|
| |
Our Christian Faith and Modern Science
-A Position Paper-
M. R. Seiler
The history of mankind has seen considerable discussion regarding the
authenticity of the Bible as it may relate to the discoveries of science. What
is the Christian to do in the face of continual scientific references to such
issues as the age of the earth and the universe, and Darwin’s position on the
origin of species? Our children are being exposed to evolution theory in the
classroom, all the while being told it is fact. Television programs show
evolutionary trends in the fossil record, usually accompanied by stated ages
that are beyond the Biblical record. The lay person is not often equipped to
understand the many assumptions that are required to calculate the “age” of
rocks and fossils. He is not acquainted with the underlying philosophy or
approach to the scientific method, particularly as it relates to astronomy,
geology, evolution, and paleontology.
It is the purpose of this paper to provide an explanation of the proper approach
to understanding modern science, while simultaneously allowing for the
apologetics system of our faith in Jesus Christ. Toward this end a number of
science and Bible related issues, as they deal with human life and the world
around us, are explained below. It will be seen that there are areas where
science is strongly supportive of the Scriptures. When that support is lacking,
the underlying assumptions and methods of the involved science are examined so
that the Christian can be equipped to express opinions on the overall validity
of the research.
Severe Differences
Perhaps it is in the subjects of creation and evolution that the most
disagreement lies. We will start with the Biblical position of creation by God,
then present the fundamental theory of evolution. Recent scientific studies have
undermined the foundations of evolution theory. The Scientific Method will be
explained, and suggestions will be given for how our apologetics may be applied
to accomplish change in the world’s viewpoint, which is often hostile to the
concept of creation.
Creation
The Biblical record states clearly that “In the beginning God created the
heavens and the earth”. (Genesis 1:1). Psalm 19:1; Psalm 33:6,9; and Psalm 148:5
repeat this theme. Over a 6 day period He created light, heavens, dry land,
vegetation and trees, stars, the sun and moon, creatures of the sea, birds,
animals of the land, and finally His ultimate creation, man. Each being produced
after its own kind, and man was unique in that he was created in the image of
God. Man bore the characteristics of God for expressing love, thought and
reason, communication, and personal destiny. For the first three days, God,
Himself, provided the light. This is a glimpse of the Holy City, where God will
illuminate us. (Revelation 22:5)
Before Creation. We believe that God existed before the creation. John 17:24
states the Father loved Jesus before the foundation of the world. Titus 1:2 says
that God promised eternal life before the world began. 2 Timothy 1:9 states that
grace was given in Jesus Christ from all eternity. Hence, we have a very
personal beginning. The earth and the heavens, while not having human
characteristics, proclaim their harmony with the creation and the nature of God.
(Romans 1:20). The proponents of the “Big Bang” theory can not state where or
how the dense matter, necessary for the Bang to occur, happened to exist. Only
the creation approach provides the answer. The answer is in God.
What is a Day? We understand the controversy over the use of the term “day” in
the Biblical record. The Hebrew word “day” can mean a 24 hour period, a period
of daylight, or an era. However, consider the words of Jesus in John 5:46-47--
“For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if
you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” There is no
solid, scientific evidence that we need to take the 6 days as anything other
than six, 24-hour, periods. The phrase “there was evening and there was
morning”, occurring six times in Genesis 1, supports this position. Certainly
God is capable of creation in any length of time, long or short. In Exodus,
chapter 20, verses 9 through 11, God compares the 6 days that man is to work
with the 6 days of creation. He would not mislead us by implying that the 6 days
are really eons of time. Man can not work that way. The pressure to accept
longer periods of time for the days of creation originate in the geologic,
evolutionary, and astronomical disciplines of science. After studying the many
assumptions of these areas of science, the Christian may chose to find the
assumptions either unacceptable, in conflict with the Scientific Method, or
reasonable, but the fact remains that we need to establish our faith in God on
the most reliable source of truth that we know–the Word of God. It appears that
science is not able to establish absolute truth about our origin with its
present methods. More on this later.
Look at the Nucleus of the Atom. Current studies in nuclear physics are designed
to explore the fabric of the atom and its intricate structure. The laws dealing
with forces that hold the nucleus together, the description of the many
particles discovered within the nucleus, and the very nature of matter are under
intense scrutiny. We find this highly compatible with the Biblical view,
expressed by Paul in his letter to the Colossians. Speaking of Christ, he said
“For by Him (Jesus) all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth,
visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities–all
things have been created by Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in
Him all things hold together”. (Colossians 1:16-17). The core of the atom
contains the designs and expressions of Jesus Christ. And in Hebrews 1:10,
regarding Jesus, it is said “Thou Lord, in the beginning did lay the foundation
of the earth, and the heavens are the works of Thy hands”. The Christian
perspective is that we are dealing with a universe that shows the very nature of
God. We cannot describe His nature by science, but we believe that the heavens
and the earth were created with the designs of God. They proclaim His unlimited
power and purposes. Hence, to explore science and to discover its secrets, is in
a very real way to discover something of God. Man’s ability to comprehend
science by theory and experiment is a God-given talent.
What about Sin? We believe in the original sin of Adam, who by a deliberate act
chose to disobey God. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was prohibited,
but the tree of life represented a good choice for Adam. We do not interpret
this as a prohibition against knowledge–the forbidden tree itself, in whatever
form, became the choice made against God’s command. The consequence of Adam’s
choice has been described as the “Fall”, in that man was cast from the garden
and the close companionship with God. Paul’s letter to the Romans declares
“through one man (Adam) sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and
so death spread to all men, because all sinned”. (Romans 5:12). An additional,
important consequence of this original sin is that the creation itself was
damaged. God’s original creation was described by Him as “good”, over and over,
in the Genesis account. However, in Genesis 3:17 He declares a curse on the
ground that He had created. This means that the creation as we see it is
changed–it still contains the elements of the nature of God, but it is now
abnormal. Verse 18 of Genesis says that the earth will now start producing
thorns and thistles. Was this the beginning of mutations and perturbations in
the plant kingdom? Romans 8:19-21 states clearly the form of this damage
resulting from the Fall–“For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly
for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to
futility, not of its own will, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that
the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into
the freedom of the glory of the children of God”.
Perhaps Adam and Eve were the only humans to see the “before and the after” of
their sin, but we believe that one day we shall see the beauty and glory of the
earth restored to its original design. (Revelation 12:1) It cannot be proved,
but it is interesting to speculate on a possible cause for the major
disagreements about the age of the universe. Could it be that the differences
between the Biblical ages and the old ages stated by the astronomers is the fact
that the creation involved a perfect (good) design, while all of our
measurements since the Fall have dealt with a damaged universe. We are not
seeing it in the way it was created. The real, eternal-life view of the creation
is contained in Christ–only through Him can we begin to comprehend what God has
formed. Perhaps that is one thing God may have had in mind when he blocked Adam
from returning to the garden. (Genesis 3:24)
Evolution
Ties to Geology. The so-called Geologic Column represents an unusual challenge
to the Biblical account. We have all seen displays of rock formations in layers
or strata that are said to represent various ages in the past. The geologist
shows that silt and rocks are deposited in layers, and he may assign a range of
time for each layer. There are differences between sedimentary (water-deposited)
layers and volcanic (lava-deposited) layers. Fossils (remains of dead animals
and plants) may be found in these layers, and the age of the fossil is assumed
to be identical to that of the rock. Modern methods of radioactive dating use
Carbon 14 for direct measurement of fossil age up to about 10,000 years.
Radioactive decay of the isotopes of Uranium, Lead, Potassium, Argon, Rubidium
and Strontium, and others, are used to date the age of rocks. These latter
methods involve derived ages that are often quoted to be in the range of
millions or even billions of years. Some geologists, in an attempt to soften the
blow to the Biblical account, have proposed that God performed His creation in
successive attempts that were in response to various catastrophic events or
random chance. Others tried to say that the Bible was in conflict with itself,
and that there were many creations over time. Some have said that God created
the earth and the heavens with the “appearance of age”.
It is important that we not take these stated ages as fact without examining the
basic assumptions involved in the method. Methods of dating are given below.
Carbon 14 Dating. Cosmic-ray neutrons react with stable Nitrogen atoms to
produce an isotope of carbon, Carbon-14.
n + 14N = 14 C + p where n is a neutron and p is a proton. The normal isotope of
carbon is 12C
The 14C atoms are then incorporated into carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and
enter living tissue. The level of 14C is maintained at a constant level in the
tissue by the continuous absorption of carbon dioxide and by radioactive decay.
When the tissue dies, the absorption stops and the gradual decay slowly reduces
the 14C content. If the measured activity at the current time is A, in
disintegrations per minute per gram of carbon, then the age of the sample is
obtained from the relation
t = 19,035 log10 (A0/A) years
where A0 is the activity of the 14C at the time the tissue died.
Figure 1 shows the results of this equation.
The so-called half-life, or the time for the initial activity to decay to
one-half of its original activity, is 5730 years.
The following assumptions are made by scientists:
1. The initial activity, A0, is known, independent of geographic location.
2. The initial activity is independent of the species of plant or animal.
3. The sample has not been contaminated with additional carbon 14 over time.
4. The sample has not been depleted of carbon 14 over time by other causes.
The above assumptions can usually be verified and do not lead to serious
controversy. The Christian should find cause to accept the findings of this
method. Carbon 14 dating, when properly used and with the precision of modern
science, seems reasonable for dating fossils up to ages on the order of 10,000
years. Beyond that time the method is prone to serious error because of the
small level of the radioactive signals.
Other Radioactive Methods There are a number of unstable radioactive isotopes of
the elements that decay from a “parent” nuclide to a “daughter” nuclide. The
time required for the parent to decay to one-half of its original activity is
called the half-life. Table 1 lists some common methods and the value of their
half-life. Because of the very long life involved, the methods are used to date
rocks and strata–they are not suitable for direct measurement of fossil age,
although the geologist will assume that the fossil is the same age as the rock
in which it is found. That assumption alone can cause serious error. Carbon 14
methods would apply for direct measurement of the fossil age, but only up to
about 10,000 years.
Table 1. Some Radioactive Dating Methods
METHOD, Isotopes of Elements HALF-LIFE, YEARS
Decay of Rubidium to Strontium, Rb-Sr 50 billion
Decay of Potassium to Argon, K-Ar 1.31 billion
Decay of Rhenium to Osmium, Re-Os 43 billion
Decay of Potassium to Calcium, K-Ca 1.3 billion
Decay of Lutetium to Hafnium, Lu-Hf 1.98 billion
Decay of Uranium to Thorium, U-Th 0.7 to 4.5 billion, depending upon isotope
Decay of Uranium to Lead, U-Pb 0.7 to 4.5 billion, depending upon isotope
Common lead, ratio of 206Pb to 204Pb various, in billions
All of the above methods involve measurements of the rate of decay of the
nuclide in question at the current time. This rate of decay, or change of the
number of parent atoms per unit time, is proportional to the number of parent
atoms present. Hence, we are usually dealing with what is called an “exponential
decay”. It will appear as a straight line on a logarithmic chart, as in Figure
1, but with a slope that is dependent upon the time-constant involved. (It would
be appropriate to study each of the methods in greater detail in seminar
sessions, if there is sufficient interest.)
Regardless of the method, there are some basic assumptions made by the geologist
that we need to understand. We quote these assumptions from the text of Gunter
Faure1, a Professor of Geology at The Ohio State University. Words in
parenthesis are added for clarity or comment.
1. The rock or mineral system has neither gained nor lost either parent or
daughter atoms so that the ratio (daughter/parent) has changed only as a result
of radioactive decay. This condition is often expressed by the statement that
the rock or mineral sample must be a “closed system” with respect to the parent
and daughter.
2. It must be possible to assign realistic value to the initial value of the
number of daughter atoms (the number present when the sample was formed). This
can usually be done reliably, especially when the number of daughter atoms
produced by radioactive decay is much greater than the initial number. (The
logic here seems difficult to understand. If we don’t know the initial value,
how do we make the comparison?).
3. The value of the decay constant (which is related to the half-life) must be
known accurately.
4. The measurements of (daughter and parent atoms) must be accurate and
representative of the rock or mineral to be dated.
Assumptions 3 and 4 are very reasonable–they represent good scientific practice
and the technology to perform these measurements is well advanced. It is in the
areas of assumptions 1 and 2 that the greatest controversy arises. Assumption 1
requires that no outside contamination, either in parent or daughter atom, has
occurred over the life of the sample being measured. Many geologists have gone
to great length, usually in calculations of some complexity, to show that indeed
the sample could not have been contaminated by intrusions of any source. Many
geologists do not mention a universal flood, which would be a concern to any
believing Christian.
It stretches the imagination, or perhaps we would call it “faith”, to accept the
idea that a sample could be totally protected over periods of millions or
billions of years. And yet, this assumption is at the heart of the geologist’s
method. The second assumption seems circuitous in nature, we have to assume an
initial number of daughter and parent atoms in order to calculate the age of the
sample. It is clear that the greatest calculated age for a sample would occur
when we assume that the initial content of the daughter atom was a minimum. As
the sample progresses in age, the number of parent atoms decreases while the
number of daughter atoms increases. All we can directly measure in the present
time is their current value. For those of us who remember our algebra, its like
having one equation with two unknowns. We know that if there are two unknowns,
two equations must exist to solve for the unknowns. But the geologist is forced
to assume a value for the initial number, or ratio, of daughter and parent atoms
in the sample.
Almost without exception, an initial value for the sample at the time of its
formation is assumed that will lead to the oldest possible age. Some honest
geologists refer to this as an “apparent age”, but all too often it is presented
as the “age”, with no qualifications or statements of the assumptions.
This is particularly true as results are presented on television or in science
articles for the lay population.
How Should We React? What is the Christian to do when he or she is torn between
acceptance of these old, apparent ages and a potentially smaller age compatible
with Biblical “days”, if literal 24-hour days are to be believed. The answer
lies in the application of two principles, faith in God and a requirement that
science be presented in conformance with the Scientific Method. First consider
the Scientific Method. According to the Encarta Encyclopedia:
“Scientific Method, a term denoting the principles that guide scientific
research and experimentation, and also the philosophic bases of those
principles. Definitions of scientific method use such concepts as objectivity
and acceptability. Objectivity indicates the attempt to observe things as they
are, without falsifying observations to agree with some preconceived world view.
Acceptability is judged in terms of the degree to which observations and
experiments can be reproduced. Scientific method also involves the interplay of
induction (reasoning from specific observations and experiments to more general
hypotheses and theories) and deduction (reasoning from theories to account for
specific experimental results)”.
This definition seems to strike at a potential premise in the measurements of
the geological record. A “world view” held by evolutionists and geologists is
clearly that of a very old earth and universe. Scientists are under pressure to
publish, and certainly it is more comfortable and acceptable to agree with the
prevailing view.
A common misperception of science is that it defines “truth”. Science is not
truth, it is a method or a way of thought. It involves several steps:
observation, hypothesis or theory, and testing. Experimentation is necessary to
determine if results are repeatable by two or more people.
Are the geologists biased? We can only speculate, but the disturbing fact
remains that nearly all scientific conclusions presented to the public in these
disciplines are presented as fact, not theory. Furthermore, the many assumptions
leading to the apparent ages are not stated. Is this the Scientific Method? The
answer is that there is significant room for improvement in their reports to the
lay public.
An approach that is appropriate for the Christian, particularly as we watch our
children being exposed to the “facts” of evolution in the classroom, is to seek
greater conformance to the Scientific Method. We are not to be on the defensive,
instead require the schools to defend their position with a greater reliance on
the Method. Students should be allowed to present alternative theories, question
results, examine the assumptions, debate the validity of the assumptions, and
perform research into the possibility of other explanations. The allowance of
courses in creationism alongside evolution would be expanding to young minds.
Currently, most of these options are not available in the classroom. Until the
Christian sees convincing proof to the contrary, we have no alternative but to
believe God. He would not deliberately deceive or mislead us. We are children of
Faith in God.
What about Darwin? In the middle of the 19th century, Darwin proposed his
“Origin of Species”, which essentially denied the Biblical account of creation.
Darwin’s theory has found these objections among Christians:
-It denied spontaneous creation of the various species of life
-It stated that species could generate new species and not be limited to
producing after their own kind.
-It denied the unique creation of man
-It required natural selection, working over vast lengths of time, as the agent
of change.
Inherent in the theory of Darwin is the requirement that life evolves from the
simple to the complex. Over time, other definitions of evolution have been
invoked. Micro-evolution refers to small changes within a given species.
Macro-evolution refers to large changes from one species to another. Certainly
the former is easy to accept–we know that birds have changed over time, for
example. However, the fossil record has never revealed the required “missing
link” between species. More broadly, the term evolution is used to describe the
process whereby everything began as an impersonal something. It has become the
consensus of the modern world, both Western and Eastern2. It is the preferred
view of science.
There have been extreme difficulties for the evolutionist in the explanation of
how complex body components, such as the eye, could evolve. Evolution requires a
series of random trials, with each trial accompanied by a success or a failure.
Vast lengths of time are needed to build successful (improved) performance, and
recent studies have shown that enough time has not elapsed to accomplish life
structures as they now exist. How can a complex mechanism evolve when it does
not function until a very large number of parts are successfully integrated?
Nothing works until the entire system is functioning. There is never a measure
of success along the way until the end is achieved. Darwin and his followers
believed that the living cell, whether plant or animal, was composed of a very
simple building block that he defined as carbonaceous material. To his credit,
he realized that future scientific results might disprove this. He then said3
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not
possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my
theory would absolutely break down”. Darwin is clearly dependent upon successive
mutations, in response to random chance perturbations, to account for the
gradual evolution of more complicated organs. Modern microbiology has disproved
Darwin’s theory.
What about Results of Microbiology? In Darwin’s time there were only crude
microscopes with limited magnification. Today’s technology includes not on
electron microscopes, but also those based on nuclear magnetic resonance. With
these far greater magnifications, microbiologists have been stunned by what they
see inside a living cell. Complex molecular “machines” are revealed.
Furthermore, the machines are irreducible; that is, they can not function if a
single component is removed. Each machine contains on the order of a trillion
components. The results from Lehigh University have been explained in a text by
Behe4. He uses the analogy of a mouse trap-- if there are parts missing in the
trap, one does not catch fewer mice–he catches no mice at all! After viewing
these machines one is startled by the complexity, and the structures are similar
to computer wiring diagrams or spaceship constructions. Behe is not approaching
these results from a Christian perspective--it is just good science. He
indicates that the machines cry out “Intelligent Design”. Of course, the
Christian would assign this design to God.
Behe goes on to say5 “The impotence of Darwinian theory in accounting for the
molecular basis of life is evident not only from the analyses in this book, but
also from the complete absence in the professional scientific literature of any
detailed models by which complex biochemical systems could have been produced”.
No credible alternatives to the presence of a “designer” have come forward. A
word of caution is in order, however. The Christian should not adopt the belief
of Pantheism, wherein it is believed that God is not a person–instead nature and
all the universe are God. When we say “designer” we mean the person of God, the
“I AM” of Holy Scripture.
A Second Look at the Geologic Column. It has long been assumed that the layers
of rock and strata that we see among our travels are declaring ancient ages for
our earth. We have been told that deeper layers are older than the upper layers.
This thinking has prevailed in the geology community as well. But recent results
at The Colorado State University, and elsewhere, have potentially turned things
upside down. When we are dealing with sedimentary rocks and strata, it is
important to visualize that sedimentary grains of soil, and the fossil remains
that they may contain, have been exposed to the kinetics of rolling and
translating in a variety of directions. Particles and fossil remains may roll
under the influence of gravity, wind, or flow of water. The heavier particles,
while moving with lighter particles at nearly the same speed, acquire more
kinetic energy, because kinetic energy is proportional to the mass of the
particle. With greater translational or rolling kinetic energy, the heavier
particles deposit at depths different that those of the lighter. The results,
both theoretical and experimental, show that deeper layers may deposit and form
later in time (more recently) than the shallow layers. Hence, deeper is not
always older. Also, all the layers can form in a relatively short time. Runoffs
from a flood, or the ravages of volcanic eruption, such as that of Mt. Saint
Helen, have produced layering in a matter of hours or days. These findings are
startling to say the least, because they go against all that we have been taught
in traditional television programs and textbooks. We can expect to find more of
these results in the future as more researchers become aware of this phenomena.
In the meantime, the Christian does not have to accept the idea that the rock
formations were laid down over billions or years. (A video of this effect is
available. It would be suitable for a seminar discussion).
Astronomy
We are fascinated by the views of our galaxy and the many galaxies beyond. Our
nation is spending huge resources on the exploration of space, with radio and
optical telescopes or with actual visits to other planets or our moon. Light is
known to travel at about 186,000 miles per second. We are told that the distant
sources of light, at the edge of the known universe, may be at distances that
require light to travel billions of years to reach us. We are seeing things as
they were in the past.
A popular theme that we have all heard is the concept of the “red shift”. This
describes what is called the Doppler effect. The analogous effect with sound
waves is the increase in the pitch of an approaching sound source, such as a
speeding train blasting its horn. As the train passes and travels away the pitch
of the sound decreases. The same effect holds for light waves. The light from
distant stars is observed to shift toward lower frequencies, which is equivalent
to saying that the light has shifted to longer wavelengths. (The relation f = (c
+ v)/l holds, where f is the frequency, c is the speed of light, v is the speed
of the light source, and l is the wavelength). With observed stars, the speed of
the star, v, is found to be negative (implying that it is moving away from us),
which leads to a reduction of the frequency and an increase in wavelength. Red
light has a longer wavelength than green light, for example. So we say that
light has shifted toward the red–therefore the red shift.
This shift can be explained by the Doppler effect, which is the common and
accepted view. It may also be treated as a result of light originating in the
presence of extreme gravitational forces, as explained in Einstein’s theory of
relativity. It turns out that a red shift can result which is proportional to a
star’s mass and inversely proportional to the star radius. The origins of stars
may involve very massive objects with very small radii, hence, they would have a
very large ratio of mass to radius and a large red-shift. With this view the
red-shift would have less to do with distance, and more to do with the mass and
radius of the source. Astronomers have not found this alternative view popular.
Here again, the Christian needs to be told what the assumptions are as
astronomers make claims regarding our universe.
Another fact is important in the field of astronomy. Stars of interest appear to
be so distant that their distance from earth can not be measured directly–by
radar or other distance finding equipment. Instead, the stars are characterized
by their brightness, size, and age in their life cycle. Stars appear to die and
to be re-born elsewhere, as matter and energy are interchanged. The distance to
remote stars is estimated based on prior knowledge about nearer stars, their
life cycle, size and brightness. More distant stars are classified with this
information to yield estimates of their size and distance. We can measure
directly the light flux received from a distant star, but the derived distance
must be estimated.
Where does the Christian Stand? Are these results contrary to Christian belief?
Is the universe as old as the astronomical results imply? We generally are not
equipped to deal with this technology, and the workers in this specialty are
dedicated. (The same can be said for all the subjects we have examined). How
confident are the astronomers of their results? Have they overlooked alternative
theories? We do not know the answers to these questions, but we have a
historical record of changing results in this field of study. The Hubble
constant, relating the red-shift to distance of the star, has repeatedly changed
over the years. There are continual new results coming in that cry out “design”.
A series of seminars on this topic would be appropriate for us to hold. We need
to ask about the many assumptions, seek estimates of measurement precision, and
examine the basic underlying philosophy of this discipline. Otherwise, the
results are that the long ages estimated by the astronomer directly tend to feed
the requirements of the evolutionist.
Summary and Recommendations
We have examined a number of issues that relate to the Christian’s faith in the
inerrancy of the Bible, while hopefully giving him or her some details on
scientific results that appear to contradict the Bible. In most of these cases
there is a world view that is in opposition to creation by a personal,
all-knowing being, whom we would call God. This should not surprise us since
Christ has said that “narrow is the way”. We are not to regard these other views
as necessarily evil, although the temptation to do so may arise. We
instinctively want to defend the Scriptures and the Gospel of Christ. We can not
do this in an antagonistic manner, nor can we assume that we have superior
knowledge. It is by faith that we can encounter and address the world view.
We currently see opportunities to inquire into the methods being used in the
classroom. Is the Scientific Method being properly used as evolution is
presented as fact, not as theory? We think not. Are the many and sometimes
questionable assumptions of radioactive dating clearly explained before the ages
of rocks and fossils are stated to the public? Definitely not. Have we been
mislead about the layering of rocks and strata? Can we have a new view about
sedimentation theory? The answers appear to be “yes”. Does evolution theory
account for the complexity of the living cell and the need for an intelligent
designer? Certainly not.
It is recommended that churches conduct a number of seminars for the inquiring
minds of their congregations. We need to discuss these issues in greater detail,
invite speakers, perform library research, and compile reference material. Above
all, we must prepare ourselves by prayer for encountering the world. We should
be armed to speak intelligently on these issues in the class-room, at work or
play, in the marketplace, or wherever we are in contact with our fellow man.
When I consider Thy heavens, the work of Thy fingers, The moon and the stars,
which Thou hast ordained; What is man, that Thou dost take thought of him? Psalm
8:3-4.
References
1. Gunter Faure, Principles of Isotope Geology, John Wiley & Sons, New York,
(1977), p. 48.
2. Francis A. Schaeffer, Genesis in Space and Time, InterVarsity Press, Downers
Grove, Illinois (1972), p. 19.
3. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, A Limited Edition, The Franklin
Library, Franklin Center, Pennsylvania, (1975), p. 167.
4. Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, A Touchstone Book, Simon & Schuster,
(1996).
5. Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, A Touchstone Book, Simon & Schuster,
(1996), p.187
Back
|
