Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

1 Science and the Bible (with a view to Genesis or origins)

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "1 Science and the Bible (with a view to Genesis or origins)"— Presentation transcript:

1

2 1 Science and the Bible (with a view to Genesis or origins)

3 2 Assumptions/Bias

4 3

5 4 It is often claimed or believed that science has proven the Bible to be wrong or untrue. Often claimed that evolution is a scientific fact; and the Bible is religion. “Evolutionists believe in science; creationists reject science.”

6 5 The last company I worked for was small (only 5 people) and 2 people were raised as Mennonites and 2 were raised as Catholics. All 4 had rejected Christ and one of the main issues was the “scientific” evidence against the Bible. Chad K. quoted in Creation Ministries International, June 2007 newsletter.

7 6 Need to understand what “science” is Need to understand what “science” is

8 7 Need to understand how “science” has been redefined Need to understand how “science” has been redefined

9 8 Need to understand what “science” is Need to understand what “science” is Need to understand how “science” has been redefined Need to understand how “science” has been redefined Need to understand limitations of science Need to understand limitations of science

10 9 Science 1. The state of knowing: knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding 2. a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study (the ~ of theology) b: something that may be studied (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge (have it down to a ~) c: one of the natural sciences 3. a: knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena 4. A system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws (culinary ~) Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary

11 10 “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. … Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997

12 11 It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997

13 12 Origins/historical Operational Science Science -not based on direct-direct observation observation -cannot experiment upon-experiments an historical event -an historical event is -repeatable not repeatable

14 13 Origins/historical science Operational science

15 14 Science cannot prove an historical event took place. Can you scientifically prove the location of your maternal great-grandmother’s birth?

16 15 Science cannot prove what is true, it can only prove what is false.

17 16 The Null Hypothesis

18 17 The Null Hypothesis The rejection of an hypothesis is to conclude that it is false, while the acceptance of an hypothesis merely implies that we have no evidence to believe otherwise. The rejection of an hypothesis is to conclude that it is false, while the acceptance of an hypothesis merely implies that we have no evidence to believe otherwise.

19 18 The Null Hypothesis The rejection of an hypothesis is to conclude that it is false, while the acceptance of an hypothesis merely implies that we have no evidence to believe otherwise. The rejection of an hypothesis is to conclude that it is false, while the acceptance of an hypothesis merely implies that we have no evidence to believe otherwise. Experimenter or statistician should always state the hypothesis that which he/she hopes to reject. Experimenter or statistician should always state the hypothesis that which he/she hopes to reject.

20 19 H 0 : There is no difference in lung cancer rates between smokers and non-smokers. H 1 : There is a difference in lung cancer rates between smokers and non-smokers.

21 20 Type I error Rejecting the null hypothesis when it is true. Type II error Accepting the null hypothesis when it is false. Probability of committing a type I error is called the level of significance of the test and is denoted by α.

22 21 Science is tentative. What may be thought of as “scientific” may be overturned as new information or further discoveries are made.

23 22 Phlogiston? first posited by Johann Becher, 1677 first posited by Johann Becher, 1677 an attempt to explain oxidation processes, such as, combustion and rusting of metals an attempt to explain oxidation processes, such as, combustion and rusting of metals for almost the entire 18 th century the theory was more satisfying than alternatives for almost the entire 18 th century the theory was more satisfying than alternatives later experiments and discoveries showed better explanations later experiments and discoveries showed better explanations

24 23 Big Bang Theory now falling out of favour with many scientists Big Bang Theory now falling out of favour with many scientists

25 24 Big Bang Theory now falling out of favour with many scientists Big Bang Theory now falling out of favour with many scientists ”Junk” DNA, once thought to be evolutionary remnants, now found to be functional ”Junk” DNA, once thought to be evolutionary remnants, now found to be functional

26 25 Big Bang Theory now falling out of favour with many scientists Big Bang Theory now falling out of favour with many scientists ”Junk” DNA, once thought to be evolutionary remnants, now found to be functional ”Junk” DNA, once thought to be evolutionary remnants, now found to be functional How many planets in our solar system? How many planets in our solar system?

27 26 What is ‘evolution’?

28 27 What is ‘evolution’? ‘change’? ‘change’?

29 28 What is ‘evolution’? ‘change’? ‘change’? Natural selection? Natural selection?

30 29 What is ‘evolution’? ‘change’? ‘change’? Natural selection? Natural selection? ‘descent with modification’? ‘descent with modification’?

31 30 What is ‘evolution’? ‘change’? ‘change’? Natural selection? Natural selection? ‘descent with modification’? ‘descent with modification’? Evolution = random genetic mutations + natural selection + time Evolution = random genetic mutations + natural selection + time

32 31 What is ‘evolution’? ‘change’? ‘change’? Natural selection? Natural selection? ‘descent with modification’? ‘descent with modification’? Evolution = random genetic mutations + natural selection + time Evolution = random genetic mutations + natural selection + time ‘molecules to man ‘molecules to man

33 32 What is ‘evolution’? ‘change’? ‘change’? Natural selection? Natural selection? ‘descent with modification’? ‘descent with modification’? Evolution = random genetic mutations + natural selection + time Evolution = random genetic mutations + natural selection + time ‘molecules to man’ ‘molecules to man’ Beware of ‘bait switching’ Beware of ‘bait switching’

34 33 Has science proven evolution to be true? -Miller-Urey spark exchange chamber -NH 3, CH 4, water vapour, H in sparking chamber -got some amino acids and other compounds

35 34 amino acids are the basic building blocks of protein amino acids are the basic building blocks of protein

36 35 amino acids are the basic building blocks of protein amino acids are the basic building blocks of protein are left-handed and right-handed amino acids are left-handed and right-handed amino acids

37 36 amino acids are the basic building blocks of protein amino acids are the basic building blocks of protein are left-handed and right-handed amino acids are left-handed and right-handed amino acids mammalian protein only made of left- handed amino acids mammalian protein only made of left- handed amino acids

38 37 amino acids are the basic building blocks of protein amino acids are the basic building blocks of protein are left-handed and right-handed amino acids are left-handed and right-handed amino acids mammalian protein only made of left- handed amino acids mammalian protein only made of left- handed amino acids without a living mechanism, protein will form into 50:50 left-handed and right- handed (a racemic mixture) without a living mechanism, protein will form into 50:50 left-handed and right- handed (a racemic mixture)

39 38 Amino acid list 1.Glycine D-AlanineL-Alanine 3.D-ValineL-Valine 4.D-LeucineL-Leucine 5.D-IsoleucineL-Isoleucine 6.D-SerineL-Serine 7.D-ThreonineL-Threonine 8.D-CysteineL-Cysteine 9.D-CystineL-Cystine 10.D-MethionineL-Methionine 11.D-Glutamic AcidL-Glutamic Acid 12.D-Aspartic AcidL-Aspartic Acid 13.D-LysineL-Lysine 14.D-ArginineL-Arginine 15.D-HistidineL-Histidine 16.D-PhenylalanineL-Phenylalanine 17.D-TyrosineL-Tyrosine 18.D-TryptophanL-Tryptophan 19.D-ProlineL-Proline 20. D-HydroxyprolineL-Hydroxyproline D – Dextrorotary (right-handed)L – Levorotary (left-handed) D – Dextrorotary (right-handed)L – Levorotary (left-handed) Different forms are known as enantiomers (enantiomorphs) or stereoisomers. Different forms are known as enantiomers (enantiomorphs) or stereoisomers.

40 39 simplest protein around 400 amino acids simplest protein around 400 amino acids R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy, ninth printing 1993.

41 40 simplest protein around 400 amino acids simplest protein around 400 amino acids Borel’s law of mathematics: probability of will never happen Borel’s law of mathematics: probability of will never happen R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy, ninth printing 1993.

42 41 simplest protein around 400 amino acids simplest protein around 400 amino acids Borel’s law of mathematics: probability of will never happen Borel’s law of mathematics: probability of will never happen assume earth is about 15 billion years old or 4.8 X sec. assume earth is about 15 billion years old or 4.8 X sec. R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy, ninth printing 1993.

43 42 simplest protein around 400 amino acids simplest protein around 400 amino acids Borel’s law of mathematics: probability of will never happen Borel’s law of mathematics: probability of will never happen assume earth is about 15 billion years old or 4.8 X sec. assume earth is about 15 billion years old or 4.8 X sec. over this time period a reaction rate of 10 billion/sec results in reactions over this time period a reaction rate of 10 billion/sec results in reactions R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy, ninth printing 1993.

44 43 simplest protein around 400 amino acids simplest protein around 400 amino acids Borel’s law of mathematics: probability of will never happen Borel’s law of mathematics: probability of will never happen assume earth is about 15 billion years old or 4.8 X sec. assume earth is about 15 billion years old or 4.8 X sec. over this time period a reaction rate of 10 billion/sec results in reactions over this time period a reaction rate of 10 billion/sec results in reactions probability to form a 400 amino acid protein by chance is probability to form a 400 amino acid protein by chance is R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy, ninth printing 1993.

45 44 Scientists say ‘no’ to spontaneous generation and ‘yes’ to biogenesis (life gives rise to life).

46 45 Scientists say ‘no’ to spontaneous generation and ‘yes’ to biogenesis (life gives rise to life). but….many scientists believe that abiogenesis (biopoiesis) occurred in the distant unobservable, unrepeatable, unexperimental past.

47 46 Scientists say ‘no’ to spontaneous generation and ‘yes’ to biogenesis (life gives rise to life). but….many scientists believe that abiogenesis (biopoiesis) occurred in the distant unobservable, unrepeatable, unexperimental past. Isn’t this just spontaneous generation under another name?

48 47 Understanding what has been observed, what has been tested and what has been experimented upon will aid in discerning interpretation and the “just-so” stories.

49 48 “At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something the textbooks don't usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses. Boyce Rensberger, How the World Works, William Morrow, NY, 1986, pp. 17–18. Rensberger is an ardently anti-creationist science writer.

50 49 “As individuals they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position.” “As individuals they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position.” Boyce Rensberger, How the World Works, William Morrow, NY, 1986, pp. 17–18. Rensberger is an ardently anti-creationist science writer.

51 50 “Science … is not so much concerned with truth as it is with consensus. What counts as “truth” is what scientists can agree to count as truth at any particular moment in time … [Scientists] are not really receptive or not really open- minded to any sorts of criticisms or any sorts of claims that actually are attacking some of the established parts of the research (traditional) paradigm — in this case neo-Darwinism — so it is very difficult for people who are pushing claims that contradict the paradigm to get a hearing. They’ll find it difficult to [get] research grants; they’ll find it hard to get their research published; they’ll, in fact, find it very hard.” Professor Evelleen Richards, Science Historian, University of NSW, Australia, Lateline, 9 October 1998, Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

52 51 “Anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done and may in the end be our greatest contribution to civilization.” Dr. Steven Weinberg Nobel Laureate in Physics; in New York Times,

53 52 “It is no more heretical to say the Universe displays purpose, as Hoyle has done, than to say that it is pointless, as Steven Weinberg has done. Both statements are metaphysical and outside science. Yet it seems that scientists are permitted by their own colleagues to say metaphysical things about lack of purpose and not the reverse. This suggests to me that science, in allowing this metaphysical notion, sees itself as religion and presumably as an atheistic religion (if you can have such a thing).” Shallis, M., In the eye of a storm, New Scientist, pp. 42–43, January 19, 1984.

54 53 No product, discovery, medical procedure, or advance has come out of evolutionary theory. Without evolutionary theory, all practical biology would stand just as it is. No major corporation has a “Department of Evolution” because scientists who have to produce results don’t use it. In fact, I would like to challenge the readership of this publication to come up with one practical application of biology that would have been impossible were it not for the hypothesis of evolution. In the meantime, I think that scientists should leave the important questions, such as what is the meaning of life and is there a God, to religion, which knows how to answer such questions, and stick to what they know how to do, such as breeding insect-resistant corn and curing cancer. Avraham Sonenthal The Scientist 11(14):10, 1997 quoted in Creation 29(3) June-August 2007, p. 48.

55 54 Magisterial vs Ministerial use of science

56 55 Magisterial vs Ministerial use of science The ministerial use elaborates on the clear teachings of the Bible, and may help to decide on equally plausible alternatives consistent with the language. Note that this approach to Scripture does not deny the authority of Scripture, but rather recognizes that while Scripture is “true truth” it is not exhaustive truth. Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Compromise, 2004, p. 50.

57 56 Magisterial vs Ministerial use of science The ministerial use elaborates on the clear teachings of the Bible, and may help to decide on equally plausible alternatives consistent with the language. Note that this approach to Scripture does not deny the authority of Scripture, but rather recognizes that while Scripture is “true truth” it is not exhaustive truth. In contrast, the magisterial use overrules the clear teaching of the Bible to come up with a meaning inconsistent with sound hermeneutics. Instead of the Reformation principle of Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone), this is Scriptura sub scientia (Scripture below science). Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Compromise, 2004, p. 50.

58 57 Theology wed to science in one age will find itself a widow in the next. Herman Bavinck, a Dutch theologian, 1854 – 1921.

59 58 Some people prefer to separate religion (Bible) and science Stoner, for example, says that science is man’s interpretation of the natural/material world and theology is man’s interpretation of the Bible. Both are prone to error. However, he never mentions the limitations of science and states that theologians are human too; all the while giving science a magisterial role over the Bible. Don Stoner, A New Look at an Old Earth, 1 st edition, 1985, revised 1997.

60 59 Phenomenological language -the sun rises and sets -science has proven a heliocentric solar system as opposed to a geocentric one -we still speak of the sun setting and rising; does that make us less scientific? -some would suggest that Genesis is phenomenological, but where is the phenomenom to suggest days=ages?

61 60 If you cannot believe the very first verses of the Bible then why believe any other verses, or the rest of the Bible?

62 61

63 62

64 63

65 64 The real issue is the authority of God’s Word. Who are you going to believe? Scientists who weren’t there or God who was?

66 65 The End. For those of you who stayed awake, Thank You. For those of you who didn’t; I hope you had a good nap.

67 66 Narrator Walter Hayashi Director Producer Co-producer Assistant Co-producer Walter Hayashi Editor Writer Production Studio My Living Room Transportation My Toyota Caterer Mr. Refrigerator MMIX


Download ppt "1 Science and the Bible (with a view to Genesis or origins)"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google