“I came to hear about science, not the Bible!”1
Published: 21 July 2016 (GMT+10)
When I give my talks I welcome feedback as this has enabled me to make many improvements. Recently, however, I had to disagree with a critic. I had given two presentations at a church meeting which had included a fairly mixed audience—those who would have been staunch believers in six day creation, some with leanings towards theistic evolution and others who were from outside the church and would, no doubt, have entertained a variety of views about origins. In both I had presented a biblical view of history, from Creation to Babel, and had shown how the scientific evidence supports rather than undermines the account given in Genesis. This, I was told, was a poor choice of material. What I should have done, my critic said, was major on the scientific evidence against evolution. Indeed, she went so far as to argue that the audience did “not need to hear what the Bible says—either about creation, nor what the Gospel is”.
My critic was, no doubt, aware of the considerable scientific evidence challenging the secular account of origins. As more and more facts are discovered about the universe and the biological world, the atheists’ creation story is increasingly collapsing. They cannot explain where the universe came from because, quite simply, the big bang model doesn’t work; the idea that a chemical soup could produce life by the random shuffling of molecules is utterly baseless; even the hallowed Darwinian theory is imploding beneath their feet.2 Why, then, did I not just ‘go for it’ and demolish the evolution myth with an hour or so of unanswerable scientific arguments?
Beginning with the Bible
As a ministry we are, like atheists, ‘presuppositional’. In our thinking we ‘presuppose’ the Bible to be true and accept it as providing a true account of origins. We have come to put our trust in Christ and follow Him wherever He leads; since He understood the book of Genesis to be history, so do we. Similarly, atheists ‘presuppose’ that the world around us, including all its plant and animal life, arose entirely by natural processes. Hence, for them, evolution must be true. This is why so many of the top professors in our universities continue to believe in evolution despite there being such strong evidence against it. The more I talk to people about these issues, the clearer it becomes to me: the creation/evolution debate is not principally about science; it is about one worldview versus another. This vital point is kept from the public because the media tend to report only evidence that appears to support evolutionary beliefs—a practice which they believe is justified because, in their view, “evolution is a fact”.
It is a serious mistake for Christians to base their beliefs about origins on so-called ‘science’, primarily because this results in the Bible being placed under man’s reasoning. Unfortunately, many do this, which is why we have so many different interpretations of Genesis. For example, some say there must be a gap of millions of years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2; others that the days of creation were not really days (despite the fact that each included a morning and evening) but very long periods of time. Why do they do this? It is because they have accepted that ‘science says’ the earth is billions of years old, so great age must somehow be fitted into the Bible. However, once ‘science’ is accepted as the interpreter of Scripture then God’s word becomes subject, in every respect, to ‘human wisdom’. Given that the “heart is deceitful above all things and desperately sick” (Jeremiah 17:9), this would seem, to say the least, a precarious path to follow. For many ‘science says’ that virgins don’t conceive, dead men don’t rise and sexual promiscuity is natural; it’s then only a matter time before the Bible is reinterpreted in these matters too.
‘Scripture under science’ or ‘Science under Scripture’?
Christians who, in their beliefs about origins, follow the latest ‘scientific thinking’ find themselves on a roller coaster. Their confidence rises and falls according to the latest ‘evidence’, because ‘scientific opinion’ in these matters is constantly changing. In the end nothing is certain and they’re left with no real basis upon which to grow in faith and become fruitful in God’s service. Instead they become “tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes” (Ephesians 4:14). This is why it’s so important to establish the Bible as one’s final authority; and to do this, it is necessary to start with Scripture rather than science, as I did in my talk.
One of the great principles embraced by the Reformers was Sola Scriptura, meaning ‘By Scripture alone’. They were determined to bring all beliefs and opinions into conformity with the Bible. This was a necessary emphasis for their time because many were claiming that there were other authorities to which the scriptures should be subject. The same is true for us today, except that the new authority which seeks to usurp the word of God is so-called ‘science’.
In Creation magazine, we place ‘Science under Scripture’ in contrast to evolutionists who place ‘Science under materialism’. Moreover we demonstrate, in article after article, that the ‘science’ that seeks to usurp the Bible is not really science at all, but an atheistic worldview masquerading as science. At the same time, we seek to build faith in God’s word by showing how scientific observations fit the biblical account of creation and Earth history far, far better than the evolution story. And since the Bible is true, this is hardly surprising!
References and notes
- This first appeared in the CMI (UK/Europe) CMI Extra, June 2015. Return to text.
- Carter, R., ed., Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels, Creation Book Publishers, USA, 2014. Return to text.
Brian M is correct to say that "it depends very much upon who you are addressing (publicly or individually)", but of course in a meeting there will usually be a mixed audience (in a church service, mixed with regards to their level of scientific understand and/or interest). So that makes it hard for a speaker to tailor it accordingly. Overall, I think the CMI speakers have it right.
Zac D said that "people are expecting you to give them some insights into how they can answer difficult questions asked from an evolutionary perspective (which is what CMI advertises quite often from what I've seen)." The problem here, Zac, is that you are presupposing that the best answers to such questions are scientific-evidence-based ones, and not worldview-based ones. When I'm challenged from an evolutionary perspective, such as with the (supposed) evidence for evolution itself, rather than start with scientific evidence against evolution, I'll often start by questioning them as to why they even invoke science when talking about the past. The past is history, not empirical, measurable, repeatable, science, and surely the eyewitness testimony of the Bible's history is a better source than the conclusions of scientists who didn't see it happening and who are basing their conclusion on their naturalistic worldview. So rather than give a "scientific" answer, I give an answer that challenges their presuppositions.
I do this because CMI meetings have given me insights into how to "answer difficult questions asked from an evolutionary perspective".
I'm reminded of the Dawkins 'Blind Watchmaker' story, and have spent sometime trying to reason its possibility, and have concluded that it is totally impossible no matter how long a time frame to assemble was given.
Regardless of what evidence (science etc.) supports the Bible, pride will prevent many from admitting their ideology is totally flawed!
"Stating one's presuppositions briefly surely fails to make the point that the Bible should be our primary authority." I think this statement clarifies the presupposition clearly and briefly. Of course you can explain the nuances, and why the Genesis story should not be taken as allegory or pure symbolism, but really, much of your audience is likely looking for some examples of why evolution falls flat on its face from a nature and science perspective. However, you will read your audience as you go along, and by asking a few questions, might be able to shift your emphasis as you speak.
Please read my response to Joel E. above.
So, I can't in the Gap theory? I thought Evolutionists and Creationists agreed the universe was millions or even billions of years old?? Hmm. The only reason why I even accepted it was the fact I couldn't see Lucifer rebelling in only 6 or even less days. I thought he would have to have more time to become prideful and tell lies. I'll think about it. I know there is evidence for a young earth (scientific fact really), but how is the universe young?
Jesus believed in a recent creation so we should too--see here. Exodus 20:11 also makes clear that the universe was created in the same week as everything else.
God bless you Creationists!!! The real scientists!!
I am new here, but it seems to me that it is a dangerous practice to use the bible as a science reference.
This has caused problems in the past, i.e. Copernicus and Galileo.....with Martin Luther and John Calvin, not to mention the Catholic church.....rejecting their science based on bible interpretations.
Rather, in that case, science informed biblical interpretation.
Like it or not that is what happened, and is continuing to happen.
This is because the bible is not a science book.....it refers to nature to make spiritual points...ie God created everything all the way to explaining how we are made...."in His image" and then moves on to the fall and our redemption through Jesus.
The thing your article misses is that anyone interpreting the bible is just as human as a scientist.....yes, we are subject to error in how we interpret.
That means we should [not] assume we are right....that is why we have had thousands of denominations.....interpretations can be wrong.
God gave us a mind....in fact we would agree that we are made in His image.....so why can't we use the brains He gave us to find his truths by studying the world he created?
I am a born again Christian. I love science. And you should too.
Please consider this....stop denigrating science.....they are on our side.
Sure, atheists use it to foster their beliefs......so what......we can use science to bolster ours.
Science is not the enemy......the enemy is our egos which tell us we can interpret the bible to get scientific answers.
You are correct in understanding that the Bible is not a science book. However, it does claim to provide a history of the world and we take this to be a true account. We do not argue that the Bible teaches science; but its statements about origins can still be 100% accurate even though it doesn’t present a scientific analysis of what happened.
There is much confusion about Galileo and how the church supposedly opposed his support for the heliocentric model of the solar system. In fact, many in the church believed him to be correct—see here. Also, the fact that certain individuals may have made mistakes in the way they have interpreted the Bible doesn’t mean that the Bible is wrong. In fact, sometimes the problem arose because people used the science of the day to interpret the Bible. For example, many were schooled in the Ptolemaic system and interpreted the biblical verses which refer to sunrise and sunset accordingly. These, however, are more reasonably understood to be using the language of appearance. Meteorologists today refer to sunrise and sunset; yet they are not geocentrists.
We can be confident that we are understanding the Bible correctly if we allow Scripture to interpret Scripture. Particularly, if we follow Christ and his disciplines, we will be on safe ground. They understood Genesis to be literal history and so we should too.
I like to integrate the two - run in parallel, explaining as appropriate the role each plays - the Bible as starting hypothesis, science as the investigating tool.
For example, I like to use Dr Russ Humphreys resolution of the problem the standard models have in trying to explain Earth's magnetic field because they do not fit the observations. Dr Humphreys' starting proposition was that Scripture indicates the planet was a ball of water* 6,000 years ago; God being God would have perfectly aligned the magnetic moments of all the water molecules thus the planet would have had a certain magnetic field which decayed by reasonable processes to its present level. So, no matter how "fantastic" the starting proposition (ball of water) all the subsequent steps check out - and, indeed, work so well that he was able to make predictions for other planets which were distinctly different from the conventional "wisdom". He has been startlingly vindicated by later satellite observations!
Here is an example of YEC "fruit". By contrast, Deep Time Darwinism has consistently proved fruitless.#
*well God changed water into wine - water into rock should also be doable !?
#in "The Debate" Ham challenged Nye to produce any scientific fruit of Darwinian Evolution - which he was unable to do - and nor can I discover any subsequent examples being produced ....
As much as I am thankful for this ministry, I have to agree with many of the other commenters. You're very right about the presuppositional approach--the Bible is our authority, we don't budge, and we proclaim that clearly. But I think every group we're trying to reach is ready for more.
I remember a time when my pastor just finished with a sermon on science and the Bible. We found out there was a creationist speaker in the area at the time and invited people in our church to see him as a follow up to the sermon. All the speaker did was talk about presuppositions and how our starting points change the way we interpret the evidence. It was very disappointing. I had the same feeling with a certain high-profile debate a few years ago.
When all we do is repeat that it sends the message that we really don't have anything better to offer when it comes to interpreting the evidence. I think we've assessed the problem accurately and communicated the assessment well. Now we need to demonstrate that it's better over here.
My suggestion: do some polling (I concede I'm ignorant and you've probably done this already). Find out what the areas of need are and what people are hungry for when they come to hear a CMI speaker. My guess is that there will be 2 major groups. The first group knows and holds tightly to the authority of Scripture, but needs some help understanding the science because they don't spend time poring over creationist literature. The second group knows the Bible and the science but wants to share with others how our interpretation of the evidence is more coherent.
Thank you for the work you do.
I have been speaking for CMI for around 7 years now and the content of my talks has changed over time. You will perhaps be disappointed to hear that the amount of science I present has reduced over this period. However, there are a number of good reasons for this.
Firstly, when speaking with people afterwards, I came to realise how little of what I said had been understood. I really worked hard to make the science accessible to the layman. I searched for simpler ways to put things, more user-friendly language and illustrations that were easier to understand—but still many couldn’t grasp the arguments.
Secondly, I came across more and more people whose view was, “I am not a scientist so I can’t follow these arguments.” For such people you can only make the case from Scripture.
Thirdly, a significant number have no interest in the science because they don’t think it matters what we believe about creation or the age of the earth. These people primarily need to hear a ‘Relevance Message’.
For these reasons our strategy, generally, is to alert people to the importance of the issues and how much danger their young people are in. We then point them to resources which deal with the science (e.g. Creation magazine, books, DVDs) which they can buy to become informed. We generally include a little science at this point as a taster, in the hope that this will help people realise that the arguments are there if they want to search them out.
As I made clear in my article, I appreciate feedback as it has enabled me to improve my presentations. However, these kinds of discussion do make me feel that creation speakers have an almost impossible job. If you tried it yourself you might see what I mean! Also, do bear in mind that some of our speakers have been giving these talks for a number of decades. This has given them a view of the need that others don’t have.
Personally, I think it depends very much upon who you are addressing (publicly or individually) -- unless of course God specifically directs you to approach it in a specific way. If it is a scientific person then use science, but if it is in a church gathering then the Bible obviously needs to be primary. The first way avoids the all-too-easy accusation of trying to prove science through the Bible or just using science to convert people etc.
I can well recall years ago reading an account of scientific debates held in universities by Duane Gish et al and the subsequent results. There were a number of examples where the students went to their professors afterwards & asked: "Seeing as the creation science case was sounder than the evolutionary one, how come you never told us of it before in our courses?"! Even better, the attendance increased at Christian union meetings & some became Christians!
I believe The Word & Law of God is to be honoured in every circumstance (Isa 42:21).
There is a general misunderstanding that ‘Science is Science’ and ‘Scripture is Scripture’, and Never the twain shall meet! But Prov 21:30 states that ‘There is no Wisdom, or understanding or Counsel against The Knowledge of YHWH God! Therefore let God be True and every man a liar (Rom 3:4)
We need to demonstrate just how GOD's WORDs are True and Dependable. Prov 22:21 indicates that there is Certainty in The WORDs of Truth which YHWH GOD has written for us.
Ps 111:1-4 The Works of YHWH God are great, and studied by all who have pleasure in them. His Work is honourable and glorious, and His Righteousness endures forever. John 8:31-32 Jesus says, if we Abide in His Words we shall know the Truth that set us free. Eph 6:10-12 The Apostles understood that we are in a battle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers, against spiritual hosts of wickedness and the rulers of the darkness of this age. 2 Cor 10:4-6 Therefore the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but Mighty in God to the pulling down of strongholds, and every high thing that exalts itself against the Knowledge of God. Bringing every thought into the captivity of the Obedience of Christ Jesus. Being ready to punish all disobedience until your obedience is fulfilled.
1 Pet 3:15 Peter encourages us to sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear. Therefore, if we understand and have confidence in The Science which God has written for us in His Word (Those Excellent Things in Counsel & Knowledge Prov 22:20) Then we need not fear any other type of Science that presents itself to us.
I'm seeing a bit of back and forth in the comment section about whether your priorities are the most helpful to introducing the Gospel to sceptics.
I question whether it has to be one way or another; I think there are many ways to integrate discussion of the scientific evidence into preaching the Gospel without suggesting Scripture is insufficeint.
Honestly, though, people are expecting you to give them some insights into how they can answer difficult questions asked from an evolutionary perspective(which is what CMI advertises quite often from what I've seen). Neglecting to cover some of these apologetics seems to contradict the specialty of your ministry.
I'm not saying that emphasising hermeneutics isn't important, but I think it's self-apparent that if you're arguing for a young earth that you are doing so in support of a historical understanding of Genesis as understood by a clear reading. I don't think covering this aspect needs to be time consuming so long as it doesn't go unstated(best not to risk any potential for misconceptions, that is).
We do include scientific arguments in our presentations but the amount of science in a particular talk varies. If we were to present a lot of science on a Sunday morning, we would lose most people (and probably never be invited back!) Also, if people want more science, they can buy the books and DVDs that deal with these issues. Conference talks tend to have more science.
As I have already stated, everyone has their opinion as to what a creation talk should include. If I followed your advice, for example, there would still be a long line of people who would queue up to assure me that I should have done it differently!
Many years ago in an online forum, a group of us were discussing creation, evolution, Christian theology, etc. In one of the discussions, one of the naysayers asked, "So why were we given a mind and an intellect?"
A friend of mine replied:
"That we might use them to the glory of God" is my general answer. To engage in believing scientific enterprises wherein the scientist starts with His word as the lamp unto his or her investigating feet, is one specific way to go about that. What great liberty God has given us to fulfill the grand purpose for our existence!
"Start with the Bible and have powerful light from on high to do science. Start with the idea that the Bible is for "spiritual stuff only," that proud science need not even "inquire of the LORD," and one is already in the darkness..."
Hello Siblings-in-Christ :)
We all read, believe and hold dear the 7 days of creation in Genesis ...yet we interpret and understand those very same passages so differently!
Didn't anyone (Hi Young-Earth campers!) noticed that the sun was created on the 4th Day in Genesis? Therefore, those evenings & mornings mentioned, prior to and after, the creation of the sun, should not mean the equivalent of Earthly days (24hrs/day, as governed by the Solar star/Sun) ...but the literal passing of God's Days.
Now this question: Is/Should/Must an evening & a morning (in God's day) be the same as our earthly 24hrs day? Maybe we can ask the Psalmist about his Ps.84:10 one day After all, we will have many Days there :)
But please do correct me if I erred here. Thank you.
You don't need a sun to have a morning and evening, just a rotating earth and a light source (see here).
The days of Genesis 1 are clearly twenty-four hour periods as God Himself confirmed this when he gave Moses the commandment to keep the Sabbath (Exodus 20:11).
I agree with those who emphasize the scientific problems with evolution. Of course, it is good to state one's starting point presuppositions briefly, but this will convince no one hardly, of the validity of a young earth creation. Nature itself is the handiwork of God, and we understand imagery in the context of the reality of nature. For example, we understand the "four corners of the earth" or "the sun standing still" or "the waters above from the waters below" or "the dying of a seed" in the context of what we know about nature. So we can understand the inability of spontaneous life "abiogenesis" in the context of what we know about nature... and this substantiates and glorifies the creation by God's spoken word, His "speaking into being".
It is not a battle between science and scripture. It is necessary to understand how scripture and nature fit together. If evolutionists are misinterpreting nature, then this is the knowledge that we need. Of course we can understand miracles too, but just as the physical evidence for the resurrection is substantial and real, so also we must discover and explain the physical evidence for a non-evolutionary explanation for the genesis of earth and life. Scripture itself emphasizes the need for a renewal of the mind, not an abandonment of the mind, when it comes to faith and understanding.
Again, I cannot agree. Stating one's presuppositions briefly surely fails to make the point that the Bible should be our primary authority.
I find many people equivocate between operational science (gravity, computers, etc.) and historical science (origins, etc.) i.e. they ignore the differences in science. Maybe the lady was one of those equivocators? Operational science relies on preconditions of intelligibility such as laws of logic (rationality), uniformity of nature (science and technology), reliability of senses, etc.
Historical science relies on a presuppositional worldview to interpret evidence that's built from operational science. A proper investigation will show that the preconditions that operational science relies on are validated by the Word of God in scripture, thus scripture validates why science is. So scripture can be taken as primary. The lady's dilemma lay in origins and this type of science will change and will never solve the origins questions because it has no time-machine. Whereas the bible is, in a sense, our time-machine.
Repeatedly stating the differences should focus the minds of both scientific and theological audiences! Your thoughts?
We would agree that it is vital that people grasp the difference between operational science and historical (or forensic) science. We deal with this in a number of articles, e.g. here.
There's also a Creation Magazine LIVE! tv programme on this:
I think there are cases when we should present the 'evolution-debunking' science first (which may have been what the 'critic' was driving at). Not to replace or re-prioritise scripture, but as a stepping stone to help a secularist friend/audience be free to look outside their 'evolutionary box'.
Often I find the secularist must first become insecure in their 'evolutionary fortress' before they are open to alternatives, regardless of how well the alternative is presented. They need their 'evolutionary bubble' burst first.
As is often said by CMI, presenting anti-evolution science often dismantles secularists' red-herrings and opens the way for more meaningful discussion.
Scripture is above science, and the gospel is needed at some point, but sometimes the 'evolution-debunking' science might be helpful first up, depending on the audience.
(These comments add to Dominic's points, not detract from them. I think they also apply most to our personal conversations, not so much to CMI talks which are a time-limited 'once in a lifetime opportunity' to present the gospel. Dominic's points are valid and important.)
I think more young earth creationist (YEC) need to understand the differences between Intelligent Design(ID) and YEC. While the two are technically not at odds with each other, they are not the same thing. ID presents itself as a purely scientific argument against Darwinism and materialism, instead affirming design. It is based on the fact that we can scientifically infer design in life. That's really it, it is contained within the realm of biology for the most part. It doesn't address where the universe came from, the age of the earth, or other realms of science unless it is using those arguments in a way that supports the biological argument of design.
YEC is very different in that its a Biblically based argument that scientific discovery when viewed through the correct worldview confirms not only creation, but a recent creation. As such YEC must address all realms of science and interpret scientific discovery starting with the Truth of God's Word. For example, science tells us that light from distance stars would have taken many more than 6000 years to reach earth. YEC must respond to that and there have been different plausible explanations given. However, ID need not respond to that because whether the universe is 16.7 billion years old or 6000 years old is inconsequential to proving design in life.
What a great article! Thanks for every single talk and article you guys do. Your work blesses me and my family so much. May God continue shine on your families and work.
I believe that your point of view is for a mature Christian. I was brainwashed by my science textbooks in junior high school and by a minister that believed that Scripture had been disproved by science as well. It was obvious to me that the minister (a southern Baptist) did not believe the Bible when it came to origins. I needed someone like Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith who demonstrated to me that my textbooks were in error. I read his books as a college freshmen. He showed me the Bible was consistent with real experimental science. Previously, I was convinced by the time that I was a senior in high school that if there was any information that demonstrated the scientific integrity of the Bible that I would have already heard it. I attended a southern baptist high school. I was shocked when I read Wilder-Smith's books and learned that the odds of getting life by chance was zero and that regardless of the amount of time that you would never get proteins, RNA, DNA, and lipids to form a cell.
Kids need to hear that information. I attended an AiG presentation during a Sunday morning service a few years ago and the presenter did not present one bit of evidence. He just presented Scripture only. He presented the evidence during the next three nights of the service when the teenagers (and probably many adults) were not there. I am fine with Scripture only because I am a mature Christian who has grown in his faith. However, when the kids are brainwashed by false science, they need to hear the evidence. They have already heard the scripture and they have been told that it is false often by seminary graduates. I believe that at least you should present some evidence.
I can’t agree that my point of view is for mature Christians. I would argue that, from their earliest days, converts need to be grounded in the Bible as the word of God and as their final authority in all matters of faith. However, I too am acutely conscious of the need to talk to young people about science. It’s a subject that is very important to them and so it should be to us as well. In my talks I try to deal with both Scripture and science. However, this is a real challenge when I only have 40 minutes or so! (See also my response to Richard F.)
Clearly, it’s difficult for me to comment on the Sunday morning AiG meeting as I wasn’t there. However, they probably follow a similar format to CMI meetings where the objective is to alert parents and church leaders to the danger their young people are facing and point them to the resources that can address the problem. We call this linking and feeding—see here.
Yes, we must be presuppositional. When we share any part of scripture with others, we must take its truth as our starting point. But sometimes we need to engage in other topics such as what when was the bible written, or what did contemporary non-Christian writings say. Of course on any of those we might turn out to be wrong.
To 'major' on science is not to abandon presuppositionalism but it is using latest YEC scientific findings to question atheistic views, just as we use historical findings to counter views that the bible was written centuries later
The lady was criticing the best use of time; this is not of itself a criticism of presuppositionalism, or need not be seen as such. If a talk were to be entitled 'how science disproves the bible' or 'dinosaurs and man co-existed', then some people will get frustrated if the bulk of the time is spent going through the 7 'C's of bible history.
My experience of CMI UK talks is that most of the audience already accept YEC but there is not enough science for them to pass on a broad picture persuasively.
Others, unpersuaded about YEC, come specifically to hear the science. Most accept the bible is 'true' but they would see CMI as 'literalists'. They are not even sure the flood was global. They would say that the flood was a true account by those witnessing it at the time. One might well say they are not fully presuppositional, but what they came for was the science.
I think one can quickly set out the presuppositional starting point and move on to the science in more depth. This then acts as a bridge into the CMI library
I attended one talk where written questions were collected at half time. All 20 bar one were about science. This is what they come for. I no longer bring theistic evolutionists to these talks
Deciding on the content of a creation talk is not easy. Who is coming? What background do they have? What questions have they got? What misconceptions do they hold? Some cannot see why it matters what we believe about origins, and such people need to be convinced first of the relevance of the issue. Others are already clear about this and want to get straight into the ‘nitty-gritty’. In my experience, many find it difficult to follow even ‘low level’ scientific arguments. I notice that such people (who are not a small minority) quickly switch off when I start getting just a little technical. Others are science graduates and want to know all the details. All this probably explains why almost everyone I speak to seems to have a different opinion as to what a creation talk should cover.
One possible solution is to attempt to tailor a talk to a particular audience. Unfortunately, this is unlikely to work because numbers attending are generally very low—we’d end up addressing around five people! Another approach is to seek to establish the biblical worldview in the main talk and then deal with more science in the Q&A session.
If, when addressing theistic evolutionists, I spent most of the time talking about science, wouldn’t this simply confirm them in their view that ‘what science says’ is the primary issue? I remember giving a talk where one man from the church showed little interest when I argued that theistic evolution was inconsistent with Scripture. However, when a qualified biologist in the audience said that he had studied evolution and concluded that science supported creation, this same man paid close attention. What does this say about his authority?
At the London Creation Declares conference (9 & 10 September 2016), I will be giving a talk entitled, The Age of the Earth and Why it Matters. This will begin with the issue of authority (whether this should be science or Scripture) but will then go on to give a generous amount of time to the science challenging the ruling paradigm that the rocks are millions of years old. By dealing with the Bible first, I will put science in its proper place.
What a true article. I know I'm the real world scene and that even if I explain the evidence for the Bible and explain the Gospel to atheists clearly they will often fully reject it, even tho it's fact. The world hates God and doesn't want God and Christ's next coming is soon, I believe.
Oh quick question - can we (Christians) also be biased and ignore some 'facts' that the atheist or any other person puts forward to us [hope you understand my question]? God Bless All!
We are all biased as we interpret facts according to our belief systems (how we view the world). However, we should always seek to be humble, which means Christians can learn from everyone--so long as what they say doesn't contradict the Word of God!
Great article and so true. God's Word has to be the basis for all our beliefs.