science and the christian paranoia

8/14/2019 Science and the Christian Paranoia

1/23

SCIENCE AND THE CHRISTIAN PARANOIA

INTRODUCTION

Good evening ladies and gentlemen. My name is Kenneth St Brice. By

profession I practice as a Mechanical Engineer in the Petrochemical and

formerly in the Oil and Gas sectors of Trinidad. I have spent approximately

fifteen years of my life in this area. My credentials are a first degree in

Mechanical Engineering and a second degree in Production and Engineering

Management. These are my worldly qualifications. Apart from all of these Iam a God fearing Christian with many more years practice.

SUMMARY

The issue on which I am about to dwell for the next few moments is

possibly one of the most controversial and challenging issues within the

realm of Christendom. Indeed as the world has progressed within the

modern era to essentially a scientifically ordered domain, the Christian has

found that several of many of what were considered traditional and

foundational beliefs have become the subject of tremendous scrutiny and in

many instances severe derision. The Christian has been placed under

enormous pressure in his attempt to hold on to what has hitherto been

considered kosher. In a world in which the scientists have held centre stage

the Christian has become seriously marginalised by the increasing

unpopularity of his belief.

Traditional ideas such as the origin of man, the literal week of creation, the

reality of a world-wide flood, the origin of the universe, the reality of God,

the mortality/immortality issues of mankind have all been challenged. No

1


2/23

longer is anyone willing to accept the word of the Christian because as we

put it, it is the thus saith the Lord. Science has created a more probing,

doubting, cynical being who is in no way discomforted by the absence of a

God in his life. He is quite willing to accept the challenges of life and

explain the unknown in terms of natural circumstances.

The arguments of science are many times unchallenged or perhaps

unchallengeable due to the overwhelming burden of tangible evidence of

credence afforded scientists in this era. One only has to look around to see

the effect of the tremendous leaps that science has made particularly during

the twentieth century. Need we go far? The very microphone, through which

my voice is conveyed, converts these sounds to electrical signals that are

once again converted to sound via the speakers that you hear. This is very

evident testimony to the power of scientific discovery. Need we mention the

lights above us, or the air conditioning system around us that provide the

right ergonomic ambience for the room? Notice we have not even begun to

delve into the wonders of the electronic age in which the only apparent limit

to inventiveness is mans imagination. Need we go into the advances of space

travel, or atomic physics or the structural wonders of our civil engineering

and architectural geniuses or our ability to manufacture any conceivable

material for use by mankind. Need I go on?

It is quite apparent that from a point of view of tangible evidence, science as

a profession has limitless arguments in its favour.

On the other hand, what does the Christian bring to the table in his favour?

Well, a very old, time worn book of secrets for which he believes all the

answers to all the questions in the world may be found. He further advances

that his belief is backed up by actual experience, which can be used as

2


3/23

tangible verification of his theories. Of course in a world of science, this

form of subjective evidence is highly untenable.

Essentially the Christian is presenting the case for maintenance of traditional

thought in a world in which everything has been and continues to be

changed. The challenge facing the modern Christian is how can he maintain

constancy of thought in a world of new discovery and ever changing

paradigms. Obviously this position will be maintained only against a strong

tide to the contrary. The Christian then finds himself alienated further and

further from the mainstream of conventional thought and what is considered

vogue as far as the answers to the questions of great importance. The

modern Christian therefore is faced with the serious threat of obsolescence,

which has been the demise of so many scientific technologies which find

themselves superseded by the rapidly advancing pace of scientific discovery.

Against this background, what is the Christian to do? Well perhaps lets ask

the other question what does the Christian do. The truth is there is no

universal form of response that has been contrived by the Christian

organisation to this dilemma. And so there is a very fractured response with

a wide range of postures adopted throughout Christendom.

The responses vary from:

1. Blissful Ignorance - This is the position depicted by the Christian who

determines that the controversies presented by

science are of no interest to him. He will not hear

of it. He certainly would not debate them. God

says it; I believe it and that settles it.

2.Passive Concern By this is depicted the Christian who listens to the

controversies raised by science, determines that

they are of some annoying concern but out of

3


4/23

breadth for answers is unable to suitably respond.

He is thus left in a somewhat worrying state of

existence and some harrowing doubt.

3.Active Engagement -This is the posture adopted by the Christian who

determines that the issues are of sufficient concern

to warrant some delving into. He essentially

attempts to dispassionately examine the issues in

order to validate his belief system.

4.Partial Compromise -This depicts the response that attempts to find

room to accommodate the posturing of science

such that some traditional territory is given in

order to safely accommodate the two contrasting

belief systems.

5.Complete Compromise This position depicts the response of the Christian

who for all intents and purposes, completely

modifies his belief system to accommodate the

controversies brought about by Science. He

maintains belief in God but not necessarily what is

given as traditional concepts of Gods role in the

worlds beginnings, present and future.

In these circumstances, the individual who finds himself as a practitioner in

both professions of science and Christianity finds himself at times torn

between two apparent disagreeable masters. What is he to do? Does he then

operate like the schizophrenic in two completely separate worlds and

attempt to ignore the controversy? Does he adopt the ostrich like stance and

4


5/23

wait to till the problem goes away? For it certainly appears that to serve one

is to condemn the other.

THE ISSUES LIVE

Let us for a while take a deeper look at the issues that present the major

problems across the divide. I shall list these as follows:

1. The Origin of The Universe.

2. The Origin of Life on Earth.

3. The Age of The Earth.

4. The Presence of a Universal Flood.

5. The Ice Age

6. The Literal Week of Creation.

I shall not attempt to go into the many ethical issues that pose similar

challenges to Christianity as science wades into more and more new

territory, invading domain that was hitherto held as cherished by Christians.

( By this, I refer to the many advances in the fields of biology, chemistry and

genetic engineering.)

History of the Problem

Perhaps before we go into any detailed discussion of the specific issues, it

may be useful to examine for awhile, the history of the problem. Take your

minds back to the period of the 11th to the 14th century. This can be

considered the era around which what is considered modern science began.

The Catholic Church is the predominant moving force in all aspects of life

and development. But the teachings of the church rest heavily on the works

of Augustine. It turns out that Augustines work is not helpful to the

5


6/23

advancement of science. Consequently scientific advancement is dependent

on developments in the Arab and African worlds.

By virtue of the Crusades, the Catholic world was brought into contact with

the Arab world. Rather than there being broad submission to the teachings of

the authority of the clergy, the Church discovers that there is much

independence of thought due to the influx of new literature and manuscripts

from the conquered territory.

Study of Aristotles teachings are renewed. In an attempt to stave off the

potential effect of the breeding of rationalistic views within its domain, the

Church after initially condemning Aristotle concedes to accept his work

under their own interpretations.

Thomas Aquinas becomes the major advocate of Catholic Aristotlelianism.

His major argument is the reason must be subordinate to faith and

philosophy subordinate to theology. In due course, this dualism is modified

to the point that a new doctrine is developed which essentially purports that

it is possible for a man to accept both science and religion as long as his

belief in science does not threaten the authority of the Church and its

teachings.

It should be noted that science at this point in time is limited to a very few

fields such as alchemy, astrology, medicine and a little mathematics. Perhaps

of foremost mention at this point in time is the famous astronomer and

mathematician Galileo who was forced to recant what is today very basic

acceptable scientific fact. Galileo perhaps best represents the status of the

conflict at this point in time in history as his conflict and condemnation by

the Church are very well known. It is generally acknowledged among

historians that the Galileo scandal perhaps represented a turning point a

6


7/23

hardening of the fronts in this great conflict of faith and reason. Another

character of significant mention in this period was Sir Isaac Newton.

Origin of The Universe

Science has propounded a range of theories as to what might be the origin of

the universe. The entire field of study, cosmology, seeks to address this

issue.

In 1922, Alexander Friedmann in an attempt to produce a solution to

Einsteins equations of general theory of relativity, postulated that the

universe began in a state of very high density and high temperature, not

unlike the situation of a black hole. The superdense, superhot primordial

atom exploded, producing the primordial fireball the Big Bang, which

is today one of the foremost theories advanced regarding the origin of the

universe.

Friedmann suggests that at the time of the Big Bang, the temperature would

have been about 100 billion degrees Kelvin and all energy was in the form

of radiation. Within a fraction of a second, the expanding universe had

cooled enough for some of that energy to be converted to matter. Within a

fraction of a second, protons, neutrons and electrons were being formed. In

essence, as the expansion continued with resultant cooling, more complex

matter was formed resulting in the formation of neutral hydrogen atoms after

100,000 years and 1000 deg Kelvin and eventually with galaxies beginning

to form after 100 million years.

7


8/23

Of course the position taken by the majority of Science as far as this issue is

concerned stands directly counter to traditional Christian thought. While it

may not necessarily dispute the idea of a Universe that is in excess of 15

billion years old, it is certainly not tenable that the Universe began with a

Big Bang.

It is the case that the Christian church in general offers no counter theory to

cosmological suggestions as to its beginnings. Christendom essentially holds

to the position, In the beginning, God This is not a theory but simply a

firmly held position.

Unfortunately though this kind of stance is given no credence among the

bulk of the scientific community. In fact, to take that kind of stance is looked

upon as the popular ostrich-like posture of putting ones head in the sand.

So, we are left with two (2) camps in disagreement on the issue.

Origin of Life on Earth

This is perhaps THE most controversial area that separates the scientific

community from the Christian community. Traditionally through the

centuries, the scientific community adopted the position, no doubt driven by

religious influences that species were for all intents fixed. The first

inclination to change was initiated by Buffon in 1755 who was concerned

with the close lines of separation between particular species. While he was

for all intents a creationist, his writings led to the suggestion of evolutionary

thought. This was followed by Erasmus Darwin, grandfather of the now

famous Charles Darwin who suggested that all warm- blooded animals arose

from one living filament. Work from Jean Baptiste de Lamark represented

the first complete theory of organic evolution.

8


9/23

The real leap forward in the concept of evolution as an explanation for the

origin of life came from Charles Darwin. Darwin, a former ministerial

student, summarised his observations as a naturalist in his bookOrigin of

Species. The book found ready acceptance within a scientific community

that was beginning to have serious misgivings with traditional explanations

given for the origin of life on earth as well as the earths age. It also

coincided with new developments in the geosciences that were beginning to

point in the direction of uniformarianism versus delusionist concept of

earths history.

While there was some reaction against Darwin and his theory, first among

Christians and as well as fellow scientists, in general the churchs response

to Darwin was based more on dogma than scientific argument. They were

thus largely outmanoeuvred and unable to match the well-organised

scientific proposals of the evolutionists.

In essence the theory of evolution postulates that

The Age of the Earth

This is another contentious issue that has continued to raise hairs among the

Christian community. Traditional Christian thought places the earth at

roughly six thousand years. This is largely based on Biblical revelation,

which essentially comprises of the computation of history via the revealed

genealogies in the Bible.

This position as adopted by conservative Christians has come under

tremendous pressure

Due to the modern day scientific development, the traditional position held

by Christians through the years has been under scrutiny. Scientists have

9


10/23

advanced a range of methods by which they conclude that the age of the

earth is significantly longer than the Christian advanced age of 6000 years.

Among the methods employed are: Analysis of lay down layers within the

earths crust. In addition to this, tree ring analysis or dendrochronology, has

been used with success to date back to about 3000 years.

The method though which has been advanced as a means of dating has been

the carbon 14 method which has been used to determine time up to 50,000

years ago. Other radioactive substances such as uranium- lead and potassium

argon have been used to tell the earths history up to several million years.

In principle what radiometric dating suggests is that based on the fact that

radioactive substances have a particular and known half life of decay then

in principle this known unit of time can be a tool in calculating the age of

material. This is based upon laboratory tests, which have shown that this tine

period is consistent for the material. As a consequence the relative existence

of parent or undecayed material along with radioactively decayed material

can be used to calculate the age of the material in question.

These methods of dating have created lot of stir among creationists leading

some of them to adopt compensatory positions such as the gap and the day-

age methods of interpreting Genesis 1.

On the other hand the radiometric dating method has not been without

controversy. In the first instance it is founded upon one major singular

assumption and that is that radioactive decay has been consistent or uniform

throughout the history of the world. It is not possible to conclusively prove

this in a laboratory since what is required is time and specific conditions.

This is a position, which has been shown to be flawed by some researchers

(Ref. ). Further to this there have been numerous instances in which

radiometric dating has proved to be inconsistent even when used for dating

10


11/23

different parts of the same material. (E.g. Muscle tissue from a mummified

musk ox found a at Fairbanks Creek has a radioactive (Carbon 14) age of

24,000 years while the hair from the hind limb of the carcass shows an age

of 7,200 years.) Cases such as these abound leaving the concept of

radiometric dating in some measure of doubt.

In general the Christian creationist counter-argument to the concept of the

old earth theory as advanced by modern scientists is that the whole concept

of the old earth is flawed since it is founded upon uniformity in the earths

history. To make the point clearer, creationists point to the flood as a

juncture in time in which significant alterations to the earths environment

and general status quo would have occurred. Consequently the concept of

the delusion would stand in direct contrast to the uniformity required by

scientists for their old earth dating methods.

The Universal Flood.

The issue of the Flood also presents another challenging area for Christians.

The Flood is held by Christians to be a major turning point in earths history

and the juncture in time which precipitated a number of significant changes

in the earths environment. So that the antidiluvian conditions are accepted

as significantly altered by the impact of the Universal Flood producing

postdiluvian conditions that are almost unrelated.

But to be honest, the debate over the Flood arises from the first question of

whether it really occurred. Many, and this includes fellow Christians, hold to

the view that the Flood is really a mythical parable which is really only

intended to demonstrate the power of God and that He takes sin seriously.

Moving from this debate, the alternative position taken by others relative to

the flood story is that there really was a flood except that it was local.

11


12/23

However the authors of the flood story were on the receiving end of a hugely

exaggerated story which grew by the time of their writing into a world-wide

flood. But in reality no such flood occurred.

This second issue has been where the major debate has rested on the Flood

Story. Proponents of a Universal Flood have argued that the Bible is very

clear in its meaning and the flood referred to could only be understood to

have been world-wide.

Let us quickly review some of these arguments and counter arguments.

1. Universalists use Gen. 7:19,20 which reads All the high mountains

under the entire heavens were covered, The waters rose and covered the

mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. This it is argued is

sufficient proof that it must be a world-wide flood being referred to, since

waters twenty feet above the highest mountains would necessarily cover

the entire earth.

The counter-argument suggests that Noah being a man of the plains,

high mountains here probably referred to the hills and mountains in his

direct vicinity. Certainly not to the mountain ranges of the Caucasus or

even less likely the Himalayas. In other words the text was referring to

issues within Noahs experience.

The issue of the runoff rate required also comes up for debate here.

According to one author, if the flood indeed covered what is today known

as Mt Ararat, (17,000 ft), then a huge runoff rate of 52.5 feet per day is

required. Advance the argument to Mt Everest and the issue becomes

even more challenging (twice so).

It has also been argued that if the Genesis Flood is to be taken literally

(that is to cover the highest mountains), then the amount of water

12


13/23

contained would be about eight times as much water as the earth

presently supports. Question is where did all the water go to.

2. Another argument presented is that the geological impact of the Flood

implies its universality. In other word the springs of the great deep

bursting forth suggest massive geological upheavals on a world-wide

scale.

Further, the observable stratigraphic phenomena find satisfactory

explanation in a universal deluge. It is further asserted (Ellen White

inclusive) that the deposits of oil, coal and gas arose by virtue of buried

organic deposits arising from a universal flood.

This view is not generally supported within the geological fraternity but

is an interesting one to note.

3. No discussion of the Flood is of course complete without some reflection

on the animals. Was it eight people and a few animals from the Near East

in a Local Flood? or was it tens of thousands of animals (including

insects whose species we now know to number over 800,000) included in

the ark? The obvious questions arise such as how did they get from their

distant habitats over the world to the ark? Once in the ark, how could a

mere eight people take care of them? How could those eight people or

for that matter even a larger group, support the varied diets and

environments required for such a group? This could prove to be a serious

ecological challenge. (Preys and Predators in the same ark).

4. In general therefore, it is clear that the issue of the Flood poses

significant challenges for Christians not only in terms of the scientific

discussion but as to its very existence and form.

13


14/23

The Ice Age

Not much time would be spent on this particular issue. However it is

worth discussing for awhile since it in essence represents the Scientific

alternative to the Biblical notion of the Flood.

The Ice Age like many other geological theories finds its roots in an

attempt to explain observed features in the formation of the earths

surface. Rock formations such as the Grand Canyon and numerous other

sites throughout North America and Europe are allegedly created by

virtue of the action of extensive glaciers which would have occurred in

the last instance about 2.5 million years ago. This is supposed to have

been one of many such occurrences throughout earths history.

The cause of the Ice Ages is twofold. The earth and its solar system are

located asymmetrically within one limb of the Milky Way galaxy. The

galaxy completes one rotation every 300 million years. It is proposed that

through this rotation, the earth is taken through varying density regions

and magnetic fields which may have the effect of varying the solar

systems galactic environment and possibly earths climate.

The additional phenomena that postulated to contribute to the glacial

growth in the earth is that of continental drift. Theory has it that the

shifting of the continents produced the effect of blocking the normal

flows of the oceans currents, producing new directions which allowed

for cold currents to circle the globe.

The combination of these phenomena produced the favourable conditions for

the formation of significant glaciers, which covered substantial sections of

North America and Europe.

An interesting issue which arises within the Ice Age discussion is the

phenomena of the precession cycle. It is proposed that while today the

14


15/23

earths axis is aligned with the Pole star, it was not always that way. As a

consequence approximately 11,000 years ago the axis orientation was

aligned in a way to give the northern and southern hemispheres much colder

winters and intense droughts in the subtropics.

The Literal Week of Creation

This is the final issue that I shall raise before attempting to sum up.

Traditional Christianity holds to the view that God created the earth in six

(6) literal days as depicted in the Bible Creation story.

Largely on account of the pressures brought about by the scientific

community in terms of the understanding of the beginnings, many Christians

have gone away from this traditional stance to a variation of postures that

attempt to accommodate the new information provided by the scientists.

Chief among these positions are:

1. The Day Age Theory.

This position when defined essentially suggests that God did in fact

create the earth but not in six literal days but six rather undefined periods

or ages. Another variation on the theme is that there were six literal days

of creation but that there were substantial time periods between them.

The day age theory has largely fallen apart since in spite of creating

substantial time for the advancing scientific knowledge, it does not

provide good correlation to the proposed sequence of events put forward

by the proponents of geological theory.

2. The Gap Theory

The gap theory is again another attempt by Christians to find common

ground with scientific theory. In effect what the gap theory states is that

there is a gap between Genesis 1 and 3.

15


16/23

In verse 1 God created.

In verse 2 there was destruction and ruin as a result of Lucifers

intervention. This left a substantial period of time with the earth formless

and void.

In verse 3 God once again begins His creative process which is done in

six(6) literal days.

This debate is essentially a theological debate but arises only because

theologians were forced to find room to accommodate advancing

scientific thought. This like the day age theory falls on its face in that it

does not make sufficient accommodation to facilitate the full breadth of

scientific endeavour.

3. Progressive Creation

The idea of progressive creation in simple terms simply attempts to put

God at the beginning of the evolutionary and geological development

periods. God is credited with formulating the concept of the outcomes

desired, He pronounces and the process commences resulting in the

eventual products of His mind emerging after endless ages of formation,

survival and destruction.

This is another clear attempt to merge the two fields in the most

accommodating way possible.

CONCLUSIONS

At this time, it would be useful to collect all of the ideas advanced and

attempt to make some reasonable position out of them. I would first of

all look into the issues that have been advanced and determine the weight

of the relative arguments advanced.

16


17/23

We would then attempt to examine the overall issues to see whether we

can arrive at a realistic position that can be adopted by Christians in light

of all the factors considered.

Let us step aside for awhile and examine what lies at the core of these

issues.

1. We established at the beginning that scientific advance within the

modern are was responsible for the debate that now is. The strength

that science has attained has been due in large measure to the

overwhelming weight of evidence provided by scientific discovery.

2. If we go back to the beginnings of modern science however we would

note that the individuals that stand at the forefront are personalities

such as Copernicus who laid the foundations of modern astronomy,

Tycho Brahe who was another great observer. Kepler followed in this

vein with his contributions to the laws of planetary motion. Also of

outstanding mention in this list are Galileo who was followed in the

year that he died by the birth of Sir Isaac Newton whose brilliance

was responsible for what we now know are the laws of gravitation.

3. The common factor in these men was that they verified their theories

with mathematical deductions and observable fact. Not only did they

hold to valid scientific methods but also they recognized their

limitations, and in humility accepted God as Sovereign of the

Universe.

4. The year following the death of Newton saw the entrance of

speculative methods of science. I wish for you to note the phrase

SPECULATIVE SCIENCE for this phrase lies at the core of our

discussion.

17


18/23

5. Science has gained significant credence arising not from its

wonderings into nature but ONLY because it has been able to tangibly

prove its theories and more than that translate those theories into

workable solutions to mans everyday problems (This is engineering).

Let us say resoundingly here that TRUE SCIENCE, another term to

note, must always be able to support its postulations with facts that are

observable, testable and repeatable. It is important that we provide a

clear distinction between these two aspects of science.

6. As we examine a lot of the issues raised here today as controversies ,

it becomes abundantly clear that there is an aspect of science that is

fraught with inspired guesses and very creative imaginations.

7. Let us look briefly again at the most accepted explanation for The

Origin of the Universe. The Big Bang is a clear case of a very active

imagination at work. There is absolutely no way that Alexander

Friedmann could know for sure that his theory of the Universes

beginning are at all correct. There is simply no way to prove it. No

amount of complex mathematical speculations can PROVE the reality

of the Big Bang.

The problem of course that science faces is the fact that it has to

provide an answer to the issue of the Universes beginning. However,

unlike the early fathers of science, modern science is unable to admit

an explanation to God.

Testimony to the limitations that we face as humans trying to explain

a universe with our limited understanding of earths physical laws is

aptly demonstrated in the recent space sojourn of the Voyager

spacecraft.

18


19/23

Having sojourned to as far as Saturn, the observations sent back to

earth regarding the activity around this planet with its many moons

and rings, it became abundantly clear that conventional

understandings of physics could not provide answers to the

observations made. Science if it is true, MUST admit its own

limitations when they are apparent.

8. In examining the issue of the Origin of Man, it is apparent that here

again speculation is rife. Moving up the theoretical evolutionary

ladder, one is greeted by imagination at every rung.

There have been numerous logical, mathematical arguments that have

been developed to show the inherent weaknesses of the traditional

evolutionary discourse. Time would not allow us the freedom to

explore these here and now.

Evolutionists would have you believe that their theory stands on

sound footing but throughout the length and breadth of this theory

there are inconsistencies. The missing DNA sequence data, substantial

gaps in the fossil record, the absence of data to support links between

land and sea mammals. According to Ayala and Valentines text,

Evolving(1979), many elements of the phylogeny of the homonids

are conjectural (guesswork, fantasy) owing to the paucity of the fossil

remains. Paleantropologist Robert Blumenschine of Rutgers

University said in a US News and World Report, The real question is

whether we have enough imagination to reconstruct their lives (the

lives of early humans). Micheal Lemonick ofTime concurs saying in

his article How Man Began (1994) The only certainty in this data-

poor, imagination rich, endlessly fascinating field is that there are

plenty of surprises left to come.

19


20/23

However it must be abundantly clear that while the theory cannot be

proven, in similar fashion, it cannot be disproven. This is because the

same evidence that is required to prove is also absent to disprove.

9. The Age of the Earth, another key issue falls down on the basis of the

fact that its soundest argument radiometric dating is based on an

argument that also cannot be proven. The theory of uniformity is a

major assumption to be made. If one hangs on to the idea of a anti and

post diluvian contrast in the earths conditions then it is clearly

feasible that nonuniformity would have been introduced by that

dramatic change of circumstances.

Further, even in the absence of a universal catastrophe such as the

Flood, it still is not possible to prove conclusively the consistency of

radioactive decay and the concept of maintenance of the material half

life. That would still require substantial periods of time to be proven.

10.The presence of a Universal Flood, presents some challenges to the

Christian since some of the issues come up without answers that are

satisfactory. The question is, what then.

Let me suggest that we examine what science does when in doubt.

Everyone of the major controversial issues that are advanced by

science have serious areas of doubt. What does science do? They

maintain course, knowing that it may not be possible to prove or for

that matter disprove many of its notions.

To the Christian therefore I say, every aspect of the Flood story may

not hold to a logical argument but that is because:

1. We are not in receipt of all the facts.

20


21/23

2. It would take a measure of faith to hold on to what may be

unknown.

3. We have to concede that while we may use humanly devised logic

to try to explain what is known, it is quite possible that the logic

defying God that we serve can supersede all of our understandings

of how physical phenomena occurred.

4. The other issue of course that remains is, what if the flood was not

universal, what then?

If Noahs Flood were a local rather than a universal one, it would

still not be of any impact to the basic tenets of faith. It would affect

our argument regarding the effect of the flood on earths

environment, which is the direct counter to uniformarianism.

11. The Ice Age

If ever one is tempted to be concerned about the tenability of a

Universal Flood, then the scientific argument of the Ice Age is

cause for comfort. This theory is as speculative as they come. Try

to combine the galactic rotations with the phenomena of

continental drift and it is clear that this theory must be in deep

trouble.

It is important to consider it though since many of the same

observations that are generally explained by creationists as being

based on the Flood, are explained by science as being based on the

Ice Age.

11.The Literal Week of Creation

This issue is feverishly argued in many quarters but again since no

one can disprove that the week of creation was anything but literal,

21


22/23

there should be no cause for discomfort among Christians who hold to

this view.

Compromise solutions such as the gap theory, the day-age theory or

progressive creation do no real good in seeking middle ground since

as demonstrated earlier, compromise solutions still do not satisfy the

full demands of speculative science. One either has to be fully on

board or not at all.

WHAT IT ALL COMES DOWN TO

In summing up therefore let us conclude by saying that as we examine

the issues, it is clear a line must be drawn between the fields of

speculative science and what for the purposes of our discussion we

will term true science.

When one does that it becomes clear that the issues that are at the

heart of the Christian/Science conflict are in fact ALL from the arena

of Speculative Science. Christianity has never had a problem with

developments in the area of neuroscience or electronics or civil

engineering or space travel or any of these areas.

At the same time it is also apparent that the strength that science has

derived within modern times has come not from its speculative arena

but from the arena that has been able to make sound discoveries and

translate them into human progress.

The methods employed by the speculative scientists could never be

successfully applied in this technological arena. You certainly do not

want the aircraft engineer constructing the next Boeing aircraft that

you fly in being unsure of what happened to the mechanical linkages

in the landing gear. Or for that matter neglecting the fact that data was

22


23/23

missing in his calculations for the structural design of the aircraft

wing.

What would happen if civil engineers took the approach that it didnt

matter too much whether all of the structural members in the bridge

were either sized or put in place accurately and according to plan.

Many of us would end our lives in the rivers and seas of this world.

The point is simply this; you cannot class the speculative methods of

one branch of science with the rigourous, ultraconservative,

overbearingly accurate approach that is used in another arena of

science. And essentially what has happened is that one field has

largely piggy backed on the other for importance, coming under that

same label. For our purposes we need to disabuse our minds of these

notions and as we say separate the sheep from the goats.

When this is done it would become abundantly clear that the issues

that we face as Christians are not so much with science as with

scientific speculators who while they play an important role in the

overall scheme of things, definitely do not stand on the same solid

ground that has been attributed to the rest of science, what for our

discussions we are calling, true science.

science and the christian paranoia

Documents