Is Science A Higher Authority Than The Bible?

Hey, all! As you will see if you click "Discussion & Debate" on the website menu, a few things have changed here at CE-DEBATE...We are now able to run simultaneous discussions, like this one:

https://www.ce-debate.org/forum/article-discussion/answers-in-genesis-can-an-evolutionist-be-a-creationist

I look forward to reading all of your thoughts on this!

-Jonathan

I took freshman botany in college and we were looking at slides concerning the formation of gametes in gymnosperms. I don't remember the species. The slide showed the formation of male and female gametes in alternating years. So what? But the process takes two years so the tree is producing both kinds at the same time. What a interesting timing in this production which keeps the tree from self-fertilization. Amazing process with amazing timing that confirmed the truth for me "from the things that have been made."

I agree with you on this, too, Kirk. As with so many other things, start with Jesus Christ. It is pretty much only fringe conspiracy theorists that claim He never existed. If we move on to His resurrection and the fact that His followers stuck to their account despite threats of violence and death, with no apparent physical benefit, it is possible to give atheists at least something to think about. I have never experienced anyone that did an instantaneous turnabout because of this argument, but sometimes all we can do is sow seeds.

Use the Word of God. It may not be authoritative for them NOW, but it brings with it the working of the Holy Spirit. He alone can convict and convince. Scientific arguments can only pave the way. Jesus was the master teacher, the very Son of God, God himself incarnate, and people saw his miracles and heard his teaching and still did not believe. The Holy Spirit is the only way that we believe. All I can do is show someone that their own standards do not work.

cwh, You have hit the nail on the head, a committed atheistic naturalist will not even accept an argument from nature(mathematics). One claims to be scientific, but rejects science that demonstrates that their view is scientifically impossible. I am sorry you did not have a good experience with Doug Axe. His book is presented patiently and it seems sincere. He demonstrates with statistics that there is not enough time even in proposed millions of years to solve the probability issue.

Regards to you all.

Kirk

What do you think would be a convincing argument for a atheistic naturalist?

I agree with you about the wonders of life and the universe pointing to something (and more importantly, Someone!) beyond the physical. What I have done is explained why using statistical improbabilities is less than convincing proof of God’s involvement.

It is rather difficult to use some form of naturalism (like statistics) to convince an atheistic naturalist. Dr. Axe gears his presentations to the Christian lay audience to support what they already believe. There is nothing wrong with that approach, it simply has limited application.

I certainly believe God could have done his creating in another way, however, he says he spoke things into existence and formed the man from the dust of the ground and the woman from the man's rib. God could have made explosions creative, but then his direction would be involved. The Big Bang is a story book attempt to explain non-random results from a random event to exclude intelligent design. Some may include God in the bang, but that is not how the Big Bang was presented. Scientific observation does not support the ability of an explosion to create order.

Arguing that there could have been other ways that the universe could have "turn out" and this is just one way seems to ignore the wonderful world and universe we enjoy. Distance from the sun, orbit path, planet tilt, rotation, etc are all very precise concerning the ability to support complex organisms here. Yes, by chance things might have turned out differently, but the point is that it is incredibly improbable that it turned out this way. By chance it is highly probable that life would not exist. That is the wonder of it. Much of so-called science actually is unscientific because it begins with the premise that evolution must have happened. That assumption excludes data that may provide a good understanding.

Thanks for the discussion.

If we were to look at the issue from an atheistic evolution standpoint, the biggest problem with probability arguments is the assumption that what we see on the planet today could have occurred in only one possible way. Atheistic evolutionists would argue for a near-infinite number of possible outcomes, this is just the one that happened -- the same as my classroom birthday analogy. Of course the analogy is over-simplified, but imagine trying to argue "These can't possibly be all of your birthdays!! The odds are just too small!"

On the other hand, evolutionary creation doesn't involved a myriad of possibilities, but one God responsible for each intricate detail of how everything unfolded. If God is the author (and I believe He is) of everything that was, is, and will be, then there is nothing that He cannot use for His purposes. No bang too big and no atomic interaction too small.

The statistical analysis concerning the probability of one "simple" genetic code is increased when you evaluate that other meaningful genetic coding also exists at the same time.

Additionally, no pun intended but conveniently accepted, the Big Bang theory claims that order comes from a catastrophic event. "First there was nothing, and then it blew up", does not seem logical. Violent events are destructive not constructive.

Back to the probability argument...Even though the probability technically exists, there is still possibility that it is practically impossible. I have talked with evolutionists about probability for spontaneous generation before, but such discussions are usually shut down with:

Statistically, it is still possible...

Macroevolution needs millions of years, because it is statistically impossible without it...If I am not mistaken.

In light of this, cwh, do you have other critiques of the probability arguments?

Hi Kirk, thanks for your patience with the Doug Axe and probability argument. Honestly, this was not a topic in his talks and in our correspondence. I have heard other arguments based on probability, though, and it may be something similar. Imagine if I go in to my class at the beginning of the Spring semester and I ask for each of their birthdays. Student 1 has a birthday that is a 1 in 365 chance, so I go on to student 2, 3, and all the way up to 35. I could calculate that the probability of my students having all their respective birthdays is 1/365 raised to the 35th power. It would be a near-impossibility mathematically, but there it is. Mathematical odds aren't a very good argument against current phenomena that have unfolded throughout history, regardless of how long that history is. It was Axe's scientific pursuits and explanations to a lay audience that I found flawed at best, and misleading at worst. And let's just say the attitude of respect that I have appreciated with you guys (even though you frequently disagree with me) was not present at all in Dr. Axe's presentations.

One other small point -- my perception of God's creation is not random at all, in contrast to an atheistic evolution perception. Denis Lamoureux had an analogy I really liked:

"Imagine that God’s creative action in the origin of the world to be like the stroke of a cue stick in a game of billiards. Divide and label the balls into three groups using the words “heavens,” “earth,” and “living organisms,” and let the 8-ball represent humanity. The young earth creationist depicts the Creator making single shot after single shot with no miscues until all the balls are off the table. No doubt about it, that is remarkable. A progressive creationist sees the opening stroke that breaks the rack of balls as the Big Bang, from which the inanimate universe evolves by natural processes. All of the billiard balls labelled heavens and earth are sunk by this initial shot. Then God sinks the balls that signify living organisms and humans individually. That is even more impressive.

Evolutionary creationists assert that the God-of-the-individual-shots, like the God-of-the-gaps who intervenes intermittently in creating the world, fails to reveal fully the power and foresight of the Designer. According to this Christian view of evolution, the breaking stroke is so finely tuned and incredibly precise that not only are all the balls sunk, but they drop in order. It begins with those labelled heavens, then earth, followed by living organisms, and finally the 8-ball—the most important ball in billiards—representing humans. And to complete the analogy, the Lord pulls this last ball out of the pocket and holds it in His hands to depict His personal involvement with men and women."

I offer to you that this intensifies the appreciation for Eve the mother of all the living. Adam recognizes that Eve was, as the Hebrew translates, "built" from man. Adam (the man) says, "this is NOW bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh..." J.E.S., you are right, the text says that he brought the animals to Adam to see what he (Adam) would name them. However in all that vast array of creatures (fully developed and formed) There is nothing that is suitable for the man. God is not checking for suitability, but showing the man that his "helpmeet" was built specifically for him; unique, wonderful, and a perfect match. Notice in verse 18 God already intends to make a helper suitable for the man. Then the parade of creatures in all their wonder came by. God already knew what Adam would see, nothing suitable, then God makes the woman out of the man's own rib. Although Eve bears children and is the mother of all living souls, she is receives her existence from the Man. Neither male nor female can say, "I don't need the other". Funny, now in a sinful world that is exactly what is said.

cwh, I don't consider myself a scholar but I do work with the languages of the bible. Yet even in the translation to English, we find no phrase, "The creation of the world went like this:...", or "The creation happen similar to this..."

The reason it is attributed to allegory is that it is fantastic and our minds can't wrap themselves around the description of fantastic and miraculous things. By calling it allegory without language indicating that it is, we are saying that at face value it is unbelievable. Now, I know you have said that you believe God could do these things. He says he does them and has done them (Job Ch. 38 and following), so it seems to me that we best take biblical narrative and narrative. I find it much harder to believe that random chance accounted for the fantastic creatures that are here with us. (Now that takes faith) We also find it difficult to allow for mystery; especially as scientists. That curiosity will not rest until we find answers. But our reason is not above God, or he would not be God. Evolution is not new, the ancients had this theory as well. I don't remember if it was Greek or Roman philosophers. Job speaks in chapter 42:3 that God worked in "things too wonderful for me to know."

Did you find Doug Axe's treatment of probability unsound? To me that explained the overwhelming statistics against random production of meaningful genetic material. I know you have said you don't value his book or lectures, but why? He also makes the point that the various disciplines in science have low levels of cooperation; by that I mean that chemists don't always respect the disciplines of mathematics. Biologists don't always appreciated the limitations imposed by physics or chemistry. Behavioral biologists sometimes don't remember that a fossil can not tell you about vocalizations or behaviors.

The Christian faith leaves room for the mystery and majesty of God, over and above our own understanding.

If a helper was not found, that suggests that there was a search for a helper. Where else would a search be conducted?

I really should have gone back to verse 18 of chapter 2.

18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals. But for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

The implications sound much more allegorical than literal.

But that does not necessarily imply that a helper is being sought from among the animals...God brought the animals to the man to see what he would name them, not so that he could select a suitable helper from among them! It makes much more sense for this verse to mean that a helper for Adam simply did not exist...Does it not?

It's from Genesis chapter 2:

19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals. But for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with flesh.

after a suitable helper is not found among the animals.

cwh...! Out of curiosity, where do you get this idea? I had never heard of such an idea until I ran into it in one of your posts...

Hello, all! Here is an interesting post from the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod's blog concerning interpretations of Genesis that was recently brought to my attention:

https://blogs.lcms.org/2018/64959

I’m not a Hebrew or Biblical scholar, so I can’t provide an argument from grammar. But I find it plausible to take an allegorical interpretation from the content. A figure named “Man” has part of his body removed to make a helper named “Living” after a suitable helper is not found among the animals. God places them in an earthly paradise with the source of all wrong in the universe within easy grasp in the form of a fruit. The woman carries on a conversation with a legged serpent as though speaking with animals is a common occurrence. The legged serpent is complicit with Satan in the downfall of humanity because it is cursed with the loss of limbs and with enmity with humans. To a non-scholar, this sounds much more like allegory than literal history.

Of course, people can use words differently, but by strict definition, evolution is a theory regarding biological phenomena, whereas abiogenesis refers to the origin of living things.

cwh,

From the science of grammar what is the evidence that Genesis is allegorical. There are no introductory remarks that say "like" or "similar to". The Hebrew men were not allowed to interpret Genesis until they were well grounded in the rest of Old Testament scripture. It was hard for them as well. There is nothing that points us to an allegorical interpretation of Genesis other than it is difficult to understand how it could be. According to Genesis, Adam who saw the perfection of the garden lived long enough to know Methuselah. Methuselah lived long enough to know Noah. Shem saw and lived in the pre-flood world. Shem lived long enough to know Abraham and Isaac. The line of transmission is not that convoluted. Job 38 and following testifies the the intimacy of God and the creation.

Evolutionary theory did include spontaneous generation. Separation the beginning of life from biological evolution because it doesn't fit is convenient.

Kirk, like I mentioned, the Bible is really the only thing that gives me serious pause about the role of evolution in natural history. The argument of "kinds" is compelling, but in an allegorical interpretation, does not represent a litmus test for the veracity of the rest of the Bible. I completely reject the idea that an allegorical interpretation renders the rest of the Bible useless. I believe the creation account of Genesis is intended to establish that God is both Creator and Sustainer of all -- from subatomic particles to supernovas. The message continues to show the special nature of humanity, our ability to commune with Him and the consequences of when we choose our way over His. I do not believe the intent is to present a scientific treatise to our origins.