|
The
Teaching of Science
A Biblical Perspective
©2000
The Christian Institute
A lecture given by Steven Layfield at Emmanuel College, Gateshead
on 21 September 2000
Contents
Introduction
What is Science?
Naturalism
Biblical
revelation of reality
Creation
Fall
Science in Schools
What can be done?
Biology
Chemistry
Physics
Relevance & importance of a
proper approach
Introduction
We are interested to know what the Bible says about Science not
because we wish to add a certain "religious flavour" to
our Science lessons but because the Bible provides us with, as it
were, spectacles through which the whole of reality can be sharply
focussed. At a most fundamental level of thinking there are really
just two alternative starting positions. One is characterised by
the assumption that man can find out all that is true by careful
enquiry; the other acknowledges the limitation of such endeavour
and recognises the need for us to accept Divine help. One is the
rationalist voice of autonomous humanism; the other is God-centred
Christianity. It is important that we recognise this distinction
right from the start. Much difference of opinion at a higher level
can be traced back to this point. Those of us who are engaged in
the struggle to show the superiority of a Creationist paradigm (world-view)
over and against the prevailing orthodoxy of atheistic materialism
and evolutionism in science, have been viciously attacked for adopting
a "Bible-first" mentality by many of our opponents.
Let us state then right from the start that we reject the notion
popularised, perhaps inadvertently, by Francis Bacon in the 17th
century that there are "Two Books" (i.e. the Book of nature
& the Scriptures) which may be mined independently for truth.
Rather, we stand firm upon the bare proposition that God has spoken
authoritatively and inerrantly in the pages of holy Scripture. However
fragile, old-fashioned or naive this assertion may ostensibly appear,
especially to an unbelieving, TV-drunk modern culture, we can be
sure that it is as robust a foundation as it is possible to lay
down and build upon. The words of the Apostle Paul on trial before
Festus seem strangely relevant to our situation, "I am not
mad, but speak the words of truth and reason" (Acts 26:25).
Top
What is Science?
First we must identify with some precision what we mean when we
talk about "Science". We shall find that popular notions
of Science vary widely. For example, Webster's 1828 Dictionary says
that Science is,
"1. In a general sense, knowledge, or certain knowledge; the
comprehension or understanding of truth or facts by the mind. The
science of God must be perfect.
2. Pure science, as mathematics, is built on self-evident truths;
but the term science is also applied to other subjects founded on
generally acknowledged truths, as metaphysics; or on experiment
and observation..."
Thus Science, as its Latin root suggests, is concerned with knowing.
We may have heard the glib comment, "If you really want to
know something, ask a scientist". This seems altogether in
sympathy with a more up to date definition, reflecting perhaps culture"s
shifting religious conviction which defines Science as,
"knowledge obtained from the systematic study of the structure
and behaviour of the physical world, involving experimentation and
measurement and the development of theories to describe the results
of these activities."
This latter definition may at first glance seem acceptable enough.
It duly acknowledges the limited scope of scientific enquiry to
"the physical world" in its present "structure and
behaviour". But, unlike the previous one, notice that there
is no reference to God, truth in general or metaphysics. Implicit
in the first, yet strangely absent from this second absent definition,
is the acknowledgement that there must exist some general framework
of thinking to make proper sense of sensory empirical data. Hence,
the possibility of Scripture providing this normative role is explicitly
denied.
Both Scripture and human philosophy affirm that in developing a
body of knowledge and/or truth, we must inevitably assume something.
No practitioner of Science can avoid this presumptive first step.
For example, cosmologists assume a uniformity of matter and the
laws of Physics when contemplating the distant galaxies and stars
etc,. But why should such matter and the laws which govern its behaviour
be the same everywhere? Thus, when the astronomer infers the existence
of metals and certain gases in distant stars he is in fact assuming
the unity of nature (i.e. that we inhabit a universe, not a multi-verse):
something he cannot prove.
However, if, as Jesus clearly taught, the Bible really is the Word
of God - and the internal evidence is overwhelming - true Science
will always agree with it. The form of knowledge to which it tends
will be trustworthy and true. The ultimate absurdity of abandoning
the Biblical framework of knowledge is the introduction of doubt
into the universality of any scientific law.
Top
Naturalism
Perhaps as a result of a general acceptance of Aquinas?s dualistic
theory of knowledge and Bacon?s 'Two Books' approach, practitioners
of Science over recent centuries have progressively developed the
notion that scientific endeavour, and the theory that describes
it, must proceed along lines of thought that are inherently 'naturalistic'.
Thus today, schools, universities and TV documentaries present 'natural
History' and 'natural Science'. When examined at a fundamental philosophical
level, it emerges that the following assumptions have been subtly
added to or implied in most contemporary notions of Science:
all
that exists is hard matter (atoms and molecules)
only 'natural physical processes' can be invoked as causes of
all effects.
Practical
Consequences
However well-intentioned the contemporary scientific fraternity
in pursuing with such rigour 'natural science', it must be apparent
that what we are left with is in fact 'methodological atheism' -
an approach to Science which, by definition, precludes any mention
of God or supernatural activity whatsoever. To be sure, we must
seek explanations for 'present phenomena' in terms which are naturalistic.
This is consistent with the Biblical revelation of God as a God
of order (1Cor 14:33) But historical events may in fact have been
wrought 'supernaturally' by the hand of God. Only brute pride and
prejudice will explicitly deny this possibility.
The political and religious consequences for modern culture resulting
from the uniform application of naturalistic and materialistic presuppositions
in Science teaching are immense. The able Professor of Law at the
University of California, Berkeley, Phillip Johnson has keenly identified
how a body of elite professionals have been remarkably influential
in the shaping of the moral character of today's generation by this
distinctive approach to Science.
But won't the integrity of 'Science' be threatened if we allow a
divine foot in the door? Johnson, who has written extensively and
with much helpful insight, has clearly shown a widening audience
that defining scientific endeavour in such materialistic and naturalistic
terms, contrary to popular opinion, actually stifles and cripples
scientific progress. He rightly argues that the research process
ought, with honesty and integrity, to pursue empirical evidence
logically wherever it leads. But if naturalism is true, what place
is there for such moral concepts as honesty and integrity? Perhaps
it is not mere coincidence that there has been a rising trend of
fraudulent Science in recent times .
Moreover, it can now readily be shown that there exists both physical
laws and a substantial body of empirical data, especially the intrinsic
irreducible complexity possessed by all living organisms which are
incompatible with, or else fundamentally defy, a doctrinaire naturalistic
explanation. Johnson and others have fought hard academically and
politically. Presently, his 'Intelligent Design (ID)' group are
urging the US Government & Legislature to wake up and realise
the social and moral implications of adopting unquestioningly naturalistic
scientism in the classroom. It remains to be seen how successful
they will be. The recent machinations of the Kansas Board of Education
show clearly that there exists a powerful body of ideological proponents
who are keen to retain the falsehoods inherent in the present status
quo.
Here in the UK the situation is regrettably worse. Successive recent
Governments have formulated policy statements which describe explicitly
if not implicitly what mainstream Schools are to understand by the
Here in the UK the situation is regrettably worse. Successive recent
Governments have formulated policy statements which describe explicitly
if not implicitly what mainstream Schools are to understand by the
term 'Science'. However, though much ground has been lost over the
past 200 years or so, it is heartening to read in the latest revision
of the National Curriculum that Scientific Enquiry should, at Key
Stage 4, include reference to the controversial character of the
Darwinian Theory of Evolution and the limitations of scientific
knowledge in certain inaccessible contexts .
Top
Biblical revelation of reality
Johnson's charges are most important because the Bible calls us
to recognise in all our thinking the totality of reality. This includes
the unseen, spiritual realm as well as the material, spatial and
temporal dimensions. St Paul explicitly warns us, 'See to it that
no-one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy,
which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this
world rather than on Christ' (Col 2:8).
Scripture reliably informs us that an omnipotent, eternal and all-wise
God supernaturally created the Universe (matter, space and time)
ex nihilo (from nothing), presently superintends His creation; hears
and answers prayer; directs legions of angels to do His will; moves
in the hearts and minds of all men; turns slowly but surely the
great wheels of providence; upholds all things by the power of His
word and consigns to heaven and hell those who are respectively
obedient or disobedient to His revealed will. This supreme Being
is the great Architect, Creator and Sustainer of all and exists
simultaneously within and without His creation . Despite the complete
absence from the current mainstream Science national curriculum,
He is, in the words of Francis Schaeffer, 'The God who is there'.
It is apparent then that Theology and not Physics or Mathematics
that is properly 'Queen of the Sciences'. It is in this sense of
the fullness of knowledge which God alone possesses that 'the science
of God must be perfect' as our first definition plainly stated.
Physics, as we shall see, is merely concerned only with a proper
understanding of the normal workings of the material world. But
the best physicists (e.g. Kepler, Newton, Faraday, Brewster - to
mention but a few) duly recognised the limitations of their undertakings
and were happy to acknowledge the existence of God and the genius
of His handiwork as they sought to fathom and explore it. Their
determination to understand the mechanism of present operations
within the universe by no means prevented them from a contemplation
of a supernatural, divine act of creation in the past and the mystery
of providence in the present.
A Biblical view of the world and universe requires us to believe
that everything has been made for mankind who alone among living
creatures possesses spiritual faculties enabling him to forge vital,
personal fellowship with his Maker. Given that man's chief end in
life is to know and glorify God, the whole of Creation must necessarily
be perceived as a stage upon which he may realize this potential
and fulfil this purpose. The material medium therefore ought to
be recognised as a divine construct by which man, when truly guided
and enlightened, may discover the great wisdom and power of God
together with remarkable tokens of His kindness and love.
Mindful of these things, theologians have most helpfully identified
the conceptual framework of Creation, Fall and Redemption in which
thinking, and therefore teaching which is truly Biblical, must take
place. No academic discipline can progress properly which ignores
them. They are fundamental to the establishing of a Biblical view
of reality not merely for any abstract reason, but because they
are momentous historical events. The first two are especially pertinent
to the cause of true Science.
Top
Creation
The Bible at once confronts us with the God of Creation. Throughout
the first chapter of Genesis there are a whole string of statements
in which, as one has well said, 'God is the subject of the verb'
. Historically, Christians have tended to struggle in their attempts
to harmonise the plain/obvious sense of the Biblical narrative of
Genesis 1 with 'the assured facts of modern Science'. Almost invariably,
they have tried to hide their embarrassment of the explicit supernatural
behind a smokescreen hermeneutic which requires a mythological interpretation
of many of the early chapters. They typically inform us that the
principal lesson we are to learn from the Genesis account is that
nature somehow betrays the existence of God as we look at it in
the right sort of way. While this may be true, we affirm that creation
is something which God historically did. The distinction may seem
trivial or unimportant but it is by this creative act that the credentials
of God as the almighty and all-wise etc, are effectively established
and communicated to us. A proper awareness of this show of Divine
power inspires humility and awe-filled worship in all who are confronted
by it.
Let all the earth fear the Lord; let all the inhabitants of the
world stand in awe of Him.
For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.
(Psalm 33:8-9)
Christians know only too well the great value of such contemplation.
When faced with great trials, like Job (38ff), they are strengthened
in hope and comforted in death by such knowledge. As real historical
events, such astounding creative accomplishments represent wonderful
tokens of encouragement that the might and right of God's kingdom
will at last prevail.
We make a great mistake however if we assume that such a view of
Earth history is peculiarly religious and only valid for those who
have faith. Indeed, so self-evident is the truth of Creation and
so morally relevant its message that the Scriptures announce to
us, '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' (Rom 1:20). By stark contrast, the prevailing notions of
naturalism and atheism are condemned as intellectual suicide and
folly (Ps 14:1; Rom 1:26). Coming as it does at the very beginning
of the Bible, we may legitimately assume that the doctrine of Special
Creation is foundational to the establishing of both true science
and real piety within our land. Indeed, so important is the retention
of this creative act in our minds that God has ordained one day
in seven for us to remember it (Ex 20:11; Mk 2:20).
Top
Fall
No sooner are we informed that this world is the result of ingenious,
special (miraculous) creation than God records for us the sober
fact of its subsequent fall and corruption. Sin entered human experience
and God's subsequent curse of the world affected everything (Gen
3). Decay and death inevitably characterise our present physical
existence. That which was made harmonious and beautiful in the beginning,
is now tragically infected with a poison which secures its destruction.
In the words of some past poet, man, the crowning glory of God's
original creation, is now 'a magnificent wreck'. The full extent
of the physical consequences of the fall on creation may never finally
be known. But those of us engaged in the proclamation of true Science
must reckon all that we find to be somehow affected by it. Two passages
of Scripture (among several) which clearly allude to the Fall include:
The heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall
wax old like a garment, and they that dwell there shall die in like
manner: but my salvation shall be forever, (Isaiah 51:6)
For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own
choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that
the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay
and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We
know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of
childbirth right up to the present time. (Romans 8:20-22)
Besides the obvious principle of decay bound up within the famous
second law of thermodynamics, we may well consider invoking the
historical fall event to explain effects such as lunar craters,
certain pathological virus infections and various instances where
nature now appears 'red in tooth and claw'.
Furthermore, if the Biblical record is to be trusted, we must acknowledge
within our grand geophysical paradigm the historicity of a world-wide
flood as outlined in Gen 6-10. If the Biblical narrative is secure
and the listed genealogies (e.g. Gen 5; 1 Chro 1; Matt 1 & Lu
3) are substantially full, we must reckon that this global catastrophe
took place in the relatively recent past. Its effects are everywhere
abundantly apparent. Principal evidence is found in the fossil-laden
sedimentary rocks, the extensive reserves of hydrocarbon fuels (coal,
oil and gas) and the 'legendary' accounts of just such a great flood
common to various population groups world-wide. The feasibility
of maintaining an ark full of representative creatures for a year
until the waters had sufficiently receded has been well documented
by, among others, John Woodmorrappe . Much useful research has already
been undertaken in recent years which confirms that speciation via
'micro-evolution' and variation within limits can happily account
for the rapid re-population of the world and separation of human
racial groupings such as we find today.
Top
Science in Schools (Biology,
Chemistry and Physics)
In the light of all that has been said, it is surely necessary for
us to proceed into the 21st century class-room with some caution.
Modern technology which has greatly impacted our lives in countless
ways provides the ordinary man in the street and his children whom
we teach with considerable reason to suppose that their confidence
in the proclamations of modern Science are well-founded. There is
therefore an understandable tendency for pupils to admire and respect
what they are persuasively told by popular media Science pundits.
Science teachers who affirm Biblical authority must be constantly
on guard. Flawed orthodoxy is fervently preached at the very highest
level in colleges and universities throughout the land. The high
priests of secular humanism wield a great deal of power and their
influence is regrettably noticeable in the formal statements of
the National Curriculum and School Examination Syllabuses. Textbooks
are produced whose authors inevitably 'kow-tow' to the dictates
of examining bodies and regrettably, most teachers in turn, blindly
follow on unquestioningly.
A teacher who expresses ideas contrary to the prevailing secular
world-view knows that he risks suspicion and scorn from both his
students and his colleagues. Truly the fear of man is a great snare
(Pr 29:25). But as challenging and as revolutionary as it may seem,
Christian teachers must grasp this particular nettle if ever they
are to make significant spiritual in-roads into the hearts and minds
of today's youngsters and tomorrows generation of cultural transformers.
Church leaders too must do their part. Apart from the mercy and
grace of God, as long as Christianity is preached as a 'religious
optional extra', all we can hope to secure in the lives of the children
under our charge is a weak, existential piety in which the historical
Christ must be squeezed and trimmed to fit. We urgently need thinking
Christians who understand Scientism's subtle message and mistakes
to speak out with clarity, conviction and courage against it. The
same classroom practitioners must, in its place, be prepared to
express without compromise the integrity and infallibility of the
Biblical historical narrative however loud and disagreeable the
objection. Such ambassadors must strive to be 'as shrewd as serpents
and as innocent as doves' (Matt 10:16).
Top
What can be done?
Until or unless the Science/Faith problem is properly tackled at
a higher level (i.e. Government & University), the likelihood
is that present curriculum constraints will substantially apply
for the foreseeable future. Teachers must therefore do all that
they can to ensure that pupils, parents and fellow colleagues are
reminded frequently that all is not what it seems when popular so-called
scientific dogma presents itself before them.
In the meantime, the same Science teachers may care to try some
or all of the following:
- Remind
classes of great Scientists from the past who have believed in
God and the Bible. This can be done easily enough by displaying
pictures of them together with brief quotes indicating their spiritual
allegiance and a summary of what in particular they are famous
for. This simple exercise alone can be staggeringly effective
in assuring students that a simple trust in the Bible as the word
of God is not tantamount to intellectual suicide - a popular media
contention. Most are astonished to find out how many past worthies
were committed to Biblical authority. Henry Morris, for example,
lists over forty Scientific disciplines and a further twenty-six
notable inventions or discoveries which were established or substantially
developed by Bible-believing Scientists .
- Note
every occasion when an evolutionary/old-earth paradigm (millions
or billions of years) is explicitly mentioned or implied by a
text-book, examination question or visitor and courteously point
out the fallibility of the statement. Wherever possible, we must
give the alternative (always better) Biblical explanation of the
same data. We shall look at a few examples from each of Physics,
Chemistry & Biology in due course. Remember, 'The first
to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and
questions him'. (Pr 18:17)
- Display
a variety of topical data which is not readily explained by current
orthodox science. E.g. presence of information in DNA; lack of
Solar neutrinos; rapid decay of Geo-magnetic field; recessional
velocity of the Moon; lack of intermediate fossils to mention
but a few! Posters can readily be constructed from cut and pasted
copies of old 'Creation ex Nihilo' magazines which are brightly
coloured and always helpfully illustrated.
- Provide
summary background reading and further information for all who
express an interest in the controversy. There is a vast array
of useful internet help and information freely available. I have
found Ian Campbell's Creation Matters booklet most helpful with
both staff and sixth form students .
- Circulate
periodically to all staff and interested pupils anti-scientism
news sheets (e.g. The Sceptic ) with appropriate comments. Being
factually based they are both thought-provoking and good stimulants
to follow-up discussion. We must never undermine the therapeutic
value of truth. You will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free. (Jn 8:32)
- Make
helpful literature & video resources available in the School
library and actively encourage its perusal. Catalogues advertising
such specialist items are available from at least two UK based
organisations .
- Organise
talks by specialist Scientists who are able to provide authoritative
pronouncements in favour of the Biblical world-view whilst providing
a fair but critical appraisal of naturalism. There is a need for
someone to draw up a list of suitable personnel together with
their academic credentials and contact details in order for Schools
nationally to take advantage of such visits.
- Set
up a Science Critical Forum in which the relevant issues in the
context of topical items of science news are discussed within
the School. The claim of 'religious neutrality' everywhere vaunted
by the secular dominated mass media will be shown to be spurious.
Students and (teachers) must be shown instead that what is served
up as Science for popular consumption is frequently riddled with
subtle atheistic propaganda the fruit of which is the paralysis
of true spiritual thinking and Christian action.
It
remains for us to examine a few notable examples of how naturalism
has infected the National Curriculum in each of the three principal
areas of Biology, Chemistry and Physics. In doing so we shall try
to provide a measure of suggestion and practical advice for those
involved at the chalk-face.
Top
Biology
Biologists ought at the very least to recognise and draw particular
attention to the lack of factual evidence for macro-evolution. They
must clearly teach that whilst limited variation within species
can and does occur (micro-evolution) it is intellectually dishonest
to extrapolate such evidence and marshal it in support of general
evolutionary theory. Mutations just do not produce new information
necessary for the production of whole new organs or appendages.
Typically they involve either a loss of information or, at best,
an adjustment of it. The distinguished Australian molecular biologist
Michael Denton , among others, has closely examined the limitations
of mutational variation and has shown that it is most unreasonable
to imagine that successive slight changes of coded information can
account for the large scale differences between say a mouse and
an elephant or an octopus and a bee.
Biology teachers should encourage students to identify 'design features'
for all living systems to which they are introduced and should help
them to recognise organisms which possess intrinsic/irreducible
complexity. Michael Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box and Stuart
Burgess' recent book, Hallmarks of Design are essential background
reading. Students and/or staff reading either of these important
works will learn to recognise interdependence, functional intricacy
and structures showing optimum efficiency which characterise living
things. Through such training, they will graduate with the sentiments
of King David ringing loud and clear in their hearts and minds:
For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's
womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful, I know that full well. (Ps 139:13,14)
Perhaps too, students would do well to read a little of Rudyard
Kipling in order to appreciate how relatively easy it is to devise
a story-like explanation for alleged evolutionary adaptations. They
should be reassured that in most cases, the evidence marshalled
in support of such fables is simply non-existent.
They might note the remarkable interdependence of symbiotic systems
(e.g. the yucca plant and the yucca moth) and the obvious need for
each to commence functioning simultaneously to account for their
present existence.
Biologists must constantly remind pupils that information concentrated
in cellular tissue ensuring function, growth and replacement is
a distinct entity from the molecules upon which it is written. Such
information never arises spontaneously by chance: rather, in accordance
with the universal law of cause and effect, it must be the product
of intelligent thought. The genetic code thus provides overwhelming
prima facie evidence for intelligent design. Only blind, wilful
ignorance prevents serious-minded people from seeing it. The Apostle
Paul, with remarkable prophetic insight, immediately afterwards
comments, 'For although they knew God, they neither glorified
him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile
and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to
be wise, they became fools' (Rom 1:21,22)
Summarising, by providing a thorough understanding of the form and
function of creatures and plants found within creation, they must
aim to foster within their students a response of awe, wonder and
humility before their Maker.
Top
Chemistry
Chemists should point out the remarkable fact that an astonishing
variety of materials and compounds now known to us are all formed
from 'the dust of the ground' and that the evident order epitomized
in the periodic table betrays the fact that the Creator is a God
order not chaos. They ought to recognise the delicate balance of
power which governs atomic and molecular bonding mechanisms and
which gives rise to the vast array of substances formed.
The so called 'Anthropic Principle' is an important concept which
has only been recognised as scientifically significant relatively
recently. Briefly summarised, it states that the Earth (indeed the
whole universe) comprises an apparently unique environment full
of materials whose processes of change/regulation are governed by
physical laws that are remarkably fine-tuned, enabling life in general
and human life in particular to be maintained. There are many catalogued
examples of such fine tuning that it is easily shown that the statistical
probability of them collectively existing within such narrowly permissible
ranges is vanishingly small. Dr Arthur Jones notes one remarkable
example:
In
dry air, 78 out of every 100 atoms are nitrogen whilst 21 are
oxygen. Nitrogen's relatively unreactive molecules are essential
to build air pressure and to dilute oxygen. The proportion of
oxygen is quite critical: with less than 15% oxygen, no fire could
be lit, whereas at 22%, forest fires would occur too easily and
at 25% even wet vegetation would burn (so lightning would quickly
destroy the living world) .
In
view of the current inclusion of Earth Science into the Sc3 component
of the National Curriculum , it would seem particularly prudent
for all who deliver this aspect of the course to familiarise themselves
with Flood Geology papers of Whitcomb & Morris . These plainly
show the superiority of a catastrophe paradigm over and against
the still prevailing orthodoxy of uniformitarianism to explain various
topological features of the Earth such as fossilisation, sedimentation,
lava flows & magnetic reversals etc. In particular, they would
do well to point out that no rock is unearthed with a clear age
label and that dating processes in general are speculative, frequently
contradictory and in many instances altogether incompatible with
a great age. This is especially important when dealing with the
alleged aeons required for the formation of hydrocarbons (coal;
oil and gas deposits) and various metamorphic rocks. Such issues
have been dealt with most helpfully by Dr John D Morris and his
team at the Institute for Creation Research.
Top
Physics
Physicists must stress the very great difference between well-established
empirical laws of Science (especially the conservation laws) and
the highly speculative, hypothetical extrapolations into the distant
past/future currently in vogue in cosmology. It is mostly in the
field of astronomy where the controversy tends to rage. The apparent
close-relationship between cosmology and elementary particle theory
stems from the assumption that the universe began with a Big Bang
and that in the immediate aftermath elementary sub-atomic particles
evolved into larger particles which in turn eventually formed stars,
solar systems and finally Galaxies.
Bearing this in mind, it is sobering to remember that no star has
ever been observed forming or moving through the alleged main sequence.
Theoretical time-scales involve millions/billions of years. No observer
therefore could possibly monitor it! Spectacular photographic images
typically show relatively static formations. Thus, while categorisation
of stars can be carried out according to Hertzsprung-Russel
Bearing this in mind, it is sobering to remember that no star has
ever been observed forming or moving through the alleged main sequence.
Theoretical time-scales involve millions/billions of years. No observer
therefore could possibly monitor it! Spectacular photographic images
typically show relatively static formations. Thus, while categorisation
of stars can be carried out according to Hertzsprung-Russell criteria,
whether the great variety of star types represent evidence of stellar
evolution remains fundamentally unproved. Furthermore, the elusive
dark matter urgently needed to rescue a semblance of reasonableness
for modern cosmology theory is still missing. Hence, why rapidly
expanding debris from a primeval explosion spreading out to fill
three dimensional space should ever overcome the initial self-destructive
gravitational force of an alleged Big Bang is still a most pertinent
question.
Closer to home, the new draft GCSE syllabus specifications for NEAB
(AQA) for example requires students to be introduced to notions
of where our Solar System came from. They are encouraged to suppose
that the raw materials were ejected from previously exploding stars
which somehow condensed into the intricate spinning and orbital
elements of our Solar System. Physics teachers must give careful
thought and consideration to the actual data (i.e. planets; moons;
rings; magnetic fields; anomalous orbits; comets etc,) and then
weigh the possibility of such intricate structure and complexity
arising by chance. They should go on to explain that the time-honoured
laws of Physics collectively cry out 'impossible'! But this should
not surprise us. The Bible teaches plainly that 'the heavens
declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.'
(Ps 19:1). It is God who did it. By the word of the Lord
were the heavens made, their starry host by the breath of His mouth.
Psalm 33:6 The full array of objects which fill up the night
sky 'speak' loudly and clearly of the creative work of God - 'there
is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice
goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.'
(Ps 19:3,4)
Physicists should constantly remind their students that no laws
of Physics are better attested than the Laws of Thermodynamics.
They should develop a clear understanding of the Second Law in particular
which prohibits the spontaneous, unaided development of orderly
systems from disordered, chaotic ones. They should then use it to
demonstrate the impossibility of alleged natural processes producing
the evident complex structure evident all around us - especially
in living things. Carl Sagan, who spent so much of his life working
on the SETI (search for extra-terrestrial intelligence) project
knew that pattern and order are the characteristics of signals which
would positively indicate a source of intelligence. It is both sad
and ironic that this dedicated humanist, while searching for it
in radio signals from space, could (would?) not recognise the same
fingerprints in the information bound up in the genetic code so
close to home.
Physicists too should utilise the ideas of the Anthropic Principle
to underscore how finely tuned the Earth/Moon/Sun system is as a
harbour for life. They should point out that
- the
period of the Earth's rotation (24 hrs) is critical. Much faster
and violent windstorms would be destructive; Much slower and the
day time/nigh time temperatures would be too extreme.
- the
Moon's gravity is critical. Much greater and the tides would be
catastrophic; much less and the oceans would become stagnant through
insufficient mixing.
- the
temperature of the Earth's surface is critical. Too hot and excessive
water vapour and carbon dioxide will collect in atmospheric clouds
and the greenhouse effect will run away with itself causing a
the ice-caps to melt and further overheating; too cold and more
snow and ice will form reflecting solar energy promoting yet cooler
temperatures.
Finally,
Physicists must underscore Karl Popper's contention that experiments
designed to test or validate a proposed theory, may only falsify.
Thus hard data derived from such tests demonstrate, at best, that
the theory might be true.
Top
Relevance & importance
of a proper approach
Does a distinctively Biblical approach to Science teaching really
matter? Yes it does and it matters a great deal: much is at stake.
The Bible informs us that our thinking largely determines the way
in which we live (Prov 23:7). Over the past one hundred and fifty
years or so, a great thinking wedge has been driven between alleged
'absolute scientific truth' and in stark contrast, tenuous and subjective
'religious belief'. Science masquerades today as a pursuit of ultimate
truth. Hence, an idea promoted constantly within academia and the
mass media is that people can be classified as either 'religious'
or 'non-religious' depending on whether or not they carry any religious
baggage in their heads together with the religiously neutral, objective
facts of Science.
[By way of illustration, let me recall an announcement earlier
this year by the BBC concerning the new Art exhibition in London's
National Gallery - Seeing the Light. Members of the public were
informed that the curators had kindly posted explanatory captions
against each picture for the benefit of all perusing the displays
who were 'not religious'. The potency of this declaration lay in
the fact that listeners think that they are merely being informed
whereas in reality they are being subliminally conditioned to categorise
human beings as either religious or non-religious.]
It is however philosophically dishonest to make such a division.
As we have stated earlier, we are all believers in something. The
issue is not that some have beliefs while others don't. Rather it
is that some believe what is true, while others believe what is
false.
So is Christianity & the Bible true - historically, scientifically
and objectively or is atheistic, humanistic, materialism true? One's
allegiance to either requires a certain leap of faith. For example,
the secular humanist believes that
- nothing
but blind impersonal chance directs the energy which drives the
universe
- all
that exists are photons and atoms (waves and particles) which
behave uniformly and consistently.
- all
processes are natural processes which may ultimately be understood
as a single mathematical equation. Hence mathematicians and physicists
hold the keys to real/absolute knowledge and truth.
- all
thought and feeling are comprehensible in terms of natural electro-mechanical
processes
- death
is simply physical obliteration.
- God
and spiritual ideas are helpful (utilitarian) figments of imagination
etc.
If
he is ruthlessly honest (but why should he be?) reason and rationality
have no prior claim upon his thoughts than irrationality. If blind,
purposeless chance is the sole driving forces behind the universe,
why should there even be such a thing as reason?
It ought to be apparent to all thinking individuals that none of
the above are hard facts: demonstrably or empirically true. Hence
the Science built upon such foundational assumptions is tantamount
to atheism - a belief.
As we stated at the beginning, Christians, with very good reason,
reckon the Scriptures of the Old & New Testaments a reliable
guide concerning just what we are to believe. They are not merely
religious documents. They provide us with a true account of Earth
history which we ignore at our peril. Many who parade as competent
scientists today are unwittingly asking the same question which
Satan first uttered back in Genesis, 'Did God really say...?'(3:1)
A true knowledge about real nature of everything (i.e. the goal
of true Science) will inevitably lead those who possess such knowledge
to a realisation that they have been supernaturally and specially
created by Jesus Christ. This same God therefore has a rightful
claim upon their life - indeed, by virtue of His historical creative
act, He actually owns them (Col 1:17). Ownership logically implies
accountability and accountability anticipates judgement.
True Science then should confirm pupils' realisation that they are
rational, spiritual beings of infinite worth with immortal souls
whose eternal destiny, because of their sin, is placed in the balance.
True science is no enemy of true religion. Indeed, the fear of
the Lord is the beginning of knowledge and of wisdom (Proverbs
1:7 and 9:10). As the 17th century astronomer Johannes Kepler remarked,
his work consisted of 'thinking God's thoughts after Him'.
May it please God to raise up a new generation of Scientists who
are duly respectful of their Maker and who, recognising the limitations
of human scientific enquiry, give full weight of respect to the
statements of propositional truth of Holy Scripture - being the
authoritative Word of God.
Top
|
