One of the major claims frequently made for excluding God from science is that science can only deal with the natural, but God is supernatural. Furthermore, within the scientific establishment, only theories based on absolute naturalism are even considered. Now when you are describing the general workings of nature this is not really a problem, but there are some areas where this philosophy runs into trouble. Furthermore, It is not just strange things that may not even exist such as ghosts and vampires, where this philosophy runs into trouble. However, the ultimate reason for insisting on restricting science to absolute naturalism is to keep God out of the picture entirely. Most importantly there is a fundamental assumption behind this dilemma that is often ignored, and that is that there is a real difference between natural and supernatural.

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

In the previous articles in this series, we saw how successful Dr. Russell Humphreys’ Dynamic Decay Theory has been at explaining and predicting the magnetic fields of various planets in the solar system. When combined with the model of the Genesis Flood known as Catastrophic Plate Tectonics the fluctuations described in dynamic decay are themselves explained as a result of accelerated tectonic motion going on within the earth at this time.

The reason for this is that the model shows that the accelerated circular currents in the mantle would be bringing down crustal material much lower than possible standard plate tectonics. The presence of this material has been confirmed by observation to the surprise of secular geologists.

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

One of the key requirements of the scientific theory is how well it predicts future observations this is one area where Dr. Russell Humphreys’ Dynamic Decay Theory is highly successful. Dr. Humphreys first published this theory before Voyager 2 flew by Uranus and Neptune. He saw an opportunity to make a prediction about the magnetic field of both planets, and he subsequently published the results in the Creation Research Society Quarterly.

The very fact that this theory produced experimentally testable predictions puts the lie to the claim that creationists do not do real science because it demonstrates a prime example of a creationist theory making testable predictions. It is not alone in doing so, but it is an excellent example because of how successful that it has been. It also provides terrific evidence of the explanatory power that creationist theories can have.

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

One of the earliest arguments against an older earth is the observed fact that the earth magnetic field is decaying. Unfortunately, such early models of the earth's planetary magnetic field did not supply any evidence for a specific age for the earth, only an upward limit. Such early models placed upper limits on the age of the earth at around 12,000 at which point the internal heat of the earth's core from the generating current would be so great that it would blow the earth apart, not to mention that the magnetic field would be stronger than that of a neutron star. That would also make the magnetic field strong enough to kill you by just pulling the iron out of your blood.

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

Richard C. Lewontin - “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen." (Billions and Billions of Demons - January 9, 1997, ISSUE)

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

Uniformitarian geology has its origins with Charles Lyell, and others but was most strongly pushed by Lyle. It was an attack on catastrophism and general but specifically the Genesis Flood. Lyell made it clear that he wanted to free geology from it, that is that he wanted to get rid of the Genesis Flood. At the time d Lyell began pushing Uniformitarianism besides the Genesis Flood there was another form of catastrophism that included multiple global catastrophes, in such cases the Genesis Flood was usually considered the most recent. These other catastrophes were considered by proponents of this theory to have been responsible for there being multiple layers. Lyell’s Uniformitarianism attacks the ideas of both single and multiple global catastrophes.

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

It's Christmas time, so in this article, we will look at the star Of Bethlehem. What are some of the theories as to what it was and how well do they fit what the Bible actually describes.

Matthew 2:1-12

1, Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,

2, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

3, When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

2 Peter 3:3-6: 3, “Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5, For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6, Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:”

Now these verses could at least in part refer to people questioning the Lord coming back because things continue as they always have without any indication of him coming back, but it is also interesting that the description of “all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation” is also a perfect fit to the philosophy behind uniformitarian geology, that the process is we observe going on the earth today are the same forces that produced everything we see on the earth. Furthermore, there is a direct connection to this idea of being responsible for people willingly dismissing both creation and the flood. It literally nails the central idea of uniformitarian geology on the head.

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

The biggest challenge from a creation science standpoint given the fact that the speed of light is finite is being able to see stars that are more than 6000 light years away.  Several solutions to this problem have been proposed but unfortunately, some of them produce more problems than they solve.

The first solution proposed was that God created the light already in transit. There are two main problems with this idea. The first problem is the fact that there is nothing scientific about it, it is simply a patch to make the problem go away. The second problem is that the overwhelming majority of what we see in the sky never actually happened, basically making God an author of fiction. Finally, there is nothing to gain from this solution other than fixing a problem.

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

While the case for Biblical geocentrism, is better than that for a Flat Earth, geocentrics tend to make some of the same mistakes that flat earthers make, the big one is assuming that the word earth always refers to the planet Earth despite the fact that God personally calls the dry land earth.

Genesis 1:10, And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

In recent years there have been claims that the Bible teaches a Flat Earth. There are even modern-day flat earthers who pushed this claim as support for their flat Earth of claims. You have probably heard that Columbus proved that the Earth was round and that he was opposed in his voyage but Bible-believing Christians who thought the earth was flat based on the Bible.  However, none of these claims are actually true neither does the Bible teach Flat Earth. On the contrary, you can actually use the Bible to support a spherical rotating earth.

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

There is a trend these days, particularly online, to just trust the experts. The experts of course are those that hold to the politically correct views such as Big Bang to man evolution, man-caused climate change, and a lot more. Inherent in this idea is the notion of Scientific elitism.

 Scientific elitism is the notion that approved scientists are not to be questioned when they say something considered scientific. Of course, the only scientists that have this privilege of being unquestioned are those that follow the official party line and accept whatever leftist agenda exists on the topic they are talking about.

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

Science and scientism are radically different things despite the similarity in their names. Science is a methodology for studying the natural world and how it works. Scientism on the other hand is a philosophical and metaphysical perspective on science. There are three men ways of defining scientism.

  • It can be seen as an excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and methodology.
  • It sees science as the only objective way of determining truth.
  • It includes the unwarranted application of science to areas that do not lend themselves to scientific inquiry.
Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

One of the common ways that people try to reconcile the creation account in Genesis with the claim that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old is that they tried to claim that the days of the creation week are not ordinary earth days. They will either claim that they are figurative for long periods of time or that they were actual days just extremely long ones. The reason they tried to do this is that they have been convinced that science has proven the earth to be 4.5 billion years old. They are usually totally ignorant of the fact that this date is based on an Atheistic model of the Earth’s origin that assumes the Bible is wrong. but what does the Bible really say?

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

Now there is no specific place where the Bible explicitly says the earth is 6000 years old. If it did it would be 6000 years plus however many years since that was written. However, the Bible does give sufficient chronological data that you can calculate back to where the creation would be. When you do this, you get a figure of around 6000 years.

One of the common ways of trying to get around this is to claim that there was a gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. However reading these verses shows no indication of such a gap.

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

One of the most common compromised positions is to claim that Noah’s Flood was just a local flood. Some try to connect it to events in the Black Sea, while others are ambiguous about it. So, what does the Bible really say about the extent of Noah’s Flood?

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive