This is the third 21st Century Bible paper prepared for St Johns Hensingham. In them I

investigate various topical issues from the starting point that the Bible is the inspired

word of God. Previous papers ("Marriage, Divorce & Remarriage" and "Abortion &

Euthanasia") can be found on the St Johns website and are available on request in

paper form. The scope of this paper is enormous (it should really be a book!), so to save

space I will not always quote every scripture I refer to. Also I will not consider all

possible viewpoints and I apologise in advance for this. I will try to concentrate on what I

believe are the fundamental issues. However, if anyone feels I have missed out

something important they are probably right! Sometimes in this paper I refer to Science

with a capital "S". This means modern day science, which has an explicitly atheistic

slant. All Bible quotes are from the NRSV unless otherwise stated.

Introduction

There is a story that on a wall in New York was inscribed the following graffiti:

God is Dead signed Chico

Underneath someone had written:

Does Science (meaning current scientific observations and theories) prove or disprove

the Bible? This is a common way of looking at this topic. However, I suspect a better

question is: Does the Bible prove or disprove Science? Atheists and liberal theologians

say, “The Bible is a fairy tale – signed The Science of Origins.” However, by much the

same logic we can say, “The Science of Origins is a fairy tale – signed The God of the

Bible.” In this paper I shall attempt to show why this is so. I shall examine the following:

 A brief history of science of relevance to this paper.

 What is Science?

 What is the Effect of Science on the study of the Bible?

 What can the Bible tell us about scientific matters?

 Does the Evidence we have support Creationism or Atheistic Science?

 What about Intelligent Design?

This paper is not a comprehensive enquiry into the details of the science of origins,

Creation Science and the debate with current orthodoxy, although I shall provide some

examples. There is plenty of written material on the subject for those who wish to

investigate further.

1

In modern times the debate has mainly been about how science “proves” or “disproves”

century. However, with the Enlightenment this fell out of favour and many scientists

began to believe either that God did not exist or if he did he was no longer directly

involved in the material universe. Despite their faith Christians took this on board and

Creation Science has made a comeback amongst evangelical Christians. In scientific

circles the concept of “Intelligent Design” has also resurfaced and become a

controversial issue.

Science is as old as humanity. Basically it is an attempt to make systematic sense of

the world we observe around us. We put things in categories, e.g. plants and stars and

then we make theories about them that might or might not be true, e.g. stars are the

visible manifestations of the gods. People who specialise in this we might call scientists.

An early scientist was Solomon who studied biology (1 Kings 4 v 33). The ancient

Greeks made many impressive scientific discoveries, e.g. Archimedes principle, which is

useful in designing boats. Various scientific ideas came and went, including Democrites’

hypothesis that all matter is made of tiny particles called atoms. However, this idea was

unpopular and he lacked the ability to prove it. It took 2 thousand years for this

hypothesis to be reconsidered and proved more or less right.

The pagan world generally believed that the universe was full of spirit beings who were

largely responsible for what happened. Most people were concerned with their

immediate welfare and they believed there were gods who controlled all aspects of daily

existence, e.g. the sun, the harvest, the weather, the outcome of wars etc. The spiritual

world was regarded as real and it was thought to interact with the material world. As a

result there was no clear distinction between matters we might nowadays regard as

religion and what we might regard as science. E.g. astrology combined ideas about the

gods with rigorous observation of the heavenly bodies.

Much early science centred on the stars and planets using the naked eye for its

observations. The invention of the telescope and other scientific instruments meant that

new and unexpected observations could be made. Scientific instruments combined with

advances in scientific method and mathematics enabled science to develop rapidly from

about 1600 onwards. Arguably the greatest scientist of all time was Isaac Newton

(1642–1727), who showed that the physical world “obeyed” mathematical laws. Newton

believed in God. Like other scientists of the day he believed that God was a God of

order and he was discovering how God operated His universe.

not operated by God directly, but instead is more like a machine. They believed that

God must have set it in motion, but it now operates all by itself without the help of any

spirit being (Deism). Science became the study of the physical machinery that is the

universe. It was a small philosophical step to doing away with a creator god altogether

(Atheism). In essence the argument became that the machine had always existed and

2

always would – it had no starting point. From a scientific point of view one of the main

arguments against atheism was that the universe - and life in particular - is too complex

to have arisen by purely natural processes. This is the argument of Intelligent Design

and its most famous protagonist was William Paley (1743 – 1805).

However, three British scientist/philosophers played a large part in undermining belief in

this argument. The first was Charles Lyell (1797-1875), who argued that the Earth was

not about 6,000 years old as the Bible taught, but instead was very old. He said that the

small changes in the Earth that we observe today – earthquakes, coastal erosion etc

have always occurred at this rate. This is Uniformitarianism. If we want to know what

happened in the past we only have to measure the rate of these processes happening

now and work backwards. He claimed that the rocks confirmed his hypothesis. This of

course ruled out events such as Noah’s Flood. (In fact the evidence does not support

his hypothesis. E.g. There is massive evidence of catastrophic events in the rocks, but

this paper is too short to review the evidence and I merely make the assertion.) Lyell’s

work was well received and he is considered the father of modern geology.

Lyell influenced a scientist named Charles Darwin (1809-1882), who applied his ideas to

biology. In his famous voyage in the Beagle he noted that in the Galapagos Islands

different islands had slightly different species of animals. E.g. there were finches with

different sizes and shapes of beaks. He hypothesised that the different species of

finches originated from a single common ancestral species. (Modern Creation scientists

believe he was right.) Following Lyell he reasoned that you should be able to work

backwards and find earlier and earlier “ancestors” of the various forms of life we see

today. This is a bit like starting at the tip of a branch of a tree and working back to the

trunk. He believed that this process would eventually end up with the earliest ancestor of

all which would be some very simple form of life. He said that the fossils in the rocks

supported his argument. Although he accepted that the fossil record did not show a

smooth transition from one species to another he believed this was only because all the

evidence was not yet in. He expected future discoveries of fossils to show species

gradually and smoothly changing from primitive organisms into advanced species. Like

many scientists (and the rest of us) Darwin also had personal motives for his beliefs as

well as a desire for the truth. He detested the Christian doctrine of a final judgement and

the eternal destruction of a large part of humanity, including those he cared about. (In

fact the fossil record has never shown the smooth transition from one species to another

that Darwin expected. In addition Darwin had no knowledge of modern genetics. He

accepted the now discredited theories of Lamark as the mechanism for inheritance.

However, I do not have the space to discuss this further.)

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection immediately aroused tremendous

interest and debate. His theory gained acceptance principally from the efforts of

Thomas Huxley (1825-1895). Huxley argued that although life is very complex, given

enough random events and enough time life would form spontaneously. He used the

analogy of monkeys typing randomly on typewriters. He claimed that given enough time

they would produce a psalm or a sonnet or even a book purely by chance. His clever

analogy effectively destroyed the argument of Intelligent Design – at least for the time

being. (Huxley did not back up his analogy with any mathematical analysis – after all it

3

was only an analogy. However, some have bothered to do this and it is doubtful that the

monkeys would have been able to type Psalm 23 correctly even if they had many billions

of years. The information content in even the simplest life form is hugely greater than

Psalm 23, so his analogy fails.)

These and others made atheistic science both plausible and accepted. From now on

science became the study of the universe-machine and God became largely irrelevant to

science. Since atheistically based Science has become accepted as the best way we

have of investigating the real world, atheism has increasingly become the dominant

practical way of looking at reality. Belief in God has become a matter of personal

preference of no practical significance to society. Perhaps it is as a result of this that our

society can “celebrate” any and all religions as poetic expressions of human questing

after meaning, truth etc. The implication is that they are all equal partly because they

are all equally untrue as descriptions of the origin of the universe.

Since winning the battle for atheism in science, Science has continued to develop. In

particular it has become highly professional with systems of accreditation involving peer

review of scientists’ work. Any scientist who dares to put forward a piece of work

involving a serious consideration of Creation Science or Intelligent Design will almost

certainly not have that work accepted in mainstream journals. They may also risk losing

their job. This is on the grounds that these issues have already been dealt with, the

subject is closed, and they are being “unscientific”.

However, the issues will not go away, not least because there is mounting evidence that

the current thinking about origins is flawed. Various scientists and philosophers have

pointed this out, including those who are non-Christian and who have no time for the

Bible. (Perhaps the strongest evidence is coming from biochemistry and cell biology.

The irreducible complication of even the simplest cell is mind-boggling. It is becoming

increasingly difficult to imagine how life in any form could arise by chance. )

This is essentially the science of origins that was accepted by scientists such as Newton,

but brought up to date with modern scientific methods etc. Because they are denied

access to orthodox scientific journals etc Creation Scientists, have been developing a

small alternative scientific community with its own system of peer review, journals etc.

Creation Scientists are scientists who are already accredited in their own fields, and who

believe in the Biblical account of creation.

Despite its lack of acceptance by the Scientific hierarchy Creation Science has

considerable support at grassroots level from many Christians, especially in the USA.

As a result there have been a new round of public controversies as sympathisers of

Creation Science and Intelligent Design have sought to have their ideas respected and

expressed publicly. Atheistic Scientists and their sympathisers are attempting to confine

Creation Science and Intelligent Design to the unrespectable fringe of science by

defining it as religion.

4

The word Science derives from the Latin word meaning to know. It has come to mean

knowledge about the universe gained by using certain techniques as follows:

 R igorous and repeatable observations. As an example we observe that the sun

rises and sets every day in a set pattern that repeats on an annual basis. Ancient

civilizations all over the world made these observations. This is the beginning of

science, but human observation by itself is often very limited and sometimes

misleading. In the ancient world there was no way to prove by observation the

belief of a few that the Earth circles the sun and not the other way around.

 U se of scientific instruments. E.g. telescopes, cameras, standardised

questionnaires, etc. This extends our ability to examine the universe. Without the

right instruments science is “blind” to much of reality. For example, no scientist

knew of or even suspected the existence of galaxies before telescopes were

invented. There may be many other objects in the universe that current science

cannot observe. We don’t know what we don’t know. It is important to note that

there is no scientific instrument for detecting God or other spirit beings. Since

Science has no way of observing whether they are there or not it is in a poor

position to say whether they exist or not.

 U se of Prior Assumptions. Science does not work in a vacuum. Scientists always

start from a particular worldview, which provides the starting assumptions. E.g. in

the former Communist Soviet Union all science had to be compatible with Marxist-

Leninist theory. This led to much error, but the scientists within the system had

no choice if they wished to be funded and their work published. In our culture all

science has to be compatible with the principles that everything has a natural

explanation. This is of critical importance. Science has not disproved the Bible -

it has merely decided that it will only consider natural (as opposed to

supernatural) explanations and gone on from there to try to find plausible

explanations of both the universe in general and the Bible in particular from that

starting point.

Because science (like all human endeavour) operates in the present it has

particular difficulty telling us about the past and the future. There is no way of

travelling forward and backwards in time to test out our theories. We live on the

surface of a planet and so we also have difficulty investigating whatever is

remote, e.g. space. In order to do so we must use various assumptions.

Scientific assumptions often sound very reasonable and much of the time they

probably are. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that they are not

proven. An example might be that the speed of light in a vacuum is the same

throughout the universe at all times. It sounds plausible, but we cannot test it

directly.

5

Particular assumptions of atheistic Science are:

Naturalism Everything has a natural, non-supernatural explanation. This

rules out miracles.

Materialism The material universe is all there is. This implies that any

experience of spirit beings e.g. God, angels, evil spirits is an illusion.

Determinism The laws of physics and nothing else ultimately determine

everything that happens. This implies that free will is an illusion. All we

think and experience is governed entirely by the physical functioning of the

brain.

Reductionism Ultimate reality can be reduced to simple physical

processes. E.g. if you can find which parts of the brain are active during

prayer you have found out what prayer really is. There is nothing more.

Humanism “Man is the measure of all things.” This makes mankind not

God the starting point and centre of the Universe. Right and wrong

become what is helpful or unhelpful to individuals and society. This makes

the thought of God’s judgement on mankind evil from a humanist point of

view.

Uniformitarianism Physical laws and processes are the same

everywhere and at all times. Most of the time this is a useful assumption

without which any form of science would find it hard to function. However,

if it is taken as an absolute principle it cuts out various lines of enquiry.

E.g. it rules out the Creation and Noah’s Flood.

Cosmological Principle This is the opposite of the Biblical doctrine that

mankind is the centre and culmination of God’s creation. It states that we

are nothing special living nowhere special at no particular time. It is

foundational to the atheistic Science of origins.

 H ypothesis and theory. Before a scientist starts an investigation to explain

something they usually have some idea of what the explanation might be. This is

called a hypothesis. This will usually build on pre-existing assumptions and

theories. The investigation is often designed to test out the hypothesis. If the

hypothesis is confirmed by the observations and becomes established amongst

the scientific community it becomes a “Theory”. Once a Theory is established

within the scientific community it is very hard to overthrow it. Any scientific

observations that do not fit are usually assumed to be false, or they are ignored or

the scientist is thought to be unprofessional, or efforts are made to show how the

observations can be made to fit after all. Occasionally a new Theory takes over

from the old.

For example, if the scientist already has a theory that the heavenly bodies go

round the Earth he may attempt an explanation of how this works. The Greek

philosopher Ptolemy (AD 120-180) theorised that the planets circled the sun while

the sun circled the Earth. This may sound ridiculous to us now, but at the time it

fitted the existing observations very well. Ptolemy’s theory was accepted for over

a thousand years. However, when the telescope was invented, Galileo (1564-

1642) observed that Jupiter had moons. This did not fit in with Ptolemaic theory.

6

As a result this observation was rejected and some in the Roman Catholic

establishment of the day persecuted him. However, the truth prevailed and

Ptolemaic theory was overthrown and replaced by the Copernican theory that the

sun is the centre of the universe. Further observations showed this theory was

also inadequate.

The current theory is that we live in an unimaginably vast and expanding universe

containing innumerable galaxies of stars and other matter. This fits the current

scientific observations well. However, it is always possible that new observations

will eventually overthrow this theory too.

Current scientific orthodox theory also says that our Universe is four dimensional,

not three. This allows the Universe we observe to have no centre and therefore

the Earth has no special place in it. However, this part of the theory is based

entirely on the Cosmological Principle, not observation. I understand that in fact

some current observations are not consistent with the Cosmological Principle, i.e.

we could be at or near the centre of a more conventional three-dimensional

universe. This is for various reasons, e.g. galaxies do not appear to be randomly

distributed. Instead they appear to be in “shells” more or less centred on our

galaxy. There may be another explanation for these observations, and doubtless

mainstream Science will assume there are. However, it may be that these and

further observations will eventually overthrow the Cosmological Principle and the

theory based on it.

 P eer review. Scientists are human with all the moral and intellectual weaknesses

of humanity. Before a scientist’s work is funded or accepted for publication it is

subject to review by other scientists. The purpose is to check that the work is

done properly and to sift out cranky or incompetent workers. On the whole this is

a useful check. However, the reviewing scientists are also human and may

themselves be biased against certain theories for political, moral, religious or

philosophical reasons. They will probably take a currently accepted Theory as a

yardstick – they may have to - and automatically reject anything that is out of line

without further consideration. Before a scientist receives a job or funding for their

work they will probably have to show that they operate within currently accepted

guidelines, both scientific and non-scientific. One of the commonly accepted

current guidelines is that everything has a natural non-intelligent origin. This is

done on purely philosophical grounds not because the evidence necessarily

points in that direction. God’s creation of the world is therefore ruled out of court

as “non-scientific”. Creation Science will therefore neither be published in

mainstream scientific journals nor receive government funding. (It is only fair to

point out that this is not the only science that will not receive funding. An atheist

scientist who wanted to investigate cosmology from a non Big Bang point of view

is also unlikely to receive funding.)

7

It is obvious that the philosophical assumptions lying behind modern Science are

incompatible with a traditional approach to the Bible. To take only one obvious example:

the Bible majors on supernatural happenings and yet Science assumes there is no

genuine supernatural. Those who accept the philosophy of atheistic Science will

therefore look for alternative explanations as to how so many references to the

supernatural arose in the Bible. This has led to the complex systems of theology

generally known as liberal theology. At its root it assumes that the authors of the Bible

were people of their time who made what we now know to be errors. The whole Bible is

systematically analysed from the perspective of these assumptions and various

speculations made about how such aberrant writings came about. In practice such

theologians have more in common with atheistic humanists than they do with

Evangelical Christians. We can see the outworking of liberal theology in such practices

as the promotion of multi-faith services, and the ordination of practising Gay clergy.

From the perspective of Science such practices are entirely reasonable and Christians

who object are (at best) out of date and out of tune with the realities of modern Science

and society.

Those who have followed my argument so far will have realised that there is no logical

need for science to start with the philosophical assumptions of modern Science. Before

the Enlightenment many excellent scientists such as Newton managed very well without

them. Instead we can start from the position that the Bible is what it says it is, i.e. “All

Scripture is Inspired by God…” (2 Tim 3 v 16). Of course it is not a textbook about

science. However, it includes things about what is there, including explanations

(science) and what has happened (history). This reads as real history and real science

and therefore if it is true it must be consistent with the real world we experience. Most of

it seems to be quite straightforward. Why should God tell us lies?

Of particular relevance for science are the following:

 Genesis chapters 1 and 2 tell us that God created the universe we live in and a bit

about how long it took him etc. This has huge implications for cosmology and

biology.

 Various passages throughout the Bible inform us that there is a “heaven” that is

normally inaccessible to us where God has His throne, where angels live and

where Jesus and dead believers now live, etc. E.g. 1 Kings 22. Because it is

inaccessible it is not capable of scientific investigation. This need not imply it

does not exist.

 Genesis 3 tells how things went badly wrong and explains the origin of death (The

Fall). This has implications for biology and psychology.

 The Old Testament provides genealogical information. E.g. Genesis 5. This

combined with secular history tells us that the Earth is approximately 6,000 years

old. This has implications for geology and biology.

8

 The account of Noah’s Flood in Genesis 6-8 tells how the world and its airbreathing

inhabitants, both animal and human were destroyed in a worldwide

flood. This has huge implications for geology and biology.

 Numerous passages imply that there are spirit beings who are usually invisible,

but who interact with the physical and human world. E.g. Acts 12. How they do it

is not explained and it would obviously be a difficult subject for scientific study.

However, it has implications for psychology and also implies that the subject

matter of parapsychology is real. However, the warnings of Deuteronomy 18 vv

9-14 imply that parapsychology is a dangerous area of study, perhaps because

many spirit beings are malevolent and will lead “students” astray.

 Various passages state that human beings are a combination of spirit and body

with the spirit/soul continuing to exist after death. E.g. James 2 v 26. How the

human spirit interacts with the human body is not explained. This has

implications for psychology and parapsychology.

 The Bible as a whole has implications for archaeology.

 Hebrews 1 v 3 tells us that Jesus, “… is the reflection of God's glory and the exact

imprint of God's very being, and he sustains all things by his powerful word.”

This implies that God/Jesus is very much in control of the universe, miracles are

possible and they may merely involve God/Jesus temporarily altering how He

operates His world. E.g. Mark 4 v 39. Because they are exceptional and usually

non repeatable they too are difficult to investigate scientifically.

For much of science the above will make little practical difference. Most science is the

science of the here and now – operational science. Evangelicals will agree with atheistic

scientists that most of the time the normal laws of physics etc. apply. They will agree

with Darwin that natural selection works on species to produce new species of a very

similar kind to the originating species (“micro evolution” as opposed to “macroevolution”).

Therefore in many subjects, especially in applied science, their investigations will be the

same as their non-Christian colleagues.

The big difference is to be found in the Science of Origins, i.e. how the universe and life

came into existence. Christians have been divided about how to cope with the challenge

science dealt with material reality while the Bible dealt with spiritual and moral reality.

Where the two clearly appeared to contradict each other then Science had the last word

and Christians would have to reinterpret the Bible accordingly. E.g. for many Christians

the six days of creation became a poetic expression of the fact that God created the

universe, but without any further literal meaning. God was supposed to have used

evolution as His means of creating the living world, etc.

A major problem with this approach was where to draw the line. E.g. Science said that

there were no literal parents of the entire human race named Adam and Eve. However,

if Christians accepted this they implicitly although unintentionally undermined other parts

of the Bible, some of which are very important. As a prime example, the Apostle Paul’s

passage about resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 depends for its logic on there being a

literal Adam. If there was no literal first Adam the whole passage becomes very dubious

and we cannot be sure of either Jesus’ or our own physical resurrections let alone

9

anything else! This approach to the problem left Christians either intellectually

“schizophrenic”, or if they were intellectually consistent their faith became weak or

nonexistent.

Another approach was to say that the Bible was accurate in dealing with material reality

– it just needed some reinterpretation. For example a major difficulty with Genesis 1 is

the fact that the universe we can see through telescopes appears to be very old –

certainly very much older than 6,000 years. In order to reconcile this with the Bible

some said that the six “days” of Genesis 1 must have been six very long periods of time

each of which was called a “day”. They pointed out that as in English the Hebrew word

“day” could mean both a literal 24 hour period and an indefinite period as in “the Day of

the Lord”. This approach seemed to provide a way of having the best of both worlds.

However, it has been heavily criticised by scholars from both evangelical and atheistic

camps as stretching the meaning of the Hebrew in unacceptable ways. However, for

many it seems to be the best way forward. Victor Pearce of Revival has been a major

protagonist of this approach.

A final approach was to take the Bible at face value without compromise. Where there

are conflicts between scientific theory and/or observation and the proper meaning of the

Bible the Bible is always to have the last word. God was the only eyewitness of the

events of creation and if He chose to record some of His observations in the Bible who

are we to call Him a liar? Implicit in this approach is the belief that there is always a

scientific explanation for what we observe that is consistent with a plain reading of the

Bible even if we cannot always know what that explanation might be. In particular this

meant:

 that the Earth was created about 6,000 years ago

 life was created in a few days

 the first humans were two people named Adam and Eve

 Noah’s Flood was a worldwide catastrophe that destroyed the whole world

except for the inhabitants of a liner-sized ark.

For a long time this approach had the disadvantage that it seemed to involve Christians

in wilfully closing their eyes to the scientific evidence. It seemed to be a “flat earth”

approach to the problem. However, it has become an increasingly popular as “young

Earth creation scientists” have pointed out that Scientific theory is based as much on

philosophical assumption as evidence. Also they have found increasingly plausible

ways of explaining the observations of science in a way that is consistent with the

conventional meaning of the Bible. Of importance have been:

 studies of the rocks using the tools of conventional science, but from a

Creationist point of view.

 the Mount St Helens eruption that provided a wealth of observations supporting

the plausibility of “young Earth” geology.

 the book Starlight and Time by Russell Humphries, which began to provide a

plausible explanation of the “old” age of the universe (billions of years), while

maintaining a “young” 6,000 year old Earth.

 the recent discoveries of biology that show how hugely and irreducibly complex

all known living organisms are. (This is considered strong evidence for

“Intelligent Design”)

10

 numerous generally unpublicised problems with the evidence for macroevolution

and the standard theory of cosmology that make compromise appear

unnecessary.

Answers in Genesis and other similar organisations are protagonists of this point of view.

(For what it is worth it is also my view.)

To some extent this is a trick question. It depends what prior assumptions are held.

E.g. a dinosaur skeleton is evidence of evolution to an atheist. To a Creationist it is

evidence of Noah’s Flood. Who is right? The problem is that there is no way of going

back in time to test the two theories directly. Instead the problem has to be approached

indirectly and the results are always open to interpretation. In essence the evidence

becomes a matter of what the individual and the scientific community finds more

plausible. Whenever difficulties arise with an interpretation it is always possible to invent

ways around them whatever view one holds. Atheists are quick to accuse Creationists

on this score. However, it works both ways, e.g. dinosaur bones have been found with

DNA still in them. According to atheistic Science dinosaurs died out millions of years

ago and so by their own science the DNA ought not to be there - it should have decayed

long ago. Creationists have no trouble believing that the dinosaur died only a matter of

thousands of years ago in Noah’s Flood. However, this explanation is not open to

atheistic scientists, so they have to assume that there is some other explanation for the

DNA. Because we cannot travel in time neither atheists nor Creationists can ultimately

prove their case, which is where the prior assumptions take over.

If you already believe in atheism and the assumptions listed above (see page 6,7) then

the evidence is inevitably interpreted in a way that supports your case. God is ruled out

and there are only the laws of physics combined with chance left as a mechanism.

There has to be some explanation for the universe and the current theories are perhaps

the best we have. To cope with any difficulties and “plug the gaps” you are likely to

propose the existence of ad hoc and unobserved entities. Darwin did this by proposing

the existence of fossils nobody had ever seen. This is no longer plausible so to plug the

gap you may say that such creatures must have existed, but they were never fossilised.

It is always possible to invent explanations for gaps, but at some point it ceases to be

genuine science and becomes a mere expression of belief. Even the well-known

protagonist of evolution, Richard Dawkins, admitted in a television interview that to some

extent his belief in evolution was a “faith”.

Similarly with the Big Bang Theory there are enormous gaps, which the scientific

community has “plugged” with unobserved hypothetical entities. (E.g. inflation, dark

matter and dark energy for the technically minded.) Not all scientists are happy with this

approach so there are alternative fringe atheist theories, which currently receive little

backing. This is an alternative way of plugging the gaps. However, the point remains the

same – prior assumptions are the foundation on which any theory is built. If the

11

observations eventually force a change in theory the change will always reflect the prior

assumptions used.

To cope with the enormous odds against life arising by chance some scientists have

proposed that we are in only one of numerous unobserved parallel universes. This is of

course pure and untestable speculation and shows the lengths Scientists are forced to

go to in order to be consistent with their belief system.

The list could go on. However, once we let go of atheistic assumptions then there is the

obvious alternative that the Bible is true after all! Creation science claims that in fact the

observed world is far more consistent with the Biblical account of origins than it is with

the atheistic Science of Origins. E.g. in their book Dismantling the Big Bang Alex

Williams and John Harnett compare and contrast current Big Bang and Creation Science

explanations for numerous observed phenomena and reach the conclusion that overall

current Creation Science provides a more consistent explanation.

The Intelligent Design Movement is a loose coalition of agnostics, Christians etc. They

are united in the belief that the complexities of the observed universe can best be

explained by having had a rational intelligence of some kind to design it. They point out

that searching for intelligence is a valid scientific endeavour – it is exactly what NASA id

doing in its SETI program. The aim is to develop a strictly scientific theory totally

independent of any particular religious creed. This would avoid the charge that they are

religious wolves in scientific clothing. However, atheistic Science is adamantly opposed

to the movement refusing it any recognition. It regards the movement as invalid and

“unscientific” because it does not accept the assumptions of Science as outlined earlier.

Some Creation scientists also have problems with it because to their mind it does not go

far enough and because it is based on science rather than on the Bible. However, I

think most Creation scientists would regard it as a valid tool in arguing for the credibility

of the Bible and reducing the credibility of current Scientific orthodoxy.

Science is often presented as a rigorously objective method of investigating the

universe. Much of the time this may well be true. However, scientists are human with all

that that implies. In particular they may well come to their science with underlying

assumptions that limit the kind of explanations that they are willing to consider. As

explained above, the science of origins is particularly vulnerable to bias and prejudice

because it is so hard to disprove any false assumptions. Three Bible texts relevant to

the subject of scientists are as follows:

12

Psalm 19

1 The heavens are telling the glory of God;

and the firmament proclaims his handiwork.

2 Day to day pours forth speech,

and night to night declares knowledge.

3 There is no speech, nor are there words;

their voice is not heard;

4 yet their voice goes out through all the earth,

and their words to the end of the world.

Romans 1

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness

and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth. 19

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has

shown it to them. 20 Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power

and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and

seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse; 21 for

though they knew God, they did not honour him as God or give thanks to

him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds

were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools;

Psalm 53

1 Fools say in their hearts, "There is no God."

My intention in quoting these texts is not to insult scientists – the Bible tells us that we

are all sinners and we all make many mistakes (James 3 v 2). My point is rather that

humankind has an inbuilt tendency to go astray and call it wisdom. Atheistic Scientists

may be able to persuade themselves and others that they are being wise and objective

when they assert that Science has relegated God to religious myth. Will they find it so

easy to persuade God who knows and will judge the secrets of all our hearts? (See

Romans 2 v 16)

1. Science has developed over the centuries. For most of that time the material and

spiritual worlds were thought to be real and to interact.

mainstream scientific investigation and explanation to the material world. Various

philosophical assumptions that contradict the Bible have ruled scientific

investigation ever since. God became irrelevant to Science.

3. This form of Science affected Christianity greatly. It was accepted by many if not

most theologians and led to the rise of liberal theology, which radically

undermines traditional Christian faith.

13

4. The response of Evangelical Christians to Scientific theories of origins has varied.

Some accept the findings of Science and reinterpret the Bible to fit in with it.

5. Others have challenged this approach and developed “Creation Science”, starting

from Biblically based assumptions. It accepts scientific observations but

interprets them differently.

6. Although Creation Scientists are accredited scientists in their own fields, the

state-funded Scientific community as such does not accept Creation Science.

Creation Scientists are therefore developing an alternative Creation Science

community.

7. Not only does Creation Science claim that their theories are compatible with

scientific observations, they claim that their theories fit the observed facts better

than orthodox Science. (I agree with them, but this is not the place to evaluate

such claims.)

8. We should not be surprised at the rise of and dominance of atheistic Science.

This is exactly the kind of error the Bible says is normal for sinful humanity.

Atheistic Science challenges Christianity on the basis of its prior atheistic assumptions,

not because the observations of science demand an atheistic response. This is a

circular argument, assuming what it sets out to prove. It is perfectly possible to have a

Biblically based Creation Science that explains the observed facts from a Biblical

perspective. Christians can attend church without leaving their brains at the door!

There is an embarrassment of riches in this field. My personal favourites are the

website:

www.AnswersInGenesis.org

and the book:

Dismantling the Big Bang, Alex Williams and John Hartnett (Master Books, 2005)

Mark Quigley

4/6/07

14