This one-hour video below contains a lot of good information which illustrates a truth many people may find shocking: science and the Bible, rather than being like oil and water, are like hand in glove. In other words, they compliment one another and go well together.
I was once among those who considered science and the Bible at odds. That was before I realized that a great deal of what passes for “science” in the modern world is nothing more than fantasy and assumption based on a few grains of scientific fact. This was also before I realized how well the physical evidence in the world around us fits the Biblical account of creation.
There was a time not that long ago when most scientists understood that scientific discovery requires an ordered, logical system…the kind you would expect not from an accidental, spontaneous universe but from an intentional and designed one. The same is true of so many of the greats of science who laid the foundation for modern science while believing in God and the Bible.
Francis Bacon, known as the father of the scientific method, believed in God and the Bible, and believed that we could learn about the world around us through both the Bible and nature. Scientists of today would do well to return to the scientific method of empirical observation and experimentation, rather than calling conjecture and assumption “science.”
Johannes Kepler, the famous astronomy pioneer, attended seminary and taught math at a seminary. Kepler said the process of scientific discovery was “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.” In other words, science is the process of discovering the mechanics of God’s creation.
Lord Kelvin (have you heard of anything measured in degrees kelvin?) established the absolute temperature scale. He opposed Darwinism and believed in creation science.
The great astronomer and physicist Isaac Newton was a Christian who believed the chronology of the Bible which indicates the earth is only a few thousand years old.
Louis Pasteur, the father of modern germ theory, believed in God. Some of his experiments disproved a key tenet of naturalism and evolutionism, revealing that life does not spring from lifelessness.
And there are many Bible-believing geologists, physicists, astrophysicists, chemists, engineers, molecular biologists, palaeontologists, and all manner of scientists today who don’t ascribe to the doctrine of materialism and naturalism.
There are a number of foundational scientific principles which flatly contradict materialism and evolutionism, making it clear that these ideas are contrary to empirical science.
For example, we know through science that matter does not spontaneously come into existence from nothing. It doesn’t happen. It has never been observed to happen in the field or in the laboratory. Yet for the universe and all matter in it to have come into existence without an intelligent designer (i.e. God), it would have had to come into existence spontaneously from nothing. It is therefore clear that the Big Bang, and the entire materialist position, is contrary to science.
We also know that matter does not spontaneously organize itself into more complex functional forms. Science has taught us that matter tends toward disorder, not order. We have never observed a planet or a star forming. Scientists have observed many celestial phenomenon that they think might be a planet or star in the middle of being formed…but again, this is nothing more than unconfirmed, hopeful conjecture. No matter how badly you want “it might be” to actually be “it is,” that does not make it so. Getting ahead of the real, hard science takes one into the territory of what usually happens when you ass-u-me.
As I pointed out earlier, we know (thanks to Bible-believer Louis Pasteur) that life does not spontaneously spring into existence from lifelessness. Inanimate material does not spontaneously become animate material. It doesn’t happen. It has never been observed in the laboratory or in the field. In fact, many times, scientists have worked very hard to take inanimate materials and force them to become animated into life…only to fail. Obviously, making life from lifeless materials is hard enough even with a measure of “intelligent design” (albeit finite and imperfect intelligence of men)…yet we are expected to believe that life began spontaneously 3.5 billion years ago–and this accidental life managed to survive and reproduce? The claim seems a little, um, unscientific, doesn’t it?
We also know from science that one type of organism doesn’t give rise to another type of organism. This behavior has never been observed in the field or in the laboratory. Science also demonstrates that different types of organisms cannot interbreed to give rise to another type of organism. Calling something “science” that has never been observed to happen seems rather unscientific, doesn’t it? Looking at different but somewhat similar types of fossilized organisms and claiming that one gave rise to the other is a bit like comparing the fossilized remains of a Great Dane, a corgie and a chihuahua…and claiming that the corgie is an intermediate form in the evolution from chihuahua to Great Dane. You could certainly assume you were seeing evolution…but you’d really be doing another ass-u-me, wouldn’t you? Assumption isn’t fact, is it?
Given that actual hard science proves that several critical hinge points of materialist/evolutionist doctrine are not scientifically supported, it becomes clear that these ideas are not scientifically viable. They are illogical and contradicted by science.
So don’t fall for the lie that science and the Bible are antithetical, that if you are a student of science, you can’t be a student of the Bible. So many revered scientific minds were great students of science because they were great students of the Bible. And the propaganda that you actually have to turn your back on the teachings of the Bible in order to make scientific discoveries may just be the most over-the-top and completely baseless lie I’ve ever heard.
In order to make scientific discovery, you have to live in a universe that is logical and conforms to certain ordered laws. Expecting logic and order in a spontaneous, “accidental” universe is illogical and inconsistent. The chaos that would logically be the primary characteristic of an accidental, spontaneous universe would not be a conducive environment for scientific investigation. You wouldn’t expect to be able to glean information from a pile of scrabble letters thrown onto the ground…but you would expect coherent information from letters laid out in an intentional, reliable and designed pattern.
It is therefore obvious that the materialist/naturalist position is the unscientific position, and the creationist is the one that conforms with science.
If you’ve ever been misled by the “empty suit” boastings of evolutionism, I encourage you to take an hour and watch the video below. It covers a lot of ground in an hour, but it’ll give you compelling starting points to learn about things like: language and information, logic, genetics, geology, ice ages, how the earth came to look like it does today, radiometric dating methods, fossils, Christianity and evolution, marriage, where the races came from, death, and more.
Considering the information you’ll learn in this video could be the beginning of a fresh journey of greater understanding of the universe…and the Creator of the universe.
*** Bob Ellis *** Is a conservative author and Life and Liberty News contributor
Read more from Bob Ellis and other conservative authors at American Clarion
