Neil's Approach To Science Apologetics...

 

This is an attempt to crystalize my personal approach to 'Science vs. The Bible'... or Creation v. Evolution... etc.  [See Worldview Toolkit for our common bin of apologetics thoughts, ideas, links.]

 

While this document is primarily intended for my personal reference and not at all for a debate here, I do welcome your (Bible-believing) inputs here, in the form of adding discussion bullets at the very bottom, or by adding your thoughts directly into my text if you'll color them uniquely.  To do so may sharpen my understanding or ability to concisely enunciate a biblically-reasonable approach to this important field of apologetics (IMHO).  So thanks in advance. *smile*

 

"There are two ways to live: you can live as if nothing is a miracle; you can live as if everything is a miracle. 

I believe in the latter."   Albert Einstein

 

*****************

 

Humility, in light of a vast -- no, unlimited -- universe of knowledge... If we might be humble enough to be honest here, we would all readily admit that even COLLECTIVELY we ‘know’ only a fraction of the total information in the universe TODAY, would we not? Much less, the universe of all ages... [but for the potential for special communication from the Creator Himself.]

 

Conjecturing backwards in time has all sorts of foibles... Thus we would at the very least be very careful in our conjecturing backwards from observations today… about things back to the very beginning. Uniformitarianism is a danger assumption which cannot adequately be tested empirically -- it's an assumption taken only 'on faith'.  In fact, II Peter 3 tells us straightforwardly that it's an error made by 'scoffers'.  Conversely, only an omniscient being could have that complete perspective.

 

A fatally flawed objective:  There is no plausible naturalistic theory re the original spark... from nothing into something.  The apparent target empiricism seeks is by definition fatally flawed since empiricism is based on cause/effect yet philosophically seeking a first effect without a cause.  Thus since no one has yet come up with a plausible theory of how something came from nothing, humans have a currently insurmountable logic-gap (empirically)… which should make empiricists considerably less adamant about what they think they ‘know’ about ageless history past.

 

Nature is not eternal.  But something must be.  Empiricism is based on observations of cause/effect.  Thus by definition empiricism sees something... eg. the universe... and knows it has a cause... although also knows by definition that it cannot measure its own cause with its own 'rules' of nature.  The universe's cause by definition must be by something outside itself.  Something (or Someone) that has the power of eternal self-existence... ie, something defying our rules... something that created our rules, even.  Something that understands us while we cannot fully understand 'it' (or Him).

 

Naturalists have no 'standing', to bring a logical case for Big Bang/ Evolution.   Within a court of law, before any other evidence can be offered to proceed with a case, the party pursuing the action must have legal 'standing'.  In this case though, those who would seek to present a naturalistic case that, if they are correct, will reduce themselves to that of an advanced-stage (and certainly unintelligent) 'spark'.  Without the ability to reason, they lack legitimate  'standing'.  Eg., no animal -- much less an inanimate rock -- can bring a case into a court of evidence because it lacks the ability to reason to a legitimate conclusion.   Were I to accept the preponderance of ’science’ theory to date, I would believe that I am only a product of unintelligent randomness… thus by definition incapable of knowing ‘truth’ if I happened upon it.  At the very least, this realization should return us quickly to the Humility bullet above.

 

So tell me again why I should believe (most) ’scientists’ somehow know truth?  Surely we should limit our discussion to only include 'scientists' with a special ability to reason... ie, those who will present evidence they've been specially endowed with 'intelligence' from an 'intelligent source'.

 

You can’t have it both ways — either we’re all unintelligent by definition… or there IS an omniscient intelligence who created us… and who, alone, knows everything including history past. And who may, or may not, share that truth with us. And if so, only the intelligent would accept his communication to us.

 

Relying on 'written evidence left at the scene'… as a forensic scientist might do. Scipture tells how the universe came into existence. And if we're willing to accept it plainly, it tells us how old it really is. Moreover, it self-validated by foretelling the future. And it foretells your & my futures, depending on your acceptance of it.

 

No such thing as 'random' even.  ["Take a chance.  Help me understand 'random'.]

 

Debunking evolution is an appropriate endeavor; but trying to make a case for special creation via observable data is an inappropriate endeavor.  [Someone correct me if I'm wrong, please.]  Christ-followers believe in wildly super-natural events -- miracles we call them.  As such, by definition they are outside of 'nature'... and not subject to natural measurement.  Thus we assert that the evolutionary assumption of uniformitarianism is not just suspect, it is fatally-flawed.  Thus neither can we present an airtight empirical case for a young earth, for instance.

 

Moreover... Theistic evolution is from the outset an equally flawed endeavor.  The moment a Christian asserts any 'super-natural' intervention in the space/time continuum, is the moment they can no longer logically draw conclusions simply from empirical evidence, because that empirical evidence is mysteriously flawed... not to mention, uniformitarianism is invalidated.

 

Suppositionally... Ex nihilo creation MUST result in created objects which appear to be more mature than they truly were.  If trees were 'poofed' into being, how many rings did they have?  How old did the rocks appear to be?  How old did Adam appear to be, scientifically-measured?

 

So did God 'trick us'? That's a foolish question, given that He told you outright.  Fact is, He told you point-blank that he poofed the trees into existence.  And mankind.  He enumerated a series of begats.  Jesus himself validated that Adam & Eve were 'at the beginning' (thus not having evolved closer historically to Jesus' time than the beginning).  Scripture asserts the miraculous throughout its pages.  Of course He's operating outside natural laws and (our) logical conclusions.  His ways are much higher than our ways, and his thoughts much higher than our thoughts.  To say otherwise is to reject His Divine Kingship and fly in His face.  According to the Bible, this is exactly the sort of behavior of those who will face eternal wrath following His righteous judgment someday.

 

That being said, I totally believe in a young earth, based on scripture.  Scripture not only is filled with chapters upon chapters of wildly miraculous accounts, scripture itself claims (and I believe it) to be miraculously created, and offers self-validation via prophesies fulfilled, martyrdom and personal testimonies in lives today.  This special revelation from the Almighty is the best 'evidence' we have for history past, present day understandings, and promises about the future -- notably our continued future with the Almighty, eternally.

 

For a believer to try to read evolution into the Bible (eg. days=eons) is to introduce a whole new set of logical issues.  For instance, what will you do with the 'order' of creation?  Remember, scripture says that light was created before light-emitting objects; plants were created before terrestrial objects.  Moreover, death -- according to Jesus -- came via one man (Adam); without death there would have been vast amounts of life present in Adam's day... Yet the Bible says that Adam was lonely in the garden.  And how does one reconcile no-death with a survival-of-the-fittest evolutionary mindset?  Further, if we read Jesus as an historical person... and go backward through the 'begats' to King David... and continue backwards reading literally, which 'begat' in Genesis shall we then start reading as 'allegory'?  Doing so opens Pandora's theological box -- any of us can change anything to mean anything.  A plain reading can't be trusted.

 

Theistic Evolution -- An Oxymoron.  What would be the goal of ‘theistic evolution’? Would it be to somehow reconcile naturalism and the Bible? Ask yourselves, how could someone reconcile miracles (super-nature) with empiricism (using only observations in nature)? Could theistic evolution ever reach a point of being able to empirically explain/reconcile how the first-effect appeared empirically to be some ‘age’, while in fact at the same time accepting that it was truly only ‘poof’ old?

You can’t have it both ways… Theistic evolution can at best only be poor theism or poor evolution, or both.

 

Hermaneutics... If we lay aside any motivations to make scripture say what WE want it to say, it reads very easily in terms we all understand (if we want to)… evening, morning, day, year, etc. Plain hermaneutics yield a pretty compact conclusion that the earth is less than 10,000 years old.  

 

Moreover, Jesus effectively affirmed a young earth by alluding to Adam & Eve as being present near the ‘beginning’… That is, they didn’t evolve into being historically-closer to Jesus’ time, than the (true) beginning.

 

But Genesis is not the only wildly-miraculous portion of the Bible — it’s only the beginning. I also believe Exodus, taken at face-value. Also Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Isaiah, etc… all the way through a New Testament filled with wildly-miraculous events.

 

The wildest miracle of all... In the final analysis, despite all the weight of evidence logically opposed to it, I believe what scripture says about loving me enough to die to pay the liability for my sins. Go figure.

 

Non-miraculous = Non-theistic... To limit our understanding of reality to ONLY empirical evidences is to limit ourselves to a non-theistic existence.  And trust me, you wouldn't want that -- it's the stuff that hell is made of.

 

Lack of viable alternatives... No one has posited a reasonable theory about sparking nothing into the first something. Nor have they ably explained away Isaiah (and so many others) foretelling of a merciful suffering Messiah… 700 years in advance. Nor why eye-witnesses of Christ (& his miracles & resurrection) would suffer martyrdom rather than recant their stories.  Seems to me the ‘intelligent’ thing to do would have been to roll-over and come clean. Unless of course, they feared God rather than man.

 

And finally... Re the ‘trickster’… Perhaps there is something that needs to be said here that’s not yet been said out loud.

 

[I realize that those of you who haven’t actually read the Bible are at a disadvantage. Otherwise, you’d know there are many more avenues you could pursue, like the following. But I’ll help you for a moment…]

 

Perhaps like a kindly ‘magician’ who’s not REALLY trying to get you to go home and saw your little brother in half; instead, he’s challenging you to perceive truth from him. Similarly people in Jesus’ day asked why He so often spoke in parables instead of just telling them plainly. Here’s his answer from Matthew 13…

He replied, “The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. This is why I speak to them in parables:

 

“Though seeing, they do not see;

though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:

” ‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding;

you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.

For this people’s heart has become calloused;

they hardly hear with their ears,

and they have closed their eyes.

Otherwise they might see with their eyes,

hear with their ears,

understand with their hearts

and turn, and I would heal them.

*******

Be a little humble for a moment, for your own sake, and ask yourself… which group are you in? Which group would you like to be in? What’s keeping you out, really? And who are you arguing with, anyway?

 

 

 

'EVOLUTION' tags.

 

 

 

 

Discussion points:

• Note:  The above has been long overdue -- I've thought of doing it a million times, but didn't hit the NEW PAGE button until today, after finding myself commenting yet again at other sites -- in this case, at the lengthy discussion on World Mag Blog re Young Earth Creationism.  [Neil]
• All scientific theory is based on an hypothesis.  An hypothesis as defined by the lead scientist on the Manhatten Project and noble winning phycisist, Richard Feynman, is nothing more than "a guess".  Any assertion made by a scientist setting out to establish a body of evidence leading to the formation of a  theory begins with an hypothesis, a guess.  That guess can be wrong.  [M. Reed]
• The imprecise use of language can alter our perception of scientific discovery and theory, creating its own bias, eliminating scientific impartiality. G. K. Chesterton notes an example of this modern (leading to postmodern) verbal and written transposition by demonstrating the use of the word spiritual for the word good: "The greatest disaster of the 19th century was this: that men began to use the word "spiritual" for the word "good".  They thought that, to grow in refinement and uncorporeality, was to grow in virtue.  When scientific evolution was announced, some feared that it would encourage mere animality.  It did worse: it encouraged mere spirituality.  It taught men to think that, so long as they were passing from the ape, they were going to the angel.  But you can pass from the ape and go to the devil."  What Chesterton means in connection with people favoring the argument for evolution is that this favoritism often is based  on how society has conveyed its approval for evolution over creation through the mis-connotation of words, rather than a decision to accept evolution over creation based on critical thinking.  [M. Reed]
•  
• Humorous anecdote from Ken Ham... "A man came to me after a seminar and said, ‘Actually, I’m an atheist. Because I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in absolutes, so I recognize that I can’t even be sure of reality.’ I responded, ‘Then how do you know you’re really here making this statement?’ ‘Good point,’ he replied. ‘What point?’ I asked. The man looked at me, smiled, and said, ‘Maybe I should go home.’ I stated, ‘Maybe it won’t be there.’ ‘Good point,’ the man said. ‘What point?’ I replied.   This man certainly got the message. If there is no God, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality? How can one even rationally believe that there is such a thing as truth, let alone decide what it is?"
• Ken Ham's approach to debates... "We have the same facts -- we just interpret them differently."
• Ken Ham's "New Answers Book"... an online book (as well as 'in print').
• Just for fun... "A One-Bit Theory of the Universe" (by who else?  LOL)

•  
•  
•  
•  
•  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Create your own free wiki!Support Community Add to Del.ici.ousPublic, not yet premium Privacy Policy RSS