Creation Science

Resha Caner said:

Advocates of creation science: What do you think is the fundamental distinction that separates creation science from other scientific investigations of life's origins and changes?

Click to expand...

Hi RC,

I'm not convinced that science is the right word to use when discussing the creation event. I have always held that the creation events were all miracles. It is outside of the abilities of science to explain or give any type of understanding for how miracles happen. Or what evidence may or may not show or be available to to explain the result of a miracle.

God bless you
In Christ, Ted

Resha Caner said:

OK. So do you think there are ways to reason about creation other than science, or do you think it is merely a matter of hearing the creation account and believing?

And what do you think of attempts to prove creation through science?

Click to expand...

HI RC,

Yes, I believe that there are ways to reason about the creation event outside of science. In fact, I believe that that is the only way that man can understand the creation event. You see, friend, it is science that teaches us that the account as given cannot possibly be true. That there must be some other way to understand the plain and simple text of the account, because the plain and simple text of the account cannot possibly be true. Basically, science tells us that if the creation account were true in the simple way it is explained in the Scriptures -- it would have to be a miracle.

Well, duh!

But then they proceed to lay out all the scientific evidence to show that it wasn't. That the earth did exist billions of years ago because the scientific evidence of light 'proves' such.

I don't think the creation account can be proven through science. Miracles cannot be proven through science. Only disbelief in miracles can be 'proven' through science. There are, of course, some things we can look at that would lead us to believe that the earth and the universe are only a few thousand years old, but most of those are overwhelmed by other evidences based on similar scientific principles, that say that it isn't. But even those things that might lead us to a conclusion of a young creation, can't really prove the age of the creation, they can only give us reason to pause and wonder.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

miamited said:

But then they proceed to lay out all the scientific evidence to show that it wasn't. That the earth did exist billions of years ago because the scientific evidence of light 'proves' such.

Click to expand...

In case you didn't know the starlight problem is a problem to the Big Bang theory as well which why it called for a supernatural event called inflation. So even scientist has to call on the supernatural as long as it doesn't included God.

I do agree that science can't prove creation as it has a hard time proving anything. (You can't even use science by itself to prove the universe actually exist.) But that doesn't mean that scientific evidence can't point toward creation and God.

If the universe is created by the Word of God just like the movie "Frozen" was created by the "word of man" then this means the universe was created by that which is outside of this universe. Even scientist believe in what they can't see like dark matter, dark energy, 11 dimensions, multiverses, etc again as long as it doesn't included God.

It is really about looking at scientific evidence through a biblical lens. Rather than looking through a secular lens. Many of th sciences were started by those believed in God as creator and saw science as getting into the mind of Adam since the fall has stopped us from having perfect knowledge of God.

classicalhero said:

It is really about looking at scientific evidence through a biblical lens. Rather than looking through a secular lens. Many of th sciences were started by those believed in God as creator and saw science as getting into the mind of Adam since the fall has stopped us from having perfect knowledge of God.

Click to expand...

But was the Bible communicated to and through ancient man ever attempting to be a science text?

The ancient Hebrews believed the earth's core was flooded with water they called the Great Deep?

They had no concept of the earth's molten core.

random person said:

But was the Bible communicated to and through ancient man ever attempting to be a science text?

The ancient Hebrews believed the earth's core was flooded with water they called the Great Deep?

They had no concept of the earth's molten core.

Click to expand...

Hi RP,

Yes, but what the ancient Hebrews believed, whether this particular belief you think they had is actually correct or not, is not the issue. Still today, people believe a lot of different and contradictory stuff. It really isn't important to us what ancient Hebrews believed. I think there is ample proof throughout the Scriptures that much of what they believed was not, in fact, the truth according to God and the testimony of God's Son. God reveals to Isaiah that he has reared up children but they have not understood. We can go clear back to when God first revealed himself directly to the Israelites when bringing them out of Egypt and apparently a whole host of Israelites considered their god to be a golden calf that they shortly made for themselves. Claiming that this calf would be their god. Sadly, most Israelites have never fully understood their God. So, why would we expect to base our faith and what we believe on what ancient Hebrews believed?

In the matter of the golden calf, God allowed some several thousand people to be put to the sword that day that it all came to a head. God obviously wasn't pleased with what they believed. Why would you be? The Scriptures are to be rightly divided by an individual. Setting aside all that we have been taught and setting before us the pure words of God and trusting them and them only. I don't really care what some group of people have convinced themselves to be the truth. I don't take the words of others and say to myself, "Let me see how I can align what they believe with the words of God." I don't have any idea whether they know the truth. I don't know a single one of them and certainly now, some several thousand years later, have any way of knowing an individuals heart who lived thousands of years ago. What I do know is that God's word is true.

So, for me, when I am considering another person's beliefs, I say to myself, "Let me take the words of God and see how they line up with what they believe." I often find that I'm not much in agreement with what some ancient peoples believed and I think the Scriptures are clear in a number of places that many of those ancient peoples, even those claiming to be God's children the Israelites, didn't understand and didn't believe what God expected them to believe.

I think one would be hard pressed to read through the gospels and not come to an understanding that the leaders and the people of Israel, as a whole, rejected their Messiah. Do you think they knew and understood the truth?

No, the Scriptures were never intended to be a 'science' book. They were always intended to be the truth.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

This is a illustration of ancient Hebrew cosmology, basically a giant snowglobe suspended in water, with the heaven of heavens and God residing above both.





Then why is creationism in conflict with science? Creation science is notoriously known for its dishonesty and underhanded tactics, not to mention its representative "scientists" are banking in booksales and speaking appearances. What has creation science contributed to the science and the classroom academia?

Its truly ironic, they support a literal Genesis creation account while at the same time they reject the ancient Hebrew cosmology.

Hi RP,

The idea of an entire existence being miraculously spoken and brought into existence by merely the command that it exist is in conflict with science because 'what' was created cannot prove 'how' it was created by such means. There is no way to prove that something just came to exist because its creator made it all from nothing but his own power and glory. The only proof that can be offered is that the Creator says that that's how it was done. Whether we believe that or not is a matter of how much trust we have in the Creator.

If you and I stand face to face and I hold out my hand and say, "Let there be a widget in my hand", and suddenly a widget just appears in my hand, how would you prove that I did it to someone who did not witness the event? The only proof you could offer would be you and I saying to them that that's how it was done. However, knowing what we know through the 'scientific model' no one would believe us.

Personally, the irony is lost on me. I don't see the least amount of conflict in believing the literal Genesis account of the creation and rejecting things that an ancient people believed about the creation. Especially when I have so much evidence that those same people didn't understand a lot of the other issues. Personally, I find the irony reversed. How ironic it would be that, though they didn't understand a lot of the other stuff, I expect them to have understood correctly about these things.

Finally, while your graphic is well done, no one has any idea what people believed 4,000 years ago. We can guess, based on some evidences, but we can't prove what a person thinks in their mind, yet. I contend that your graphic doesn't really show what people believed in that day, but rather what we expect they might have believed if they took every word of God that was even written after they lived as specific truth. The article makes mention of rain coming out of doors. Depending on how far back you go in your search for what an ancient people believed, the Israelites coming out of Egypt didn't have those words written when they conceived what the earth and the heavens would be like.

As far as we know, as the Israelites traveled through the Sinai the first five books of the Scriptures were written. None of the 'evidence' of weather coming out of doors and the earth being suspended on pillars had been written at that point, so, how do we 'know' that that's what they believed?

God bless you,
In Christ, Ted

miamited said:

As far as we know, as the Israelites traveled through the Sinai the first five books of the Scriptures were written. None of the 'evidence' of weather coming out of doors and the earth being suspended on pillars had been written at that point, so, how do we 'know' that that's what they believed?

God bless you,
In Christ, Ted

Click to expand...

NASA still used the word "window" yet they don't believe in a solid dome. It's just practical to used words like "window" and "doors" in common day language. When I driving down the road in my convertible as see a wall of rain up ahead it appears as if the "windows of heaven" open up and let the rain (waters in heaven) pour down. We used the term today "it's raining cats and dogs."

Through all the years I read the Bible I never once thought it refer to a solid dome but the firmament as the positions of the sun, moon, and stars to tell time and seasons. The ancient people studied the movement of stars heavily. They no doubt would have saw objects in space move around like comets, planets and meteorites ( falling stars).

Note that picture has a 2012 copyright which is evidence it's totally a product of modern day man. The flat earth myth is also a product of modern times.

Hi smidlee,

Yes, and our friend doesn't give man credit for having knowledge. We live in a world of great technological advancements, but one of the problems of all our patting ourselves on the back for all the 'new' stuff that we know is that some tend to then think that the mankind of a few thousand years ago was stupid. Despite the fact that still today we use stellar measurements that have been used for centuries to guide ships. Despite the fact that we still marvel at the Egyptian's ability to build great things and must have had some knowledge of basic geometry and engineering techniques. Despite the fact that we still use geometric theorems that were conceived in ancient times by the Greeks.

I look out at the moon on a clear night and I can actually discern the spheroid shape of the moon. I can note the rising of the sun and know that it didn't get in its rising position by going back over its path across the sky at night. People have traveled fairly great distances for centuries and surely would notice that the sun rises at different times in different places. The only explanation for this phenomenon is that the earth's surface is circular. If the earth were flat, as the drawing shows, then the sun would rise at the same time all across the earth's surface. As soon as it passed the horizon in the eastern most part of its flatness it would also shine on the western most part of its flatness.

Now, possibly Adam hadn't put all this together in his life time, but surely 2,500 years later when the Israelites came to be, they would have this basic knowledge. I contend that those who believe that ancient man couldn't read and that ancient man was fairly ignorant regarding the structure of the earth, are just plain wrong. Man has always sought for knowledge regarding himself and his surroundings. The Israelites especially placed great emphasis in teaching their children. God commanded them to put His commands on their doorposts and to wear them on their foreheads. To teach their children about Him. Of all the nations of peoples on the earth, the Jews have always been known to have a form of writing and there is absolutely no indication that there was ever a time that the general population couldn't read what was written.

Finally, God has said that he sets our sin as far as the east is from the west. There is good reason that He chose east and west and not north and south. As a spheroid shape, we can travel forever in an easterly or westerly direction and we will always be going east or west. Not so if we travel this same spheroid shape in a northern or southern direction. Once you pass the poles going south, you are then going north or vice versa. So, we can travel east and as long as we continue to put one foot in front of the other going in the same heading, we will always and forever be going east.

But, my years of loving the Lord have opened my eyes to understand that man's heart is wicked, who can know it. We will climb nearly unscalable walls and dive down to the deepest depths to find a shred of a possibility that what He says cannot possibly be true. I'm an old man and not in particularly fit shape. My days of trying to scale those walls or dive into those depths is over. I'm left with just trusting that the God and creator of this realm in which I live has told me the truth and man, just like the pharisees and teachers and people of Israel; man, just like those in Egypt who conceived of a plethora of gods to worship, just doesn't understand.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Hi RC,

I'm not sure that your target idea applies, but this is what I know. Eve was not satisfied with the knowledge that she was given by God. God told her that if she ate of the tree, she would die. Satan told her that that wasn't true. She had to test what was the truth.

The desire to discover is not wholly a bad thing. Joseph, when put in the cistern and sold to a band of nomads headed to Egypt was being punished by his brothers. Later we find that Joseph tells them that what they did for evil, God used for good. The internet is a wonderful method by which people can share valuable information with other people all across the globe near instantaneously. However, it can also be used to spread hate, as is the case with many hate-filled sites. It can also be used to spread sexual sin, as in the plethora of pornographic sites.

Man, thinking that he is gaining knowledge and understanding, has come up with some pretty wild ideas, especially in this matter of spiritual things. Many religions have a laundry list of major and minor gods that make up their core understanding of such things. Even the Scriptures mention that there was a time that a man would sacrifice his own children to satisfy what they believed were the desires of some of these gods. Man's heart is wicked! Most of us, however, aren't willing to allow that that fact applies to every man.

We look at the acts of horrible murderers and rapists and such and easily identify that person as having a wicked heart, but I firmly believe that our hearts are wicked in each and every one of us, until we come to understand and know God. Even then, according to Paul, we still struggle with the wicked desires of our heart. It has been my experience that once a man is born again, he becomes even more and more aware of just how wicked his heart can be and is. That man begins to see himself as God sees him and he stands crying out to God just as the tax collector did, "God have mercy on me, a sinner."

However, let it be clearly understood that this realization only comes to those who are born again. Paul also writes of those without the knowledge of God. That they do all sorts of wicked things and approve of those who do them. They don't see themselves as sinners! They think of themselves as good people who, for the most part, are doing good work and living a good life. This applies to those in the field of science and those in every other field. They think to themselves just as the people on the plain of Shinar saying, "Let us a build a tower that reaches up to the heavens." They believe they are doing right and they believe that they are gaining great knowledge about the creation. I'm just not convinced that they are.

All I'm saying is that the Scriptures seem to clearly explain that our existence, this realm in which mankind lives, is explained to us as having been miraculously created in a matter of time described as days and confirmed as each consisting of an evening and a morning. It is explained to us that this entire created realm was made by God merely commanding that things be that are not, in a span of time of six days. We are then told that on the sixth day God created Adam and God then delineates the line of Adam's descendants with their years of life.

All of these things taken into account give me an understanding that this created realm has existed for about 6,000 years. But, when I look into the wisdom of man through science, I find that that's considered impossible. But God has told us that He is the God of the impossible. If something did happen that is impossible, then God did it.

How can I explain that the light of distant stars just suddenly appeared spread all across the universe in a moment? I can't. Other than to say that God can do it. How can I explain that the dirt on our entire planet was, in moments, covered with fully formed and mature plants? I can't. Other than to say that God can do it. How can I explain that in a matter of the span of a day the entire universe was filled with every star and planet and asteroid and such that we know is out there? I can't. Other than to say that God can do it.

But, when I read and apply the whole of the Scriptures, I begin to get an understanding of what God is doing. His plan, if you will, for this realm. He created! In a matter of just a few of what we call hours that make up for us a week, all that exists in this realm. I see that He created all of this realm so that a new creature, unlike all the angels that He created, could live and breath and have life within itself to enjoy God and who He is and all that He has done. Another creature, much like the angels, that He would love and have communion with and enjoy just as He does the angels. This creature was to be lower than the angels in its abilities, but no less loved and cared for. And He desired of this creature, just as He desired of the angels, to love Him in return. But just as with the angels, man rebelled against His love and nurture.

God seems to have known that if the angels did, then man surely would. But His plan was different for man. There doesn't seem to be any provision that we are told of in the Scriptures, for an angel, once having rebelled against God, to be made righteous again. However, for man, God had predestined that He would send a Savior and that for all who would repent and turn back to Him, that they could be returned to the fold of the righteous.

So, God began, through the Scriptures and a nation of people that He raised up from among the peoples of the earth, to have His testimony written down. He began that testimony with the account of how He had made everything for us that we would have life. He continued through His testimony to tell us how He had raised up Israel as His people to do His bidding upon the earth. He then tells us, through this testimony, of a way of salvation. Then He completes His testimony to us of how all this that He created in a mere six days, will come to an end just about as quickly. That He will then make everything new again and those who have believed Him will enjoy the eternal life that they were created for. Friend, I believe God!

This realm of existence came to be created in mere moments and it will be brought to a close in mere moments by the power and glory of our Creator, God. For those who have heard His cry and listened to His instruction and made their freewill choice to love Him as our Creator and Sustainer and Provider, they will be given to drink of the fountain of the water of life. There will never more be pain or suffering or tears or crying as we live eternally with Him. Where He will be our God and we will be His people.

When I understand all of this, I have no problem understanding that this realm in which we live; this earth surrounded by the stars of the heavens and all that is in and on them were merely spoken to exist by the power and glory of God who was setting in place an existence for a creature He was to make - called man. Science has done some wonderful things in helping us to gain knowledge of the here and now of our existence, but when science tries to tell us things for which they have no way of proving other than extrapolating the natural properties of things as they exist now back through ages past, and that explanation seems to contradict what God has told me, then I apologize to all those who think of me as ignorant or unwise, but I'm going with God.

Finally, Paul, in the new covenant writings that were being written in an age where much of the 'scientific methodology was coming on line, warns us to not be swayed by arguments that are based on the natural properties of things. Why? Because God does not work 'with' the natural properties of things, but in spite of the natural properties of things. The natural properties of things are what causes life to continue in this realm. That the sun shines every day. That water feeds plants and drives their capillary systems, etc. But when God works; when God sets out to do something, the natural properties of things are out the window.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Resha Caner said:

Advocates of creation science: What do you think is the fundamental distinction that separates creation science from other scientific investigations of life's origins and changes?

Click to expand...

Creation science presumes that the God of the Bible was behind the creation of what we see: the stars, the planets, and all life on earth.

Resha Caner said:

Advocates of creation science: What do you think is the fundamental distinction that separates creation science from other scientific investigations of life's origins and changes?

Click to expand...

It's a variation of theology that can be categorized as natural theology, a bit higher in the academic hierarchy then natural science and there is a reason for that. For the most part natural science is an examination of natural phenomenon while Christian theism, creation being one of it's central tenants, is metaphysics aka ontology. The epistemology of science is what may be known of the natural world while creation is a core doctrine involved in the substantive principle that transcends all of reality including God and the miraculous nature of redemptive history, past, present and future.

Creation science is a look at the scientific data from a perspective of the Christian doctrine of creation. What would be far more informative is to ask what is the doctrine of creation and how it relates to theory and philosophies of natural history.

Resha Caner said:

Advocates of creation science: What do you think is the fundamental distinction that separates creation science from other scientific investigations of life's origins and changes?

Click to expand...

Lack of workable hypothesis, workable scientific definitions and the ability to falsify.