Being recently and well reproved, I am sorry to have wasted so much time on unprofitable things as this arguing science, “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called (1 Tim 6.20):” Let us strive for better things. “Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things (Philippians 4.8).”
Archive for the 'Science' Category
I recently initiated a conversation with a scientist by email. He stated on his site that he believes in an old earth and evolution and is an orthodox Christian. I offered that there is a much easier way to resolve the issue of a seeming old earth in light of the Genesis account of creation. To be clear, I disagree with the notion that it is somehow necessary for salvation to apprehend every doctrine of Scripture to be saved, but I think that it is incumbent upon us to believe those things that are plainly taught as they are presented, and it is imperative to understand the gospel aright.
First, I wrote him explaining that I did not believe in an old earth. I offered an explanation that I think is both reasonable and logical given the tenor and context of the passage. That said, here is a modified portion of that conversation:
Adam and Eve were adults when God created them. He was able to name all the animals and they worked in the garden, understood and reasoned both with God and the serpent, etc. There is no scientific evidence for a young earth. The scientific evidence is for an old earth. but the reason from scripture is that God created the earth not in infancy, but in maturity. [Furthermore, it seems illogical that the earth could have performed all those things necessary to sustain human and other life if it had not been created in adulthood.] You cannot prove it. If you could, it would not be of faith, and we would receive less blessings by it. Consider, Jesus told Thomas (John 20.29), blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. Likewise, the preamble to the “hall of faith” in Hebrews 11:
1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
2 For by it the elders obtained a good report.
3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.
5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
I don’t believe in some fundamentalist notion of checking your brain at the door. But I do believe that it is apprehended by faith, not “so-called science (1Tim 6.20).”
I believe that all things were created, in that respect, in an adult form. All the ‘suns’ and stars and satellites and planets. All the animals, all the plants, they were all mature and able to reproduce and do those things for which they were intended at the point they were created.
In his response, he said that he thought that for God to create the earth and universe in maturity was deceptive. To which I responded:
I think that the idea that it is deceptive is strange, considering that if a person did take [Genesis 1] at face value (since [his view seems to be that] it would be acceptable for a Christian to take either [a literal or symbolic/hyperbolic] view), they would logically assume that Adam was mature at creation, and so was Eve. [Likewise,] the plants produced fruit, etc., [which proved] their maturity (in the third day: he created plants and herbs which made seeds after their kind—Gen 1.11-13). Rather, within a literal understanding—which is the most plain and likely historical understanding—it seems only logical that all things were created in their maturity.
…It is not necessarily a requisite that a man believe the creation account for salvation, and further it is not saving in itself to believe it. Consider that the thief on the cross may not have understood much about the earth’s origins, and the Pharisees held much orthodoxy, but not in a saving way. However, that passage does not seem to be hyperbolic, consider the use of the words evening and morning and day, they do not seem to be indicative of ages, etc. I know that passages in the Scripture are figurative: the wings of God (metaphor), the anger of God (anthropomorphism), all Judea came to see Christ (hyperbole), etc. That passage does not, however, seem to use those or other similar literary devices [specific to day-ages, etc.].
It seems also likely that without our current scientific understanding it would have been impossible for saints of old—like Abraham and David and Mary—to have held a consistent orthodox view of our earth’s creation that was internally, scientifically consistent. So, which is stranger? That God would create the earth in maturity, or that it would take 5800 years for a Christian to comprehend the nature and extent of God’s creative work?
God was pleased as it says in the scriptures to confound the wisdom of the wise. Consider:
But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; (1 Co 10.27)
Jesus thanked God for hiding things from the wise:
In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight. (Luke 10.21)
Would it be unlawful for God to keep people from understanding these things?
I will try to develop this more later. While I would not hold that you must believe the way I do about the issue of the mature earth, I would say that you should always believe God rather than man, and man’s so-called science, when they conflict, because they will.
It is ridiculous to think that I can cover so many bases in one story. I am only posting it now until I can pull it down and piece it out into separate stories.
In a recent story in news.com.au, Sarah Kate Templeton (London) said that children are bad for the planet, in her story, Children ‘Bad for Planet.’ Her thesis is basically this: the more children people have (especially in developed nations) the more resources we use, which leads ot a greater carbon footprint. Neat! What does that mean to real people?
Of course that means that the world is headed for gloom and doom. The fallout is going to be terrible if we don’t change our ways. What is carbon (dioxide) really doing for us? In 1997, Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT gave testimony to the senate on this subject. During which he cited from the American Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):
Our ability to quantify the human influence on global climate is currently limited because the expected signal is still emerging from the noise of natural variability
There are a couple problems with this whole global warming thing: it is at its root godless. It presumes that science is king, not God. But science is man’s knowledge, where the Bible is God’s knowledge. Men constantly waffle and bend on their views, noteworthy among them is the fact that in the not-so-distant past, American scientists thought we were headed for an ice age, and thought it was prudent that we ramp up to curb the ebb of that activity. Now we are saying that we are headed for global warming.
The hypocrisy of the media is not helpful. They continue in the pattern of Dan Rather, Jayson Blair, CNN’s Iraq coverage, and the BBC’s coverage of all things American, to spin things that they think are appropriate. The problem with that is that they don’t have the knowledge to keep them from being bowled over by their interviewees. But they do not mind, because they are looking for a scientist to support their own theses, not for the most honest or correct. This is the very problem that science has always had: if you go into your work with a hypothesis, you will slant your work. If you go in without a hypothesis or direction, you will not know where to begin or end or what to collect.
Reporters are no different. They don’t know what they are talking about, they only find people who seem to. If reporters knew what they were talking about, they would be the expert and reporters would be asking them the questions. So where does this leave us?
We need reporters, because we live in a democratic system, and they help us to make informed decisions, they ensure that our right to know is maintained, and a bunch of other cliché tripe: We are not guaranteed (so far as I know) a right to a fourth estate (which acts more like a fifth column anyway). The only right to know we seem to be guaranteed is by the Government, and that is only the stuff that they say we are allowed to know with the freedom of information act. We are not a democracy or a democratic republic. We are a representative republic, we are probably most akin to an aristocracy.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (2001, May 2). On the Climate Change Debate. Cambridge, MA: Lindzen, Richard S. Retrieved July 17, 2006 from the World Wide Web: <http://eaps.mit.edu/ /faculty/lindzen/Testimony/Senate2001.pdf>
There are three scientific thoughts which run parallel to each other and which are technically separate from one another, but are truly logically intertwined, and are in a most wicked friendship: atheism, Darwinism and modern thought on geology. They are at the face separable, and they are at the root separable, but somewhere in between, they are of a very strong accord.
Evolution is a belief based in Darwin’s thought that gradual transitions in the composition of animals (transitional forms) allowed for species to make adaptations to their surroundings over time, which would allow them to thrive in any circumstance, and become increasingly complex and well-suited to their environments.
Phyletic Gradualism (PG) is the assertion that evolution takes place in slow progression. Notable among the illustrations is the lizard: who seeking for an ever-escaping food source begins to stretch its neck and its scales, over time, become feathers, etc. until it is able to leave the ground for its food source.
PG has generally been left in light of the new school of thinking, called punctuated equilibrium (PE). This considers evolution to occur in fits and starts. A lizard could give birth to a sort of intermediate bird lizard thing that may in the future give birth to a bird through successive generations, but not with the generations of gradual changes, rather in a few short steps that may be rather abrupt.
Already there are a number of insurmountable problems with this line of thinking: Namely among them are sexual reproduction, speciation, cellular and genetic biology, etc. If the Lord allows addressing those topics will come later.
Recent Comments