Science Versus the Bible
There has been a long debate over science and the Bible. Growing up, I loved science. Later, I learned to appreciate the Bible. Maybe I’m different, but I never found these discrepancies so many people talk about. I have heard it said, to believe in creation you must ignore the obvious science. Well, this is simply not the case. While numerous books have been written on the subject, allow me to give a few small examples of just how the Bible and science go hand-in-hand. While there may be some conflict with modern science and traditional Christian-Judeo views, there is no conflict with modern science and the Bible
Not long ago, the “Steady-State” universe theory was the norm (the universe was eternal, no beginning and no end). This is what the science community believed. It wasn’t until Edwin Hubble, discovered far away nebulas were actually other galaxies and observed these galaxies were all moving away from each other. The universe was indeed expanding. The thought was, if you were to reverse this process, you would see how all galaxies, stars and planets would be moving back to a common point or singularity. Yes, the universe had a beginning. Renowned astronomer, also atheist, Fred Hoyle, thought this theory was ridiculous. He stated, “That’s just some “Big Bang” theory. Yes, it was an atheist who coined the term facetiously. He passed away in 2001 never truly conceding the universe may have had a beginning.
Among the ancient peoples, only the Hebrews had it right, they knew the universe had a beginning and wasn’t some magical eternal universe. The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics dictate that all the matter in the universe is here to stay. It cannot be created or destroyed. It changes shape and form (i.e. if you light a match, the head changes to carbon. Smoke and energy are also released. All the matter is still there, but the form has changed. The energy has been broken down. It will never be able to make a complete match again). New matter is not created, and the old matter did not disappear. This goes hand-in-hand with: “on the 6th day God was finished creating the universe and He rested.”
Through the ages, the Bible has rarely conflicted with science. Only the interpretation of the facts. It’s all about how you interpret the Bible verses how you interpret the evidence.
So, did this creation really happen in only 10,000 years? Once again, it’s interpretation. Not all creationists believe the universe is only 10,000 years old. When the Bible says, “In that day,” or “The Great Day of the Lord.” It is certainly not referring to a 24-hour period. The actual Hebrew word (Yom) could be translated correctly as a literal day, or a period of time.
While there is convincing science pointing to a younger earth, I still believe the universe is closer to 14 billion years old, based on a riddle I loved to tell as a child:
“Looking at it, you see it, not as it is, but as it was. Can you tell what is that was?”
The answer, of course, is a star, or even a distant galaxy. Take the Andromeda galaxy, our closest significant neighbor, it is 2.5 million light-years away. When an astronomer observes a nova in that galaxy, he is observing an event that happened 2.5 million years ago. Remember, that’s our closest neighbor. We can observe galaxies that are just forming which are nearly 14 billion light years away. If the universe is only 10,000 years old, do these galaxies really exist? Is God sending us a false image? I don’t think so. They are out there, and we get a glimpse of the universe when it was in its early stage of creation.
The young Earth advocates claim this could be “tired light”. These galaxies are much closer than we think. It is purely speculation. Much like when evolutionists make up reasons for the gap of intermediate species in the fossil records. Today, even modern evolutionists will concede that the fossil records neither proves or disproves evolution. But they will continue to invent, “off-the-cuff” theories as to why the fossil records cannot prove their case. “Tired light” and explanations why there are such big gaps in the fossil record are simply ad hoc theories which are made up to account for the unexplainable. These are speculations, with no evidence.
Interpretation, however, is simply a matter of your starting point. If your starting point is, “There is no God, let’s find out how the universe came into existence…” Then all the evidence you look at will be interpreted in that manner. Likewise, if your starting point is, “God created the heavens and the earth…” Then the evidence you look at around you will be interpreted in that way.
When watching the Science Channel, I saw one scientist make an unarguable and profound statement. She was standing on the beach and talked about how all the aspects of the universe put together are as numerous as the grains of sand on all the beaches of the world. She then went on to say, if one of these grains of sand were missing,” none of us would be here. The universe is indeed complex.
If you ever studied the design of the universe, (and I have, at least a little), you would see what she was talking about. Take the Heliosphere. (Follow me on this.) The Heliosphere is a shield formed by the sun in the outermost reaches of our solar system. It protects us from the toxic cosmic rays coming from interstellar space. These rays from the sun which form the Heliosphere pass by the Earth and are also very deadly. However, our Earth’s magnetic field protects us from them. Without the Heliosphere, we would perish. Without the magnetic field, we couldn’t exist at all. A perfect design, or mere chance? Each one of these has its own plethora of problems to solve for they themselves to exist.
Now on a minute scale, we have the Higgs boson particle. These elusive particles played a critical part when our universe was first created. For simplicity sake, we’ll just say, without the Higgs boson, the remnants of the Big Bang would be energy only, with no mass. This Higgs boson field was necessary for all solid matter in the universe to exist. By the way, I have my favorite Higgs boson joke at the end of this article, for those who understand.
Okay, so you can see where I’m going. These are only 2 “grains of sand” in a vastness of beaches. Even scientists are saying there is no way this could be random chance. So now we have a problem. At least if your starting point is, “There is no God.” Where did this infinitely complex design come from?
The world-famous physicist Michio Kaku claimed he had “definitive proof” that God exists. Kaku is one of the most respected scientists in the world today. He is one of the creators and developers of String Theory.
He concluded that all the complex rules of the universe couldn’t have been created by chance. “I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence. Believe me, everything that we call chance today won’t make sense anymore,” he started. He goes on to say, “To me, it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.”
As it stands now, let’s reason the Big Bang is how the universe came into existence. But what of before? Whichever side you’re on, from this point forward, requires faith, and lots of it. There is no evidence, no science, no person to tell us what happened before (Well, I believe there was One, and He gave His account). Yes, this requires faith. So, the best explanation the atheist could come up with is there are an infinite number of universes. And maybe ours was caused by 2 universes colliding with each other. Yes, I know, but if you don’t believe in a creator, you have nowhere else to go. In this, “multi-verse,” the “majority” of universes would not contain life or anything close to the universe as we know it. But a few cases, there could be. Even then, this is purely guess work.
Trying to explain the complex with something even more complex is generally bad science. But as I said, because of the specific design of our universe, this is what they came up with. In all fairness, both sides must use the “more complex” to express their case. Both sides need to admit it takes faith to take their side. Again, It is all about your starting point.
Physicist Paul Davies puts it this way, “One may find it easier to believe in an array of universes than an infinite deity, but such a belief must rest on faith rather than observation.”
Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson writes, “the more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming.”
The 2nd law of thermodynamics tells us the universe is wearing down and becoming less and less ordered and that less energy is available for work. But there is no theory or law that states how the universe got in its high-energy and highly ordered state. Scientists from Einstein to Hoyle have acknowledged that the evidence of design points to intelligence. Each individual must have thought, whether it is more reasonable to credit this intelligence to God, the universe or to ourselves.
In conclusion, there is science that supports both sides. An atheist can use science to support their view of evolution. A creationist can also use science to point to creation. But, if you believe the Bible is not compatible with science, then please, brush up on both.
Okay, ready, here it is…
A Higgs boson walks into a church.
The priest says, “Hey, so you think you’re some sort of God particle? We don’t need you here, get out.
The Higgs boson replies, “But without me, you won’t have mass”