![]() Equine Origins Creation Vs. Evolution Horse Evolution God The Creator The Bible and Evolution in Conflict The Bible Stands Prehistoric Primitive Przewalski Chestnut Colored Horses The Non Evolution of the Horse Useless Body Parts? No Way! ![]() ![]() |
The Bible and Evolution In Conflict By Dr. Jobe Martin(Republished by written permission. See below.) From Chapter Three, "Has God Been Toppled?" (pg. 67) As
God's creatures, we do not subject the Bible to science; we subject
"science" to the Bible. The challenge whether to believe God and
His Word of to believe theoretical evolutionary science is presented by
Scott Huse, a Christian thinker, in his excellent book, The Collapse of Evolution.
The conflict of evolutionary theory against the Holy Scripture is
impossible to reconcile. Huse lists 24 contrasts between the
Bible and evolutionary thinking:
Evolution or creation: you cannot have both! Scott Huse's list is brutally clear. Look again at # 14, for example. The Bible says in Genesis 1:20-31 that birds came on the firth day and reptiles on the sixth day. That means birds came before reptiles. Yet evolution teaches as fact that reptiles came before birds. The two views are mutually exclusive. You either believe the Bible or you believe the speculations of men. Evolution and the Scientific Method (pg. 79-81) Scientists often make proclamations and publish papers that elevate them to god-like stratus. Are we forced to believe that science and scientific method have "toppled" God? From our earliest school days, we are taught that science is based on careful experimentation, observation, and disciplined thought. Science gives us facts. We can trust it. We are further educated by television programs and interviews with Ph.D.s like Carl Sagan stating that "evolution is no longer theory, put a proven fact." This is not the scientific method! Evolutionist, Hy Ruchlis, defines the scientific method"
"The Scientific Method is the basic set of procedures that scientists
use for obtaining new knowledge about the universe in which we live." Hy Ruchlus, Discovering Scientific Method (N.Y.: Harper & Row, 1963), p. 7
Making a proclamation that evolution is no longer a theory, but a proven fact is just that-a proclamation. It is not testable science. It does not fit within the definition of the Scientific Method. Scientific Method begins with making an observation. Then, prior knowledge is consulted about your observation and a hypothesis is formed (the hypothesis is some kind of prediction you make about your observation). Once you arrive at your hypothesis, you design an experiment, collect whatever information (data) you can from the results of your experiment and then attempt to interpret your data (results). At this point you again consult prior knowledge and then form your conclusions about your experiment. Ruchlis continues: "Unless the teachings of
the authorities on a subject are based upon scientific method, error can
be just as easily transmitted as fact..." The most important point to remember about the method of science is
that it rests upon the attitude of open mind. In accordance with
this attitude, one has the right to question any accepted fact.
One who searches for truth has to learn to question deeply the
things that are generally accepted as being obviously true (Emphasis
added). Ibid., Ruchlis, pp.7,8
How does evolution as a "scientific" explanation for origins measure up under Ruchlis' explanation of scientific method? It receives a failing grade. Could evolution be "error...transmitted as fact?" It certainly could. Do evolutionists present an "open mind?" Do they permit their classroom students to question evolution as perhaps not being "...obviously true?" One the contrary, evolutionists have amply demonstrated they want only one view taught in the classrooms of the world. When a credentialed scientist who is a creationist presents hard evidence to support the Creator and His creation, he or she is accused of teaching religion. But evolution from one cell to man is not based on the scientific method and is therefore a faith system. That means it is just as "religious" as belief in special creation. The question is not, "Are evolution, science, and creation religions?" but "which system of belief- creation or evolution-has the most factual science to back it up?" For example, evolution offers no experimentally verifiable explanation for the origin of matter. There is also no scientific explanation for the origin of life. No doubt about it, Creation and Evolution are both religious faith systems when talking about origins.
Next Page Home Equine Origins Equus In The Bible Equine Bible References Statement of Purpose and Belief Equest For Truth © Copyright 2006-2008, All Rights Reserved Webdesign, Photography, and Graphics by Rebekah L. Holt unless otherwise noted Contact Us |