The “Facts of Nature” Versus Scripture Part 2 of 3

RE: Scientists are Human
The authors of CAT claim that people have “a dangerously vaulted view of scientists” [1]. This may have been true in the 1950’s when futurists promised us free energy from nuclear power, a robot in our homes to do our bidding, and a flying car in every garage. (Hey, where is my flying car and jet pack!). Today, people are far more skeptical of science (particularly the field of medicine, a field that CAT considered to more “impressive” [2]).

I would submit that people today are frustrated and confused about differing opinions within the scientific community in many areas. For example, the questions global warming, what causes cancer, and what foods are healthy, to name a few. (Just today, on the BBC Radio News, I heard of a study that backtracked on the idea that vitamin-C would not helpful in preventing or curing the common cold- despite the claims of famed Nobel Prize winning Chemist Linus Pauling [3]). It is in this climate the enterprise of science finds itself today and there is indeed a growing skepticism.

I will go on to say this is a healthy skepticism that could force the enterprise of science to develop better, strong, and more convincing arguments. The YEC camp should note that this works in their favor but mostly against them as they continually produce unconvincing evidence for YEC (more on this will probably come later in this blog). It is interesting that YEC can make a claim about people buying anything evolutionary (naturalistic) science has to offer on the subject of origins while on other occasions tout surveys where people are increasingly open to the Intelligent Design movement.

CAT goes on to make the statement that one of “the basic tenets of evolution” is a billions-of-years-old earth. If by “evolution” the authors meant Darwinism/Naturalism, this would be another gross generalization if not incorrect characterization. Simply put, while it might be safe of say that all Darwinists would agree that the earth was formed 4 BYA, that does not mean that everyone who agrees with the date is therefore, ipso-facto a Darwinist. The authors go on to claim that it is this bias towards naturalism that makes them resistant to “consider evidence to the contrary”. YEC evidence is not realistic and almost all of it is bogus or mischaracterization of real, peer-reviewed scientific studies.

The authors do make some legitimate claims about the general scientific biases against non-naturalistic theories and interpretation of the data. This is very true and sometimes it can get out right hostile (the best instance of this today is Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez’s tenure case at Iowa State University [5]). But can bias also re-enforce that YEC models, theories, and explanations do not hack-it and not nearly powerful enough to convince?

CAT goes on to claim that today people have bought “an arrogant view of the extent of human knowledge- and have confined the accomplishments of hard science (testable, replicable) with the potentials of origins science (non-replicable, theory-based).” One cannot get any more basic in theories of origins than the beginning of the universe. The prevailing models of cosmology are Big-Bang Models. It is interesting that they could characterize this as a “non-replicable” theory as it continues to be confirmed and refined experiment after experiment and observation after observation. From Hubble’s initial measurements (circa 1929) to the discovery of the background radiation echo of the Big Bang by Nobel winners Penzias and Wilson (1965), to the COBE satellite (1990’s), and most recently the WMAP (2001). The Big Bang (with its refinements) continues to exhibit “staying power” and repeatable [6].

Lastly, I would like to point out a curious oxymoron. The claim in CAT is that “there is a seemingly infinite amount of knowledge to be learned about the universe. Man has gathered only a tiny fraction of that information” [7]. Yes, we will never know everything or even come close, but how can the authors claim that a created-finite universe (a position held by both OEC and YEC) could have an “infinite amount” of information?

RE: Science Changes
Apart from the neo-personal attacks here on Dr. Ross’ character and faith, the main charge levied here is that since scientific paradigms change with new discoveries, it is foolish for Christians to “hitch their wagons” to OEC; after all, what if the Big Bang creation event were found to be untrue. How would Bible maintain credibility having attached this to Genesis 1.

Seems Christians are concerned about this only in the things they do not understand. We have often said, “There is where Budda is buried. There is where Mohamed is buried. But Christ’s tomb is empty!” [8] In other words, if someone produces the body of Christ, that would be a show-stopper for the Christian faith. Yet, Christendom has weathered the claims of James Cameron and the “Jesus Tomb [9]”. It survives hoaxes such as the James Ossuary and “bits of Noah’s ark found on Ararat” [10]. It has even survived bogus and poor scientific claims by YEC [11]. In the light of all this I find it had to believe that the authors of CAT could admonish Christians not accept OEC and “step on such a slippery slope and risk making a mockery of the Bible.”

May I suggest (and I would only use this reasoning for my fellow believers) that our faith claims that Christianity and the Bible are not just true, but they are God’s truth. And as such, they will survive any storm, including bad science, bad exegesis, and out right lies that Christians may purport to “help”. Also, consider that even though science had its “revolutions”, so has Christianity- the Reformation is a perfect example. The Reformation was a no-loads shake up to the Christendom. It that was not even prompted by any new revelations or discoveries.

The Bible has weathered “egg on Christendom’s face” in the past when it came to biblical interpretation vs. scientific observation. The most notable, famous instances of this are the cases of Galileo and Copernicus. The Bible endures and will continue to endure, I would suggest, because it is the foundation of God’s Master Plan for history of the believers, Israel, the earth, the universe, and the spiritual realm.

As to the general hesitance that Christians may have in resorting to “the slippery slope” of “extra-biblical” evidence to drive our interpretations of His Divine Word; may I suggest we are already there. But it is not a slippery slope, it is just good scholarship. Do we not already use archeology to help clarify or influence biblical interpretation? Do we not build our apologetics on discoveries in that field of science?


FOOTNOTES:
[1] CAT pg 26.
[2] ibid.
[3] http://news.independent.co.uk/health/article2779434.ece accessed 7.20.2007
[4] For many articles to back this claim see http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/education.asp under “What do the polls reveal?” accessed 7.20.2007
[5] http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=4128 accessed 7.20.2007
[6] http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html and http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html , both accessed 7.20.2007
[7] CAT pg 27.
[8] BTW, do we know where these guys are buried for sure?
[9] For more on this claim see http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bones_of_jesus.html (accessed 7.15.2007)
[10] http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ark-hoax.html (accessed 7.15.2007)
[11] For a list of these see the YEC site for Answer in Genesis at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp (accessed 7.15.2007)