Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Science and the Bible
Tonight I begin teaching a 14-week class at Kilns College titled "Science and the Bible." I'm really looking forward to it. In this first, introductory, class we'll be looking at 4 models for the relationship between science and religion, and then we'll examine the Christian doctrine of dual revelation. This should set the stage for a semester of examining both the Scriptural and scientific evidence with regard to some of the controversial issues of our day. Sounds fun, eh?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I am curious about the beliefs of a scientist who believes in and follows Christ, especially a biologist. There is a lot of debate on the Internet about evolution both pro and con, and the hard-core evolutionists seem to be materialists who think that belief in God is ridiculous. Then on the other hand you have some Bible believers who believe that the planet earth is no more than 6,000 years old because they think that is what the Bible says.
There is a way to reconcile a literal interpretation of the Bible with the physical evidence in fossils and genetics. Most people do not know that the Bible does not say that the earth came into existence 6,000 years ago. In fact, according to the first three verses of the Bible, the earth existed before the six days of creation. The six days were actually a renewing of the surface of the earth, restoring it to a condition that could support life, and restoring life itself to the earth. As far as Genesis is concerned, the earth that existed before the six days of creation could have existed for hundreds of millions of years and could have teemed with life before some destructive event caused the earth to be covered in water and in darkness.
I wrote an article showing that evolution cannot be proved by science because the scientific method does not allow evolution to be proved. In order to prove something like this, you have to be willing to look at both sides without bias. But the scientific method, as practiced by science, does not allow consideration of supernatural causes of any evidence - only natural causes can be explored. This means both sides of the argument cannot be examined with an open mind, which would be required for proof (by "evolution" here, I mean the development of species through natural forces only, which is what hard-core evolutionists believe and is the way evolution is taught in the public schools).
Jordan:
Good question. I'll answer it in the blog proper (tomorrow).
Thanks for reading!
Author:
Actually, I know of at least twelve interpretations (of the Bible's creation accounts), each of which is held by Christians who see the Bible as inspired and authoritative. Only two of the twelve can be considered "young earth" interpretations.
And yes, the class I'm teaching will indeed take a close look at evolution, the evidence and the presuppositions. And that's why I'm looking forward to it.
Thanks for reading!
Rick,
I'm very interested in this subject. I noticed that not only are you a Trained Apologist for RTB, but you are also a Scoutmaster too! I have just come on board with RTB as a volunteer apologist and I am also the SM of Redmond Troop 27. I'd like to chat.
Marty Troyer
RTB@Troyers.net
Post a Comment