Materialist ‘defence’ of Bible fails
by Andrew Lamb
3 December 2001
‘Nothing more than a secretion exuded by tamarisk trees and bushes’,
says would-be Bible apologist Mike Fillon of the Biblical manna which sustained
the Israelites for 40 years in the wilderness. Jonah’s three days in a whale,
the collapse of the walls of Jericho, the regression of the shadow of Ahaz’s
sundial, and the net-bursting catch of fish by Jesus’ disciples all endure
strained ‘natural’ explanations by Fillon in his article ‘Science
solves more mysteries of the Bible’ in the December 2001 issue of Popular
Mechanics. But before critiquing Fillon’s explanations, let’s
first consider his approach.
Miracles
Why do many people feel compelled to try to find materialistic ‘scientific’
explanations for the many miracles recorded in the Bible? Do they want to believe,
but find accounts like that of Jonah and the whale ‘hard to swallow’?
‘Common sense’ tells them these things can’t happen, but the Bible
says they did, so they try to find a ‘natural’ explanation. Since the
Biblical passages involved usually make it clear that the event in question was
supernatural, they are being inconsistent in picking and choosing which
parts to believe and which not. The out-and-out atheist, who rejects the whole account
as fictitious, and thus sees no need to try to ‘explain it away’, is
at least being more consistent.
Scientific laws
Can ‘supernatural’ events occur, or not? Doesn’t science rule
out the supernatural? Well, no, it doesn’t. Science is descriptive,
not prescriptive. Laws of science merely describe things that happen, and
those things would happen whether scientists have formulated a law about it or not.
It is not our scientific laws that cause things to happen the way they
do. Similarly, scientific laws cannot prescribe what cannot happen. Our laws of
science can no more cause or prevent something than a map can affect the shape of
a coastline.1
Proof
Science is limited. It deals with things that can be repeatedly observed and measured.
But a miracle, by definition, is a ‘one-off’ sort of event not subject
to repetition at will. There are many things, for example historical events, such
as Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon, which are beyond the scope of science
to either prove or disprove. We cannot directly observe or measure things that occurred
in the past, so they cannot be scientifically proven. There are other standards
of proof—courts of law have various standards of legal proof, and historians
have various standards of historical proof, and in these standards eyewitness accounts
from credible witnesses carry enormous weight.
The most crucial miracle of all
If Fillon could give a plausible naturalistic explanation for every miracle in the
Bible (and there are hundreds) would that help us? Not at all. In fact it would
destroy our faith. The most crucial miracle in the whole of the Bible is
the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and as Paul wrote:
But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is
not risen. And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is vain, and
your faith is also vain. Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God,
because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom he did not raise
up—if in fact the dead do not rise. For if the dead do not rise,
then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile;
you are still in your sins! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have
perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most
pitiable. (1
Corinthians 15:13–19)
But praise God, Jesus did rise from the dead, as we know by faith, and
from the testimony of the many eyewitnesses (1
Corinthians 15:4–8), witnesses whose willingness to suffer martyrdom
for their faith powerfully attests to their credibility.
Presuppositions
Grasping explanations of the sort Fillon offers are indicative of a presupposition
(i.e. a starting belief which is itself unprovable, thus based on faith) that there
is no supernatural. Whether there is a realm of the supernatural or not, science
cannot say. Science concerns itself only with the natural realm. If there is a supernatural,
it comprises, by definition, phenomena beyond the readily observable and testable
things of the natural realm. We at Creation Ministries International presuppose
the Bible to be true, and so we certainly believe that there is a supernatural realm.
We need to be aware of the false materialistic (i.e. no supernatural, no God) presuppositions
that many people labour under, ideas which are inculcated through the materialist
indoctrination which forms a pervasive part of the media and education systems of
the modern world.
So, on to Fillon’s explanations.
Jonah and the whale
Fillon explains how some whales are big enough to swallow a man whole and discusses
the factors necessary to ensure survival of a swallowed man. He also mentions two
examples from modern history of claims of men surviving such an ordeal, and though
these tales are intriguing, we agree with Fillon that they are not substantiated
beyond doubt.2
Fillon mentions the danger of digestive juices. In fact some sea creatures, sharks
for example, are known to regulate their digestive juices, and may retain food undigested
for days, even up to a week.3
The Hebrew word translated ‘fish’ in
Jonah 1:17 and
2:10 is ‘dag’. Scholars understand this word to include
the whales, marine reptiles, and other sea creatures, many of which were (and some
still are!) large enough to swallow a man whole.
Suppose someone today were to be swallowed by a great fish and later regurgitated
alive. Some might consider it a ‘miracle’, though many might attribute
it merely to fortuitous coincidence. But what if the sea changed from tempestuous
to calm immediately upon the man going overboard (Jonah
1:15)? And what if he was in the fish for days (Jonah
1:17b)? And what if the fish went right up to the shore before vomiting
him out (Jonah
2:10b)? Factors like these show that Jonah’s experience was no mere
chance coincidence of natural events. In fact the Scriptures explicitly record God’s
supernatural intervention in this sequence of events (Jonah
1:17a,
2:10a). There is no real need to make the account ‘fit’
the capabilities of any of today’s sea creatures, since the Bible tells us
that God specially prepared this creature (Jonah
1:17a).
Manna from Heaven
Fillon brings up the idea that the manna was seeds or secretions from bushes. But
this explanation is irreconcilable with the many distinctive aspects of manna recorded
in the Bible:
The description of manna given in the Bible does not match any known natural phenomenon,
and its failure to appear on the Sabbath testifies to its miraculous quality. Manna
is described as tasting like honey and wafers (Exodus
16:31) or deep-fried pastry (Numbers
11:8b). In some way it was like coriander seed (Exodus
16:31) and in some other way like bdellium, a fragrant resin (Numbers
11:7). Fillon seems to suggest that manna was actual coriander
seed, or some other seed, but coriander seed has a strong spicy taste, like mild
licorice to some, and not like honey. Also, the Israelites were quite intelligent
enough to recognise if the manna was a seed coming from bushes.
The Sundial of Ahaz
Clouds can cause shadows to change. Fillon offers this explanation, and we see nothing
wrong with it. However the fact that some ordinary mechanism may have been involved
does not mean this incident with Ahaz’s sundial4
was not miraculous. Isaiah told Hezekiah that God would provide a sign that He would
heal him from his disease, and asked Hezekiah whether he wanted the sundial shadow
to go forward 10 degrees or backwards 10 degrees. Hezekiah said backwards. Isaiah
cried aloud to God, and the shadow went backwards 10 degrees. Now clouds changing
shadows may be natural, but miraculous intervention is necessary to change the shadow
by a predeclared amount in immediate response to a human request, i.e. even if the
shadow movement was from a cloud, the miracle was in the timing.5
The fall of the wall of Jericho
Fillon explains how common earthquakes are in the eastern Mediterranean, and suggests
that the walls of Jericho were destroyed by an earthquake.
Well, an earthquake may well have been involved, but that hardly removes the miraculous
aspect of the event, that the walls fell at a pre-announced time immediately after
specific actions by the Israelites.6
Regardless of the immediate physical mechanism of the collapse of the walls of Jericho,
the timing of the collapse with the shout of the Israelites is unavoidably miraculous.
The net full of fish
Fillon says research shows that fish cluster around hot water outflows, and that
there are warm water springs in the Sea of Galilee. He suggests that Jesus knew
of spots where fish congregated and directed the disciples to one such spot.
Fillon’s explanation doesn’t reconcile well with the Biblical account
of this miracle. The group of disciples present included Peter and James and John
(John
21:2) who had been professional fishermen on the Sea of Galilee all their
working lives, while Jesus was (from a materialist’s point of view) merely
a carpenter. Surely if there were spots where large schools of fish gathered, these
fishermen would have known of them.
Secondly, Jesus did not direct the disciples to the spot, as Fillon says. He just
told them to throw their net out on the right side of their boat. The disciples
had not known who it was that called out to them from the shore (John
21:4). But when the net filled so full with fish that they couldn’t
pull it into the boat, Peter realised that it was Jesus. Why? Catching this large
a quantity of fish was so unusual that Peter immediately realised that it was miraculous
and that Jesus was involved. If this event had been within the normal experience
of a professional fisherman, Peter would not have jumped to such a conclusion.
Conclusion
From beginning to end, the Bible is a book of miracles, and many of those miracles
(the Creation, the Resurrection, etc.) are foundational to the Christian faith.
God doesn’t provide exhaustive detail on the physical means by which all his
miracles were accomplished, but He does indicate that his direct supernatural intervention
was involved in many of those events that we regard as miracles. By definition,
miracles are not amenable to scientific testing, and so we rely on eyewitness testimony
for verification, and at Creation Ministries International we regard the
eyewitness accounts of which the Bible is composed to be of the highest integrity.
Attempts to explain the miracles of the Bible while retaining materialist assumptions
will necessarily fail.7 If one starts
with the materialist assumptions that there is no Creator God and no supernatural,
one can never come to an understanding of the truth.
But if there is a Creator God, who had the capacity to create this universe replete
with its physical laws and its kaleidoscope of living forms, then surely such a
being would be quite capable of occasional ‘tweakings’ or ‘adjustments’.
Such actions would be quite ‘ordinary’ to Him, who is not restricted
by the physical laws He created, but they seem miraculous to us, who have lived
all our lives ‘bound’ by those same laws.
Related Products
References
- Sarfati, J.,
section 1.2) ‘Miracles and science’; in ‘Spong’s World View’
and ‘Miracles’; in ‘The Virginal Conception
of Christ’. Return to text.
- For more information, see Grigg, R.,
Jonah and the great fish, Creation 17(2):34–36,
March–May 1995. Return to text.
- Richards, W., Jonah Believable,
Creation 17(3):5, June–August 1995. Return
to text.
- Note that Saftranslations have ‘steps
on a stairway’, rather than ‘degrees on a
sundial’. Return to text.
- For more information, see Grigg, R.,
Joshua’s Long Day: Did it really happen—and how?,
Creation 19(3):35–37, June–August 1997. Return to text.
- For more information, see Wood, B.,
The walls of Jericho, Creation 21(2):36–40,
March–May 1999. Return to text.
- For more information, see Manthei, D., Two
world-views in conflict, Creation 20(4):26–27,
September–November 1998. Return to text.
|
