Dr. Bahnsen science and creation.

[Cajun Huguenot]

In my opinion, one of the most gifted Christian thinkers of the 20th century was Dr. Greg Bahnsen. Bahnsen is probably best known as an “apologist” or defender of the Christian faith. He has debated and crushed a number of prominent academic atheists this includes his legendary debate with Dr. Gordon Stein (Read more here). Greg Bahnsen, was (he passed away in late 1995) a man of great learning and simple faith.

The quote below is from a paper he wrote about biblical revelation and modern science. Bahnsen said:
Despite the enthusiasm of modern science in pursuing study and research on the "origin of life," it must be recognized that all questions of origins fall outside the realm of empirical science! ... In the matter of origins, where the scientist can neither observe nor experiment, one is left to depend either on guesswork speculation or infallible revelation.

Bahnsen makes a very important point here that is missed by most Christians and non-Christians alike. The study of origins can not, by its very nature, be "science" as it is defined in the modern world. The study of origins is philosophy and theology and can never be truly “empirical” science. When scientists speak of origins in scientific terms they are promoting their philosophy, religion and worldview not empirical facts.

Observation, experimentation and verification are the methods used in empirical science. None of these are possible for the creation, because it is an event that took place before man came on the scene. The evolutionist is an evolutionist by FAITH and not by science. He believes as he does, not because it is proven scientifically, but because he chooses to. It is his leap of faith, and it is a great leap.

For the Christian to bow to modern science and attempt to make the Christian faith fit with the evolutionist faith; is to compromise with a false religion that is always changing. Evolution is atheistic religion and not science.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Kenith

PS. The audio from the Bahnsen/Stein debate are available: Monergism Books, or you can read a transcription here. The audio was online at "The Great Debate: Does God Exist?" but the link is not working tonight.

 

[AndOne]

Using the methods of observation, experimentation, and verification can be conclusive in determining whether or not we were created. The methodology of empirical science may not say who the creator was or how the creating was conducted - but when done from a purely unbiased point of view - it can a does prove that there is (or was) a creator.

The problem with evolutionary science is that it is more focused on fossil records and speculation about the way things must have been than on the reality of existing life in our time. When one looks into the biochemical make-up of all currently existing life on our planet (down to the germ) it becomes quite clear that there is no possible way that life as we know it sprung out of nothing - or that it was started suddenly and started evolving. The evidence says otherwise - the bottom line boils down to who is willing to take an unbiased look at the real proof and accept it.

So I suppose I would say that I disagree with Dr. Banshen's quote above - mainly because I believe it is possible to observe and experiment in the matters of "origin." It simply depends on where you look. If you look to the past as the evolutionist does - than most assuredly you are stuck with a lot of speculattion and guesswork.

 

[PapaLandShark]

It is available ( part 1 and 2 ) at Podcast.net

http://www.podcast.net/tag/debategod

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Using the methods of observation, experimentation, and verification can be conclusive in determining whether or not we were created. The methodology of empirical science may not say who the creator was or how the creating was conducted - but when done from a purely unbiased point of view - it can a does prove that there is (or was) a creator.

The problem with evolutionary science is that it is more focused on fossil records and speculation about the way things must have been than on the reality of existing life in our time. When one looks into the biochemical make-up of all currently existing life on our planet (down to the germ) it becomes quite clear that there is no possible way that life as we know it sprung out of nothing - or that it was started suddenly and started evolving. The evidence says otherwise - the bottom line boils down to who is willing to take an unbiased look at the real proof and accept it.

So I suppose I would say that I disagree with Dr. Banshen's quote above - mainly because I believe it is possible to observe and experiment in the matters of "origin." It simply depends on where you look. If you look to the past as the evolutionist does - than most assuredly you are stuck with a lot of speculattion and guesswork.

Hello Behe's Boy,

Thanks for the comments. I think there is some misunderstanding. Bahnsen certainly had a high view of the abilities of the scientific method to discover many important things. I am sure he would have its usefulness in finding out about life and its many wondrous complexities and even about probabilities, but this is not what he was speaking about.

An evolutionary scientist can only speculate and guess about what he THINKS the young universe or the young earth was like. He did not observe them and he can not reproduce what he did not see in his laboratory. He believes what he does because of his faith in non-theism.


Modern scientist like Michael Behe (I’ve ordered his book) and Michael Denton (I’ve read him) have written important books showing how Darwin’s theories fall short of what empirical science has learned about the vast complexities of life on the microscopic level. These things are of great value to us, but this is not what Bahnsen is talking about.



He is concerned with the philosophic underpinning and presuppositions of the evolutionary scientist. These scientists speculate many things that are beyond the realm of empirical knowledge, yet they speak of their view of origins as though it were based on empirical knowledge, but it is not.



What empirical knowledge we do have, and can observe, contradicts their theories at many points. Michael Denton, Phil Johnson and William Dembski et al. all do a good job showing this to be so.



The evolutionists can not reproduce and observe what he BELIEVES to be the origins of the universe or life. He can speculate and have faith that the things he does observe agree with his theory, but this is faith and not empirical science.



Coram Deo,

Kenith

 

[edie19]

Another forum I sometimes go to has a current thread on evolution vs creationism (intelligent design). I'm thinking I'll be recommending your link.

edie

 

[AndOne]

Kennith - I assumed (you know what happens when you do that - don't you) - that Dr. Bahnsen was referring to all study of origin in life. The quote you posted looked to me to lump em all into one conglomerate - evolutionists, creationists, IDers, etc. I will check out the link you posted and have a listen....

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

I know .

Kenith