Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Intelligent Design’ Category

from DirtyHands

Like nearly every little boy I know; I grew up fascinated with dinosaurs. In museums, the only thing I wanted to see were the fossils and the reconstructions of life-size dinosaur skeletons. I devoured any dinosaur book I could find. I was enthralled with the Discovery Channel programs about them. The only thing that could have made my childhood fascination with dinosaurs complete was if the Lego company had come put with a line of dinosaurs. Much of their fascination came from their size and the mystery surrounding their disappearance. Was it an asteroid? Rapid climate change? Super volcano eruption? A combination of those or other unknown factors?

As I got older my fascination didn’t wane, but I became aware of a problem.The popular story surrounding dinosaurs and how long ago they lived was at odds with the account in the Bible of the world’s beginning. Even as a child I began to be aware that they couldn’t both be true and so for a time I lived with this sort of cognitive dissonance. Everything seemed to point to the fact that dinosaurs had lived millions of years ago. And yet I also believed that God created the world in six days, no where near that long ago. My struggle continued until a T-Rex came along and settled the debate.

Let me begin by saying that it was not my faith in Jesus that was destroyed by a T-Rex fossil; but my faith in science. Or, to be more precise, it was my faith in the conclusions that are drawn from solid science that were shaken. But first, some definitions.

FAITH: One of the greatest definitions of faith in the Bible comes from the book of Hebrews. “Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” Hebrews 11:1.

Another picture of faith is given in the encounter that Jesus has with one of his disciples after his resurrection. The other ten disciples had already seen Jesus in the flesh, but Thomas wasn’t there. When they delivered the incredible news that Jesus was alive Thomas didn’t believe. He refused to believe. He said, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into his side, I will never believe.” Eight days later Jesus came and stood before Thomas. Jesus said, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.” Thomas proclaimed, “My Lord and my God.” To which Jesus responded, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (John 20:19-29)

SCIENCE: Now this is how Webster defines the word “science,” and it’s a pretty basic and standard definition. “Science is knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation.

The problems all began with a T-Rex bone in 1991. “In 1991, [a scientist by the name of Mary] Schweitzer was trying to study thin slices of bones from a 65-million-year-old T. rex. She was having a hard time getting the slices to stick to a glass slide, so she sought help from a molecular biologist at the university. The biologist, Gayle Callis, happened to take the slides to a veterinary conference, where she set up the ancient samples for others to look at. One of the vets went up to Callis and said, ‘Do you know you have red blood cells in that bone?’ Sure enough, under a microscope, it appeared that the bone was filled with red disks. Later, Schweitzer recalls, ‘I looked at this and I looked at this and I thought, this can’t be. Red blood cells don’t preserve.’ Schweitzer showed the slide to Horner. ‘When she first found the red-blood-cell-looking structures, I said, Yep, that’s what they look like,’ her mentor recalls. He thought it was possible they were red blood cells, but he gave her some advice: ‘Now see if you can find some evidence to show that that’s not what they are.

Instead, Mary discovered collagen consistent with blood vessels along with red blood cells, in the thigh bone of that juvenile T. rex in Montana. ‘What we found was unusual, because it was still soft and still transparent and still flexible,’ she says. Her discovery excited much controversy in the evolutionary community, as it seems quite impossible that anything could preserve something so chemically ‘fragile’ for millions of years. Evolutionists date the first dinosaur in which Schweitzer found the soft tissue to 68 million years ago. Many insisted the material she had found must be microbial contamination because no known process could account for such long preservation of organic material in bone, the molecules of which tend to be readily broken down and particularly for the preservation of its pliability and elastic qualities. In ongoing studies, Schweitzer has discovered soft tissue and confirmed the presence of collagen in other dinosaur specimens alleged to be 145.5 to 199.6 million years old.” “Dinosaur Shocker,” Smithsonian Magazine, May 2006.

All of that left one large question; how could soft tissues survive for millions of years? “Schweitzer and her team noticed that iron particles are intimately associated with the soft tissues preserved in dinosaurs. But when they chelated – or removed the iron from – soft tissues taken from a T. rex and a Brachyolophosaurus, the chelated tissues reacted much more strongly to antibodies that detect the presence of protein, suggesting that the iron may be masking their presence in these preserved tissues. They then tested the preservation hypothesis by using blood vessels and cells taken from modern ostrich bone. They soaked some of these vessels in hemoglobin taken from red blood cells, while placing other vessels in water. Two years later, the hemoglobin-treated soft vessels remained intact, while those soaked in water degraded in less than a week.

“We know that iron is always present in large quantities when we find well-preserved fossils, and we have found original vascular tissues within the bones of these animals, which would be a very hemoglobin-rich environment after they died,” Schweitzer says. “We also know that iron hinders just about every technique we have to detect proteins. So iron looks like it may be both the mechanism for preservation and the reason why we’ve had problems finding and analyzing proteins that are preserved.” For more information click Here Since her initial findings soft tissue has also been observed, not just in well-preserved dinosaur bones, but in what some call “junk” fossils as well.

So, here is the problem. Many people were rightly disconcerted about the discovery of soft tissue in fossils. That discovery called into question the popular narrative that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. And so, when Mary discovered the preservative effects that iron can have on soft tissue in a lab setting over a short period of time they jumped at that life-line. But in doing so, they made an incredible leap of faith. The conclusions reached by some scientists that want to extrapolate the results of a two-year experiment into millions of years isn’t science. Its faith. Remember the definition of science is “knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation.” Based on the tests performed indicating the possibility of iron acting as a preservative, at best an honest person could conclude that, under strictly controlled laboratory conditions iron has a preservative effect over the spans of a few years. To extrapolate that observable and repeatable finding, into millions of years isn’t science. Its faith. It’s the assurance of things hoped for and the conviction of things not seen.Perhaps those big old bones aren’t as old as we were led to believe…

An article on Mary Schweitzer’s find from the Smithsonian

Another article looking in more depth at this soft-tissue find

Read Full Post »

from Worldview Weekend:

One result of our culture’s post-modernism is its entirely modern love affair with its own view ofscience.

Once-upon-a-time, the word science referred to the scientific process: verifiable propositions, experimental procedures, and reproducible observations.

And today? Science may still mean that in the dictionary, but in popular culture? Not so much.

Instead, the concept of science stands in for anti-supernaturalism with a political agenda—which I assume has probably always been the case to some extent. But today’s science seems marked by a very unscientific illogical and contradictory nature exceeded only by its own level of dogma.

Some examples: The pro-abortion movement claims that science does not allow it to say that a baby in the womb is human life. Of course the baby is human, and is alive, but simply those observations are deemed “unscientific.” In fact, after Senator Marco Rubio was foolish enough to use the antiquated concept of science in this statement:

“Science is settled, human life begins at conception”

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists released a statement saying that they could not agree with Rubio, because they “approach everything from a scientific perspective.” They were fine saying that pregnancy begins with implantation, but the science is just not settled on if pregnancy and life are the same thing. Its not that they haven’t done the right research, but rather they can’t comment on the connection between human life and pregnancy because they approach everything from a “scientific perspective” (one blogger described this as “being super confused about where babies come from”).

Meanwhile, there is this picture of a baby born at 24-weeks. The baby did not survive:

'She's a human not a foetus': Mother wants to challenge abortion laws after giving birth at 24 weeks

No word on the scientific perspective on this.

Another example: yesterday AOL news used this headline: “Global warming likely to cause colder winters.” The lead said, of course, that “Scientists now believe that global warming is to blame for extreme cold snaps in North America.” If scientists say so.

Which leads to the news this month that polar ice is actually increasing, scientists say. Which is good news according to some scientists, but bad news according to others—after all, it could break out into “global cooling” (the actual phrase used, without irony, in the International Science Times, and attributed to “scientists”).

Note the irony that this all comes seven years after “the science was settled” and the polar ice caps would likely disappear by the year 2014. Well then.

Non-Christians I know (and many Christians too) often wonder why pastors who may be otherwise respectable suddenly sound like raving, backwards luddites when it comes to “science.”

Why does it have to be the Christians who bring up the fabricated science and outright lies—remember the hockey stick graphs!—behind global warming?

One reason is because the same people who say science is settled on the global warming—or possibly cooling—also dogmatically say they know how old the earth is. They are as confident in our shared ancestry with monkeys as they are in the original big-bang—but have no idea if a fetus is human life. By the way, are those pesky ice caps still around? I thought the science was settled?

So I don’t mind being the backwards, young-earth, six-day-creationist. I can compare my world view to the dogma and self-proclaimed intellectual superiority of science with confidence.

Tyson can tell his 2.41 million twitter followers (!) that religious people have no place in any authority because they lack an objective reality. My retort: his form of science is confused about where babies come from, fabricates its findings, and ultimately ends up denying the creator for the sake of creation. That track record hardly counts as being founded in objective reality.

Read Full Post »

This is not the only time that Pat Robertson has shown that he is a humanist, not a man of God! He has consistently shown over the years that his ideology is not based on God’s Word but on the humanistic goals of his own organization!

One of his most glaring anti-Biblical positions was when he came out and publicly endorsed Rudy Giuliani for President, this when Rudy Giuliani was a vocal supporter of Abortion. When asked why he was endorsing Giuliani knowing that Giuliani was a supporter of abortion, Robertson’s answer was of the consummate pragmatic humanist, “because he had the best chance of winning”

from Worldview Weekend:

Pat Robertson has voiced his opposition to the Bible’s history in Genesis once again, by personally attacking young-earth creationists with name calling. In a recent episode of CBN’s 700 Club, Robertson claims, “The truth is, you have to be deaf, dumb, and blind to think that this earth that we live in only has 6,000 years of existence.” You can view the clip from Tuesday of this week below or on the CBN website, beginning at 37:50 to 40:56.

But surely his colleagues at Regent University—even if they believe in evolution, millions of years, or both—have to groan loudly at the statements Robertson made (I would hope so!). For instance, note the following issues

1.Robertson thinks that oil comes from the Jurassic period (from dinosaurs), and he thinks that the Jurassic period was 65 million years ago. But, secularists actually state that oil was formed primarily from algae and plant materials (not animals like dinosaurs) throughout the Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic eras from 542 million years ago to essentially the present. Secular dating of the Jurassic period is 201–145 million years ago. After that is the Cretaceous period, conventionally ending 65 million years ago. The point is, Robertson doesn’t understand what the secularists teach—and yet is so quick to mock Christians who believe God’s Word.

2.Robertson stated that the solar day is how long it takes the sun to orbit the galaxy! But the solar day is actually the rotation period of the earth with respect to the sun.

3.What Robertson stated concerning the “galactic day” was nonsense. There is no such day recognized as a galactic day.
4.Robertson clearly doesn’t understand dating methods, as he equates radiocarbon dating with millions of years. You see, radiocarbon dating has nothing to do with millions of years—he’s using the wrong dating method to even discuss millions of years.

Now Robertson called anyone who believes God’s Word as written in Genesis as “deaf, dumb, and blind.” What’s more, Robertson seems to believe that there were humans before Adam:

There was a point of time after the earth was created, after these things were done, after the universe was formed, after the asteroid hit the earth and wiped out the dinosaurs, and after all that there was a point of time that, there was a particular human being that God touched. And that was the human that started the race that we are now part of. I think prior to that who knows what was here.

He appears to be saying there were other human beings before Adam, but only one that “God touched” who started the human race. But in 1 Corinthians 15:45 we are told Adam was the “first man.” There were no other men before him. To believe otherwise is to believe that the Apostle Paul (and therefore God) made a mistake or lied in 1 Corinthians.

Robertson also claims, “There’s no way that all you have here took place in 6,000 years. It just couldn’t have been done. It couldn’t possibly have been done.” So, there is no way God, the infinite Creator, could not have created the universe in six days just 6,000 years ago? God could have created everything in six seconds if He wanted to. It’s not a matter of what man thinks—it’s a matter of what God clearly says in His infallible Word.

Pat Robertson’s remarks illustrate one of the biggest problems we have today in the church—people who compromise the Word of God with the pagan ideas of fallible men. That’s why a big part of the AiG ministry is to call the church and culture back to the authority of the Word. In response to Robertson’s unbiblical claims, for the next three days, we are giving away a free download of my recent video Stop Trusting Man’s Word. And frankly, I don’t think the title could be more appropriate.

You can download this video free until Sunday night (normally $12.99 on DVD). Share this with your friends and encourage them to download and view Stop Trusting Man’s Word too! I think you’ll find a whole new level of confidence in the truth of the Bible!

The code “TRUSTING” for a free video download of Stop Trusting Man’s Word is active through Sunday, May 18. Here is a link to the video download product page, and you can have it automatically added to your cart with the code already applied at this link.

Just in case you’re having trouble downloading the video after the checkout process, here are the instructions from the AiG store:
1.Go to your account page.
2.Choose the Downloads option from the menu.
3.Click the Download button next to the item you wish to download. (Depending on your browser configuration, you may need to, do an “Alt + click”—or “Control + click” for Mac users—on the button instead.)
4.The file should immediately start downloading and show its status in a download dialog box.

I believe Robertson’s remarks (and he has made similar remarks in the past) also illustrate a problem humans have had since Genesis 3. As a result of the fall, humans have a sin nature. This means we are more likely to accept that which is wrong than that which is right. Our nature is that we would rather trust man’s fallible word than God’s infallible Word. Robertson illustrates this by the fact he doesn’t even have his information correct concerning what secularists believe, and he uses this incorrect information to blast those who take God at His Word. This shows that he doesn’t know why he rejects a literal Genesis—he rejects it and then uses all sorts of mixed up wrong ideas to justify his rejection! What a mess! What a travesty!

Also, Robertson is really saying that our qualified scientists at AiG (and at many other Christian and secular institutions) are “deaf, dumb, and blind.”

If we say we believe in the Bible’s inerrancy and authority, we must place our faith in Jesus and respect His written Word, beginning in Genesis! Of course, scientific evidence over and over again confirms that the Bible is true, and our PhD scientists at AiG have written hundreds and hundreds of articles and books that affirm this, but on those matters that sound impossible to fallible man—whether it be God creating in six actual days or a virgin maiden giving birth—we must place our faith in what the infinite Creator God says, not finite man!

I wonder if Pat Robertson would be prepared to discuss these issues with me or one of our AiG scientists on the 700 Club? Or maybe in some sort of debate format at Regent University? We are certainly willing to do that—maybe all of you reading this could challenge CBN/Regent University to allow such a discussion, debate, or forum to occur publicly. I wonder if Pat Robertson, who is allowed to state these things so publicly through CBN will agree to have his statements publicly challenged and tested!

Again, I urge you to take advantage of the free video download of Stop Trusting Man’s Word.

And please consider bringing your friends and family to the Creation Museum so they can learn the truth about God’s Word. And this year, kids 12 and under are free (with one paying adult). Help overcome the false teaching by Pat Robertson on Genesis and come to a facility that honors God’s Word and teaches the gospel daily.

Read Full Post »

from Got Questions:

Science is defined as “the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.” Science is a method that mankind can use to gain a greater understanding of the natural universe. It is a search for knowledge through observation. Advances in science demonstrate the reach of human logic and imagination. However, a Christian’s belief in science should never be like our belief in God. A Christian can have faith in God and respect for science, as long as we remember which is perfect and which is not.

Our belief in God is a belief of faith. We have faith in His Son for salvation, faith in His Word for instruction, and faith in His Holy Spirit for guidance. Our faith in God should be absolute, since when we put our faith in God, we depend on a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient Creator. Our belief in science should be intellectual and nothing more. We can count on science to do many great things, but we can also count on science to make mistakes. If we put faith in science, we depend on imperfect, sinful, limited, mortal men. Science throughout history has been wrong about many things, such as the shape of the earth, powered flight, vaccines, blood transfusions, and even reproduction. God is never wrong.

Truth is nothing to fear, so there is no reason for a Christian to fear good science. Learning more about the way God constructed our universe helps all of mankind appreciate the wonder of creation. Expanding our knowledge helps us to combat disease, ignorance, and misunderstanding. However, there is danger when scientists hold their faith in human logic above faith in our Creator. These persons are no different from anyone devoted to a religion; they have chosen faith in man and will find facts to defend that faith.

Still, the most rational scientists, even those who refuse to believe in God, admit to a lack of completeness in our understanding of the universe. They will admit that neither God nor the Bible can be proved or disproved by science, just as many of their favorite theories ultimately cannot be proved or disproved. Science is meant to be a truly neutral discipline, seeking only the truth, not furtherance of an agenda.

Much of science supports the existence and work of God. Psalm 19:1 says, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands.” As modern science discovers more about the universe, we find more evidence of creation. The amazing complexity and replication of DNA, the intricate and interlocking laws of physics, and the absolute harmony of conditions and chemistry here on earth all serve to support the message of the Bible. A Christian should embrace science that seeks the truth, but reject the “priests of science” who put human knowledge above God.

Read Full Post »

from Crossroads:

“…by Him [Jesus] all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. “ Colossians 1:16-17

“…since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made . . . although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts… Professing to be wise, they became fools…” Romans 1:20-2

There was a time in America, when people flocked to Bible-based churches to hear God’s encouraging Word and follow His Way. Back then, God’s timeless Truth brought peace, hope, faith and amazing wonder. But times have changed! Today it’s hard to find a church that doesn’t compromise the Bible and bend it to fit human inclinations and unbiblical fads.

Each year, fewer pastors are prepared to base their teaching on the victorious Word of our Lord — the true Creator of the world. Instead, they simply dismiss the less popular parts of the Bible such as the first chapters of Genesis. After all, a “short earth” makes little sense to those who replace God with human scripts for a universe stretching millions of years into the past.

Many, like the famous evolutionist Richard Dawkins, simply hope one day to discover a higher intelligence that can solve the puzzles that continue to perplex even the most renowned atheistic evolutionists.

Ben Stein Exposes British Evolutionist, Richard Dawkins

Back in 2008, Jewish author Ben Stein interviewed the prominent British atheist and author, Richard Dawkins. Please watch this short excerpt from the much longer DVD titled Expelled: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trUUv_ZDoMo (You can order the full-length video from Amazon and/or watch the short YouTube here)

As you will see, Dawkins simply could not make sense of the evolutionary speculations on which he had built his worldwide fame and fortune. Notice his grandiose claims and flawed explanations. He was totally unable to validate his own assertion that evolution is a proven reality. After all, an atheist — especially a world famous atheist author — cannot accept a creationist’s faith in God’s mighty work without losing credibility!

After watching the full length video back in 2008, Dinesh D’Souza wrote an article exposing Dawkins ignorant and irrational speculations. Here are some excerpts:

“So Stein puts to Dawkins a simple question, ‘How did life begin?’ One would think that this is a question that could easily be answered. Dawkins, however, frankly admits that he has no idea. One might expect Dawkins to invoke evolution as the all-purpose explanation. Evolution, however, only explains transitions from one life form to another. Evolution has no explanation for how life got started in the first place. Darwin was very clear about this.

“In order for evolution to take place, there had to be a living cell. The difficulty for atheists is that even this original cell is a work of labyrinthine complexity. Franklin Harold writes in The Way of the Cell that even the simplest cells are more ingeniously complicated than man’s most elaborate inventions….

“[This] absurdity was recognized more than a decade ago by Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the DNA double helix. Yet Crick is a committed atheist. Unwilling to consider the possibility of divine or supernatural creation, Crick suggested that maybe aliens brought life to earth from another planet. And this is precisely the suggestion that Richard Dawkins makes in his response to Ben Stein. Perhaps, he notes, life was delivered to our planet by highly-evolved aliens. Let’s call this the “ET” explanation.

“Stein brilliantly responds that he had no idea Richard Dawkins believes in intelligent design! And indeed Dawkins does seem to be saying that alien intelligence is responsible for life arriving on earth….

“Basically Dawkins is surrendering on the claim that evolution can account for the origins of life. It can’t. The issue now is simply whether a natural intelligence (ET) or a supernatural intelligence (God) created life. Dawkins can’t bear the supernatural explanation and so he opts for ET. But doesn’t it take as much, or more, faith to believe in extraterrestrial biology majors depositing life on earth than it does to believe in a transcendent creator?

“All he can do is hope there is another ‘god’ or ‘intelligence’ somewhere who might have set evolution in motion.”[1]

Did you catch that message? Both Dawkins and Crick agree that life must have begun with some kind of living cell. But they can’t explain how that essential and foundational living cell came about! And so, in desperate search for an answer, they turn to a vague hope of extraterrestrial life still to be discovered. Since both are determined atheists, they refuse to believe in our God — the actual Creator of all life!

“Ben Stein Vs. Sputtering Atheists”

On April 18, 2008, Brent Bozell — founder and president of the Media Research Center, the Conservative Communications Center, and the Cybercast News Service — presented his review of Expelled. He began by exposing the standard bias and hostility of evolutionists toward those who reject evolution.

“It is a reality of PC liberalism: There is only one credible side to an issue, and any dissent is not only rejected, it is scorned. Global warming. Gay ‘rights.’ Abortion ‘rights.’…

PC liberalism’s power centers are the news media, the entertainment industry and academia, and all are in the clutches of an unmistakable hypocrisy: Theirs is an ideology that preaches the freedom of thought and expression at every opportunity, yet practices absolute intolerance toward dissension. Evolution is another one of those one-sided debates….

“Ben Stein’s extraordinary presentation documents how the worlds of science and academia not only crush debate on the origins of life, but also crush the careers of professors who dare to question the Darwinian hypothesis of evolution and natural selection.

“Stein asks a simple question: What if the universe began with an intelligent designer, a designer named God? He assembles a stable of academics — experts all — who dared to question Darwinist assumptions and found themselves “expelled” from intellectual discourse as a result. They include evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg (sandbagged at the Smithsonian), biology professor Caroline Crocker (drummed out of George Mason University), and astrophysicist Guillermo Gonzalez (blackballed at Iowa State University).

“That’s disturbing enough, but what Stein does next is truly shocking. He allows the principal advocates of Darwinism to speak their minds. These are experts with national reputations, regular welcomed guests on network television and the like. But the public knows them only by their careful seven-second soundbites. Stein engages them in conversation. They speak their minds. They become sputtering ranters, openly championing their sheer hatred of religion.

“PC liberalism has showered accolades on atheist author Richard Dawkins’ best-selling book “The God Delusion.” But when Stein suggests to Dawkins that he’s been critical of the Old Testament God, Dawkins protests — not that Stein is wrong, but that he’s being too mild. He then reads from this jaw-dropping paragraph of his book:

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

“It’s understood that God had nothing to do with the origins of life on Earth. What, then, is the alternate explanation? Stein asks these experts… One theorizes that life began somehow on the backs of crystals. Another states electric sparks from a lightning storm created organic matter (out of nothing). Another declares that life was brought to Earth by aliens. Anything but God.

“The most controversial part of the film follows Stein to the Dachau concentration camp, underlining how Darwin’s theories of natural selection led to the eugenics movement, embraced by Adolf Hitler.” . . . . .

read the full article here.

Read Full Post »

from Got Questions:

Science is defined as “the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.” Science is a method that mankind can use to gain a greater understanding of the natural universe. It is a search for knowledge through observation. Advances in science demonstrate the reach of human logic and imagination. However, a Christian’s belief in science should never be like our belief in God. A Christian can have faith in God and respect for science, as long as we remember which is perfect and which is not.

Our belief in God is a belief of faith. We have faith in His Son for salvation, faith in His Word for instruction, and faith in His Holy Spirit for guidance. Our faith in God should be absolute, since when we put our faith in God, we depend on a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient Creator. Our belief in science should be intellectual and nothing more. We can count on science to do many great things, but we can also count on science to make mistakes. If we put faith in science, we depend on imperfect, sinful, limited, mortal men. Science throughout history has been wrong about many things, such as the shape of the earth, powered flight, vaccines, blood transfusions, and even reproduction. God is never wrong.

Truth is nothing to fear, so there is no reason for a Christian to fear good science. Learning more about the way God constructed our universe helps all of mankind appreciate the wonder of creation. Expanding our knowledge helps us to combat disease, ignorance, and misunderstanding. However, there is danger when scientists hold their faith in human logic above faith in our Creator. These persons are no different from anyone devoted to a religion; they have chosen faith in man and will find facts to defend that faith.

Still, the most rational scientists, even those who refuse to believe in God, admit to a lack of completeness in our understanding of the universe. They will admit that neither God nor the Bible can be proved or disproved by science, just as many of their favorite theories ultimately cannot be proved or disproved. Science is meant to be a truly neutral discipline, seeking only the truth, not furtherance of an agenda.

Much of science supports the existence and work of God. Psalm 19:1 says, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands.” As modern science discovers more about the universe, we find more evidence of creation. The amazing complexity and replication of DNA, the intricate and interlocking laws of physics, and the absolute harmony of conditions and chemistry here on earth all serve to support the message of the Bible. A Christian should embrace science that seeks the truth, but reject the “priests of science” who put human knowledge above God.

Read Full Post »

from the “Christian” Post:

An employee who sued a NASA laboratory in California last summer over religious discrimination was fired Monday.

The Discovery Institute, an intelligent design think tank following the case, said the firing of David Coppedge only adds fuel to his lawsuit against Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

Coppedge, who had been with the company for more than a decade, was reportedly fired as a result of downsizing. But the Discovery Institute suspects budget issues wasn’t the main reason for letting him go.

“Coppedge doesn’t seem at all like the first person who would normally be forced to leave in such a situation. Obviously, JPL has other considerations,” Casey Luskin, an attorney with the think tank, stated.

Before being let go, Coppedge was demoted in 2009 after he was accused of “pushing religion” on his co-workers. The longtime employee had begun engaging colleagues in conversations about intelligent design – a theory that life and the existence of the universe derive not from undirected material processes but from an intelligent cause – and offering DVDs on the subject when the co-worker expressed interest.

Though Coppedge, an information technology specialist, has maintained that intelligent design is a scientific theory, his employers reportedly have deemed it religion.

He received a written warning that described his actions as harassing in nature and a disruption in the workplace. Thereafter, he was removed from the “team lead” position on JPL’s Cassini mission to Saturn.

Coppedge filed a complaint last year, alleging that he has been “stigmatized in such a way that career advancement opportunities have been foreclosed to him.” The complaint contends that Coppedge was deprived of his constitutional right to freely speak.

It also accuses his employers of creating, tolerating and condoning a work environment that is pervasively hostile to Coppedge on account of viewpoints he holds regarding intelligent design.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: