The words creation and science are not mutually exclusive. Without a plan or strategy executed by an act of creation, i.e. science being done, we wouldn’t exist. Yet, regardless of one’s worldview, here we are! What we see around us shouts of design –the beauty of a flower or the function of the eyes, to name just two of countless examples. If your “intelligent designer” is the God of the Bible, a documentation of the science that occurred is well delineated. If it is something else, it should still provide a worldview’s necessary framework, i.e., to help us understand the past, act in the present, and prepare for the future. Join me as we take a scientific approach to examining the creation that is all around us.
To reiterate, the Scientific Method is a cycle of hypothesis, experimental design, data collection, and evaluation of the results against the hypothesis. In general, anyone who uses this or a similar strategy to solve problems or answer questions is a “scientist” and is doing “science.” Einstein’s “thought experiments” are classic examples of working in the laboratory of the mind. He formulated some logical theories on the physical workings of the space and time that bounds our universe, and us within it.
What follows is my attempt to evaluate some aspects of ourselves and our surroundings from a scientist’s perspective. I hope it is an attempt to enlighten with logic and reason, i.e. “good science”. I consider “bad science” an effort to support one’s presuppositions by manipulating the scientific process. Let’s look at some highlights of a 75-minute presentation I made earlier this year. The full presentation can be viewed here.
I’ve discussed elsewhere how the progression of information occurs. Information from the mind of its originator arrives as knowledge to the minds of others, requiring understanding of the proper use of that knowledge, and finally, it may become wisdom. In order to understand something, a good scientific approach is to return to the origin of what we are trying to understand, speculate on how it came to be, look at what has happened as a result of its existence, and reach some conclusion about its purpose and/or value. That conclusion will be framed within the worldview of the mind of the “scientist” doing the thinking. It should be obvious that without thought, the science breaks down, regardless of the scientist’s worldview. Understanding is achieved when one sees how something came into existence. It may take more science in order to narrow in on why that something exists.
Enough philosophy – let’s look at three examples of using a scientific approach to understand some aspects of reality.
- Figure 1
First, the human eye – we see in figure 1 an irreducibly complex organ. Logic poses a simple question – is there any usefulness to a partially functioning (evolved) eye? If not, isn’t its creation as an intact, functioning organ a rational alternative? The choice is at the heart of two competing worldviews (read more in Existence) for explaining origins – Darwinian macroevolution and Biblical Creation.
Second, there’s a wealth of information in the millions of fossils that have been discovered. Let’s look at just one aspect – the fossil record as potential support for macroevolution. If simpler species evolved into more complex species, there ought to be fossils of some of the “intermediate” forms of transition entities between species. David Berlinski estimates that there should be on the order of 50,000 of these fossils. Yet, none have been found. Darwin, himself, said that the fossil record would either prove or refute his theory. The creation ex nihilo of distinct and identifiable species (Genesis 1) is a viable explanation for the lack of transitional fossils.
The purported fossil of a humanoid skull gives us an example of some bad science. In this image, figure 2, from the cover of Time magazine, one can see both fossil fragments and a blue/grey polymer filling for the missing fossil pieces.
- Figure 2
The eye cavities tell the (tall) tale. If you look at the three fossil fragments that form the upper portion of the right eye socket, you could miss what is obvious from the single fossil fragment forming the upper portion of the left eye socket – its radius of curvature is much smaller (less than half) than that of the eye sockets of the polymer fill portion of the skull. Clearly, this article’s authors were trying to support their worldview. They were not objectively
interpreting the data.
Finally, there is the issue of the universe, itself, and its contents – the Creation, from the perspective of a Biblical worldview. Let’s scientifically go back to the origin of the universe, speculate on how it came to be, examine what its existence has brought, and reach some conclusions about its purpose, in light of the Creator. One of many hypotheses of our universe’s origin is the “big bang.” The problem with the “big bang” and similar models is that it requires someone or something to gather the stuff together that went “boom” and then set it off. Furthermore, whatever had this capability, then “sat on the sidelines” for billions of years, never to be heard from again. Plausible? I think not. On the other hand, the Biblical Creation alternative provides a self-consistent story throughout a complete narrative of the past, present, and future. It comprises about a thousand pages, in 66 chapters, penned by dozens of writers with diverse backgrounds, in three languages, over a span of approximately 1500 years.
From the mind of the Biblical Creator has come an intelligent design with a purpose. The pinnacle of that design is humans, both created in the image of the God of the Bible (Genesis 1:27) and given the stewardship of His creation. In His own words (Genesis 1:25, 31), that creation “was good.” His act of creation reflects perfect science. He did not have to redo anything – He never had to adjust His hypothesis. God existed before the beginning (Genesis 1:1), and He will always exist (Psalm 102:27)! Too many scientists are trying to explain existence without God, instead of trying to understand what He has done – yet, they keep stumbling into Him, some even naming items of His creation after themselves. He shares insights about Himself in many places – one of my favorites is, “Does He who implanted the ear not hear? Does He who formed the eye not see (Psalm 94:9)?
As stated above, if the Biblical Creator existed before the beginning, then He must exist outside of time and space – those boundaries He has given us within which to exist in His universe. This being the case, I think it is reasonable to suspect that the forces He uses to hold the universe together (Colossians 1:17) could be time independent. This is not a track being pursued by dark matter/energy physicists in search of a grand theory to tie together the known forces (gravitational, electromagnetic, and quantum) that they have identified to keep nature running (down) (Romans 8:21). So, can I prove any of the Biblical worldview of origins? No. Alternatively, can anyone disprove any of it? No. Are there any holes in the macroevolutionary worldview? Just a few.
