Science and Faith Walking Hand in Hand?

By Sean Pitman
.
Galileo

“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them.”

– Galileo

Science:

What is science? What does it take to be a real scientist or to think in a scientific manner? Does science have anything to do with religion or faith? Or, is there a distinct dividing line between science and religion?

Of course the word “science” was originally derived from the Latin word scientia, which meant “knowledge.” But what kind of knowledge is included here? And are there different ways, beyond scientific methods, of obtaining knowledge?

Most modern definitions of science, such as those one might find in a modern dictionary, include the idea that there is a building and organization of knowledge based upon testable explanations and predictions about the physical universe in which we live. These explanations are called hypotheses, or, if more extensive in what they propose to explain, are called theories.

AnthropicThe funny thing about scientific methodologies is that they are very simple in concept. One of my biochemistry professors in medical school told me once that, “Science is really nothing more than a very simple baloney detector.” There’s really nothing all too fancy about it. It is a systematic way of thinking rationally about the world in which we find ourselves and learning how to function more effectively within it. It allows one to predict the future with greater and greater accuracy based on past experience. And, we all have an innate ability to think scientifically. Even very young children, to include infants and toddlers, use forms of scientific reasoning and hypothesis testing to learn about the world around them. In short, scientific reasoning abilities seem to be a gift to humanity at large – even for those who may not be consciously aware that they are in fact carrying out mini scientific experiments on a daily basis.

Religion:

So, what about religion? How do we know that what we believe about the Bible or God or Jesus is really true? Is there a way to test our religious beliefs or faith in a scientific manner? Or, should our faith be immune from testing or even the potential of being wrong? How did we arrive at our faith position to begin with? Are we Seventh-day Adventists just because we were born into this particular faith tradition? Do we believe in the Bible as the Word of God just because that is how we were raised? What if someone were to ask one of us, “What about the Qur’an or the Book of Mormon or the Hindu Vedas? How do you know that the Bible, and not some other book or text, is the true Word of God?”

There are many within Adventism, and many other faith traditions, who claim that they know that their faith is real and that the Bible is the true Word of God based on a type of faith that needs no critical analysis or testing or rational validation. For them faith is, by definition, internally-derived and self-validating. Such are very similar in their thinking to my Latter-day Saints friends who have often told me that they have faith in the superiority of the Book of Mormon, “Because the Holy Spirit told me so and He wouldn’t lie to me.” When I ask them how the Holy Spirit speaks to them and reveals to them these truths, they say, “I feel a burning deep down in my soul, deep in my chest, whenever I hear or see or read the truth.” Some refer to this experience as a “Burning in the Bosom.” And, let me tell you, it is pretty much impossible to have any further discussion with someone who believes that God has directly communicated truth to them in this kind of privileged manner. Any attempted conversation regarding the potential for the superior credibility of the Bible is effectively over at this point.

How then do we know that we aren’t falling into the same kind of trap on our end of things? regarding our own beliefs in the credibility of the claims of the Bible? Does God not expect individual effort and study to search out truth from error? to rationally determine if the Bible is in fact what it claims to be? Does God really desire us to follow a form of blind faith, akin to wishful thinking, when it comes to our religious beliefs?

Knowledge that is Beyond Science:

Vanilla Ice CreamTo be sure, certain types of knowledge are most certainly internally derived, independent of any need for testing or external forms of validation. For example, I like vanilla ice cream. I’ve tasted it and I like it. Do I need additional testing or peer review to support this truth or this knowledge? Of course not. This knowledge is internally-derived and is therefore outside of the realm of science.

You see, science is only needed when there is limited or incomplete information regarding the nature of something that is external to one’s self, that exists outside of one’s internal world. For this reason, no scientific hypothesis or theory can be absolutely confirmed or proven to be true since its truth is independent of one’s self or one’s own absolute control. Science can establish various degrees of predictive value for a given hypothesis or theory, but there is no such thing as absolute confidence in science. One can approach the truth, or the Truth, but one can never gain absolute knowledge or certainty about what exists outside of one’s own mind. Such an external reality belongs to God alone and therefore can only be perfectly known by Him.

Of course, there do seem to be a few truths that God has given us as a kind of inherent knowledge. For example, the knowledge of the Royal Law of Love, the basis of all moral law and of salvation itself, is “written on the hearts” of each one of us. – James 2:8 and Romans 2:15. This Law is the essence of the very character of God for God is Love. – 1 John 4:16 Also, like vanilla ice cream, God invites us to “Taste and see that the Lord is good” – Psalms 34:8. Also, “The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children.” – Romans 8:16.

While such knowledge is real, it is internally derived, being written on the heart by God. Therefore, such forms of knowledge aren’t subject to “scientific” forms of investigation since they aren’t hypothesis or theory driven. No additional “testing” is necessary to increase their “predictive value.”

The Science of Faith:

The question now is, does God reveal all truth to us in such a direct manner? Or, are there certain types of truth that God generally reveals only to those who search out and study the empirical evidence that He has provided in the world around us? For example, generally speaking, does God directly give us privileged information, regarding the origin and credibility of the Bible as the true Word of God and how, exactly, to interpret it? Or, does this type of knowledge usually require some effort, study, and hypothesis testing on our part? – with the very real potential of being wrong in any or all of our original ideas? And, should any form of scientific investigation of the empirical world have any real influence on how we read, understand, and interpret the Bible?

It is very interesting to me to note how the Biblical authors themselves viewed Scripture and how they established its credibility. Over and over again they appeal to empirical evidence and a form of scientific reasoning and rational thought and understanding to establish the credibility of Scripture in a manner calculated to attract the intelligent candid mind. The Bible quotes God Himself as asking us to come and reason with him (Isaiah 1:18) and to test His Word and His promises to see if He isn’t who He claims to be (Malachi 3:10).

Jesus and the ParalyticConsider, as another relevant example, the case of Jesus and his healing of the paralytic (Mark 2:1-10). The first thing Jesus said to the paralytic was, “Your sins are forgiven.” This statement angered the teachers of the law because a claim to be able to forgive sins was equivalent to claiming to be God. So, Jesus responded by asking a question:

Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, “Your sins are forgiven,” or to say, “Get up, take your mat and walk”? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins, He said to the paralytic, “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.”

What would have happened to Jesus’ metaphysical claim to be able to forgive sins if his empirical claim to have the power to heal the paralyzed man had proved false? – if the man had just laid there paralyzed on his mat when Jesus gave the command to “get up and go home”?

You see, Jesus himself tied in the credibility of his metaphysical claim to be able to forgive sins to an empirical demonstration of Divine power. If the empirical demonstration failed, so would the credibility of his metaphysical claim.

I propose that the same is true for the credibility of the Bible. The credibility of the metaphysical claims of the Bible, claims that cannot be directed investigated or tested (such as the Virgin Birth, the raising of the dead, or our future life in Heaven to come), is based on the demonstrated credibility of those claims of the Bible that can be investigated and tested against known empirical realities (such as archeological discoveries, historical prophecies, the geologic and fossil evidence for the worldwide Noachian Flood, and the recent arrival of all life on this planet).

For instance, if Biblical prophecies concerning empirical reality can be shown to be false, not in line with what really happened, then the credibility of the Bible’s metaphysical claims would suffer as well – for most rational people anyway. The same is true for other Biblical statements concerning empirical reality, such as the recent formation of all life on Earth and a truly worldwide Noachian Flood. If such claims can be clearly falsified, Biblical credibility suffers. It is for this reason that many of those who have become convinced that the Bible does in fact contain many such errors no longer view the Bible as anything more than a good moral fable – if that.

So, in order to effectively support the claim that the Bible is truly superior to all others claiming to be “The Word of God”, the Bible must present superior evidence to support this fantastic claim – if it is to be believed by most intelligent honest-minded people, especially young people.

Dr. Ravi Zacharias:

Ravi ZachariasConsider the comments of the well-known Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias along these lines.

Ravi was asked:

What do you say to a pastor who says, “Apologetics is just philosophy, and we do not need that. All we need is the Bible.”

I desperately wish it were that simple. When pastors believe and teach, “All we need is the Bible,” they equip their young people with the very line that gets them mocked in the universities and makes them unable and even terrified to relate to their friends. If pastors want their young people to do the work of evangelism, to reach their friends, that line will not get them anywhere. Even the Bible that Christ gave us is sustained by the miracle of the Resurrection.

The Resurrection gave the Early Church the argument that Christ is risen: We saw, we witnessed, we felt, and we touched. The apostle Paul defended this gospel. He went to Athens and planted a church there. In Ephesus he defended the faith in the school of Tyrannus. We also need to become all things to all people.

If a pastor says, “All we need is the Bible,” what does he say to a man who says, “All I need is the Qur’an”? It is a solipsistic method of arguing.

The pastor is saying, “All I need is my own point of reference and nothing more than that.” Even the gospel was verified by external references. The Bible is a book of history, a book of geography, not just a book of spiritual assertions.

The fact is the resurrection from the dead was the ultimate proof that in history, and in empirically verifiable means, the Word of God was made certain. Otherwise, the experience on the Mount of Transfiguration would have been good enough. But the apostle Peter says in 2 Peter 1:19: “We have the Word of the prophets made more certain as to a light shining in a dark place.” He testified to the authority and person of Christ, and the resurrected person of Christ.

To believe, “All we need is the Bible and nothing more,” is what the monks believed in medieval times, and they resorted to monasteries. We all know the end of that story. This argument may be good enough for those who are convinced the Bible is authority. The Bible, however, is not authoritative in culture or in a world of counter-perspectives. To say that it is authoritative in these situations is to deny both how the Bible defends itself and how our young people need to defend the Bible’s sufficiency.

It is sad that some people think a person who asks, “Why the Bible?” is being dishonest. This is a legitimate question.

Defending Christianity in a Secular Culture

Road to EmmausIt seems to me like Dr. Ravi Zacharias, himself a convert from Hinduism, may be on to something here. A form of scientific reasoning, based on empirical evidence, was used by the Biblical authors and the disciples of Jesus to argue for the credibility of their fantastic claims. Even Jesus, on the road to Emmaus, appealed to the empirical evidence of the prophecies to convict His disciples of His own Messiahship – rather than simply revealing Himself directly to them as the risen Christ. He only revealed Himself to them, as the Risen Lord, once they had recognized the evidence for His life, death, and resurrection from prophecy (Luke 24:13-35).

Mrs. Ellen White:

EllenWhiteFor us Adventists in particular, it is also interesting to note the very similar position of Mrs. White on this topic.

God is the foundation of everything. All true science is in harmony with His works; all true education leads to obedience to His government. Science opens new wonders to our view; she soars high, and explores new depths; but she brings nothing from her research that conflicts with divine revelation. Ignorance may seek to support false views of God by appeals to science, but the book of nature and the written word shed light upon each other. We are thus led to adore the Creator and to have an intelligent trust in His word . . .

Inferences erroneously drawn from facts observed in nature have, however, led to supposed conflict between science and revelation; and in the effort to restore harmony, interpretations of Scripture have been adopted that undermine and destroy the force of the word of God. Geology has been thought to contradict the literal interpretation of the Mosaic record of the creation. Millions of years, it is claimed, were required for the evolution of the earth from chaos; and in order to accommodate the Bible to this supposed revelation of science, the days of creation are assumed to have been vast, indefinite periods, covering thousands or even millions of years . . .

The vast forests buried in the earth at the time of the Flood, and since changed to coal, form the extensive coal fields, and yield the supplies of oil that minister to our comfort and convenience today. These things, as they are brought to light, are so many witnesses mutely testifying to the truth of the word of God . . .

God designed that the discovery of these things in the earth, should establish the faith of men in inspired history. But men, with their vain reasoning, make a wrong use of these things which God designed should lead them to exalt him. They fall into the same error as did the people before the flood—those things which God gave them as a benefit, they turned into a curse, by making a wrong use of them . . .

God never asks us to believe without giving sufficient evidence upon which to base our faith. His existence, His character, the truthfulness of His word, are all established by testimony that appeals to our reason; and this testimony is abundant. Yet God has never removed the possibility of doubt. Our faith must rest upon evidence, not demonstration. Those who wish to doubt will have opportunity; while those who really desire to know the truth will find plenty of evidence on which to rest their faith . . .

Consider also that, “perfect assurance . . . is not compatible with faith. Faith rests not on certainty, but upon evidence.”

Ellen White, PP, p. 115; Education, p. 128-129; SG, 3:90-96; SC, p. 105; Letter 19d, 1892, cited in The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials, pp. 1029, 1030.

The Weight of Evidence:

In other words, if faith rests upon the weight of evidence, not internally derived perfect assurance, there is a form of science to faith – of testability and investigation and growth. It seems then that Biblical faith and scientific reasoning are equals, both being dependent upon each other with neither one trumping the other. Since God is the author of both, they must both walk hand-in-hand if either is to be useful. Science does not work if one is unable or unwilling to make leaps of faith beyond that which is absolutely known or knowable. And, religious faith must also be based on the weight of empirical evidence as a platform upon which to make rational leaps into the unknown that are more useful than mere flights of fancy or wishful thinking.

Famous Scientists Discover God’s Signature:

WickramasingheWhat is also interesting about this is that a number of famous modern scientists are starting to come to this same conclusion. They are starting to recognize God’s Signature in nature through scientific investigations, often against their own will or personal desire to avoid God. For example, consider the experience of the well-known mathematical physicist Chandra Wickramasinghe:

It is quite a shock. From my earliest training as a scientist I was very strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be very painfully shed. I am quite uncomfortable in the situation, the state of mind I now find myself in. But there is no logical way out of it. I now find myself driven to this position by logic. There is no other way in which we can understand the precise ordering of the chemicals of life except to invoke the creations on a cosmic scale. . . . We were hoping as scientists that there would be a way round our conclusion, but there isn’t.

Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, as quoted in “There Must Be A God,” Daily Express, Aug. 14, 1981 and Hoyle on Evolution, Nature, Nov. 12, 1981, p. 105

DaviesAs another example, there are the interesting back and forth arguments from Paul Davies, and English astrophysicist.  Although he is currently an atheist (Link), he still manages to argue strongly for what seems like a nearly overwhelming impression of design that most physicists come away with when studying the fine tuned features of the universe.

The temptation to believe that the Universe is the product of some sort of design, a manifestation of subtle aesthetic and mathematical judgment, is overwhelming. The belief that there is “something behind it all” is one that I personally share with, I suspect, a majority of physicists…

The force of gravity must be fine-tuned to allow the universe to expand at precisely the right rate. The fact that the force of gravity just happens to be the right number with stunning accuracy is surely one of the great mysteries of cosmology…

The equations of physics have in them incredible simplicity, elegance and beauty. That in itself is sufficient to prove to me that there must be a God who is responsible for these laws and responsible for the universe.

Davies, Paul C.W. [Physicist and Professor of Natural Philosophy, University of Adelaide],“The Christian perspective of a scientist,” Review of “The way the world is,” by John Polkinghorne, New Scientist, Vol. 98, No. 1354, pp.638-639, 2 June 1983, p.638

PenziasAnd, Nobel laureate Arno Penzias makes this most interesting observation about the enigmatic character of the universe:

Astronomy leads us to an unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly-improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan.

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics)
Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 83.

Fearfully and Wonderfully Made:

Horsehead Nebula

It seems like there are quite a number of famous scientists who are finally beginning to realize what King David discovered long ago – that, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard…” and, “I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.” – Psalms 19:1-3 & Psalms 139:14

 

 

Share on Facebook20Pin on Pinterest0Share on LinkedIn0Tweet about this on TwitterDigg thisShare on Google+0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Print this pageEmail this to someone

10 thoughts on “Science and Faith Walking Hand in Hand?

  1. There is something delightfully recursive in your statement

    “One of my biochemistry professors in medical school told me once that, “Science is really nothing more than a very simple baloney detector.””

    It is usually considered that the term “baloney detection” was first used by Carl Sagan in his book the “Demon-haunted world” published in 1996. As I understand it, it was actually skepticism that was proposed as the boloney detection not science.

    According to the algorithm of the “baloney detection kit” I need to ask as step one can I get independent confirmation?

    Did you have Carl Sagan as your biochemistry professor or was it perhaps Barry Taylor?

    When was your professor teaching you biochemistry?

    Had your professor perhaps been reading from Carl Sagan’s book?

    Or perhaps your mind is playing tricks and your professor didn’t actually say it and you are recalling a quote from some other source? – perhaps a creationist site like this:

    http://creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm

    or Phillips Johnson’s comments on baloney detection in his book “Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds”




    0
    View Comment
    • @pauluc:

      Science is based on skepticism – the effort to try to falsify the hypothesis in question.

      In any case, my professor did say what he said. I remember it vividly because he didn’t actually use the word “baloney” in his description. I kind of had to water what he really said down a bit for publication here and on SSNET. I’m not sure what original reference he got it from, if any outside of his own independent conclusion. After all, it is downright obvious that all scientific methodologies are based on a very simple rational concept to help weed out potential truth from error.

      Sean Pitman
      http://www.DetectingDesign.com




      0
      View Comment
  2. Sean – this is a good article – with lots of good references. Thank you for getting this together.

    I also like the free online video “What we still don’t know” by Martin Rees and Leonard Susskind.

    Knowing the current facts available to us today – it would require ” a leap of faith” to be an atheist every bit as large as is required to believe in God as creator. But of course that statement is being overly generous to the atheist leap of faith.

    BobRyan




    0
    View Comment
  3. I suppose, Sean, the question some would ask you is, “What if science and scripture do not agree?”

    And don’t try to get around this question by claiming science and scripture always do agree. They don’t. In which case, where do you place your final locus of authority?
    \
    Bill Sorensen




    0
    View Comment
    • True science and religion will agree, as Mrs. White pointed out, since they both have the same Source. If they didn’t agree, there would be a problem with one or the other.

      To reference a recent article by Leonard Brand on this topic:

      “In true science there can be nothing contrary to the teaching of the word of God, for both have the same Author. A correct understanding of both will always prove them to be in harmony.”— Ellen White, Testimonies, vol. 8, p. 258.

      If we have a correct understanding of how science operates what its limitations are, as well as its strengths—we can have increased confidence that harmony really does exist between true science and true religion.

      http://ssnet.org/blog/2013/01/what-science-can-and-cannot-do/

      Consider also that there have been many religious ideas and interpretations of the Bible that have been effectively falsified by scientific discoveries – the clear weight of empirical evidence. Even certain interpretations of Biblical prophecies promoted by the early Adventist pioneers were proved false by the empirical evidence that clearly countered their predictions (i.e., Jesus simply didn’t show up as predicted). Truly then, if the testable claims of the Bible are determined to be inconsistent with empirical reality the Bible rightly loses credibility (either that or the specific interpretations of the Bible that have been falsified lose credibility). Of course, for those honestly searching for truth, God is quite able to provide them with plenty of empirical evidence that is more than adequate for a rational belief and faith in the credibility of His Word.

      Sean Pitman
      http://www.DetectingDesign.com




      0
      View Comment
  4. Sean said, “True science and religion will agree,….”

    Of course you are wrong Sean. There is no way by anything that is rational in science that could or would affirm that “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”

    That is pure supposition. And science would never concur nor affirm such a reality or even possibility.

    Creation is a miracle. Science does not consider miracles any part of natural law science. Every miracle of God is beyond natural law science.

    Sure, you can affirm a miracle has happened. When Jesus healed the blind man, all the people could see a miracle had happened. But no one tried to explain it by way of natural law science. In fact, they all affirmed it was far beyond natural law science. The blind man himself said the same thing.

    Science can affirm that something is here but can not affirm how it got here by way of a miracle. By definition a miracle is “super natural”, meaning, beyond a natural law explanation.

    So you may well discredit a lot of phoney ideas science presents for origins as being inconsistent. And evolution has no consistent argument for origins. But neither does creation. And you can not prove creation by science.

    The bible affirms itself by its own evidence by way of prophecy. Sure, the prophecies come true and we can affirm this evidence like the healed blind man. But the evidence only affirms that miracles are beyond scientific “falsification”. Hopefully, no one denies evidence based on scriptural declarations of history and future events. But this will give us no “scientific” evidence the God created the world by way of a miracle. None of us were even here to testify that we saw what God did as in the case of the healed blind man.

    Bill Sorensen




    0
    View Comment
    • Sean said, “True science and religion will agree,….”

      Of course you are wrong Sean. There is no way by anything that is rational in science that could or would affirm that “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” That is pure supposition. And science would never concur nor affirm such a reality or even possibility.

      You do realize that I’m directly quoting Mrs. White here? “In true science there can be nothing contrary to the teaching of the word of God, for both have the same Author. A correct understanding of both will always prove them to be in harmony.” — Ellen White, Testimonies, vol. 8, p. 258.

      Also, it is not “pure supposition” that a God or at the very least a God-like being is required to rationally explain the origin of the universe and of living things on this planet. This requirement is based on the very same logical inferences used to proposed intelligent design theories in multiple scientific disciplines (like forensics, anthropology and even SETI science).

      Creation is a miracle. Science does not consider miracles any part of natural law science. Every miracle of God is beyond natural law science.

      All forms of intelligent design, even human level intelligence and creative abilities, are “miraculous” in a certain sense. That doesn’t mean, however, that science is therefore unable to detect their activity. Science can detect that certain artifacts discovered in nature are mostly likely the result of deliberate intelligent design – with a very high degree of predictive value that is also, at the same time, subject to at least the potential of falsification.

      Sure, you can affirm a miracle has happened. When Jesus healed the blind man, all the people could see a miracle had happened. But no one tried to explain it by way of natural law science. In fact, they all affirmed it was far beyond natural law science. The blind man himself said the same thing.

      Again, science is not limited to hypotheses or theories that invoke only mindless naturalistic processes. Science is perfectly capable of hypothesizing the requirement for very high levels of intelligent design to explain various artifactual observations.

      Science can affirm that something is here but can not affirm how it got here by way of a miracle. By definition a miracle is “super natural”, meaning, beyond a natural law explanation.

      Science doesn’t need to explain the exact mechanism for how the designer produced a super advanced alien space craft, or even a simple highly symmetrical granite cube, before science can determine that such things required the input of intelligence. You’re confusing the scientific ability to detect the need for various levels of intelligent design with the requirement to explain how the intelligent agent did the job. This simply isn’t required in order for science to detect design – even God-like intelligence and design.

      So you may well discredit a lot of phoney ideas science presents for origins as being inconsistent. And evolution has no consistent argument for origins. But neither does creation. And you can not prove creation by science.

      You cannot absolutely prove anything by science. However, you can most certainly use scientific methodologies to produce highly useful predictive value for the “God-only” hypothesis.

      The bible affirms itself by its own evidence by way of prophecy. Sure, the prophecies come true and we can affirm this evidence like the healed blind man. But the evidence only affirms that miracles are beyond scientific “falsification”. Hopefully, no one denies evidence based on scriptural declarations of history and future events. But this will give us no “scientific” evidence the God created the world by way of a miracle. None of us were even here to testify that we saw what God did as in the case of the healed blind man.

      The determination of the credibility of prophetic statements is based on the empirical comparison between that which was predicted and the available evidence that the prediction came true in real history. Such an evaluation is based on the historical sciences. Such can be tested in a potentially falsifiable manner. Therefore, prophecy is not “self affirming”. Useful prophecies are affirmed by external empirical evidence – i.e., a form of science. And, the consistent fulfillment of such adds credibility to their source, the Bible, and everything else the Bible says that cannot be directly tested in a falsifiable manner…

      Sean Pitman
      http://www.DetectingDesign.com




      0
      View Comment
  5. I have read each post, and it appears to me that some people like to argue and take a different position simply for the sake of doing so, and not because they are necessarily correct, or even believe themselves to be so. Hmmm, is this a pride issue? “just sayin.” (BTW, I have no issues with the Author’s positions or his responses; but I certainly would take issue with someone that appears to disagree with EGW)!




    0
    View Comment
  6. Of course, Sean, “true science” will not contradict the bible. Because “true science” already knows they can not identify the “first cause” and don’t really even try to.

    We are discussing the “first cause” when we discuss creation. If your goal is to prove by way of science, that you can determine “first cause” it is an exercise in futility.




    0
    View Comment
    • The Biblical authors and Mrs. White disagree with you. They all agree that the signature of God is identifiable in nature – in the works of His own hands.

      “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” – Romans 1:20




      0
      View Comment

Comments are closed.