|
Feedback archive → Feedback
2011
‘Mainstream science’, theology, and Genesis
The folly of theologians favouring the ‘science of the day’ over biblical
foundations
Published: 16 July 2011 (GMT+10)
Photo stockxpert.com
Nigel K., a student in training for ministry, wrote to CMI’s
Dr Carl Wieland as follows:
Dear Dr Wieland
In a recent Systematic Theology class discussion on Chapter 4 (creation) of the
Westminster Confession of Faith my professor said that “a 6-day creation was
regarded as an impossibility by mainstream scientists, no more credible than a flat
earth.”
I subsequently met with him today and asked that he would acknowledge before the
class that highly-respected, highly-qualified scientists examining the same data
could conclude that it was possible to hold to a literal 6-day creation.
He is reluctant to do this because he believes that, “from the standpoint
of mainstream science, there were no highly respected creation scientists whose
argument for a 6-day creation had been peer-reviewed.”
Would you agree with his claim or not?
Thank-you in anticipation for your help with this matter.
Best regards
Nigel
Carl replied:
Dear Nigel,
I think your theology professor has been very ‘clever’ in his wording.
Because ‘mainstream science’ generally means ‘the majority of
scientists’, i.e. views of the current establishment—nothing to do with
the quality of the science of any alternative views, nor the qualifications of the
person holding them. Such views will inevitably favour evolution and reject divine
creation.
Furthermore, he reinforces this by his wording, in which it matters not whether
a scientist has published on all sorts of ground-breaking science that has been
peer-reviewed, he wants that person to have published an argument for creation in
a ‘peer-reviewed’ journal, which he will no doubt require to be ‘mainstream’,
hence controlled totally by evolution-dominated thought.
By definition, such a paper would be rejected. This has been documented repeatedly.
Even people in the Intelligent Design movement, who do not all hold to 6-day creation
by any means, have suffered severely. This was documented in the movie
Expelled, and in Dr Jerry Bergman’s book
Slaughter of the Dissidents. Some journals have made no secret
of their contempt for six-day creation, making it clear that papers from those who
accept this are very unwelcome, i.e. ‘don’t waste your time and ours
by sending them in’ is the clear message.
Furthermore, a scientist can be ‘highly respected’ in a particular field,
but the minute he starts to publish his conclusions supporting 6-day creation, he
loses the respect of his peers, even though nothing has changed. This happened to
Robert Gentry, a world authority on radiohalos, who was able to publish his findings
in Science and Nature, but when it started becoming obvious that
the conclusions were intended to support young-earth, that door slammed shut. He
even lost his job at Oakridge National Laboratory. This is not some persecution
complex, this is such a clear reality that creationists have been forced to set
up their own journals for peer review. But then the argument will be that this is
not ‘mainstream’ peer-review. See the Catch-22?
Another argument that is often used is that when such scientists voice an opinion
on creation, they are publishing outside of their field. Or else it will be said
that the work for which they received acclaim and respect had nothing to do with
6-day creation (ignoring the fact that the work for which most of the ‘mainstream’
scientists obtained respect almost always can be shown to have nothing to do with
the truth or otherwise of either evolution or 6-day creation).
The professor concerned is clearly regarding ‘the science of the day’
as his authority, rather than Scripture. And that is extremely dangerous for the
faith.
What is really happening is that the professor concerned is clearly regarding ‘the
science of the day’ as his authority, rather than Scripture. And that is extremely
dangerous for the faith. For example, take the Galileo affair (as highlighted in
Galileo Quadricentennial) in which the problem
was the church’s compromise with the ‘mainstream’ science of the
day. Consider this, too: Mainstream science also says that a Resurrection
is ‘impossible’ and that ‘believing in it is like believing in
a flat earth’.
Given all that, it should be clear that it would be unwise to directly enter the
professor’s chosen playing field, in which the deck is already stacked. Let
me however give you two current examples of scientists who are highly respected
in their fields, and who are 6-day creationists. In the US, for instance, there
is Dr John Baumgardner, who has spoken several times for CMI. He is a geophysicist
who is widely regarded as having developed the world’s leading supercomputer
model on plate tectonics, an area in which he is an expert. In the UK, Dr Andy McIntosh
is a full Professor at the University of Leeds (Thermodynamics). In Australia, Dr
Don Batten works for CMI, and before working for us, made research breakthroughs
in the field of plant biology. So, back then he was ‘respected’ by mainstream
science, now he would be shunned—yet his scientific expertise has not changed.
But judging by your professor’s strategic wording (which tells me he has carefully
considered the matter, made his compromises, and is used to defending it from creationists),
citing these scientists would be no use, either.
In short, then, what is worth pointing out is this:
a) Science is not to be our final authority where the Bible speaks clearly on matters
of history, or else we would have to deny the Resurrection itself.
b) Scientific truth is never determined by majority vote; history is littered with
the remains of overthrown scientific paradigms which were once ‘the majority’.
And the Bible indicates that man’s fallen nature will readily seize upon a
paradigm that rejects the authority of God’s Word.
c) there are literally thousands of scientists around the world whose qualifications
and research background means that they are perfectly capable of assessing scientific
evidence and who believe that 6-day (recent) creation actually happened. We have
a list of a tiny subset of these who have given us consent to publish their names,
at Some
scientists alive today who accept the biblical account of creation. This
alone stands against the idea that your professor’s statement is meant to
convey, that belief in 6-day creation is ‘anti-scientific’ or inimical
with scientific training and knowledge.
Finally, Dr Jonathan Sarfati’s classic
text Refuting Compromise
is absolutely ‘must reading’ in this regard, for you and others in the
class. It is an exegetical and scientific masterpiece and it will arm and equip
you to see through these sorts of things and similar philosophical and strategic
smokescreens.
I hope this helps.
Kind regards,
Carl W.
[PS from CW: Nigel indicated later that he would attempt to get
his professor to read
Refuting Compromise. While on this, only a few weeks ago, the head
of a significant evangelical foreign mission told me that whenever he gets a challenge
on 6-day creation, he says to the challenger, handing them a copy of Refuting Compromise, “Here,
read this and please come back and tell me what’s wrong with it.” He
knows, of course, that the arguments for a straightforward reading of the Bible
are overwhelming when marshalled together as RC does it, and it has enabled
him to have a ‘clear run’ when it comes to using literature he knows
to be powerfully effective for the Gospel, by being unashamedly based on the Genesis
foundation of true history.]
A reader’s commentChester W., Australia, 5 August 2011
It is upsetting to know of the many Theological training institions which are on the slippery slope of making allowances for evolution, rather than sticking to the validity of the Scriptures. They are leading many astray with their duplicity and outright antogonism to the veracity of Genesis. They are guilty of leading others astray and are losing opportunity to put across a soul-winning message of salvation to those who need to hear it, by being clear in the Gospel message. These teachers of this erroneous message do themslves a disfavour, for they dig the theological and doctrinal ground of the Scriptures out from underneath themselves.
As a Presbyterian who follows the Westminster Confession, it is indeed a sorrow to hear that there are teachers out there who attempt to decry this Confessions’ clear enuciation of Biblical truth by denying its creation message and its upholding of Genesis’ statement of the six day creation.
The Westminster Confession, when clearly and properly taught and followed, provides fertile ground for great faith and works in the name of our Heavenly Father. It also clearly sets out theological and doctrinal truths, that can be very hard to understand without Godly clarification.
These professors who deform this Confession, foul their own nest and slur the name of Christianity, for those who seek to uphold the truth of the Scriptures in the face of opposition that is encouraged by them. |
Related articles
Further reading
| With more information than ever before, Christians can stand tall because the Word of God is real, authoritative and accurate. Your support is vital in keeping this site going and growing.  | | |
|
