 18th century evolutionary and naturalistic theories that sought to deny or at least marginalize God (http://creation.mobi/the-origin-of-old-earth-geology-and-its-ramifications-for-life-in-the-21st-century). Accepting old ages for the earth and then elevating this “science” (naturalistic stories) to be the absolute TRUTH, has destroyed the foundations of biblical authority. And the church instead of taking a strong stand on biblical authority instead has tried to fit long ages/evolution into Genesis, which means reinterpreting or throwing out anything in Genesis that doesn’t fit with the TRUTH of science.
While this discussion of Covenant Creation is interesting, there’s something that I don’t think anyone has considered. Instead of God creating a story of Creation to fit this pagan covenant/temple motif that the Jews would have been familiar with, i.e. Genesis is a story instead of real history, maybe this pagan covenant/temple motif is a rememberance of God’s actual act of creation as described historically in Genesis?
One last thing, many of the responses have talked about the overwhelming evidence of an old earth. If anyone has an open mind about investigating the overwhelming evidence for a young earth, they should check out the thousands of articles on sites like Creation Ministries International. Here’s a link to many articles on the age of the earth (http://creation.mobi/search?q=old+earth&sa=Search).
Growing up I was a science buff too. I’m the son of a conservative Church of Christ minster and became a Christian in 1961. I considered the ministry too but settled for leading singing and teaching classes occasionally. So I ended up getting several science and engineering degrees and spending my adult life doing research and development, playing with lasers and fiber optics. I’ve watched the evolution/creation debate “evolve” over a long period of time. The data and interpretation keeps stacking up in the direction of evolution. And, thankfully, scientists with an evangelical heritage are speaking out in support of this. See for instance the website Biologos.org They are showing that one can be a good Christian and accept biological science.
Steve,
When you say that the data keeps stacking up in the direction of evolution, are you really speaking of empirical data (operational science) or interpretations (stories) about past events? Let me give you an example. If I open up my son’s high school biology textbook, the very first chapter is on how scientists work. It describes how about 2300 years ago Aristotle and his contemporaries believed in spontaneous generation, i.e. life from nonlife. Then it goes into great detail about how scientists like Redi, Spallanzani, Virchow, and Pasteur conducted numerous experiments disproving spontaneous generation and showing that life only comes from life. Pasteur and Virchow formulated what later became known as the Law of Biogenesis: Life comes only from life. The implication of this research was that life does not create itself, it required God to create it originally. Both of these Christian men of science were creationists.
Since then we have had over 150 years of intense experimentation and observation trying to disprove this law, e.g. the Urey-Miller experiment back in the 1950s, but it has never been disproven. This is real scientific evidence! If we were to follow the scientific method, then we would have to throw out all theories of life spontaneously arising from nonlife because all the scientific evidenceshows that it doesn’t. A person may choose to believe that conditions on earth were different in the past and so spontaneous generation happened in the past even though it doesn’t happen today, or they may believe that it happens so slowly that we just can’t observe it, but that is not science; that is faith based on one’s philosophical world view.
This is vastly different from the just-so evolutionary stories trying to explain how we got here. Convergent evolution, divergent evolution, punctuated evolution, statis, etc. – these are all stories to explain all the conflicting data that doesn’t fit Darwinian evolution. No matter what the evidence shows that doesn’t fit the currently popular story, the evolutionist can just make up another story to explain it.
The Law of Biogenesis is powerful scientific proof that evolution couldn’t happen because life doesn’t spontaneously arise from nonlife. Another really powerful argument comes from information theory. Information is immaterial (having no physical substance, not made of matter) and always arises from an intelligence. What I’ve written in this response is not dependent in any way on the medium used to store or transmit the information; I could have written it on paper, recorded myself speaking, sent smoke signals, etc. So the Darwinian evolutionist must explain how information (the vast information and codes in DNA) arose from a purely material world. The evidence from science is that it can’t!
So athiestic evolution is dead in the water; it doesn’t even get out of the starting gate, but what about theistic evolution? If God used evolution as part of creation, then that would solve the problem of biogenesis and information theory. But that is completely illogical. Consider:
1. Evolution is put forth and championed by atheists to destroy the authority of the Bible and to eliminate God.
2. Church is swayed by the majority scientific opinion and embraces evolution.
3. Athiestic theory not tenable based on the scientific evidence.
4. Theistic evolution is left. Church now champions the position that God used the very mechanism that was devised by athiests to destroy the authority of the Bible and to eliminate God.
Really?
But let’s assume for a minute that theistic evolution is correct. What does that do to Christian theology? The Bible tells us many things about the original creation, but just from Genesis we know:
1. Each creation day God said it was “good”, and at the end He declared it “very good.” So whatever the creation was like, it reflected what God considers very good, which is a reflection of God’s character.
2. Humans and animals were vegetarian (Genesis 1:30).
3. The original creation was cursed because of Adam and Eve’s sin.
a. Thorns and thistles result from the curse.
b. Animals cursed (Genesis 3:14 says the serpent is cursed more then the other animals, indicating that all animals were cursed).
If theistic evolution were true, then that means God used millions of years of death and suffering and even mass extinctions to “create”. The fossil record shows disease (including cancer), carnivory, cannibalism, and thorns and thistles. All of these things were part of God’s “very good” creation? For millions of years animals were eating animals, but then God decides they should all be vegetarian (Genesis 1:30), but now they’re carnivorus again after the curse? Thorns and thistles were part of the evolutionary process, but then God removed them, and then put them back as part of the curse? Death, disease, suffering, carnivory, etc. were part of the evolutionary process, so what exactly did the curse do to creation? How did the curse make it any worse?
Is this the God of the Bible? Do you Steve really believe that this is the God we worship?
The non-Christian Philosopher of Science, Professor David Hull says it best:
“The problem that biological evolution poses for natural theologians is the sort of God that a darwinian version of evolution implies … The evolutionary process is rife with happenstance, contingency, incredible waste, death, pain and horror … Whatever the God implied by evolutionary theory and the data of natural history may be like, He is not the Protestant God of waste not, want not. He is also not a loving God who cares about His productions. He is not even the awful God portrayed in the book of Job. The God of the Galápagos is careless, wasteful, indifferent, almost diabolical. He is certainly not the sort of God to whom anyone would be inclined to pray.”
—David Hull, The God of the Galápagos, Nature 352:485–86, 8 August 1991.
Another fundamental problem with current evolutionary theory (in ALL its guises) is that Darwin is running 180 degrees to Newton. If entropy (Newton’s Second Law) is indeed universal– and so far, nothing has been found to contradict it– then evolution is the sole antithesis of a universal construct. Newton tells us that the universe moves from a state of order to chaos. Grandpa’s pocketwatch always winds down– never up. Evolution, OTOH, moves from chaos to order, and on to higher forms of order. Offer this mutual-exclusivity to a scientist and I will bet a dollar that he takes this general rule of observed physics and tries to limit it to heat in a closed system, the narrowest possible application of entropy. It’s not unlike religious dogma, where we have found God telling us something that contradicts our teachers, there our teachers try to limit the Bible to keep it from applying to us.
Amen Charles!
One more bit of scientific evidence disproving evolution that every one of us experiences all around us is the genetic burden (or genetic load) in all living creatures. Genetic load is the accumulation of mutations in the genome. According to evolutionists the engine that drives evolution is mutations + natural selection. According to evolutionists, mutations lead to increased information which allowed simple single-celled organisms to evolve over billions of years into all the lifeforms we see today.
The remeainder of this post is from http://creation.mobi/time-no-friend-of-evolution.
The problem is that the relentless net effect of random mutations is actually degradation or complete destruction of function, and these mutations build up in the genome (including the human genome!). And the longer that people are on the earth, the worse it’s going to get, with increasing incidence of birth defects and other obvious symptoms of genetic disorders such as cancer. (Cancer is fundamentally the result of mutations within our body cells. And increasing evidence indicates that aging is due to the accumulation of mutations within the cells of our body.)
Such is the alarmingly high rate of increase in the human population’s total number of accumulated mutations (i.e. the genetic load or genetic burden) from generation to generation, that evolutionary geneticists are bewildered as to why we haven’t already become extinct. For example, evolutionary geneticist Alexey Kondrashov asked, “Why aren’t we dead 100 times over?” However, their puzzlement arises because they believe that humans have been on earth for at least 100,000 years (some would say a million years).
In other words, the fact that we’re not extinct indicates that the human genome has not been around long enough to deteriorate to lethal levels, yet that doesn’t fit the evolutionary timeline—hence their bewilderment.
But for Christians, all this should be no surprise (Romans 8:21–22). The fact that we’re still here, with such a high rate of mutational degeneration, is powerful evidence for the Bible’s 6,000-year timeline of human history, with only about 200 or so generations since our ancestors Adam and Eve were created with their ‘very good’ physical bodies (Genesis 1:31). Further confirmation is that the genomic decline is consistent with the decrease in longevity after the catastrophic population bottleneck at the Flood (Genesis 6ff.). And this also helps us to better understand the generational timing of the injunction from God to Moses prohibiting marriage between close relatives (Leviticus 18:9, 20:17; Deuteronomy 27:22)—this became necessary to minimize the risk of deformed offspring that can result from shared mutations between genetically close parents.
Mutations are the opposite of what is needed for molecules to man evolution. Instead, mutations will eventually be the death of us all if Jesus doesn’t return first! This would be absolutely frightening and depressing if it weren’t for the hope we have in Jesus for new heavenly bodies. Amen.
The Truth is revealed through different mediums. Just as the scriptures point to the Truth, creation itself points to the Truth. In fact, the creation was The revelation of The Creator long before scripture as we know it was needed to help guide mankind back into relation with The Creator . . . who is The Truth.
The universe points to The Truth. The earth points to The Truth. Our bodies point to the Truth. All created things ultimately point to the Uncreated Truth.
Not only is man guided to The Truth through the ancient scriptures, man is also guided by the creation. As man continues to examine, and gather, and contemplate, the evidence the creation reveals, science will march forward. Science isn’t static . . . it changes as man’s mind is open to consider new theories based on what has been learned up to that point. We all know that as time continues that the landscape of current theoretical thought changes. That is how man got to where he is today, by being free to think based on the evidences at hand. Although the physical evidence we find in the creation will not contradict The Truth revealed in the ancient scriptures, we know based on our forefather’s handling of evidences that the physical evidence we find in the creation may contradict “our interpretation” of what The Truth is.
Most all old earth creation (OEC) and young earth creation (YEC) advocates approach the OEC and YEC debate the same way . . . as we would expect. They base their positions on current evidence and/or current theory and/or currently held interpretations of the ancient scriptures. In other words, it is all based on current time.
Time progresses, though. Our understanding of the laws of science and the formulated theories currently held WILL CHANGE. We should also keep in mind that interpretations of the ancient scriptures have . . . at times . . . not been accurate and that the possibility exists that we still have some strongly held beliefs that aren’t quite what The Creator meant for us to hold.
All of the things stated above to support YEC are well stated and sound good. The proponents of OEC also have well stated positions that sound good. And both are based on current time. Nothing currently stated in the above series of responses invalidates the proposition that God may be the author of an evolutionary process that continues to this day. Our understanding of how evolution “may” actually work is in its infancy. And that understanding has to be free to change and follow the evidences that surface.
The truths revealed in our physical world and in the ancient scriptures are going to arrive at the same place because they both are a revelation of The Creator, but one cannot override the other. Our currently held interpretations of scripture should not be the judge of the progression of science. If the scriptures did not contain references to a six day creation, I strongly doubt that it would ever have occurred to any reasonable person to come up with a six day creation theory.
The ancient scriptures do not interpret science. But science can reveal theories and truths that help us better interpret what scripture says. Whenever we read scripture, we draw from our knowledge we have learned and experienced in this world to aid our understanding. That is the only way we have a basis to comprehend the meaning of words. We must keep our minds open to what God may reveal to us in the physical creation and be patient with the slow progression of science. Give man a chance to continue to observe his world. In the meantime, we know that there is a creator and that he is God who rules supreme with the world in his hands.
Charles,
First, a minor detail, you meant the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, not Newton’s 2nd law of motion. The former concept was developed in the late 19th century long after Newton had died. Now, moving on, there may be some pedagogic value in using order and disorder as a metaphor to help explain entropy in the classroom. However, it has led to some misunderstandings. Entropy has to do with the movement of energy, how energy states are distributed and how mixed up things are. With regard to response of a hypothetical scientist, you said “I will bet a dollar that he takes this general rule of observed physics and tries to limit it to heat in a closed system”. Yes, that is how the concept and the equations describing it were developed, by considering what goes on in a closed system. And so of course that is how science students are taught about entropy. The equations were defined and derived for closed systems and hence that is where they are applicable.
After spending years contesting the young-earth creation-science position(s) with Bert Thompson being my chief opponent, I developed a simpler way to address the issue and demonstrate why it is that young-earth creation-science promoters have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges.
It’s a rather simple critical thinking exercise with emphasis on young-earth creation-science; and it does what I claim for it without the tedious attention to technical scientific details and bantering.
Interesting, an anonymous promoter of the CMI organizationreferenced a number of times in the above comments was the most recent candidate for the exercise but he “cut and ran”. The anonymous young-earth creation-science promoter is known throughout the Internet as “bonesiii” and he even has his own website at: http://bonesiiitruthseeker.webs.com/ .
Beware, though, he has tried to represent his tangle with me on a number of pages at his place and his presentations are filled with false and/or misleading claims. He would not negotiate for a proper exchange and would not come to my place for a more open and honest consideration of his young-earth creation-science problems. I have archived the substance of my dealings with him at my place. Otherwise, our bantering took place on The Christian Post venue.
In the final analysis, to no surprise to those in the know, the ultimate demonstration as a result of my little exercise in critical thinking with emphasis on young-earth creation-science is that the reason young-earth creation-science promoters fail in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges is because their fundamental position is reasonably summed up as being:
> We, young-earth creation-science promoters
> have out interpretation of the text regarding the
> age of stuff, and that trumps any evidence and
> its interpretation to the contrary.
That that is the case is reflected in the statement of faith of the CMI organization and its US counterpart Answers In Genesis.
If there be any here who would like to attempt to work through the simple critical thinking exercise which involves a critical analysis of my “Goliath of GRAS” argument, you have an outstanding invitation to come around my place and I will lead you through the exercise.
Here’s the address to my place: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/
I’ll turn a light on for y’all over there (e.g., post a copy of the message here over at my place).
Robert, whatever happened to Bert? It came out that he had a problem, a desire for young men, He must have led a mentally tortured life all those years. Even though I disagreed with him 100% on his approach to evolution, the age of the earth, apologetics, etc., I hope that he has found spiritual support and people who love him and help him.
I don’t know the story of what became of Bert and his marriage and his two sons (I think he had two sons).
I have seen some comments in days gone by indicating certain preachers continue to be in contact with him and he’s up to something or ‘nother.
Anybody else out there know that story?????