THINKING CORRECTLY ABOUT SCIENCE

Dutch philosopher Herman Dooyeweerd (1894-19770) made a major contribution towards Christian theory of reality (ontology). In his theory, Dooyeweerd proposes that we understand creation as having multiple aspects (law-spheres), where an ‘aspect’ is defined as “a basic kind of properties and laws”. Examples of such kinds are: physical, spatial, biotic, logical, sensory, linguistic, ethical, etc. He distinguishes fifteen such aspects of created reality. They are mutually irreducible both in the sense that none can be coherently eliminated in favour of another and also none can be coherently regarded as the cause of any other.

Dooyeweerd

The core idea is that all aspects are created, since there is nothing that God did not create. This includes matter and life, the laws of logic, and the laws governing all the other aspects. The theory goes on to argue that all things in creation have (active or passive) properties of every one of the aspects and so are subject to the laws of all the aspects. For example, a rock has a specific weight whether we know its weight or not. It is has this property independent of an observer. But its sensory colour is not independent. Rather it appears black in relation to a perceiver. Thus the rock’s colour is a passive property because it requires being acted upon by a perceiver to be actualised. The theory takes note of the observed fact that, as far as we know, only humans have active properties in all fifteen aspects. Second the first six (lower aspects) are governed by laws that cannot be broken such as the law of gravity. By contrast higher aspects such as “ethical” can be violated. Dooyeweerd argues that the aspects lower on the list are preconditions for aspects higher on the list, but that no aspect produces an other. For example, it is necessary for there to be things with active physical properties in order for there to be things with active biotic properties, which are in turn necessary for there to be things that have active sensory perception.

The distinctness of modal aspects is anchored in our experiences with all created things: from a molecule over algae and mammals to humans, each kingdom features new active properties that do not exist in the lower kingdoms, neither can they be imagined – as transitional- properties. A philosophy that presupposes a loving God who has given us the ability to observe, know and experience the world in a meaningful way necessarily leads us to trust our observations. The distinctness and irreducibility of modal aspects and laws tells us, then, that things could not have ’emerged’ or evolved form each other, having their origin in God and without the means of some evolutionary process that cannot account for the step changes in the properties we observe.

I would suggest that the only reason special creation is rejected as the best explanation for origins is a pre-existing bias towards materialistic evolutionary explanations.

Extract from article by Martin Tampier in Journal of  Creation Vol. 30 (2) 2016

BIG BANG MODEL OF COSMOS IS ABSURD

Secular scientists claim that our universe formed itself in a big bang event about 13.8 billion years ago. They say that the big bang is a valid scientific theory, well-supported by the evidence.
These claims are false. Not only is there abundant scientific evidence against the big bang, but the model also contradicts itself, and has absurd implications.

30-9-619_14

In this third DVD in the series, engineer and former atheist Spike Psarris explores the origin of the universe. Did it form in a Big Bang event billions of years ago? Or are the heavens consistent with the biblical account of creation instead?

Using spectacular graphics and brilliant photographs of God’s magnificent heavens, Spike demonstrates why the Big Bang fails scientifically. You’ll not only learn about the abundant scientific evidence against the Big Bang, but see why the model contradicts itself and has absurd implications. Spike makes difficult concepts easy to grasp, including redshifts, the cosmic microwave background radiation, the multiverse, and more. Plus, you’ll gain a deeper understanding of dark matter, dark energy, inflation theory, and the bizarre concept of a ‘Boltzmann brain’—all of which threaten the Big Bang’s status as a scientific theory.

https://austore.creation.com/astronomy-vol-3-our-created-universe-dvd?utm_sour  Watch the five minute preview

An objective evaluation of the evidence does not support a self-creation of the cosmos. Instead, “The heavens declare the glory of God” (Psalm 19:1).

AN INESCAPABLE PROBLEM FOR EVOLUTION

All the machinery necessary to both make (in their entirety) and degrade (in their entirety) all the cell components is present in every normal living cell, and it must be so, otherwise waste products would accumulate and destroy cell function. And it must be so from the beginning, otherwise the first generation of living cells would have died from toxic waste accumulation. The inescapable consequence is that autopoiesis is, by definition, reversible, and this situation has logical consequences for life’s robustness in the face of resource limitation.

REVERSIBLE AUTOPOIESIS  IS A FOUNDATIONAL DESIGN PRINCIPLE FOR LIFE’S SURVIVAL

It must be present at the beginning in any theory of life’s origin. No simple-to-complex Darwinian scenario can meet such a standard and, once again, Genesis-style fiat creation is the only rational explanation.

active neurons

active neurons brain connections

GOD AS A TRI-UNITY IS FUNDAMENTAL TO OUR UNDERSTANDING OF HIS UNIVERSE

God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are each equally and eternally the one true God.

God is Love, is probably the most important claim Christians make about our Creator, and yet, without the Trinity it is incomprehensible. A perfectly loving Being cannot perfectly love if He is not sharing that love with at least one other, since perfect love exists between two distinct entities. Love demands a subject who loves and an object that is loved. Because God is immutable and self sufficient (His aseity) requires that His love is not dependent upon the existence of creatures (anything created).

By observing the Universe God created, we can see this tri-unity expressed in every aspect of that creation.

The Father is the Thought behind it, the Son is the Word calling it forth, and the Spirit is the Deed making it a reality.

We are made in God’s image and in God’s likeness so is it any wonder we are a Trinity – Spirit, Soul and Body. Is it also any wonder, that God established the family, the basic structure for mankind as a Trinity – Husband, Wife and Children.

God’s universe is a Trinity – Matter, Space and Time and each of these is a Trinity: Matter – Solid, Liquid and Gas, Space – width, height and depth and Time – past, present and future.

God has given us so many wonderful examples in His creation of ONE being a TRINITY.

Water is two atoms of Hydrogen and one atom of Oxygen (H2O) and it can be a solid – ice, liquid – water and gas- steam.

Light – white is made up of three primary colours, red, green and blue.
8764-trinity-color

The three Persons of the Trinity appear in a logical, causal order . The Father is the unseen, omnipresent Source of all being, revealed in and by the Son, experienced in and by the Holy Spirit. The Son proceeds from the Father, and the Spirit from the Son.

We “see” God and His great salvation by the Father sending the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, we then “experience” their reality by faith, through the indwelling presence of His Holy Spirit. 

The truth of God’s tri-unity is ingrained in man’s very nature, but sadly he has often distorted it and substituted a false god or gods in its place.

IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE SCIENCE, IF FACTS OF THE UNIVERSE ARE UNORDERED?

Basic to the unbeliever’s worldview is a denial of creation – the ordered arrangement of the universe according to the mind of God.

The Christian worldview is that not one piece of the created order is where it is, at the time it is, and the size it is , that is not the result of God’s ultimate plan for His creation.

Knowledge requires the ability to differentiate between individual objects (One- and- Many question). This is done by means of universals, or what we might call categories. Examples of categories would be horse, cat, chair, trees, plants and so forth. In the Christian worldview, categories or universals, are part of the creation act of God. This is what unifies everything in the universe (unity and diversity), otherwise we just have a lot of  ‘abstract particulars’ that don’t relate to anything else. Particulars (things, events, words) need something that connects them to something else that will provide meaning to the particular whatever it might be. Right at the foundation of the universe (Genesis 1) God created particulars and kinds (universals), ” The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, each according to its kind …” Genesis 1:11-12.

8764-trinity-color

In God’s own being, the Trinity, we find both unity and diversity. Christian philosopher, Cornelius Van Til recognized the question of the One-and-Many as a metaphysical issue. “Using the language of the One-and-Many question we contend that in God the one and the many are equally ultimate. Unity in God is no more fundamental than diversity and diversity in God is no more fundamental than unity.”

The doctrine of the Trinity provides a solution to the problem of knowledge , the one-and-many or universals and particulars, and therefore a solution to the issues of relationships, or community. In the Trinity the absolute self-sufficient God is both unity and diversity. Creation reveals a one-and-many universe brought into existence by a one-and-many triune God.

The universe is not an accumulation of unknowable abstractions but a creative act of God. Without such a belief in a unifying principle in the universe, science is not possible. It is the unifying principle, the common denominator, that provides order and coherence – rationality – to the universe. This is one of the unproven assumptions of science. It is no coincidence that science has grown on the back of a Christian culture and worldview.

Extracted from article by Ian Hodge “Trinity’s Truth Reflected in Creation”, http://www.creation.com

 

Relevance of Creation to sharing your faith

Dynamic street evangelist Henry De Roos gives practical advice on how to use evidence about God’s creation to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Listen to the first five minutes of this video to get Henry De Roos testimony. A Science teacher with two degrees who discovered he was unable to defend his faith and decided to do something about it.

Non Christian Professor recognizes that Creation demands a Creator

Natural God by Beth Houston

 

The author of NATURAL GOD – Deism in the Age of Intelligent Design, Beth Houston, is a professor of creative writing and literature at the University of California and several other universities. She covers a lot of material rarely reviewed in books critical of molecules to man evolution. What does she offer to the creation-evolution debate? The answer is a fresh approach, written in an engaging style, that reflects a good understanding of psychology, logic, biology and history. She stresses that science, especially Darwinism, has become a form of dogmatism the needs to be challenged.

One point documented is that Darwin’s central ambition was not to explore the world to let it reveal itself, but to become famous. Houston also carefully documents her position that evolution theory (no meaning, no purpose, no Creator) caused its developer to lose both his aesthetic sensibility and his appreciation of aesthetic beauty. Darwin openly admitted that his appreciation of aesthetics had dynamically changed.

“Up to the age of thirty ….poetry….such as the works of Milton, Gray, Byron, Wordsworth, Coleridge and Shelley, gave me great pleasure and even as a schoolboy I took great delight in Shakespeare. I have also said that formerly art and pictures gave me considerable pleasure and music very great delight. But now for many years I cannot endure to read a line of poetry: I have tried lately to read Shakespeare, and found it so intolerably dull that it nauseated me. I have also lost my taste for art and music.”

Darwin admitted that the ” loss of these tastes is a loss of happiness, and may possibly be injurious to the intellect, and more probable to the moral character, by enfeebling the emotional part of nature.”

Beth Houston concludes that what was wrong with Darwin was that “the dimension that gives life lived to the fullest its zing” was gone.

“By the time he had finished ORIGIN and certainly his later Autobiography, beauty had ceased to be beauty at all ….beauty was observed and used like a prostitute for a distant satisfaction of an immediate need, never for love of beauty for its own sake, never for the pleasure of intimate contact (with nature).

She goes on to say, “Mechanistic agnostics like Darwin…. know intellectually that nature is beautifully constructed while emotionally denying that it is. The aesthetic atrophies when the spirit does, or when the spirit lies dormant and inactivated. It is … mechanistic determinism and Darwinian natural selection.

There is never any death of God, only murder or suicide of the killer’s own God – given faculties.”

Houston speculates that: “Darwin’s insistence that natural selection is ultimately brutal is a projection of …. the brutal side of his own nature. Natural selection justifies brutality and sanctifies the guilt. The brutal cannot face a God who might not condone brutality. Therefore, religions create their gods in the image of their own brutality to justify and sanctify brutality, and science creates its god, natural selection, the shadow of civilized man, for the same purpose.

Summary: Professor Houston makes a convincing case that the natural world provides clear evidence for a creator. She also documents the adverse effects of Darwinism on society and persons using Darwin himself as a prime example.

Extract from book review by Jerry Bergman, Journal of Creation Vol 29, 2015

 

 

PHYSICS POINTS TO GOD’S GLORY

Chad-RodekohrDr Chad Family-Grand-Canyon

Dr Chad Rodekohr                                              Chad with his family

Chad Rodekohr earned a B.S. in Aviation Management, an M.S. in Physics, and a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering, all from Auburn University (Alabama). He is an Associate Professor of Physics at Presbyterian College in Clinton, South Carolina, where he and his wife are raising their five children.

As a mechanical engineer and a physics professor, Dr Chad Rodekohr is passionate about the scientific method. Some might be surprised to find that he is also a biblical creationist. But he says that his career actually helps confirm the amazing design in the world.

“Physics is the study of our real physical surroundings. Since all physical things were created and are now sustained by God, it is easy to point to God’s glory while studying physics.”

Chad points out that: “Those who deal in the historical sciences desire the authority of having used the scientific method. In reality they are peddling a false worldview about history disguised as science and claimed as fact. I think that this is why the scientific method is not taught to most students anymore. Although students all act like they know the scientific method, when pinned down, most can’t actually differentiate between hypothesis, theory, law, or fact. It is no wonder they don’t distinguish between repeatable science and claims about history.”

He was asked to explain how he handled disclosing his creationist views in the classroom as a student, and how he would advise students to handle it themselves.

“What I did may or may not have been the best way to handle it, and is probably not what I would do now if I could do it all over. The primary way I handled the issue was to select carefully the classes that I took. I simply didn’t select courses which were historical in nature—knowing full well what the theme of the class would be. But even in operational science courses, the issue would occasionally come up. In those situations I would only steer into the creation discussion when it was in a personal setting with my fellow students.”

We need to bring academia back to the Lordship of Christ—gently and respectfully, being prepared at every step.

“How would I handle it now? What if I didn’t have the luxury of simply not taking historical science courses? Peter gives us clear teaching on this—1) Honour Christ as Lord by bringing such conversations back to Him—the Creator and Redeemer, 2) Be prepared—understand the scientific issues so you can ‘give an answer’, and 3) be gentle and respectful (1 Peter 3:15). If you are treading into unfamiliar waters, it is easiest to accomplish this with a series of questions leading back to the faulty foundational assumptions on which evolutionary teaching is always based. From there it can be contrasted with the solid biblical witness of our holy Creator, Christ the Lord.”

To students who are considering pursuing a scientific career, Chad says: “Please continue! Please persevere! Please investigate fully! Please teach truth!”

Extract from interview with Lita Cosner on http://www.creation.com

 

Biblical Genealogies are Trustworthy Historical Records

genealogy

 

1 Chronicles 1 and Luke 3 take these genealogies to be completely historical. So theistic evolutionists who would relegate these genealogies to mythical status have to reckon not only with the plain teaching of the chronogenealogies, but how the rest of Scripture treats them as well.

Adam to Noah

The first genealogies we find in Genesis (in chapters 5 and 11) are called ‘chronogenealogies’ because the age of the father at the birth of the son are given. This allows us to know with a very high degree of accuracy (within a year) how much time passed during each generation. It also lets us know there is no gap between the names.

Shem to Abram

The most noticeable element of the genealogy is the steady decrease in lifespans. The antediluvians all seemed to live very long lives. But after the Flood, each generation lives shorter and shorter lives, until many children die before their longer-lived parents, and even before grandparents and beyond. By the time of Abraham, lifespans were only about twice what we experience in the modern-day world.

These genealogies are actually indications that Genesis intends to be taken as history, and not myth, because the chronology claims to set each person in a specific place in history. Many of the people in the genealogies are not mentioned elsewhere in Scripture, so their only purpose seems to be to link one important character with another (linking Noah back to Adam, for example). By the time Moses wrote Genesis, most of these names would not be otherwise significant to the Hebrews.

Matthew’s genealogy

The purpose of Matthew’s genealogy was to trace the legal line of rightful heirs to the throne of David. This of course included biological descent, but also some ‘adoptive’ relationships where a man had no descendant, or whose descendants were disqualified. Matthew’s genealogy used obvious ‘telescoping’ where less important people were omitted.

Matthew claims that his choice of names is significant because of the number of generations listed “So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to Christ fourteen generations” (Matthew 1:17). The most plausible significance for this is because the numerical value of the letters in David’s name added up to 14. God is in total control of history. After all it is HIS story.

Luke’s genealogy

When we interpret the genealogies correctly, we see that they are trustworthy historical records.

Luke’s genealogy looks a lot more complete, and was probably the biological genealogy of Mary, so we see Jesus’ biological ancestry from David, and from Adam. We would expect that Luke would want to give us a complete chain to link Jesus biologically with David. But from Adam to David, he uses the Old Testament sources which indicates his confidence in them as Jesus had total confidence in them – Mt 5:18.

Luke’s genealogy is unusual in that it starts with Jesus and goes back to Adam—all the other genealogies go from father to son. This allows it to end with, “the son of Adam, the son of God.” This means that the genealogy starts and ends with a “son of God”, and nicely makes the theological point that Jesus is linked to all of humanity via common descent from Adam.

Trustworthy historical records

When we look at the biblical genealogies, we have to appreciate the purpose behind each of them, and that helps us to interpret them correctly. And when we interpret them correctly, we see that they are trustworthy historical records.

Extracted from article by Lita Costner “Are There Gaps in the Biblical Genealogies” http://www.creation.com