The purpose for these articles is to assure you that the accusations made against Christianity are not valid. No matter how intellectual they may sound, there is another, more accurate side to the story.
When discussing the subject of science and the Bible, we must first remind people to discern between true scientific conclusions and conclusions based upon a worldview. If something cannot be observed, tested, experimented upon, and repeated, it is not scientific; it is a guess.
Evolution is a still theory, despite the recent trend to insist it is a fact. The television show CSI is cited as an example of experimenting on the past, but it is not the same thing. Crime Scene Investigators use information in the present to arrive at conclusions in the very near past. If you are going to use CSI as an example, I will remind you of what happens to a crime scene each hour that passes. The evidence becomes less and less reliable. Footprints are rubbed out. Blood is washed away. Fingerprints are smudged. Elements speed up or slow down decay making it difficult to get an accurate time of death. Now imagine trying to solve a cold case that extended back millions of years. It would be impossible! You would need to be able to trust any of the evidence. Yet, Evolutionary Science tries to make accurate predictions with each crime scene in the fossil layer.
1 Timothy 6:20-21 instructs, “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith.” The word “science” in this verse means “the act of knowing.” It refers to the necessary processes needed to arrive at knowing, which is what science is supposed to be. Paul’s warning is against the process of knowing that is untruly named. It is a warning against false biases and tainted data. It would include trying to take the Creator out of His Creation, thereby corrupting science with ungodly agendas. You need to be able to discern between actual scientific conclusions and those conclusions based upon a worldview.
We could talk about many things to point to the holes in the theory of evolution. We could focus on polystatic fossils, which are fossils that lie in many layers supposed to be separated by millions of years. We could talk about fossil graveyards, meaning various fossilized remains consisting of animals still available presently and extinct animals existing in the same location and rock layer. We could talk about interchangeable rock layers, which are alleged older rock layers being above alleged younger rock layers. In each of these cases, the evidence points to a worldwide flood and contrasts millions of years of evolutionary process.
For the sake of space, we will confine our discussion to the age of the earth, which seems to be the strongest evidence against the Creation account in the Bible. After all, don’t the various dating methods prove that the earth has been around for millions or billions of years?
When talking about dating methods, you need to know that sometimes different dating methods give contradicting dates. For example, geologists studying the Cripple Creek mine in Colorado dated fossilized wood found at the gold mine. The test dated the fossilized wood at 41,260 years old, while the volcanic rock layer in which the wood was found was dated at 32 million years old. 1
The argument evolutionists give, when dating methods fail, is that a few failures does not do away with the methods. But, wait a minute, proof against your theory DOES necessitate that you change the theory. It’s a scientific rule! The theory of evolution and millions of years has been so ingrained into our science that we accept it as fact, because they call us names if we do not bow to their supposed superior intellect.
Well, I can think and reason as well. You only have to look at the assumptions necessary for the dating methods to be accurate in order to rethink the theory of millions of years, unless you have something invested in the earth being billions of years old.
Let’s look at the assumptions for dating methods. 2
The system must have been a closed system. This means that the object could not have been altered by external factors, that nothing inside the system could have been removed and nothing outside the system can be added to it.
This is why police secure a crime scene. In order to do an accurate assessment of the crime scene, you cannot have people tainting evidence by adding fingerprints or taking away murder weapons.
The system must initially have contained none of the daughter component. For example, in the Uranium-thorium-lead method, the parent (uranium) is gradually changed into the daughter (lead). For the method to work, it is assumed that no lead was present in the object to begin with, all the lead is a result of the transition from uranium.
If you sit down at a table and automatically add salt to your food, you are assuming that there was a certain amount of salt to begin with – none, or not up to your taste.
The process rate must always have been the same. The component of the system and the relative proportions of the two are considered to be an index of the time since initial formation of the system.
You use your oven as if it is properly calibrated. You bake your cake according to the recipe at the same temperature for the same amount of time.
So, what’s the big deal with these assumptions? Let’s see:
There is no such thing in nature as a closed system.
Even at a police crime scene, time and temperature are enemies of properly evaluating the evidence. Foot traffic wipes out footprints. Hands smudge fingerprints. Someone may plant evidence or take evidence away that incriminates them. There are so many components that can taint even a closed system. The dating methods make conclusions as if the item being dated exists in a vacuum, when the truth is that this item has been exposed to the elements.
It is impossible to ever know the initial components of a system formed in the past.
In adding salt to your food, you may find your assumption was wrong and you have added salt to food made by a salt-lover like yourself, and now your food is overly salty. Even further, you will never know if your great-great-great grandma’s food needed salt added. Why? Because you were not there to see how much salt was added to her food, if any. You can only deal with the food placed in front of you. The dating methods make conclusions as to how much salt great-great-great grandma used in her food by basing it on how much salt they personally use in their recipes. No process rate is unchangeable.
Ice melts at different temperatures. Time leads to decay. A flame will vary depending upon oxygen levels. Catalyst are substances that speed up reactions. Without being present to observe the past, we will never know how drastically a process rate has changed.
If your oven is not properly calibrated, your cake will take more or less time to bake. By trying to follow the recipe, you may end up with a runny or burnt cake.
The next time you hear someone casually attach millions or billions of years to an artifact or a fossil, remember that science can never observe the age of something and the dating methods are unreliable at best. We can only make educated guesses about the past. We would need a reliable historical record to learn about the past. Thankfully, we DO have such a source when it comes to how we got here – the Word of God.
No, the Bible is not a science textbook, but the Bible is not anti-science. Daniel 1:3-4 records, “And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring [certain] of the children of Israel, and of the king’s seed, and of the princes; Children in whom [was] no blemish, but well favoured, and skillful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as [had] ability in them to stand in the king’s palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans” (emphasis mine).
Daniel 1:6 says, “Now among these were of the children of Judah, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah.” Hmmm. Faithful worshippers of God understood science. Christians believe in a spiritual world, but we don’t deny the physical realm. Both of these co-exist in a way that we will never fully grasp this side of Glory. Although the Bible is not a science textbook, the Bible is not anti-science. The Bible actually has a lot to say about scientific processes. When God created the sun, moon and stars on fourth day, He created them for light, days, years, and seasons. He made it necessary to study His creation.
The Scriptures praise the creation. Job is told, “Hearken unto this, O Job: stand still, and consider the wondrous works of God” (Job 37:14). The word “consider” in this passage means “to see, gaze.” If anyone should be interested in knowing about God’s Creation, it should be Christians.
The Bible records examples of scientific processes (e.g., evaporation) and facts (e.g., the shape of the earth) before a scientist proved it. True science and the Bible are not at odds. It is the humanistic, evolutionary science-falsely-labeled and the Bible that are at odds.
“When I consider Thy heavens, the work of Thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which Thou hast ordained; What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the Son of Man, that thou visitest Him?” (Ps. 8:3-4)
Christians should love to study God’s Creation and worship the Creator. The biggest difference for the Bible-believing, born-again Christian is that we glorify God and not the one doing the observing.
Another important difference between the evolutionary scientist and the Bible-believing scientist is the humility that the scientific process brings. When we stop to recognize the glory of God announced in His Creation, we admit our unworthiness to stand before such a magnificent, holy Being. When we stop to consider the small amount of space we take up in the vastness of the universe, it makes us grateful for the fact that God considered us special enough to send His Son to die for our transgressions. Upon studying the earth and the Heavens, we know there is no way an awe-inspiring, eternal God should have motivation to redeem the human race from the effects of sin and death, unless He loved us.
This is exactly what the Scriptures record, “But God demonstrated His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8). The Creator of all that we observe, even though we were undeserving, sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to die in our place for the sins we committed. Jesus Christ arose victorious three days after His death to seal the provision of righteousness before God. We are implored to turn from our perceived self-sufficiency, admit our need for Him, and trust that the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ secures our salvation and a home in Heaven one day.
Don’t let the seemingly scientific answers of fallible, finite man keep you from the logical truth of an infallible, infinite God. The honest evidence points to your need for Him. Place your trust in Him today.
2 Morris, Henry M. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books. 1985.