To answer this question I will limit myself to the three examples given by the video: The creation of the universe in 6 days, the universal flood, and the account of Jonah in the belly of a whale. There are of course many other miraculous stories that this video would have also dismissed as “scientific non-sense” with no actual investigation or thought. However, since the video had questions about these three events, then that is where I will limit my investigation.
It is important to note here that Creationism is not contradictory to modern science. In fact, the Biblical mandate to "subdue" the earth (Genesis 1:28) requires us to understand it, which is what science is all about. "Creation Science" is simply the practice of science with the assumption and acknowledgement that there is a creator God, versus the now standard operating assumption of naturalism (that nature is "all there is").
6 Day Creation:
Young Earth advocates, such as the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), believe in a literal reading of the Genesis account. Each day was a 24-hour day comparable to a modern day, and plants and animals were created directly by God in a mature functional state. The earth was created as a home for mankind. Adam, the first man, may have appeared about 20 years old when created. God could have created the world in an instant, but took six days to do so, followed by a day of rest, as a pattern for us to follow (it is interesting that the seven-day work week has been followed almost exclusively throughout history, yet has no astronomical basis, unlike the month or year, for example). By examining the various genealogies found in the scriptures, it is estimated that the creation must have taken place somewhere between six and fifteen thousand years ago. The most famous Biblical chronology is that of Bishop James Ussher who in 1650 determined the date of creation to be 4004 B.C. Modern creationists are willing to acknowledge the possibility of gaps in the genealogies, pushing this date back some (I personally would agree with the latter position of 13,000-15,000 years).
Evidences that the geologic column was formed quickly, supporting a young Earth viewpoint include:
• Fossilized trees that extend vertically through multiple ages of rock strata (called polystrate fossils).
• All soils become populated with living things such as plants and worms, which leave a record. However, many strata layers do not show signs of this activity, implying they were not at the surface for very long.
• In many cases there is lack of a layer of soil between adjacent strata layers.
• In an unconformity between adjacent rock formations, the lower rock layers have been tilted and eroded. By tracing unconformities laterally through information from outcrops or oil wells, they can be resolved into an area where the layers or formations were either not deposited or not tilted or eroded, indicating that the unconformity does not represent a significant time lapse. Application of this technique can be extended to show that "the majority of the fossiferous column resolves into a single, continuous depositional sequence" (Morris).
• In some places entire rock layers can be seen bending, implying they were soft and not very old when uplifted.
• In some places the contact between adjacent rock beds (of totally different rock types, such as shale and sandstone) is very sharp, which would not be expected if the lower surface had been exposed to the effects of erosion for a long period of time.
• In many rock layers in many locations, surface features seen on the top surface of the lower bed must have been covered quickly to be preserved, such as animal tracks and ripple marks formed by water moving over the surface.
These points are abbreviated and not exhaustive, but nevertheless, they point to a rather young earth with the formation of the different sedimentary layers being a rapid geological event. There are many other documented scientific studies and observed “anomalies” that point to a rather young geological history (roughly 13,000-15,000 years).
Biblically, the created world was a paradise until Adam and Eve disobeyed God. God cursed the creation because of this sin (Gen 3:14-19). Along with physical death, the general process of decay known as the Second Law of Thermo-dynamics was introduced at this time. A consequence of this law is that the universe will eventually die a heat death (the entire universe will be at the same temperature). Genesis chapters 6-9 describe how all of mankind became wicked, except for one man named Noah and his family. God sends a flood to destroy all living things except for a remnant of eight people and representative animals saved on a large boat called the ark, which are to later repopulate the earth. This flood scoured the earth down to its basement rocks, and created the geologic column.
In regards to the theories of evolution, no one, including creation scientists, disputes that so-called "micro-evolution" (variation within a type of organism) caused by natural selection occurs and may be responsible for the large number of species found within a type. Almost all touted evidences for evolution are of this category (like Darwin's finches, the "peppered moth", or bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics). However, it is important to note that "micro-evolution" is a misnomer, as it implies that "a little" evolution is taking place. In actuality, NO evolution is taking place, as no increase in complexity (such as the development of a new organ) is being generated, but merely the emphasis of some already present traits over others. Large scale change of one type of organism into another, so-called "macro-evolution", is beyond the ability of mutation coupled with natural selection to produce. Evolutionists acknowledge this is a "research issue". Even non-creation scientists (such as Denton and Behe) have written books giving the hard scientific facts that document why this is impossible. The "geologic column", which is cited as physical evidence of evolution occurring in the past, is better explained as the result of a devastating global flood which happened about 5,000 years ago, as described in the Bible (Which supports the second event the video questions). Even evolutionists acknowledge that the fossil record is one of "fully-formed abrupt appearance" and "stasis" (that is, no change over time). The belief that the atoms of a "Big Bang" eventually produced people ALL BY THEMSELVES (that is, without any intelligent guidance) is contrary to the well-proven Second Law of Thermodynamics, and the fundamentals of Information Theory. The universe is known to be "running down" yet evolution postulates it is "building up". “Atoms to people” evolution is much more a "religious belief" than a scientific fact. There is no reason not to believe that God created our universe, earth, plants, animals, and people just as described in the book of Genesis!
Global Flood:
There is much evidence for a global flood including evidence from geology, archaeology, ancient legends, catastrophism trademarks, biblical consistency, evidence of Noah’s ark, and from Jesus Christ Himself. The worldwide flood, the biblical story and the evidence fit together perfectly. In general, the credibility of the worldwide flood story in the Bible is supported by unrelated facts that support the truth of the Bible. In recent years, much archaeological evidence has been found that supports the truth of many facts documented in the Bible. Also, Jesus, God in the flesh, completely supported the truth of the Old Testament and quoted it often.
The climate in the pre-flood era was different than after the flood. The climate was warm and moderate, which was favorable to plant and animal life from pole to pole. Evidence of high concentrations of bones found all over the globe is consistent with what would be expected from a tropical, lush, pre-flood environment and a catastrophic worldwide flood. Some of these areas include Agate Nebraska, a cave of San Ciro in Sicily, ossiferous fissures in England and Western Europe, including the Rock of Gibraltar and Santenay in central France.
The only possible explanation for most fossils is rapid deposition from a catastrophic event. The worldwide flood is the only satisfactory explanation for the evidence. The uniformitarianism philosophy that was made popular by evolutionists 150 years ago cannot explain the fossil evidence. Additional evidence that completely supports catastrophism and recent deposition are discoveries in the polar-regions where animals are left standing with undigested food in their stomachs. Oceanographers took core samples of sediments in the Gulf of Mexico that included fossils shells from one-celled plankton called foraminifera and made an interesting discovery. They discovered that at locations in the core samples that represent thousands of years ago, the salinity in the water was suddenly reduced based upon the shells locked-in permanent record of the conditions. This reduction in salinity could only be caused by a huge fresh water deluge.
There is much archaeological evidence confirming the Flood of Noah. There is a tablet in Babylon on which one of the Babylonian kings mentions his enjoyment in reading the writings of those who lived before the Flood. Another Babylonian tablet gives an interesting confirmation. Noah was the tenth generation from Adam according to the Bible, and this Babylonian tablet names the ten kings of Babylon who lived before the Flood. Another tablet names all the kings of Babylon, and after the first ten there are the words: “The Deluge came up. . .” Stories of the Noachian Flood have been found in almost every civilization in the world. Dr. Aaron Smith of the University of Greensboro collected a complete history of the literature on Noah’s Ark. He found 80,000 works in 72 languages about the flood. About 70,000 of them mention the wreckage of the Ark. But, I guess this evidence is all simply scientific nonsense and has no basis in fact. It makes you wonder how much research and thought went behind these “faith shattering” questions that an intelligent Christian isn’t supposed to be able to answer rationally.
Jonah’s Whale Tale:
First of all we may justifiably point out that the Bible does not speak of a whale.
The book of Jonah merely mentions ‘a great fish’ (Jonah i, 17), and although the English
version in Matthew xii, 40 uses the word ‘whale,’ the Greek original has kÁtoj, which is a general word meaning a huge sea-monster. Now it cannot be doubted that there are several enormous sea-creatures which may be able to swallow a full-grown man easily enough.
Moreover it may be observed that the narrowness of throat applies only to the true whale which is at home in the Arctic seas but is not found in the Mediterranean. There is another species of the same order, the sperm whale or cachalot, which is actually found in the Mediterranean and which could doubtless swallow a man. Ambrose John Wilson in the Princeton Theological Review of 1927 mentions a case analogous to that of Jonah. A member of the crew of a whaling ship in the vicinity of the Falkland Islands was swallowed by a large sperm whale which had been harpooned, his boat being upset by a lash of its tail. The whale was killed and dissected and on the third day the missing sailor was found inside the stomach of the animal, doubled up and unconscious. A bath of sea water soon revived him, but the skin of his face, neck and hands, exposed as it had been to the action of the gastric juice, was bleached to a deadly whiteness and never recovered its natural appearance; otherwise his health was not affected by this terrible ordeal.1 In another American periodical, Bibliotheca Sacra, G. Macloskie, of Princeton University, has taken the trouble to demonstrate how even the true whale may be able to rescue a man from drowning. He points out that, as the whale is an air-breathing animal, it has to expel from its mouth cavity all superfluous water immediately after having received its food. Now if any other air-breathing creature should get mixed with its food and be carried by the influx of water between the monster’s jaws, the intruder would be transferred from the water in which it was drowning into the air supply of the whale itself. It could not enter the whale’s stomach because of the narrow inlet, but it might reach the great laryngeal pouch, which starts from below and in front of the larynx and runs down the front of the neck on to the chest. It has thick, elastic walls, and a cavity quite large enough to receive a human body, and to supply it with air for breathing.
The video dismisses the accounts supported by this evidence as figments or delusions of the imagination and not confirmation of the inspired words of an all knowing God whereby primitive people wrote about primitive ideas. Well within the doctrine of Verbal Plenary Inspiration, it is feasible that the authors of these accounts were documenting what they saw, experienced, or were shown and detailed them in such ways as could be understood by their contemporaries and themselves. It makes more sense to discuss Adam being “formed from the dust of the earth,” with the breath of God blown into his nostrils to make him into a “living being” (Gen 2.7) as opposed to an explanation of carbon molecules being assembled and reassembled by a supreme being converting a carbon based geological thing into a carbon based biological thing; at least within a theological frame work. The important thing to realize is that the Bible is not a scientific text. When we read it and interpret it as such, then we misuse the text and ignore the function of the book. Don’t misunderstand me, I believe that every word of the Bible is true and flawless (Prov 30.5). But you can’t get apple juice from a grape—it will only give you grape juice. The Bible doesn’t give us insight into performing open heart surgery; it doesn’t tell us how gravity works; it doesn’t teach us about ecosystems and food chains. The Bible is not exhaustive nor is it all inclusive. God orchestrated the writing of the Bible and its content to serve the specific function of revealing his work and plan of redemption. Does this make it any less true? No. Does it give us cause to evaluate what it says in a way that may be counter intuitive to our own personal paradigm? Absolutely.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment