Introduction:
1) In the beginning of our studies of this topic we asked the question “What is
the place of scientific evidence in the origins debate?”
2) We have seen, through reasoning, that scientific evidence, by itself, cannot
solve this debate.
A) It can be useful in the debate as long as all parties involved agree on how
the evidence should be interpreted.
B) It is perfectly appropriate for creationists to argue with one another that
certain evidence supports a certain model.
C) When both parties agree on the “rules of interpretation” they should be
able to draw the same conclusion to the same evidence.
D) The problem, as we have shown, is that the creationist and evolutionist
have different opinions on what the rules should be.
E) Each party interprets the facts within the confines of their respected
world view.
F) Both sides are allowed to invent a “rescuing device” to explain seemingly
contrary evidence.
G) Therefore, scientific evidence by itself will not solve the problem, we must
use a different approach in order to settle the matter.
3) We have found that the debate can be resolved by using the ultimate standard
A) We do this by showing that the Biblical creation world view alone provides
for the preconditions of intelligibility in a way that is consistent and
non-arbitrary.
B) Throughout this study we really have not focused on the evidence to prove
this point.
C) Is evidence really necessary in our defense?
\ 1) It does
2) But only if it is properly used
3) In this study we will explore rational ways to use the evidence to
proclaim that God does exist and that the Bible is His word.
I) Confirming Biblical Creation
1) One perfectly reasonable use of scientific evidence is to confirm Biblical Creation
A) The word confirm here means that the evidence is consistent with the
Biblical creation world view or that it coincides and shows agreement.
B) It is unfortunate that many Christians have been taught that the scientific
evidence points to evolution.
C) Because of this they have erroneously concluded that we must have a
“Blind faith” when it comes to the things of God.
D) Many evolutionists conflate “science” with “evolution” in an attempt to
convince people that we must accept evolution if we are going to accept
science.
E) We must challenge such erroneous teachings, and scientific evidence is
helpful in this endeavor
2) Science is perfectly consistent with the Christian world view
A) We can give many examples of this
1) Genetics shows us that organisms reproduce “after their kind”,
this is exactly what we would expect to see from Genesis
2) The fossil record indicates a global catastrophe, that animals
and plants were killed and rapidly buried by flood waters,
again, this is exactly what we would expect from Genesis.
3) C14 in diamonds and other materials is exactly what the
Biblical creationist would expect to find.
B) These facts challenge the ABSURD notion that “all of science is on the
side of evolution”.
3) Evidences are faith affirming
A) We need to understand that our world view is not merely hypothetical
in nature.
B) We need to realize in our heart of hearts that the universe is the Biblical
universe as created by God as He has dictated with in the scriptures.
C) Since the Bible is true, it can be used to explain and make successful
predictions about what we find in the universe.
D) All the fields of science all show facts that are what we would expect,
given the truth of the Bible.
E) This should encourage us to find out the facts.
II) An Introduction to World Views
1) In the debate over origins, it is crucially important to understand the nature of
world views and how they control our interpretation of evidence
2) Without is, we will be “talking past each other” and will never get to the real
issue.
3) Most people do not even realize that they have a world view, and thus have not
given mush thought to what their’s is.
4) Most people think that “the evidence speaks for itself”.
5) This error in thinking must be addressed and refuted if the debate is to be resolved.
6) Evidence can help in this process.
7) We can take a particular piece of evidence and then show how creationists and
evolutionists draw different conclusions for this fact because they have different
world views
8) Examples
A) Humans and apes have similar DNA
1) The evolutionist concludes that this is because apes and humans are
descended from a common ancestor.
2) The creationist concludes that this is because apes and humans are
made by God and have somewhat similar physiology, which would
require similar genetic instructions.
3) Each position can account for the facts, but the interpretation is
different.
B) The fossil record
1) The evolutionist believes that fossils have been deposited over millions
of years os local floods and other small-scale catastrophes have killed
and buried organisms.
2) The creationists believes that most of the fossils were deposited in the
Genesis Flood
3) Again each position is able to account for the facts but draw different
conclusions.
9) Our goal to this point
A) Our goal at this point is not to argue that we have a better interpretation of the
evidence (this will come latter)
B) Our goal here is to show the evolutionist and creationist interpret the facts
differently and that they must do so because of the different world views in
play
C) Our goal here is simple
1) It is to educate them on the nature of world views
2) It is to show them how wold views affect our interpretation of facts
3) It is to kindly make them realize that they do, in fact, have a
world view.
D) This must take place. If it does not, we will never get anywhere.
III) Showing Inconsistency and Arbitrariness
1) Remember our “AIP” check list
A) Arbitrariness
B) Inconsistency
C) Preconditions of Intelligibility
2) Scientific and historical evidence can help us to accomplish this
3) Examples
A) The Bible not reliable
1) It is often said that the Bible is not accurate because it has been copied
so many times that the original has been lost.
2) Yet historical research confirms the reliability of the Bible as we have
previously studied.
3) Remember that we have numerous manuscripts at our disposal and the
time frame between the originals and the copies is small which
minimizes the possibility of transmission errors
4) Contrast this with the works of Plato
5) Ancient copies of Plato are far fewer in number and the time span
of transmission is much greater, yet virtually everyone accepts them
as authentic.
6) People can deny that the Bible has been accurately transmitted, that
is their choice, but then how can they go on to accept other LESS
RELIABLE manuscripts like Plato?
7) It is inconsistent for someone to deny the historical reliability of the
Bible, while embracing the historical reliability of Plato
B) SETI-the search of extraterrestrial intelligence
1) This program hopes to detect radio signals from alien civilizations
2) But many things in space produce radio waves, stars, quasars, pulsars
3) How do we deduce intelligence from these signals
4) One area that they look at is information content
5) If we were to hear a radio signal that contained instructions on how to
build a machine, no one would doubt that the signal came from an
intelligent being.
6) DNA has just such coded information, instructions on how to build a
complex machine, you and I
7) Yet the same researchers deny that DNA has an intelligent source.
8) It is inconsistent for researchers to accept coded information as an
indication of intelligence in space, while denying that very same
principle in the DNA of living organisms.
9) Of course, the evolutionist might say “We have yet to discover the
mechanism that generates information in DNA.” But this is arbitrary
It is simply a rescuing device.
4) Appeal to world view
A) In the origins debate, we can always appeal to our world view as the
explanation for our beliefs
B) This is the rescuing device and it is not necessarily arbitrary.
C) The evolutionist could respond that they have a good reason for their rescuing
device, “These explanations are required by my world view, and I am certain
that my world view is correct.”
D) But then the evolutionist must be prepared to defend their world view, which
they will not be able to do.
IV) Introducing the Correct World View
1) In addition to exposing arbitrariness and inconsistency in the evolutionary world view,
scientific evidence can be used to introduce the preconditions of intelligibility.
2) We can respond “We have been talking about scientific evidence, but which world
view can make sense of the fact that science is actually possible? Which world
view can account for the fact that the universe is logical and understandable by the
\ human mind? Which world view can make sense of the laws of logic by which we
reason and the uniformity of nature by which we do science?”
3) The evolutionist (or any other world view) will not be able to account for such things
4) It is only the Biblical world view that is able to successfully account for these things
and others.
V) Application
1) “There is no evidence whatsoever for the creationist position.”
2) #1, “Actually, there are many evidences that confirm Biblical creation. Consider
DNA...” and so on.
3) #2, “ But these evidences support evolution and not creation.”
“Actually, creationists interpret this same evidence differently than you do. Here is
how we understand it.” (Present our interpretation) “So you see, we all have the
same facts, but we interpret them differently based on our respective world views.”
4) #3 The evolutionist may then try to argue that their interpretation of the evidence is
better than ours. This is when we point out the arbitrary and inconsistent nature of
their view. They must constantly evoke a rescuing device to explain away
contrary evidence which is totally arbitrary.
5) #4 Once the evolutionist has the right frame of mind, that all evidence is interpreted
through our own world view, then we can ask them to defend their world view
“Which world view can make sense of science anyway? For that matter, which
world view can make sense of any of the things we take for granted?”
6) It will never be this simple, this is a very abbreviated example of the technique.
7) It make take several questions and answer periods to get the individual to the point
that they need to be.
No comments:
Post a Comment