Creation Is Science-Science Is Creation

“From eternity were the particles… and the particles became complex living stuff. And the living stuff became aware, and the living stuff conceived of god.”

The above is an actual quote from an unbeliever and obviously an angry atheist. His words can clearly be understood as an insult toward believers in the Creator and His creation. It is actually an attempt to poke comical fun at those of us that  passionately feel religion is truth.

Not all in the forefront of science feel this way however, which impresses me much more. I would say that most honest scientists are agnostic. They neither affirm God nor deny His existence. They have enough sense to regognize that               they have no proof that there is no God.

The truth is, that for the most part atheists, or pseudo  philosophers, are actually outside the scope of science and looking in from the sidelines. They read data and form opinions from the written words of science. I would speculate that generally preconceived opinions have already been formed in the mind of an atheist. And so we must ask why is this so?

Philosophers for many years have seemed to venture everywhere but to the Creator, God almighty. They tend to look in every direction for the answer to an ideal loving and caring moral society. Everywhere but to the Word of God. Again, I ask why?

If you were to ask this fellow who wrote the above quote about eternity, what could his answer be? It would be speculation and opinion I can assure you. If you were to inquire from whence came the particles he speaks of, and how did they originate, we would be offered more of the same speculation and opinion. If you were to ask him how the particles became complex living stuff, and how the living stuff became aware enough to conceive anything at all, we would certainly be treated to more of the same type of reasoning.

These folks who will adamantly deny the possibility of God offer scant evidence that God does not exist. These same people will ridicule the believers as some kind of fanatical nuts without convincing arguments for their own beliefs!

They of course do not see their selves in this manner. They will forcefully claim that scientific knowledge of observable data proves beyond doubt that the universe and all contained therein closes the door to a supreme Creator.

Many of these folks do not even understand the principles of the scientific theories that they use to promote their atheistic belief’s. Most of us have access to scientific data, and what I find is that these scientific truths bolster my belief in God. The facts of science only help me to see and understand just what an awesome God my Father actually is. Most atheists will close all avenues of thought to a supreme Creator which could be based on any number of reasons. What I have found is that their beliefs are usually based upon more than just scientific data. Their upbringing, personal experiences, and unfamiliarity with Gods Word most likely to some extent play a role. And after all is said and done we Christians are the ones labeled as close minded. I don’t think so.

These same ones will look you in the eyes as they aver that scientific theories are actually based upon observable facts. In short, they tread where most actual scientists will not. Not only this but they have even changed the meaning and definition of the word, “theory.” Here’s the dictionary’s definition,
1.) A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena.
2.)A tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified, but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena.
3.)A belief that can guide behavior.

So after all is said and done a theory is a well-substantiated explanation that is not yet verified! Folks, evolution has been a theory for about 150 years now. What is the hold up? When will this theory be transformed into fact? This will never happen because evolution is the product of the imagination of rebellious and prideful human beings. Some things never change.

The archaeological world also for many years has sought and still seeks to discredit the Bible. It can be seen with study that they have failed miserably in their quest. Time after time the Bible has proved to be accurate when challenged and is a matter of public record..

The questions of creation and life are indeed profound and to peer through the eyes of science in this direction requires mental faculties the average person just does not have. Not all have studied advanced mathematics, physics, astrophysics, or the practical applications behind them. However, there are things that the average person can know relating to understanding what is being taught by the scientific community.

We, as well as science know that just the right chemical elements had to spring forth during the first few nano seconds of a Big Bang. Carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, and iron are the result of nuclear reactions within stars. These materials are the necessities of life by the way. Any variations of as little as 1% one way or the other would have resulted in an earth that would have never been able to sustain any form of life. Using another example, there could have been such a variation that would have produced 100% helium. And that would have ended with the same result.

Slightly different values in any of the events in that first stage of a Big Bang would have resulted in a much different end. How can this be explained logically? There is no reason at all for the equations and values that were set in place by this so called Big Bang.

To state adamantly that science eliminates the proof of God in the face of such knowledge is irresponsible and smug.
I am surprised in the number of physicists and astrophysicists who for the most part will concede to the problem of universal constants or laws (e.g. gravitational constant). Uniform laws that to many would suggest “design” and not “coincidence”. Over the years physicists have grappled with the knowledge of sensitive constants that enable life to exist. They are very much aware that had these constants been slightly different, life would not have had a beginning on this earth. They also are aware that “chaos” and not “uniformity” should be, and actually most probably would be the result of a “Big Bang”. This can be observed by experimentation within a smaller setting. Although in all fairness such an experiment might not be achieved accurately using a much smaller model. The exact results may not be observed using fraction formulas. However, just what are the odds of an explosion resulting in perfect order within our universe? In truth I think it safe to say that neither man nor machine could even begin to compute the odds of such an occasion. And in all reality such a claim would be most suspect at the minimum.

It is my belief that such an event as the forming of matter from absolutely nothing is an impossibility. Not to mention our inhabitable earth, living beings and the universe and all the laws and uniformity that go with it.

John Polkinghorne writes that:
“There are … certain givens about our universe … which play an important part in determining its history… quite small variations in any of these fundamental specifications of our world would have rendered it anthropically sterile. … If we accept this view, then a meta-question arises of why things are this way… There seems to be the chance of a revised and revived argument from design appealing to a Cosmic Planner who has endowed his world with a potentiality implanted within the delicate balance of the laws of nature themselves…In short, the claim would be that the universe is indeed not ‘any old world’ but the carefully calculated construct of its Creator.” (1)

And again Paul Davies comments:
“It is hard to resist the impression of something – some influence capable of transcending spacetime and the confinement of relativistic causality – possessing an overview of the entire cosmos at the instant of its creation, and manipulating all the causally disconnected parts to go bang with almost exactly the same vigour at the same time, and yet not so exactly co-ordinated as to preclude the small scale, slight irregularities that eventually formed the galaxies, and us.” (2)
Quotes obtained from CounterBalance

And so science acknowledges this problem of relativistic “coincidences,” which are indeed infinite and the atheist as far as I know does not. They will take a hard-nosed stance and deny the possibility of a Creator. However, more common is that they simply ignore these enigmas. Some will deduce that it is impossible to theorize after the fact. But isn’t that what science does? Are they not attempting to see into the past right back to the beginning of time? The idea of a Creator is not so far fetched when we look at the complications of a world that came into being merely by chance. We behold a world with purpose and design. Oddly and suspiciously enough we do not see chaos. We behold the beautiful laws of nature from the greatest living thing to the smallest. We scan the skies and witness wonderful paintings of sunrises and sunsets that mere mortals could never ever conceive. We now, thanks to the Hubble Telescope, are able to see breath taking views of worlds beyond our own. It is hard for me to believe all of this beauty and apparent careful design had no intelligent Creator. Actually, to a certain degree nature itself convinces me that this world was indeed created by God,
“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:” (Romans 1:20).

Until Charles Darwin published his controversial book, “Origin of Species,” science had pretty much operated on the assumption and a belief of a divine Creator. Scientist’s were for the most part religious and believed that what they were discovering and what was to be discovered was directly related to and conceived by God. And so faith in God was pretty much an accepted part of science. With the theory of evolution came a departure from religion and an attitude of indifference. The lines were drawn and the war was on.

The Genesis account of Creation was called into question by those who followed science and the theory of evolution was ridiculed by theology. It seemed that one was either on one side of the fence or the other and there was no middle ground. However, there were those Theologians who would attempt to meet science half way, so to speak. Theories designed to satisfy science and religion began to spring forth. The, “Gap Theory,” which in short offers that God used thousands of years between His creations instead of literal days. The, ”Apparent Age Theory,” which explains that God created the heavens, earth, and mankind fully grown. And others.

Indeed, I will be the first to say that it is hard for me to fathom a teaching that says man came from apes. What makes it all the more difficult is that the Bible makes no mention of this theory whatsoever. For many years Anthropologist’s and Paleontologist’s who have discovered a skull have cried, “Eureka, I have found the missing link!” They of course are referring to the proof of evolution in the form of skeletal remains that would clearly show the progress from ape to modern man. What they have discovered so far is neither a missing link, nor even at times, human remains. I am confident that they will not find a true missing link between apes and man.

They seem to be oblivious to the fact that there are variations within all species. It is fact that dogs breed dogs, not cats. A frog breeds frogs, not turtles. Birds breed birds, but not butterflies. This is not hard to understand.

Thousands upon thousands of these variations have become extinct. They have gone the way of the dinosaur. We know that many species have gone extinct even in our own lifetimes, and still do!

I personally can clearly see and partially understand the science of Gods creation. This is hard for unbelievers to see and understand however. Moreover, I have witnessed the providence of God in my own life and those of others who believe. These events are not subject to observation in a scientific sense and can be categorized as coincidence by the unbeliever. They are miracles through prayer however, and

I have observed the powerful results that can only be attributed to a Creator. This is Gods will. All have the ability to choose, for it is a God given freewill action. I will not attempt to convert people through my knowledge of these providential events however. Those in Christ understand these truths and accept them. Those without God in their lives cannot see them. And so I preach, “Christ crucified.”
I preach faith in the fact that the almighty God has sent His only begotten Son so that His creation can draw near to His love. I preach pure and simple faith, belief that the Word of God is able to reach the inner most part of the heart and convince man of their sins.

There is nothing new under the sun. This is because God long ago created all that is needed for the universe, earth and mankind to survive.

The Bible gives the account of the creation of the heavens, earth, and man. The Bible does not delve into the intricate science that God used in doing so. The Bible is not a science book. It is a spiritual guide for man to study and to believe so that he may have a covenant relationship with God. Wayne Jackson has stated well that, “Man would not have written it if he could, and could not have written it if he would.”(3)

The Bible was written by the ultimate Teacher who loves His creation. To imagine that this book was written without divine guidance is folly. However, it is up to each individual to determine what is real and what is fantasy. “As for me and my house, we will worship the Lord.”

(1) Sir John Polkinghorne
John Polkinghorne is a former theoretical elementary particle physicist, and from 1968 to 1979 he was Professor of Mathematical Physics in the University of Cambridge. In 1996 he retired as President of Queens’ College. He has written many books about science and religion, including The Faith of a Physicist (1994). He was knighted by the Queen in 1997.
(2) Paul Davies
Dr. Paul Davies is a former Professor of Natural Philosophy at the University of Adelaide. He now writes books. He specializes in the area of quantum field theory in curved space-time. He has discovered many quantum effects associated with black holes and the early stages of the big bang. He has conducted research in the areas of quantum gravity, gravitational entropy, physics of complexity and foundations of quantum mechanics.
(3) Wayne Jackson
Wayne Jackson is writer editor of the Christian Courier publication and a member of the church of Christ who has written on a number of science creation issues.

Explore posts in the same categories: "religious science", Evolution, Science and Religion, atheists, god