1.9.1 Godless Embryologists: An Origins Parable

Over the years, there has been a great deal of blood spilled, or at least ink spilled, over the creation science and origins debates. What follows is an "intelligently designed" attempt to illustrate the differences between various positions on origins, using a somewhat humorous but generally accurate parable. This is presented in the form of position statements on the fictitious but highly controversial "embryology versus Bible" debate.

BACKGROUND

The science of embryology says that a baby is formed through natural processes, starting with the "conception" when a sperm cell joins with an egg cell. These two cells join their DNA and subdivide into multiple cells, which becomes a fetus. Over time, the fetus grows in size through cellular division, and various biological structures gradually develop into distinctive body parts. After approximately nine months, a normal pregnancy will come to full term, and the baby is born.

By contrast, the Bible declares that babies are made by God. Psalm 139:13-14 (NIV) declares, "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well." Also, "Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things" (Isaiah 44:24); and "Did not he that made me in the womb make him? and did not one fashion us in the womb?" (Job 31:15).

Does God create babies, or are they formed through gradual biological processes? The following statements outline various theological positions in this controversy.


ATHEISM / MATERIALISM

Babies are formed through purely natural processes of biological development. These processes can be studied and examined scientifically, and follow regular patterns of natural cause and effect. There is no reason to think that a divine being or miraculous intervention are required in order to help this process along. Physical matter is all there is, and nature is quite capable of getting the job done without the action of a god or gods.


NEW ATHEISM

Same as above, and anyone who still believes God is involved in the process of human birth is either a lunatic, an idiot, or both.


YOUNG EMBRYO CONCEPTIONISM (YEC) with APPEARANCE OF AGE and CATASTROPHISM

The godless embryologists tell us that babies are formed through naturalistic processes in the absence of God. This is known as "materialism". They also mistakenly believe that babies are formed gradually over a process of many months, which is based on their naturalistic assumption of "uniformitarianism" - the belief that processes of biological development only take place uniformly and gradually. Yet they have no explanation for all the complex interactions that lead to the development of the various systems in our bodies.

Holy scripture, on the other hand, declares that God knits us together in our mother's womb, and that He is the creator and maker of our physical bodies as well as our souls. Who are we to believe, human scientists with limited and incomplete knowledge, or God who knows all things and has declared Himself to be our Maker?

Since God is all-powerful, there is no reason to believe that He needed all those months and laborious activity in order to create a human body. Whereas secular, anti-Christian science declares that it takes nine months for a baby to form, the Christian assumption of "catastophism" says that things don't have to necessarily happen slowly over long periods of time, but can actually develop quickly through a rapid succession of stages. New research indicates that babies may actually be formed in about ten seconds through a rapid process of development, not the nine months as generally assumed by materialistic scientists. All the presumed length of time and gradual steps of development over months of time, including the detailed history implanted in the memory of the mother, sonagram pictures, and doctor's office records, actually just indicate an appearance of age and not actual age. God creates babies in ten seconds and implants a supernatural soul just before their eventual birth, but due to the effects of "appearance of age" it merely seems like it has taken place over a long period of time.


OLD EMBRYO CONCEPTIONISM (OEC)

The science of embryology is generally correct with respect to the physical sequence of the creation of babies, including the time of development from conception to birth, and the processes of fertilization, implantation, and gradual biological development. Yet science cannot explain exactly how the body of a fetus develops new body parts and internal organs, the development of the complexities of the eye, the circulatory and immune systems, etc. All they can do is presume that nature is capable of doing these things in the absence of God, without providing any sort of complete explanation.

Scripture provides the answer to these problems that continue to stump materialistic scientists. It says that God forms us in our mother's womb, but it also says that God "fashions" us, using language similar to the working of an artisan, such as a potter. A potter uses raw materials such as clay and the spinning motion of a potter's wheel, yet he imparts intelligent action at various points in order to shape the clay. In the same way, naturalistic forces and materials by themselves are unable to account for all the amazing complexity of the human body. God intercedes at various points during the process of fetal development in order to miraculously create elements of bodily function, yet in between times, He allows the natural process of biological development to proceed in normal fashion. Most notably is the injection of the human soul, which is an act of divine fiat and cannot be explained in naturalistic terms.


INTELLIGENT DESIGN (ID)

The intricate processes and systems in the human body are amazingly complex and cannot be accounted for in terms of materialistic assumptions. Systems such as the human eye, DNA, immune system, etc., have surprising levels of complexity and specificity which are best viewed in terms of information theory, using Shannon's theorems. The degree of complex specified information (CSI) present in DNA and many other biological structures and systems are best explained as a designed system that originated from some intelligent source, rather than through a series of random, chance events.

Intelligent design is a scientific claim about design being evidenced by the information content, not a theological or philosophical claim. ID makes no claims as to the identity of the "intelligent designer" -- it might have been from a God or gods, an alien, or possibly an intelligent stork that is capable of producing these designed features within an otherwise natural process. ID also makes no statement as to the length of fetal development -- it could be ten seconds or nine months, but that conclusion is beyond the kind of scientific assertion that ID is able to make.


THEISTIC EMBRYOLOGY (TE)

The science of embryology is very well developed and has a great deal of accurate knowledge of bodily processes inherent in the development and birth of a child. While science cannot (and perhaps never will) have complete knowledge of every detailed step in this developmental process, the general conclusion that human fetal development occurs through essentially natural processes seems to be an inescapable conclusion based on the evidence at hand. There is no reason to assume that supernatural miracles are necessary in order to progress a fetus from one stage of development to another, and science continues to fill in gaps in our limited human knowledge as to the details of this process.

However, science is limited to studying only the natural, "secondary" causes and effects, and has nothing whatsoever to say about the presence or absence of a divine Creator. The belief in a divine Creator is a theological position, which is entirely justified based on the evidence, but which can neither be conclusively proven nor disproven by science. Among the evidences that point to a divine creator is the very fact that something exists rather than nothing, and the fact that life bears evidence of a beginning and progress toward a final end, rather than an eternal self-existence. As theists, we absolutely believe that God is the Creator and sustainer of all things, including fetal development, and that He is the "primary cause" of all things. The fact that He chooses to create human bodies through a progression of apparently natural, secondary causes is not surprising, because that is how all of nature appears to work from a scientific point of view.

Theistic Embryologists differ over the degree or manner of God's involvement in fetal development. Some believe that God's providence is universally and completely present within and through all things at all times, so that the development of a fetus is simultaneously the work of Providence (primary cause) and natural processes (secondary causes). Others prefer a view known as "front-loading" or "fully gifted conception", which holds that God only needed to create the initial blueprint of how cells can fertilize, reproduce, and develop. After that, no more interventions or miraculous acts are required to progress the fetus through its development. TEs also differ on whether the soul is a supernatural creation that is implanted into the physical human body, or whether the soul is an emergent property of humankind.

1.9 Comparing Theories of Creation and Evolution

The previous sections have discussed several different varieties of creationist theories and several different evolutionary theories from the natural sciences. Each one proposes or implies a variety of scientific evidence and philosophical rationale for its position. How are we to evaluate these various theories and compare between them?

This section illustrates and compare these various theories in several different ways. One method of comparing them is to look at what aspects of science (including various forms of evolution) are accepted by the different creation science theories, and which aspects are rejected. Then one can compare the relative strength of the scientific evidence.

	<1800	YEC	OEC	TE
Microevolution	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
Age of earth > 4 b.y.	No	No	Yes	Yes
Stellar Evolution	No	?	Yes	Yes
Age of universe > 13 b.y.	No	No	Yes	Yes
Macroevolution	No	No	No	Yes
Chemical Evolution	No	No	No	?

None of the above points accepted by modern science were in wide acceptance before the year 1800, because the evidence had not yet been widely studied. Most advocates of creation science in all modern varieties are willing to accept evidence of microevolution (small changes within species), where it was once thought that species were individually created by God and were fixed and unchanging. Old Earth Creation is willing to accept the age of the earth and the universe and its development over time, but is unwilling to accept macroevolution. Theistic Evolution accepts all of these (with the provision that God is in indirect control of all these things), but is split over whether the first development of life (chemical evolution) could have happened through explainable natural forces, or whether this is an example of where God’s direct supernatural intervention was required. Intelligent Design is not included in this table, because ID advocates do not claim to take a position on these issues.

A different form of this comparison is found at Craig Rusbilt’s page “Definitions and Comparisons in Logical Scientific Evaluation of Evolution and Creation) (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/logic.htm).

1.8.4 Microevolution and Macroevolution

Microevolution and Macroevolution

Within the subject of biological evolution, the terms “microevolution” and “macroevolution” are used. Microevolution is used to refer to those small changes that occur over generations, generally within a given species or sub-species. Macroevolution usually refers to the large-scale changes between major groups, such as plants and animals, amphibians and mammals, etc.

It used to be believed that since God created all things to reproduce “after their kind,” all species must remain unchanged after their appearance on the earth. This idea was based on the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle, and the work of Carolus Linnaeus in the 18th century. Linnaeus was the one who provided the basis for biological classification into such groupings as kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species.

It is now well accepted even by most creation scientists that organisms do undergo genetic mutation, adaptation, and speciation (dividing into new species or sub-species). These kinds of changes can actually be observed over relatively short periods of time. However, most creation science advocates hold that such changes are limited to the species level, or to a more vague grouping of a Biblical “kind” that possibly includes the scientific classification of genus, or even “family.” Sometimes they will use another term such as “adaptation” to avoid the dreaded “E” word.

One of the problems with creation scientists saying that “microevolution within kinds has occurred, but macroevolution hasn’t” is the fact that their categories of “kinds” are not well defined. They may allow in some cases that a “kind” includes genus as well as species. Thus, “microevolution” within a “kind” might take in quite a lot of biological change, and yet must necessarily fall short of being macroevolution, because they have created their own unique definitions to be mutually exclusive. What it seems to come down to for many creation science advocates is that “microevolution is any sort of biological evolution that I am willing to accept, and macroevolution is any evolution that I am unwilling to accept.”

Macroevolution, or changes from one major group of organisms to another, is much more difficult to observe directly, because it presumably takes vastly longer periods of time to accomplish. Much of the evidence for macroevolution comes from comparison of fossil evidence of growing diversity of species over time, and the observable features and genetic relatedness between various groups of organisms. One of the really bad arguments made by creation scientists involves a confusion or distortion over what macroevolution really means. Caricatures or cartoons of hippos giving birth to whales may be comical, but as an attack on the scientific arguments for macroevolution, they fall far short. Scientists don’t believe, for instance, that some crocodile gave birth to the first bird. Rather, they say that reptiles and birds share a “common ancestor” at approximately some geological epoch, and that successive changes brought about diversity between the two lineages until distinct species developed.

Scientists in the field of biology, if they do use the distinction of micro- and macroevolution, generally believe that they are part of the same thing, and that there is no clear distinction between micro- and macroevolution. They observe that small changes occur within the species. They observe evidence for one species dividing into two distinct species, which can no longer mate with each other. They see other evidences of change over time in physical characteristics, genetics, and fossil progression through the geological record, and they conclude that macroevolution is simply microevolution that has been at work for a very long time. Some of these issues will be discussed later, but suffice it to say there are evidences for macroevolution having actually occurred (see “29+ Evidences for Macroevolution”, by Douglas Theobald). Whether such evidence is convincing or the conclusions are justified is certainly a matter for debate.

1.8.3 Biological evolution, Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism

Biological evolution is the theory that all existing species of plant and animal have developed from common ancestors. It has to do with the survival and adaptation of existing biological forms of life, and is thus distinct from other varieties of evolution, such as stellar or chemical evolution. It is also the one which receives the most popular attention and controversy.

Charles Darwin’s book On the Origin of Species is most commonly credited with the development of the “theory of evolution,” based on his observations of geology and the variety of species, but there were others around the same time proposing similar theories (such as Alfred Russel Wallace). Previous to Darwin’s time, a common view was that all of nature was specially designed for specific purposes, and biological species were thought to remain unchanged as originally created. Darwin suggested that organisms change over time, branching out from a common ancestor (“descent with modification”), and that competitive pressures will lead to the survival of organisms that can pass on traits which make their continued survival more likely (“natural selection”). Thus, biological evolution is sometimes referred to as “Darwinism”.
However, at the time Darwin wrote, neither he nor anyone else had knowledge of genetics (later discovered by Mendel and others), DNA, and a variety of other mechanisms which have since been discovered in biological organisms. Darwin himself proposed that parent species acquired new observable traits during their lifetimes which were passed on to their descendents (later termed “Lamarckism”, which has since fallen out of favor in the scientific community). The modern scientific theory of evolution is sometimes referred to as “neo-Darwinism”, because it retains the original ideas of Charles Darwin, but has been modified and synthesized with other theories.

Darwin’s theories of natural selection and common descent are central to current biological theory, but in many ways the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory is different from Charles Darwin’s original writings. Most scientific publications don’t generally use the term “Darwinism.” The term seems mostly to be used by creationist organizations in their rhetoric against “the godless, atheistic alternative to the Biblical creation account.” They are describing a philosophy rather than a strictly scientific account of nature. For these reasons, the term “Darwinism” is fairly useless today for describing the current scientific theory of biological evolution, because it means vastly different things to different people.

It should also be noted that even though some people credit Charles Darwin with striking a fatal blow against religious belief and promoting merely blind chance in place of divine providence, Darwin’s theory did not exclude the influence of a divine Creator. Even though he personally went through periods of theism, deism, and ended up an agnostic, he was never an atheist. His view of nature always acknowledged some sort of belief in intelligent design, as he could not bring himself to think of the wonderful complexities of nature occurring completely on their own (http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/3Darwin.htm). In the sixth edition of On the Origin of Species, the phrase “by the Creator” was added to the final paragraph: “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”

1.8.2 Chemical Evolution

Chemical evolution has to do abiogenesis (“origin of life”). It involves scientific hypotheses for how the first living things might have been able to form from the right combination of chemicals and other factors. Experiments, such as one conducted by Stanley Miller and Harold Ulrey in 1952, show that organic compounds, including amino acids, can form spontaneously from the right combination of chemicals and energy. It is speculated that this might have been one means of forming the precursors to the first living things on earth.

There are a number of problems with the scientific data on this, including the fact that such molecules found in nature are either all “left handed” or “right handed,” but those formed spontaneously in the experiments contain an equal number of both, which is not suitable for life as we know it. It is also unknown what combination of chemicals were present in the earth’s early atmosphere, and whether the precise environmental conditions were present to allow them to form spontaneously. Many scientific theories abound, which attempt to explain these questions, but so far there is no definitive model which can explain the pathway from inorganic chemicals to self-replicating molecules, not to mention complex living cells, etc.

1.8.1 Stellar Evolution

Stellar evolution

Stellar evolution describes a scientific theory of how stars, elements, and galaxies could form spontaneously as a result of the Big Bang, using known physical laws of gravitation and nuclear forces. The theory comes from observing stars at many different stages of existence and comparing with the results of theoretical simulations made by computer models.

The current scientific paradigm for the origin and development of the early universe is the Big Bang theory. This states that the universe originated approximately 13.7 billion years ago from an extremely hot, extremely dense point of extremely small volume. From that point, matter and energy emanated into space – actually, theory says that space itself expanded from that point to become the known visible universe. Slight fluctuations in gravity caused atoms to clump together, eventually forming clusters of matter that would eventually become bonded together by the force of gravitation.
This cloud eventually collapses, releasing heat and condensing into a sphere of superheated gas. The gas reaches the point where nuclear fusion begins, and protons fuse together to form hydrogen, deuterium and helium. A new star is born.

Depending on the size and mass of the star, it may go through various stages of development. The process of fusion continues, creating heavier elements with more protons. At a later stage, the core of the star collapses, forming a neutron star, black hole, supernova, and/or white dwarf star. The explosion releases these heavier elements into space, which can recombine later to form new star systems or objects such as planets. Heavier elements may also be released from non-exploding red giant stars.

1.8 Theories of Evolution

Theories of Evolution

Having mentioned several different theories of creation, I will move on to discussing several facets of the “theory of evolution”; actually several different theories, as understood by the scientific community. Although I haven't tried to focus this blog on the narrow topic of “creation vs. evolution,” that is a common topic of discussion. However, it’s not enough to just speak of the “theory of evolution” as a whole -- often those who do, tend to lump a lot of things together that are actually different things and should be considered individually. We need to clarify the definitions of the various types and varieties of evolutionary concepts in science, in order to identify what kind of evolution we are speaking of and consider how to properly address them.
See Craig Rusbult, “Evaluation of Evolutions” (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/evolution2.htm) for links to many resources on these topics.

Some of the meanings of evolution include the following (see “A Voice For Evolution As Science”, http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1992/PSCF12-92ASACouncil.html; Keith Stewart Thomson, “The Meanings of Evolution”, American Scientist, Vol. 70, pp. 529-31, Sept-Oct 1982):

1. the general concept of “change over time”; this is a very broad definition, and includes a lot of things which are simply not controversial, even for Biblical fundamentalists.
2. the hypothesis that all “organisms are related through common ancestry”; this is one of the fundamental concepts of biological evolution, as suggested by Charles Darwin and others.
3. a theory proposing a particular explanatory mechanism for the pattern and process described in (1) and (2). For any scientific theory, different hypotheses are suggested and modified over time based on the evidence. Some of the things Darwin suggested have been discarded, modified and supplemented over the last 150 years, so that “Darwinism” is no longer a useful term, unless referring specifically to Darwin's particular beliefs. The term “Darwinism” is no longer used much in scientific literature, and it is mainly used today only in a perjorative sense by creationists.
4. a scientifically focused concept of populations adapting to changing environments;
5. a religiously value-laden tenet of naturalistic faith, that “Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind” (George Gaylord Simpson, The Meaning of Evolution, 1967, p. 345.).

This last “meaning” of evolution should be recognized as a philosophical statement of belief, not a scientific hypothesis or conclusion. To say that natural processes are “purposeless” and that man is “simply” a result of these purely physical processes, is clearly beyond the scope of what science can legitimately conclude. Yet, some scientists insist on promoting this philosophical view in the name of science. Many creationists accept this false definition, helping blur the distinction between science and philosophy.

1.7.4 Theistic Evolution

Theistic Evolution (TE)

Another common belief among Christians is “Theistic Evolution”, or “evolutionary creation”. They believe the biological and fossil evidence indicates that natural processes were the physical processes (secondary causes) by which species came about over time, yet they acknowledge God as the primary cause of all things. In this sense, they agree with the “theory of evolution” (the science) in what it says about the biological history of life on earth, but rejects the conclusions (philosophical materialism) of atheistic scientists who conclude that there must be no God. Theistic Evolution doesn’t generally propose an alternative science to mainstream scientific consensus, as the other forms of creationism do, but proposes that the natural mechanisms within nature are just the part that we can understand scientifically. God’s action and providence are not meant to be understood through scientific formulas and processes.

For instance, one proposal is that God created this beautiful and complex world with inherent capabilities to be able to spontaneously produce life under the right conditions, and modify and adapt genetically to grow new forms and species of plants and animals. God did not directly create the visible universe through what we would call supernatural intervention. Instead, He acted indirectly through the design of the universe that was capable of producing structure and order as we see around us. God’s providence was expressed in the physical creation by “building in” the potential for it to develop as it has, and He still manifests His providence in sustaining us in our spiritual relationship to Him. This view credits God with such amazing creative ability that He could encode into the fabric of nature itself the ability to spontaneously develop all that God had decreed from the beginning, and doesn’t require God to “tinker” with the machinery along the way to keep it going on a certain trajectory. It doesn’t necessarily deny that God can or does do miracles, but claims that such interventions are not normally necessary. (An extreme form of this view is essentially what is referred to as "Deism," the idea of God as a Watchmaker who wound up the creation at the beginning, but no longer interacts with it directly.)

Another form of TE, and in some ways almost opposite of the view above, is that God’s presence in creation is completely pervasive. That is, rather than God creating the universe and then letting it spontaneously develop, or once in a while stepping in to make a special act of creation (forming the earth, creating a new species, etc.) as in other forms of creationism, God and His providence are present all the time in guiding creation toward accomplishing His purposes. He is intimately “in and through all things” and continuously involved with every aspect of the creation, but at a level that we cannot perceive scientifically (or at least not easily or often). The physical processes of creation are simply the means through which God is accomplishing the outward development of the universe, and His grace is similarly pervasive in working out His spiritual will within our lives. Thus, all the evidences for physical creation and development might one day end up being describable scientifically and have the appearance of purely “natural” forces, but God is working at a lower level which is not scientifically detectable.

Another variation on Theistic Evolution suggests that the apparent randomness in quantum theory, chaos theory, and other as yet unknown processes such as genetic mutation are some of the means through which God can effect specific outcomes or general variation and development within creation, and yet his actions can remain hidden behind processes that appear random to us. God could cause a genetic mutation, or a quantum event at an atomic level, which is to us simply within the range of random probability, so that He remains undetectable and yet active in moving creation forward toward His will, both in terms of stellar and planetary creation, and biological diversity culminating in humans who can comprehend His ways and bear His image.

There have been many proponents of the various forms of Theistic Evolution, from Alfred Russell Wallace and Asa Gray (contemporaries of Charles Darwin), Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and many modern writers including Keith B. Miller, Kenneth R. Miller, Francis S. Collins, Denis Lamoureux, John Polkinghorne, Simon Conway Morris, George Murphy, Alister McGrath, and Howard Van Till.

1.7.3 Intelligent Design

Intelligent Design (ID)

A theory which is gaining a lot of popularity in the media recently is “Intelligent Design” (ID). Strictly speaking, ID is not a creation theory in the same sense as the others discussed. Intelligent Design generally consists of showing exemplary features of the natural world that seem to be clear examples of designed structures. These are presented as counter-examples to traditional Darwinian evolution, which is said to be based on undirected, step-by-step genetic modification and natural selection. Intelligent Design advocates emphasize a concept of “irreducible complexity,” and on the fine-tuning arguments of the basic laws of nature by asserting that the fundamental properties of nature are finely tuned to allow for the development of matter and living things.

The theory of “irreducible complexity” involves looking at the complex mechanisms evident in the physical world where various parts of an organism are interdependent on one another, and questioning how each of those parts could have formed gradually over time. Some structures appear to be so complex that there is no way that they can be reduced to individual parts without destroying the whole, and no conceivable mechanism by which they could have developed step by step over time. By implication, there is no way for one part to have developed over time by evolution, while waiting on the other part to be developed later, because the organism could not survive without all the parts having been put into place all at once. A classic example given by Michael Behe is the bacterial flagellum, which is effectively a small outboard motor that propels the bacteria’s motion, where all the parts are claimed to be necessary before the mechanism can be of any benefit to the organism.

Strictly speaking, there is a difference between the belief in “intelligent design” and the “Intelligent Design” movement. Those who hold a YEC belief automatically believe in intelligent design, because they believe God miraculously created and designed all things. Similarly, advocates of OEC who believe in special creation and/or divinely manipulated genetic modification, also accept the principle of design. Even Theistic Evolutionists (to be discussed next) would claim there was a very intelligent design which went into designing a universe so complex that it could develop life and complexity through natural processes, or through the pervasive but hidden activity of God’s providence.

The Intelligent Design movement is distinct from any of these, and involves an overlap with all the other creation theories, and even includes those who are not Christians or theists. Many of its adherents accept the scientific evidence for an old earth and biological evolution, although people from the YEC view definitely use the concepts of irreducible complexity and fine-tuning as well. Often the ID movement makes special emphasis that they are not promoting a religious theory at all, claiming not to make any specific identification of the intelligent designer. Its main claim is that certain things may be detectable as being intelligently designed, as opposed to arising naturally through purely material causes and effects.

The most prominent ID organization is the Discovery Institute (http://www.discovery.org).

1.7.2 Old Earth Creation

Old Earth Creation (OEC)

So-called “Old Earth Creation” (OEC) or "Progressive Creation" acknowledges the scientific evidence which points toward an earth that is approximately 4.6 billion years old, and a universe which is approximately 13.7 billion years old. During the long history of nature, God intervened miraculously (or supernaturally; that is, outside the normal course of natural cause and effect) to perform acts of special creation. In particular, the appearance of first life was an act of divine creation, rather than occuring through natural processes, and the creation of mankind was another act of special creation, rather than through evolutionary development from earlier forms of hominid.

Along with YEC, the OEC view often advocates a strong “concordism”. That is, the Bible is reconciled to science in such a way that the Bible account in fact agrees with the scientific account. In order to reconcile this view with the first chapter of Genesis, some OECists claim that a “day” of God’s creation was actually an extremely long unspecified period of time, corresponding with the scientific evidence for the origins of light, planets, flora and fauna, and mankind.

One variation of OECism says that at various points in time, God acted with independent acts of creation, creating “from scratch” various organisms, species, and people. This would mean that each species would not have a direct biological inheritance from older species (as predicted by the theories of evolution), because each species was specially created; or at least, most importantly, that mankind is distinct from other species.

Another variation of OEC agrees that the earth is old and there is a progression indicated in the fossil from older to more recent species, and that God brought about the creation of species by extensive modification of existing genetic material (adding, deleting, modifying genes in existing species to create new species over time). In effect, this view recognizes the genetic and fossil evidence of gradual change in species, but claims that it was specific, miraculous acts of God in history which caused this development. This perhaps begs the question of whether science could detect the difference between supernatural “tweaking” of the genetic code versus natural effects causing the variation.

One organization which promotes an OEC view is Reasons to Believe (http://www.rtb.org/), founded by astronomer Hugh Ross. See also a list of quotes from 100 “Notable Christians Open to an Old Earth Interpretation”.

1.7.1 Young Earth Creation

Young Earth Creation (YEC)

What is generally referred to as “creationism” in the popular media as well as many Christian circles, is actually only one specific form of belief about creation -- “Young Earth Creation”, which we will abbreviate YEC. This is the view that God miraculously created everything in essentially its current form within six 24-hour days, sometime approximately 6000 years ago. Along with this view and companion to it, is the idea that the flood of Noah was a universal, worldwide deluge in about 2300 B.C., which destroyed most living things including all humans and animals over the whole globe, and formed most of the world’s fossil record and geological features. Adam and Eve were the first humans and the ancestors of all humankind, and their sin changed the nature of the physical creation so that animal and human death were introduced into the world.

YEC depends generally on a literal, face-value reading of the accounts in Genesis. All evidences from science which disagree with a young earth and universe must therefore be explained in some way. There is some disagreement over the exact details among those who hold a YEC view. Some reject all contrary scientific evidence and claim that any appearance of greater age in nature is simply because God created it in something like its present form. Others try to avoid "appearance of age" arguments and instead propose various mechanisms to account for the evidence. Most modern-day proponents of YEC generally accept so-called “microevolution” (small adaptations within species over time), but not biological evolution between species. However, as will be discussed later, some modern YEC proposals suggest extremely rapid evolution of species (or sub-species) after the flood, as a means of explaining the vast biological diversity without requiring millions of species on the ark.

YEC proponents include Answers in Genesis (www.answersingenesis.com), the Institute for Creation Research (www.icr.org), and many other organizations and individuals. Often YEC is presented as the only alternative to full naturalistic evolution, and the only truly Christian approach. I will discuss these claims later. For now, it will just be noted that “young-earth creationism” is but one of several positions on science and theology held by committed Christians.

1.7 Theories of Creation

Theories of Creation

I recently referred to “theories of creation,” in the plural. This is because there are many different viewpoints on creation and creation science, which are held by believers in Christ, as well as those of other religions or philosophies. In the following sections, I will briefly describe some of these theories of creation in the broad sense, without yet getting into the specific theories which are advanced to explain specific natural phenomena. It is important to recognize that a belief in creation is not limited to one viewpoint, but that there are many different views which are honestly held by sincere Christians. Before accepting any view as “the only way,” or rejecting certain views as false, it would be wise to understand them first, and to understand the many scientific and theological reasons that form the basis for why people hold those ideas.

The following sections will summarize the main positions that are typically referred to as Young Earth Creationism (YEC), Old Earth Creationism (OEC) or Progressive Creationism (PC), Theistic Evolution (TE, also Evolutionary Creation or Continuous Creation), and Intelligent Design (ID).

For more information see the American Scientific Affiliation’s report from its Commission on Creation, which summarizes the points held in common and distinguishing features between these various views. Another way of analyzing various methods of viewing the relation between science and faith is given by Richard Bube, “Seven Patterns For Relating Science And Faith.”

1.6 What is a Theory?

What is a Theory?

Science operates according to the scientific method, which includes the creation of a theory or hypothesis, and the analysis and evaluation of those theories. In this section, some definitions of “theory” are explored.

The common definition of “theory” is a speculation, assumption, or conjecture. In other words, the way we commonly use the word “theory” is synonymous with "guess."

However, from a scientific point of view, “theory” is defined differently. A formal definition is: “a systematically organized body of knowledge, especially a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena.” In other words, a scientific theory is a model or framework of understanding which is used to explain something. It may include some guesswork or assumption in explaining unknown characteristics, but it’s not simply speculation without evidence.

One characteristic of a scientific theory is that it should be “falsifiable” – able to be demonstrated whether the hypothesis is true or false. This refers to the experiment and evaluation portion of the scientific method. Scientific theories go where the evidence leads. The rejection or revision of the hypothesis based on evidence should always be considered a possible outcome. If a scientist is unwilling to fairly evaluate the evidence and conclude that his hypothesis might be wrong, he will inevitably have to bend or ignore facts which disagree with his hypothesis.

This is an extremely important point to observe. A proposed explanation for which the final conclusion is held to be true no matter what the evidence shows, is not a scientific theory. Instead, this is a “tautology” – something which is asserted to be true by definition or repetition. This could apply equally to theories of creation as well as evolution.

Often the “Theory of Evolution” is derided by creationists as being “only a theory.” The intent of such statements is to caricature the scientific model (theory) of evolution using the common, non-scientific definition of theory. What they mean is, “evolution is merely an unproven conjecture.” And after all, it would be foolish to believe something that is mere conjecture, right? This method of downplaying evolution is typically employed in a scoffing tone for rhetorical value, but it is a logical fallacy of equivocation -- using two different definitions that are inconsistent.

The scientific theory of evolution is also criticized as being a tautology – something that scientists believe because they are predisposed to believing it, even though the evidence doesn’t support it. However, these are unfair and untrue characterizations. The theory of evolution is a genuine scientific theory, based on reasoned hypotheses about real evidence obtained from the physical world using a variety of scientific disciplines. It may be that the theory of evolution, or parts of it, or some of its proposed mechanisms, can be disproved based on the evidence. But to mischaracterize it using emotion-laden, non-scientific definitions, without fair consideration to the scientific issues and evidences involved, will not serve our purpose of constructing a solid Christian answer to the “evolution question.”

Further, it can be shown that, more often than not, many creationist “theories” are in fact mere conjecture, because they lack any scientific validation for their claims, and in many cases actually contradict the available evidence. Creationists who disparage evolution because it is “mere speculation” (as they claim), and yet fabricate their own highly speculative theories which they are unwilling to reconsider based on the evidence, are being dishonest and inconsistent. They are doing the very things they accuse the evolutionists of doing.

A good scientific theory is functional, in that it explains how things work, usually in terms of a prediction of how things will be expected to work in the future, or it anticipates the discovery of new evidence or principles. The theory of gravity is well understood, and can be used to explain why a ball tossed in the air travels in a parabolic trajectory. In fact, it has been demonstrated so completely and accurately as to be called the “law of gravity”; yet, we don't yet know for sure what is the actual mechanism of what causes gravity.
Even if our present theory of gravity were to be replaced in the future with better formulas or theories, they would still have to account for the evidence that is already known. In physics, this happened when Einstein's theories replaced Newtonian physics by showing that Newton's theories were special cases of more general principles. In the same way, the present theories of how biological species have developed over time will certainly be modified with further research, but any scientific theory or model (including creation theories) which claims to answer such questions must deal with and explain the existing body of real, physical evidence that is known to exist.

1.5 - What is Science / Scientific Method

What is Science / Scientific Method

Science is defined as “the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.” Another definition is, “knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws, especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method and concerned with the physical world and its phenomena.”

The definition of science includes the concepts of “scientific method” and “theory”. We need to understand these concepts in order to understand what science is, how it works, and what are its strengths and weaknesses as a means of obtaining truth about nature. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)

The “scientific method” is a body of techniques developed throughout the history of scientific investigation, from the ancient Egyptians and Greeks, but particularly with the rise of the modern physical sciences in the 17th and 18th centuries. The scientific method is the primary way that science investigates phenomena, acquires knowledge of the natural world, and corrects and integrates previous knowledge based on objective, empirical, measurable evidence and laws of reasoning.

The scientific method consists of the following:

• Characterization (quantified information of existing knowledge, observations, measurements). This may include a list of unsolved problems for which an answer is sought.


• Hypothesis (theoretical, hypothetical explanation). This is a suggested explanation of a phenomenon, or proposal of correlation between existing data. A hypothesis or theory is generally testable based on the evidence, and may be proven true or false by later investigation.


• Prediction (reasoning, including logical deduction from hypotheses and theories). A useful hypothesis will generally make predictions of currently unknown outcomes. For instance, Einstein’s theories of relativity made a number of predictions, such as that light could be bent by gravitational fields, which have subsequently been proven true by observation.


• Experiment (to test all the above). The experiments may confirm or contradict the hypothesis. The scientist will then go back to the beginning to analyze and characterize the new information, correct (or in some cases completely replace) the hypothesis, and develop further experiments. If the hypothesis is confirmed by repeatable experiments and peer review of the results, and if it adds value in terms of useful explanation and predictions, it is accepted as a good theory. However, even good theories may still be expanded or contradicted over time as a result of further investigation through new observations, hypotheses and experiments.

There are many fields of science, such as:
- Natural sciences:
physics, including astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, dynamics, nuclear physics
chemistry, including analytical, organic, physical, theoretical, nuclear, biochemistry
earth sciences, including geology, meteorology, oceanography, paleontology, seismology, soil science
biology, including anatomy, biochemistry, botany, genetics, immunology, neuroscience, zoology
- Social sciences: anthropology, archaeology, economics, law, linguistics, philosophy, psychology, sociology
- Applied sciences: cognitive sciences, computer sciences, engineering, health sciences
- Environmental sciences: atmospheric sciences, ecology, environmental chemistry, geosciences

Why isn’t astrology, alchemy, black magic, voodoo, mental telepathy, etc., in this list? What is it about those things that makes them non-scientific? See Gordon Glover’s video #2 in his “Science and Christian Education” series (http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/video-presentations/science-and-christian-education/science-and-christian-education-page-1).
These things are not science, because they deal with non-natural phenomena. They can’t be studied in a systematic way, and don’t follow natural cause and effect relationships. We wouldn’t expect these subjects to receive equal time in a science classroom. Alchemy has an interesting history, being once studied by some of the early eminent scientists (for instance, Isaac Newton and Robert Boyle), and it helped form the basis for modern chemistry and pharmacology; yet, its supernatural and mystical qualities are not legitimate scientific concerns.

Should special creation and “creation science” be included with these other sciences? Does “creation science” follow the rules of science? Does it make useful predictions and testable theories about the operation of nature? Are those theories supported by the evidence? Is creation science open to correction based on observational and experimental evidence, and peer review from other experts in scientific disciplines?
In this blog, I hope to the explore some of the evidences from nature, the methods, theories and assumptions made by mainstream science, and to evaluate the competing claims of “creation science”. I believe the evidence shows that in large measure, much of creation science is not good science; in fact, is often not science at all, but religious dogma covered in a veneer of scientific language. Yet, as a believer, it is also my desire to seek the best explanations which can reconcile Christian faith with the observational evidence from the world around us.

1.4 Miracles and “God of the Gaps”

Miracles and “God of the Gaps”

If science is limited to natural causes and effects, then what about miracles? What would result from allowing supernatural causes as part of scientific explanations? Does excluding miracles from scientific consideration mean that they aren’t true?

Science uses the tools of observation, measurement, testing and analysis to investigate the material world. One of the problems with introducing supernatural explanations into scientific theories is that scientists don’t have the tools necessary to investigate them. A miraculous event might be observable, but how can it be measured? How can we repeat a supernatural event in order to analyze it in detail, since it is by definition outside human control? If miracles are performed by God according to His will, they are not subject to repeatability by human initiative. Their outcomes are not capable of being predicted by any natural system, such as the law of gravity or the theory of relativity.
One illustration of this is scientific studies on the effectiveness of prayer. While believers are pleased whenever scientific studies are published claiming that prayer aids in the process of healing, do we really want to subject religious belief to scientific investigation? What happens when scientific studies prove that prayer isn’t that effective after all? Should such studies lead us to conclude that prayer is a waste of time? (There have been studies questioning the benefit of prayer.)

A true scientific experiment might be a “double-blind” test, where a group of people would be chosen to pray for individuals with medical needs, while another group is chosen to pray for imaginary people, and some of the sick aren’t prayed for at all. None of the subjects would know whether they were praying for a real person, and none of the sick would know whether they were being prayed for. The results would be tracked over time to gauge the effectiveness of prayer. But is the value of prayer in the praying itself, or is it partly in the fact that the faith of the sick is improved by knowing that there are caring people, and a caring God, concerned about them? Is it always God's will to bring physical healing? Even if such a study could prove that prayer is helpful, what would be the result? Hospitals might begin hiring staffs of “prayer employees,” to systematically offer prayers for every resident at medical facilities. But is this mechanical mechanism really the purpose of faith in God or the intended purpose of miraculous healing? By subjecting a supernatural, faith-based mechanism to scientific investigation, the special character of such activities would be detracted from.

Another difficulty with including miracle as an explanation is the “God of the Gaps” problem. Once we reach the end of our scientific knowledge, it is tempting to explain unknown phenomena as the interventionist work of a divine intelligence. Especially when this is taken to the level of “proof that God exists,” it often becomes problematic. “God of the Gaps” theology relies on the limits of human ignorance as evidence for God, and when those gaps in our knowledge are filled, the space for God (seems to) shrink.

An example of this might be the nature of solar energy. In the 1800’s, much was known about combustion and energy. They knew that the sun was a large star that was putting off tremendous amounts of energy into space in all directions. There was no known mechanism for explaining how the sun could give off this much energy through normal combustion, because it would burn itself out quickly. It might have been tempting for some 19th century Christians to claim that God himself was the source for divinely creating the light and heat given to us from the sun. This could have been reinforced by certain Bible verses that speak of Jesus as the light of the world, and God being the giver and sustainer of life.
However, this gap in our scientific knowledge was soon to be filled with the discovery of the processes of nuclear physics, and we learned that the energy in the sun comes from nuclear fusion of small elements. If we had relied on this gap in our knowledge as evidence for God’s existence, the natural process of nuclear fusion would have edged God out of this domain of responsibility that we had attributed to his miraculous power. A follow-on problem might be the temptation to oppose and obstruct the progress of science, when it appears that science is pushing God aside as a necessary explanation, due to its success in explaining physical causes and effects.

A third problem with the idea of attributing something to a miracle, as opposed to a natural scientific explanation, is that it creates an unnecessary either/or situation. Either God is responsible (miracle) or a natural process was involved. This doesn’t leave any room for something to be the result of both natural and providential influence. If God is providentially in control over all things, in addition to natural (secondary) causes, then there is no necessary conflict.

There is much more to say about miracles. One problem is even defining them. Are miracles violations of natural laws, or do they include natural occurrences that may have been providentially directed by God in terms of timing and location? An example of this might be with the Exodus of the Israelites – it has been suggested by various scholars that the plagues on Egypt and the parting of the Red Sea were naturally occurring phenomena, that were used by God to free Israel.
In either case, it is impossible for science to properly evaluate miracles. If they are violations of natural laws, science is incapable of investigating them, because science is limited to natural cause and effect. If certain miracles are natural occurrences that have been invisibly directed by God, then science can examine the physical aspects, but will have no power to explain the miraculous or unusual character of them (such as their rarity or specific timing). Yet, the fact that they occurred in precisely the time and place that they did indicates that God was in control. This is a matter of faith and is not subject to direct scientific validation.

1.3 Methodological Naturalism

Methodological Naturalism

As opposed to “philosophical materialism” already mentioned, there is a related term, “methodological naturalism” (MN). MN does not make any assumptions about the existence or non-existence of the supernatural. MN is the operative principle by which most science is done, regardless of the religious beliefs (or non-belief) of the scientist. Methodological naturalism is “the belief that science should explain phenomena only in terms of entities and properties that fall within the category of the natural, such as by natural laws acting either through known causes or by chance” (Ted Davis, Robin Collins, “Methodological Naturalism” in The History of Science and Religion in the Western Tradition: An Encyclopedia).

Methodological naturalism is a method of studying the physical universe, based on a belief that science’s ability to describe is limited to things that are natural. It assumes that ordinary, natural processes are at work and can be described, quantified, studied, and often predicted. A scientist relies on methodological naturalism simply because it is how the world appears to work. Because the universe and the things in it operate according to natural, orderly laws and principles, nature can be explored in a rational, systematic way.

In pagan mythologies, nature has a will of its own, or is under the control of unpredictable supernatural deities, who act according to their whims. If this were the case, scientists would be unable to do their jobs, because there wouldn’t be regular, physical laws underlying the natural world which can be discovered through systematic, repeatable experiments and observations.

In contrast, the Bible portrays God as a God of law, orderliness, and consistency, so His creation can be expected to act according to orderly processes, at least most of the time. Methodological naturalism is not necessarily a threat to Christian belief, as long as we recognize its inherent limitations, because it does not rule out that miracles can occur. When Jesus multiplied the loaves and fishes, that event cannot (or arguably, should not) be explained in naturalistic terms. However, once the loaves were eaten and the people's bodies received nutrients and strength from the food, no miraculous explanation is needed to explain the physiological effects. We might still consider the working of the body to be "miraculous" as a statement of faith and wonder, but it's a different sort of miracle.

Methodological naturalism has no claim on explaining the initial miracle, but it does have power to explain the natural processes by which nutrients are digested and broken down by enzymes, absorbed into the cells, energy is given off, etc. These are repeatable, natural processes that can be observed and quantified by using scientific methods. A Christian scientist is free to study the processes involved, while still granting the possibility that in some cases God may perform miracles that may or may not be fully explained scientifically, either as to the details of how or why they occurred.

We should note, however, that this view of the necessity of science being governed by methodological naturalism is contested by some creationists, because it seems to exclude God or supernatural causes from scientific inquiry by definition. This is a valid criticism which should at least be considered further. One question to consider is, what would science look like and how would it operate, if it allowed supernatural cause and effect as explanations?

Dialog 1.2 - Philosophies of Naturalism and Materialism

Philosophies of Naturalism and Materialism

Modern controversies surrounding science and religion don't get more heated than around the subject of evolution. The science community generally portrays evolution as purely science, and as the most reasonable hypothesis current to explain the observed facts of biology.

Yet, there are many atheists who promote evolution as an alternative to religion. Supporters of various brands of creationism agree with this point. They routinely caricature evolution (and sometimes science in general) as dangerous atheistic philosophy. At the same time, the creationists offer a self-styled "creation science" as an alternate scientific theory, which is often heavily influenced by their own theological presuppositions.

We have to recognize that just as there is a theological “doctrine of creation,” there is also a philosophical “doctrine of evolution.” The doctrine of evolution (as distinct from the science of evolution) might be generalized as follows: “Evolution is a theory which explains the origin of everything through purely natural processes.” One example of this view is: “Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind” (George Gaylord Simpson, The Meaning of Evolution, 1967, p. 345).

This is not science, but rather “philosophical materialism” – a philosophy which proposes that material causes and effects are all that exist. Some writers also refer to this as “philosophical naturalism.” In the context of evolution specifically, some distinguish between the term "evolution" (limited to the scientific aspects in question) and “evolutionism," which is the philosophy that evolution can explain the origins of all life, without dependence on a transcendent God as Creator. This supposition that nature is all-sufficient goes well beyond what science can tell us by its measurements, observations and theories. It is based on an atheistic worldview that, by definition, excludes from consideration anything supernatural. It holds that since the supernatural does not exist, miracles cannot occur, therefore there must always be a natural explanation for everything. But science cannot prove the existence or non-existence of things beyond nature, because it simply has no means of investigating non-natural or supernatural phenomena.

What, then, is science?

Both creationism and evolutionism are deeply theological and philosophical in nature, though they both touch on scientific issues. However, most of the real day-to-day work of science involves investigating and evaluating evidence from the world around us. Scientists ideally work with the observed data and develop understandings based on unbiased, rational conclusions. However, it is very difficult to achieve this ideal situation. There will always be a bias in the interpretation of data, based on the knowledge and philosophical framework of the individual. How does science work to eliminate the bias of individual researchers, and how well does it succeed?

In the following sections, we will take a little more detailed look at science: what constitutes a scientific theory, and how scientific theories are developed and tested, proved or disproved. In short, what is science, and how does it work? This is important to understand before we can evaluate the strength or weakness of theories given to us by both mainstream science and creation science. Then we will look at some of the evidence and how well it's explained by the various theories.

Dialog 1.1 - Theology/Philosophy of Creation

What is the doctrine of creation at it’s essence? It is a theology of divine providence. That is, God called into existence the physical world, containing life and various physical laws that govern how things work and why things happen. He continues to sustain and uphold that creation in the present tense.

This doesn’t say anything about “how” God created or caused anything to come into existence. Once we try to answer the questions of “how” the creation came to exist or how it operates, we find there is a need for more than theology. To put it differently, the laws involved in the act of creation and the activities of the created world are primarily questions of “How Things Work”, which are questions of scientific principles and physical laws. The Bible is not a textbook which explains these principles with scientific rigor. And would we expect the Bible to speak with with scientific precision? If so, why? Was that it's purpose, and if it had, would it have made sense to the original audiences?

If we didn’t have any science to deal with, only theology, the answers would always be trivial: “God did it.” I like the illustration in the following story:
A pastor was talking with a group of 7-year-old boys, trying to relate to them, and thought of a neat illustration. He told them, "I'm thinking of an animal that is small, grey, has a bushy tail, jumps from tree to tree, loves to gather nuts, and is very fast. Johnny, what animal am I thinking of?” Johnny squirmed uncomfortably, and finally answered, "Excuse me sir, I know the answer is Jesus, but it sounds like a squirrel to me."

Many religious people, when they think about creation or nature, are tempted in the same way to answer the questions of "how does the world work" and "how did it come to be this way" with "God did it." This may be true, but it doesn't contribute anything to our scientific understandings of the physical world.

We live in a scientific world, and science plays a fundamental part of everything we do, from the plastic spoons we use at picnics, to the cars we drive, to the CD and MP3 players we listen to, even in many ways the food we eat. Most aspects of the technology we enjoy, the medical practices we use to sustain our health, our knowledge of astronomical events, etc., owe their temporal origin to various fields of scientific inquiry. Such a simplistic theological answer undermines the pursuit of scientific knowledge that has given us an understanding and deeper appreciation for how God’s creation actually works.

There's a good cartoon that illustrates this:


(Youth and science page)

It may be true that creation, or various acts of creation, were the result of a "miracle". But are there other physical causes and effects involved? We know that the present world is governed by natural processes, by which things act, grow, adapt, etc. What if any natural processes were involved in creation, or was it purely a supernatural act?

A children's song says, "Jesus made the big round sun, He loves us, He loves us. And He made the flowers each one, He loves us, He loves us..." In the spring, my yard is filled with dandelions. What causes it? Did God come into my yard during the night and create this field of yellow flowers out of nothing? I know that one cause is that my children blow the white seeds everywhere (on purpose, so they can get more dandelions). Another explanation can be found in plant biology, explaining reproduction of a species. This simple question about flowers immediately requires that we jump from the theology of creation to the science of biology.

There are natural explanations for why these dandelions grew. There is a rational biological explanation -- dandelions take in nutrients from the earth, they grow roots under the ground and spreads white fluffy seeds through the air, these seeds and roots grow, and through a process of biological reproduction the flower produces more of its own kind. Then there is a higher cause or explanation -- my children wanted more flowers to grow. And then there is the ultimate cause -- God is the Creator of all things.

In any discussion of creation and science, we need to be clear that science is not the enemy. Science is amoral –- without morals, either good or bad. People may take science to draw philosophical conclusions, but the result is not science. Scientists may be Christians or they may be Muslims, atheists, or whatever, and still come to the same conclusions about the physical causes and effects explained in the realm of science. Many of the early and modern scientists were Christians, but their Christian beliefs didn’t keep them searching for natural descriptions of various phenomena. Not only that, Christianity historically has actually encouraged scientific investigation of the world around us, so that in understanding nature, we can (hopefully) be better stewards over it. A sound theology of creation does not exclude scientific explanations of nature, or so-called "secondary causes".

Introduction

I have been drawn to science and faith issues for many years. As an engineer with a science background, I am interested in knowing how the world works. As a Christian, I believe God is ultimately responsible for the origin of the created order, for its design and purpose, and about our place in it. He has revealed himself in the created order, and He has revealed himself to us in scripture.

But how do we reconcile the revelations given to us in the created world and in scripture? Over the years, I have struggled with these questions--there seem to be no easy answers when all the facts are considered. I have been dissatisfied with many of the easy answers and faulty arguments given by the leaders of the "Creation Science" movement. As I study science and the evidence from the physical world, I find that Christians often misunderstand, misrepresent, and selectively employ scientific theories to advance the "cause of Christianity", in ways that seriously compromise their credibility.

It is one thing for the average Christian with limited background in scientific disciplines to repeat a bad scientific argument which they have heard from others. It's quite another for the self-proclaimed "experts" to misrepresent the evidence, when they know (or should know) better. Often they do so because of their strong commitment to "Biblical truth", which commitment is certainly laudable, but I believe that teaching falsehood in the name of Christ can only hurt the cause of the faith. Worse, when our children learn that they have been taught false science as foundational to the Christian faith, will they reject the faith along with the bad science? And if unbelievers see us teaching clearly false things about nature, what would make them think we are teaching the truth about faith issues?

My present concern is to seek the truth, so I may know what to teach my own children about science, and to build their faith on solid ground rather than indefensible assertions. I desire a solid defense of Christian teachings in our scientific world, which may help believers hold onto their faith, and provide at least a plausible answer that will allow unbelievers to consider the message of Christ.

I have titled this blog "Creation and Science" instead of something like "Creation vs. Science", because I am seeking for ways to bring harmony between these two realms of thought. For any who wish to follow this discussion, I intend to pursue several main threads of discussion, which I'll title "Dialog 1.1", etc., to indicate the main flow of thought. Other postings will be inserted with different titles, as I come across scientific discoveries or other random thoughts that may be of interest.