The subject of origins is a passionately debated topic with each group firmly entrenched in their position. Many Christians are unaware of what the Bible really teaches on this subject, and as a result have accepted a non-biblical position on origins. Last week we disproved the myth that the word “Day” as used in Genesis is ambiguous. (Read Post Here: READ)
This week we will discuss the following myth:
There is no Proof for Creation or a Young Earth.
The key word in the above phrase is proof, and this drives the following two questions:
- What does proof mean?
- What is proof?
There are seven different types of proof that we use, in this post we will only be discussing two of them. If you would like more information on the other five types of proof, read this previous POST.
The two types of proof that we will be discussing are Empirical Proof, and Historical Proof.
- Empirical Proof: An Event that is BOTH Observable and Repeatable.
- Historical Proof: An Event that occurred in the past, and evidence must be gathered and evaluated.
Typically when someone asks for “proof” for something they are referring to Empirical Proof. They are asking for concrete, verifiable evidence that something has taken place, and they want this evidence to be proven either scientifically or mathematically.
However, it must be noted that it is impossible to prove origins empirically. That is, since neither the theory of evolution or creation is observable or repeatable it cannot be classified as Empirical Science, nor should either side be required to prove their position empirically. Since ‘the beginning’ (weather it was the big-bang or special creation) was a one time event it must be classified as Historical Science.
While many will make the statement that
All scientific evidence points to evolution
this is simply not true. Again, we must realize that we are dealing with Historical Science, not Empirical Science. Therefore, evidence must be gathered and evaluated to see which model it best fits. The most interesting thing about this process is that most evidence can be used for EITHER position.
For example, the Blue Nova Star burns bright, with intense heat, and burns out in only 10,000 years. Scientists have observed this phenomena take place in recent years. So how is this evidence viewed and evaluated?
- Creation: This event proves that God created the universe about 10,000 years ago. If the universe was older then 10,000 years we would not be able to see any blue nova stars nor would we see them explode.
- Evolution: This proves the evolutionary process continues today. At some point nearly 10,000 years ago, this star evolved and has burned out. This event has happened in the past and will continue to happen in the future as these stars continue to evolve.
Origins is not a scientific field, but a historical, philosophical and theological field. What determines what we believe is not the evidence we find, but the presupposition we use to evaluate the evidence we find. Those who believe the Bible is without error and accept Genesis 1 as literal will interpret the evidence one way, and those who do not will interpret the same evidence a completely different way.
Grace and Peace
.png){kind=small}
Bjerke,
Your position on origins is far to narrow. you cannot simply group people they way you do. Can’t someone love God and also respect science? You might benefit from reading some books on this subject specifically by Hugh Ross.
Luke,
Thank you for your post. You are correct, a person can love God and respect science. In fact, a person should love God and respect science. However, should a person alter biblical interpretation because of what science currently teaches?
Did you know that according to science in the late 18th Century the age of the earth was only 75,000 years old. This number has risen to 4.6 billion years. if we use science to interpret the Bible we would constantly be altering our interpretation. However, if we allow the Bible to interpret the Bible our position never changes.
Grace and Peace,
Bjerke,
These posts just demonstrate that you just do not get it. the Bible is NOT, i repeat is NOT a math, science, history, or geography book. Requiring this of he Bible is just silly. Why can’t you understand that the purpose of the Bible is FUNCTIONAL. Its function is to show us how to be saved. Origins is not important.
Why do you have to take such a ‘fundamental’ approach to the Bible? When you do this you reduce the purpose of the Bible and hinder its advancement.
Naz-Rev,
you are correct, the Bible is NOT a math, science, history or geography book. However, when the Bible speaks on these subjects it does so without error.
Why do you say the purpose of the Bible is ‘functional for salvation’? what is your internal evidence and external evidence for this? Are you merely relying on church teaching or church tradition for this information? The Bible states, in Mark 7:13 – thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that
Also, if origins is not important then why did you bother to post on this blog? If origins is not important then why does it matter what I believe and teach? The answer is origins is extremely important.
Grace and Peace