"The heavens [the physical order - nature] declare the glory of God"
The Big Bang (BB) beginning of the universe is, on
rational grounds, the unassailable[1]
indicator of the existence of God for two reasons: Firstly, its observational scientific
data[2]
proves[3]
without ambiguity that the cosmos came into existence out of absolutely nothing
(Genesis 1:1). Secondly, the fact of the
ongoing expansion of the cosmos is echoed in 11 Bible verses,[4]
even as biblical writers also reference God 62 times as Creator of the
heavens and the earth to sharply distinguish Him from the false gods. Yet despite the powerful case for the BB by such
proponents as Hugh Ross, John Lennox, and William Lane Craig, our secular
culture takes very little notice. This paper raises one major reason why that
is so.
It is clear that young-earth creationism
(YEC) draws upon certain scientific data to support two of its primary
claims, including firstly that the creation of all things happened less than
ten thousand years ago and secondly, that Noah’s Deluge flooded the globe to such
depths that the highest mountain tops were submerged. The problem is, however, that
in order for scientific tidbits to yield pragmatic impacts, they
must be so-framed that they successfully account for the phenomena[5]
in question. Although one goal of
scientific methodology (SM) is to discard errant ideas, its higher
purpose is rather to effectively account for the phenomena that is being
investigated. Here then is the rub: YEC
seeks to the contrary, to explain away that same body of facts. Now should one ask, “Why does YEC’s appeal
to certain data [albeit selectively] not count as proof
that they do respect science?” The answer should become clear by turning to the
respected scientific research strategy known as “inference to the
best explanation from a pool of competing hypotheses.”[6] This tactic is the most foundational of all scientific
methods for gaining insight into nature’s interactions and processes.[7]
Consider its four key points:
1.
The ultimate goal of science is to explain
phenomena as opposed to merely refuting falsehoods.
2.
Since it is not possible to prove claims
about phenomena, each scientific team is left to propose the hypothesis they
hold most adequately accounts for the greatest range of evidence.
3.
Scientific insight into the phenomena under
consideration is attained by means of contrasting and comparing the differing hypotheses
as proposed by competing research teams.
4.
That hypothesis which prevails is deemed the best
scientific insight on the matter investigated.
Returning to YEC; the question of whether the facts they
appeal to are correct is not relevant since their goal in rejecting “Bible-denying”
facts is to discard threatening evidence as opposed to demonstrating any superiority
for their own. Since as I implied, the
goal of SM is to referee both data and the hypo-theses they frame; YEC virtually
never adds evidence. In the event
of exceptions, new data should of course be welcome. Yet while YEC is entitled to re-interpret data;[8]
it must never deny factual evidence.
[1] Cosmologists who deny God’s existence ignore the testable
evidence. See Hugh Ross. Creator and the Cosmos. (RTB, 2018), pp. 85f.
[2] See my papers, “God’s Prints are Everywhere,” ** “Was the Big Bang the Big Beginning?” at my
website: www.christianityontheoffense.com
[3] Legal scholar Dr. J.W. Montgomery stated that since it
isn’t possible to attain strict proof, lawyers persuade juries on the basis of
“proof beyond reasonable doubt.” https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/john-warwick-montgomery-interview/id351907712?i=1000100484018
[4] Job 9:8, Psalm 104:2, Isaiah 40:22; 42:5; 44:24;
45:12; 48:13; 51:13, Jeremiah 10:12; 51:15, Zechariah 12:1. It is God alone
(the higher author – 2 Timothy 3:16) who grasps Big Bang cosmology; not
the biblical writers themselves.
[5] By a “phenomenon” is meant a naturally occurring
object or event that can be experienced by our senses.
[6]
The word, “hypothesis” stands for a tentative proposal that is offered up for scrutiny in
light of the available evidence.
[7] Stephen Meyer. Return
of the God Hypothesis. (Harper One, 2021), pp. 223-229.
[8] One example entails examining the very same fossil record as their opponents, and raising the question, “Where are the transitional fossils?”
[9] See “Disarming the Alleged Conflict between Scientific Fact and the Text of Genesis 1 Without Compromising Either One.” Op.cit. (2).
To read my entire article visit my website: www.christianityontheoffense.com
2.
Test
ReplyDelete