The Bible and Science
some science historyThe units of work and energy within the MKS system are named in Joule's honor. Joule determined that 778 foot pounds are equivalent to 1 BTU (british thermal unit) In other words, Joule determined that mechanical energy can be equated to thermal energy, or stated otherwise, he determined the mechanical equivalent of heat. A BTU is the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of one pound of water by one degree Fahrenheit. a foot pound is the work required to raise one pound of mass through a height of one foot against gravity. a calorie of heat will raise 1 gram of H20 1 degree Centigrade. 1 ftlb = 1.356 joules 778 ftlbs = 1055 joules 1 BTU = 252 calories 1055 joules = 252 calories 4.18 joules = 1 calorie Later a reflective coating was added to reduce heat transfer by radiation. Called Dewar flasks, used to hold liquid nitrogen and other cold liquids. Later developed as the THERMOS Bottle. It should be noted that the information above is well established in science and history and is not disputed. Neither does the information above contradict the Bible . What I hope to demonstrate is that true science does not disallow a Creator God. some basic assumptions
There are of course exceptions, but most people tend to display an emotional reaction if presented with information that does not fit their view of how things came about. theory of cognitive dissonanceThe theory of cognitive dissonance seems to explain the reaction. Without digressing too much, it's simply a theory of human behavior that explains how people react to information that contradicts either their behavior, or information that they hold to be true.An example of this is a smoker presented with statistical data that smoking causes health problems. The information has to be dealt with, so the smoker can either quit, or ignore the information. To ignore the information, the smoker must reduce that information's value, discredit it, attack it as false, or generalize it in some other manner. The smoker is therefore reducing the "dissonance" created by the information. Much in the same way will evolutionists discredit, attack or generalize information that supports what the Bible says. scholars, so called...Recently many so called scholars have been attacking the credibility of the Bible through most unusual stretches of logic and reason. A good example of this is saying that Jesus wasn't really born in Bethlehem, but rather in Nazareth. They attempt to discredit what the Bible says, saying the writers made it up. These same so-called scholars will gladly accept other historical writings that have significantly fewer copies that are separated by centuries from the time of the original writings at face value, but because the Bible is the Bible , they attempt to discredit it and it's writers, in spite of it's historicity and accuracy. The recent coverage in the media on Jesus has been quite disappointing. How many people will accept at face value the shallow scholarship being presented? The so-called scholars face serious judgment before a Living God for their pseudo-scholarship. The arrogance that their understanding of events that occurred almost 2,000 years ago is better than those that were there is amazing. They chose to ignore valid historical data to twist things to their own view, one that is quite popular in the media because it's not what the Bible says.intelligence on both sides of the issuesHowever, we have to approach the topic of Science and Scripture with the view that there are intelligent people on both sides of any of the discussions. This is hard to do because of the emotions involved. Typically the emotions seem to stronger on the side that denies the Creator, especially if they are unable to intimidate or patronize their opponents.people of faithA person of faith, (that sounds cool, definitely works since we're in the minority) especially one that holds God's Word in high regard, is less likely to be on the defense or challenged by "the facts".However, believer or non-believer, we are sinful people with a wide variation in personalities, maturity and confidence. Attacking the person on either side of the discussion and claiming victory for your idea represents an error in logic. We have to keep the discussion on the topic, not the characters involved. dealing with factsOne must first establish whether the information is indeed a fact, or wildly hostile theory purported to be fact, e.g.evolution. It is NOT fact, it is a theory that cannot be tested. In the same way, Creationism cannot be tested either. Therefore both systems are faith based. The question is whether or not the evidence that is presented is valid and fits into a greater logical framework. Understanding the underlying assumptions is a good place to start, and the reason I listed them first. Because I believe that the evidence I've seen points to the idea that God created the world, I'm most likely going to view the data I see fitting within that context. The evolutionist will see the same data and attempt to work it into his world view.using the scientific methodWhether the data fits into the framework or not does not invalidate either concept necessarily. We have to remember the ultimately neither view can meet the scientific test.Can the model meet the test of empirical science?
Can evolution be tested? falsified? has it been observed? can it be repeated? The answer is a resounding NO. Can creation be tested? falsified? has it been observed? can it be repeated? The answer again is a resounding NO. faith based modelsThat puts both models or theories into the realm of faith. The real question is, which theory makes the most sense based on the available information? Is there evidence to support both theories? Yes. But I believe that there are more questions raised by the theory of evolution than are answered. It tends to beg the question. How did it all start? If God is who He claims to be, and the evidence available seems to lean in His favor, than speaking the word and making creation as described is a trivial task.from whence came the ooze?If evolution is true, then where did the primordial ooze come from? Ultimately there was a beginning of some kind, otherwise matter is eternal. And that raises many questions about where things are going and what it all means. In other words, evolution answers very few questions about our internal quest to understand and discover, our will to live, our desire to create, our individual complexities.NOTHINGNESSThe theory of evolution is ultimately an empty vessel trying to explain how we got here without acknowledging or accepting the concept of a Creator God that we would be responsible and accountable to. The logical deduction of what man is and where we're going is irrelevant. We are simply matter. Without a Creator, without a God, we are simply chemicals and molecules. Therefore we have no hope, no future, we exist. When we die we simply exist no more. No accountability, no responsibility. It doesn't matter. Put that old man out of his misery, put that mentally challenged individual out his misery, abort that fetus, rid the world of the impure genetic models.For what? The good of the species? Why should that matter to us? The entire logical conclusion of evolution is dark, hopeless, a wasteland of ideological fluff. At best it's wishful thinking, wishful in the sense that once we die it's over, no accounting, no judgment... nothingness... attitudesBased on the Biblical view of man and his sinful nature, this rebellious attitude lines up perfectly with what the Bible says. So the evidence seems to point toward an intelligent design in the creation, most likely by a Creator God, and most likely, by logical deduction, the God of the Hebrews as described in the Bible .Let's digress for a moment and say that aliens existed and came and somehow manipulated our world and it's formation through some exotic and advanced technology. The question would still come up, where did they come from? And you'd be back looking at the same issues, only with a bit of a bizarre twist to it. The bottom line is we need to look at the big picture and determine what makes the most sense with the evidence we have. I suggest that we carefully examine the Biblical claims thoroughly firsthand before we dismiss them. Firsthand means actually reading the Book for yourself, not going on what Carl Sagan or Bertand Russell or Joe Smith or Professor so and so said ABOUT it. Read the Book yourself, then decide, for yourself! Objective analysis of the source document! an assortment of dataWe need to think the systems through to their logical conclusions. Which system makes the most sense based on the available data? I've already stated my belief, and hopefully you're willing to examine some of the information on the creationist view. I've held the evolution view, and promoted it quite vocally, as I've been often reminded by family members and friends when I've tried to share what I found that the Bible teaches. :)Does science support what the Bible says?The LAWS of ThermodynamicsThe term Thermodynamics is derived from Latin meaning "motion of heat". The concepts first dealt with the flow of heat. Through much study and testing a variety of physicists and scientists generalized the concepts to include all forms of energy.The FIRST Law of ThermodynamicsThe total energy of a closed system is constant.It may also be said: The total energy the universe is constant. The distribution of energy within that system may change. This is also known as the law of conservation of energy. (i.e. Energy is neither created nor destroyed) The SECOND Law of ThermodynamicsIn any system things to run down... and tend to go from complex to simple.Energy is changed from one form to another and becomes less useable each time, called "entropy". Entropy is a term created by Claussius (circa 1850) to indicate the unavailability of energy. The total entropy of the universe is continually increasing. The second law represents a limitation on the utilization of energy. This is also known as the law of entropy. (Energy is changed to a less useable form.) The laws of Thermodynamics are well established as being true and verifiable. They have eliminated the notion of perpetual motion, especially the 2nd law. These laws are prevalent in many fields of applied science. Typically referred to as "losses" the principles create significant challenges for designers and engineers. first encounter with realityWhile studying electronics I learned of the oscillator. My mind quickly figured out that I'd discovered perpetual motion! Thankfully I had a great teacher and he took me to the blackboard after class and explained to me the four losses in the circuit:
The extrapolation of the laws of Thermodynamics along with and understanding of the Bible goes a long way toward understanding and accepting the creation, and God's plan for man. The Laws of Thermodynamics in essence establish the bounds of energy within the creation. God built the system with a finite amount of energy. He set in motion certain laws of how that energy would be used, and also what drives the activities of the creation. The balance that the creation seeks is in essence the winding down of the universe. The ever increasing entropy. The reduction from complex to simple. The losses present in mechanical and electrical systems just reveal more about the creation, and that it is NOT FOREVER. It is finite and will end. The Bible declares that there will be a new heaven and a new earth, this one will not last. a summary of ideasGod spoke and matter and light came into existence. (Genesis 1:1, 1:3; John 1:1, 1:3)If you will, God is energy, and from energy He created matter. Einstein determined that matter and energy are interchangeable, and of course they are subject to the laws of thermodynamics. God is the source of energy within our closed system referred to as the Universe. God, however, is infinite and without bound in time and space. The creation is bound by both time and space, both of which are created, and has a finite amount of energy. (Ecclesiastes 1) God exists in the creation, but also outside the creation and is not bound by time or space as we understand it. (Ecclesiastes 3:11) God not only created the universe (Colossians 1:16), but also holds it together, even at the atomic level! (Colossians 1:17) God is not only concerned with the physical infrastructure of the universe, but more so with the primary focus of His creation: mankind. (John 3:16) The Bible reveals just enough of how God created the universe to pique our interests to get us to seek Him. (Ecclesiastes 3:11). The creation seeks a balance, when balanced it's hard to move. Think about that in relation to the laws of Thermodynamics. The study of the flow of heat within a system. Once the heat is distributed it can't be easily redistributed. The same way a battery will discharge. The laws of physics apply throughout the creation. These laws mitigate against the theory of evolution, especially a theory that requires vast quantities of time and high degrees of probability to come into effect. It just doesn't make sense in relation to the known and well accepted laws of physics and science. Compound to that the difficulty of the theory in relating it to the Word of God, the Bible . It doesn't work well against either measure. Science does not contradict the concepts of a Creator God, especially when dealing with the accepted laws of Physics. Science actually helps us to understand more about the awesome nature of God and His phenomenal creation. We have insight into the mind of God when we examine His handiwork. It should also be noted by the outline of scientific discoveries above that it takes time for us to understand, research, apply and synthesize the various things we learn from science. Wildly postulated theories that have little or no verifiable basis in science or logic must not be taught as factual. Honest scholarship requires the stating of underlying assumptions along with the idea. It is apparent that there is often a hostile agenda underlying the promotion of some theories, and this agenda is hidden for obvious reasons. If the agenda and assumptions were openly discussed the work would be exposed for what it is and ultimately dismissed as unscientific. The integrity of this kind of work should be questioned, verified and cast in the appropriate setting. If it's based on a faith with the idea there is no God, that's fine, but make sure it's stated as a faith based system and don't present it as factual. It's not. It's junk science when it's not qualified. Teaching evolution as factual without qualifying it as a theory based on godless secularism with little or not evidence to support it's major tenets is dishonest and poor scholarship. Teaching the theory of evolution with an explanation of it's underlying premises and dealing with the total lack of evidence to support the transitional elements (a.k.a., the missing link), is within the bounds of qualified science, especially when objectively compared to other possibilities, primarily the Biblical view of Creation. Both are ultimately based on faith. Laying out the theories, the known facts, the evidence, or lack of evidence, and the ideas associated with both in an objective and non-hostile environment will ultimately let truth and logic determine which system makes the most sense. scripture referenced:
|
"...but the just shall live by his faith."
Der Gerechte wird aus Glauben leben.
Mas El Justo vivira Por Fe.
Le Juste Vivra Par la foi.
Live by faith.Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.=============================================================The just shall live by Faith...en... Mas El Justo vivira Por Fe...Der Gerechte wird aus Glauben le b Le Juste vivra par la foi...tians 3:11, Hebrews 10:38 ================================Habakkuk 2:4b, Romans 1:17, Gala=============================
0 comments