CreatorWorship

Without mincing words I move from the evidence for creationism to the ramifications for society of not accepting it in this 9th in a series article. You can read the article by clicking on At the Stem

Read Full Post »

Interpreting what we see and hear and otherwise intimately or remotely detect is always a subjective exercise. At its most objective and logical Science can only be as true as the presuppositional truth upon which it is based. Given two sound logical processes the one starting with truth is the only one that can end thus. Read about how Charles Darwin had the beginnings of truth but accepted a false interpretation of how the earth’s structure came to be by clicking on His Own Interpreter (8th in a series)

Read Full Post »

“Ooooh, layers!” exclaims the donkey to the ogre. But he still didn’t understand and I’m not talking par-fey or onions but polystrate fossils. It’s neither a personality thing nor a cause of hardening of the arteries. I guess you’ll just have to read by clicking on God’s Gift to Creationists (6th in a series) to see what creationists were so happy about when it happened.

Read Full Post »

1. What is the difference between something incredible and something wonderful?
Matching.
___ 2. Evolution a. Wonderful
___ 3. Creation b. Incredible
. c. Both

See my discussion by clicking on Incredible or Wonderful (4th in a series)

Read Full Post »

Truth cannot be mixed because the result must always be less than truth.
Two contradictory ideas cannot both be true in that the truth of one means the falsehood of the other. Click on Contradictory Sycretism (2nd in a series) to learn more.

Read Full Post »

What do the fish fossils really show? Evidence for catastrophism. Click on Something Fishy (5th in a series) to get a fuller answer.

Read Full Post »

The creation/evolution conflict is not ultimately over who has the science but on the difference in belief systems.

From shortly after the time of Christ until present day many authors in Western Society have written about two great books of revelation, or knowledge about God. This idea is clearly stated by Raymond of Sabunde, “there are two books given to us by God, the one being the book of the whole collection of creatures or the book of nature, and the other being the book of sacred scripture” Theologia Naturalis (1436). Augustine explained the importance of the book of Nature in that “there is a great book: the very appearance of created things. Look above you! Look below you! Note it. Read it. God, whom you want to discover, never wrote that book with ink. Instead He set before your eyes the things that He had made. Can you ask for a louder voice than that? Why, heaven and earth shout to you: ‘God made me!’” (City of God 11:22).

This metaphor of the books flows quite naturally from the Bible. For example, in Psalm 19 the psalmist says, “The heavens are telling the glory of God and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech and night to night reveals knowledge” (Psalm 19:1-2). “The Commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes” (v.8). And the Apostle Paul in clarifying the role of nature says, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made.” (Romans 1:20) Christians accept the books of Nature and Scripture and that they do not contradict one another as they reveal God and His works.

I have had people make statements to me that are very similar to the following: “I don’t accept what the Bible says; I only accept empirical data!” Or put another way, if I can’t see it and feel it I will not believe it. Or, “I only accept science, not religion.” One term for this viewpoint is naturalism, which is the view that all things can be explained in terms of natural phenomena. Are people who say these types of things accepting only one book of evidence or knowledge, the Book of Nature? I think not. To explain, let us consider the topic of origins (where we came from and how the universe began). Was there any man or woman there to observe the beginning? Can an experiment be done to test the origin of the universe?
Can an experiment be done to once again start the universe? Are any of these questions open to being proven wrong? The answers are no. And since the origin cannot be observed, tested, repeated, or falsified, it is beyond the realm of science. It is in fact based on presuppositions- assumptions, which cannot be demonstrated but are accepted before observation is made- which are also called beliefs. Naturalism and its offspring evolution are based on faith. Evolutionists accept the books of Nature and Naturalism as internally consistent evidence of Nature and Its progress.

The argument then is not between Religion and Science. Rather, Christianity and Naturalism, each with their own holy books, are battling over the interpretation of the book of Nature by using and misusing Science to try and convince each other of the truth of their holy books.

I hope to show in small part that one serves science and society far better and satisfies the soul far more than the other. This service and satisfaction will in turn render praise to the one whom it is due.

Read Full Post »