On November 28, 2023, John Droz Jr. published this piece, Critically Thinking: Big Bang or God? Which answer makes more scientific sense — or is it both?. The article discussed, "the Texas State Board of Education took a refreshing stand against the Left indoctrination in our K-12 Science textbooks", dealing with creation. He outlines an exchange between he and another scientist who makes the statement:
That is a clear step backward because our efforts become linked to religious efforts, not scientific ones. Creationism is fine. It is just NOT science. Our efforts should be understood as 100% science and 0% religion.....
John is a physicist who is really big on "critical thinking", and understands the motto of science is supposed to be "de omnibus dubitandum", which is Latin for "everything must be questioned", and he does just that in his response saying:
The Texas Board of Education is doing what is consistent with Critical Thinking and Science. To be open to Creationism is not a religious effort, but rather an effort to consider possible alternatives to the Big Bang hypothesis plus the evolution hypothesis. Since neither the Big Bang hypothesis nor the evolution hypothesis are scientifically proven, students should be open to alternative explanations......
I've been in communication with John for some time, and he allows me to publish his work. He goes on to point out the many weaknesses there is in science, such as the many things science can't answer simply scientists doesn't know. Much is merely speculation, which is the beginning for any scientific endeavor, and those speculations are called hypotheses, and often there are multiple options to those speculations before one can outline a theory. The article goes on quite a bit, but this is really the thrust of this discussion, with John quoting a scientist friend:
"it is not necessarily an either/or question — as reality could be God and the Big Bang."
This article was followed by a great many comments, including me saying:
Thank you for sharing. I'm a believer, but I don't think that's unscientific. Here's my annual Shall Every Knee Bow article. Jay Lehr called it brilliant, although he remained an atheist.
Editor's Note: Jay Lehr was a scientist well known in the world of science, and a good friend with whom I had the privilege of co-authoring articles. RK
Unlike my religious friends, I don't see the Big Bang as an alternative to creation. The Bible says in the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth, and we know the universe is billions of years old, including the Earth. The Bible also says God is not a God of disorder, and with what information we have available I see no reason not to accept the idea the Big Bang as the tool that started the whole process. Miracles are nothing more than the application of scientific principles we don’t know about and don’t understand.
I also see the six days of creation account a bit differently. The Biblical chronology for the seventh day indicates a seven-thousand-year cycle, and I’m willing to accept that, but why does that have to apply to the other six days? I consider that to be a logical fallacy, as there’s not one iota of Biblical evidence to support that.
Just because religious leaders refuse to accept alternative views doesn’t make those views wrong, nor do the alternative views touted by scientists make the creation account wrong. The word “day” in the Bible is subjective, as an example, saying a thousand years for man is a day to God. So, under that circumstance should we view the word day to mean:
(1. A “period of time”, as in 365 days is a year, or
(2. A “time period”, as in an era meaning undefined “periods of time.”
I choose the second. All the Bible says at the end of each day there was an evening and a morning, a ____________ (fill in the blank) day. Why should we believe each of those days had any “period of time” in common?
Why shouldn’t we believe each of those days were undefined millions of years old? When looking at the rock formations I think it certainly shows amazingly long periods of time in order to have formed as they did.
The fact is I believe that science and the Bible agree, we just don't always realize it, understand it, or have the willingness and/or patience to find that harmony. What we really have so very often are entrenched forces that will not see things farther, deeper, or wider, and refuse to accept anything except dogma, whether it's religious or secular. The problem isn't in the facts, it's in a lack of clarity in ourselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment