Big Bang Creationism Evolution Intelligent Design theistic evolution

Must Christians believe in the Big Bang theory?

Spread the love

J. R. Miller offers a reasonable discussion of varieties of Biblical creationism:

Maybe you have heard the accusation that biblical creationists are blinded by their ancient theology which forces them to reject the modern “scientific fact” of evolution. But what do people mean by this accusation? What is evolution? Is biblical creation a de facto rejection of evolution science itself or just a rejection of how some scientists interpret the data? The answer, it turns out, depends on how one defines evolution. Therefore, to properly address this supposed conflict between biblical creation and evolution theory let me start with some simple definitions.

For example,

So, if the Bible teaches the cosmos had a beginning, does that mean all Christian must believe in the Big Bang? No. As previously mentioned, even scientists committed to a naturalistic worldview do not accept the Big Bang as settled science. Natalie Wolchover writes for Quanta Magazine, “The leading hypothesis about the universe’s birth — that a quantum speck of space became energized and inflated in a split second, creating a baby cosmos — solves many puzzles and fits all observations to date. Yet this “cosmic inflation” hypothesis lacks definitive proof. Telltale ripples that should have formed in the inflating spatial fabric, known as primordial gravitational waves, haven’t been detected in the geometry of the universe by the world’s most sensitive telescopes.”

So while belief in the Big Bang is a live option for Christians, it does not mean the Bible teaches the Big Banga—a theory which only addresses physical causation and speaks nothing about the Divine origin through God’s spoken word. That being said, there are elements of the theory which are compatible with biblical cosmology. Most notably, the Big Bang theory posits an absolute beginning of space and time which comports with the biblical teaching of creation ex nihilo (Gen. 1; Psa 33:5–6). The history of Big Bang science reveals this important connection. The theory was first known as the hypothesis of the primeval atom, posited in 1931 by Georges Lemaitre (mathematician, priest, and physicist). His theory looked at the evidence for the expanding universe as evidence for a smaller denser ex nihilobeginning. His theory also supported the idea of an expanding universe stretched out by God’s hand (Job 9:8; Isa 42:5; Jer. 10:12). Lemaitre’s theory ran counter to thousands of years of Aristotelian science which held to an eternal and unchanging universe. Ironically, it was anti-religious bigotry that which assumed a naturalistic cause that kept some scientists from examining the evidence on its own merit. Physicist Fred Hoyle derided the “Big Bang” model as an “irrational process” that “can’t be described in scientific terms,” akin to creationism. In 1965, Hoyle scrambled to find an ad hocsolution to explain the cosmic microwave background data and save his Steady State Theory. Hoyle rejected all the evidence for the Big Bang theory until his death in 2001. J.R. Miller, “3 Meanings of Evolution & Biblical Creation” at More than Cake

Could be helpful if you can still find a rational discussion group on controversial topics.

See also: Miller: The evidence shows that Lucy is an ape species, not a human ancestor (J. R. Miller)

Fine-tuning of the universe: Why David Hume’s objections fail (Joseph R. Miller)

Do racial assumptions prevent recognizing Homo erectus as fully human?  (Joseph R. Miller)

and

Was Neanderthal man fully human? The role racism played in assessing the evidence (Joseph R. Miller)

15 Replies to “Must Christians believe in the Big Bang theory?

  1. 1
    daveS says:

    The last paragraph of Miller’s conclusion:

    Why does biblical creation matter? The ultimate problem with rejecting biblical creation in favor of naturalistic evolution is that it leads to a diminution of human sacredness. The erosion of trust in Scripture to give a genuine revelation of cosmic and human origins leaves open the door for moral subjectivism and justification for euthanasia, racism, abortion, and any other social deviance mankind can imagine.

    Of course this essay is aimed at Christians (and not at me), and perhaps he’s saying something like “yes, you can be a Christian and believe in naturalistic evolution, but here are some very bad results of that belief”.

    But it reads like an argument from consequences. Isn’t the ultimate problem with rejecting biblical creation the fact that such a rejection is wrong? (In Miller’s view).

    It seems to me that the ultimate problem with any false belief is that it’s false, period.

  2. 2
    jdk says:

    re 1: :-).

    We need a like button, or thumbs up emoticon.

  3. 3
    OldAndrew says:

    There were Christians before there was a Big Bang theory. Doesn’t that conclusively answer the question?

  4. 4
    daveS says:

    Thanks, jdk.

  5. 5
    PaoloV says:

    Christians believe in Christ as their Lord and Saviour.
    That’s why they are Christians.
    They don’t have to believe in anything else.

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    daveS cites this conclusion from the article:

    Why does biblical creation matter? The ultimate problem with rejecting biblical creation in favor of naturalistic evolution is that it leads to a diminution of human sacredness. The erosion of trust in Scripture to give a genuine revelation of cosmic and human origins leaves open the door for moral subjectivism and justification for euthanasia, racism, abortion, and any other social deviance mankind can imagine.

    And then daveS argues that

    it reads like an argument from consequences. Isn’t the ultimate problem with rejecting biblical creation the fact that such a rejection is wrong? (In Miller’s view).

    It seems to me that the ultimate problem with any false belief is that it’s false, period.

    Yet the result of believing false things, besides the ‘simple’ fact that they are false and should, on that basis alone, not be believed, is the fact that they do indeed have bad consequences for us.

    As the supposed atheistic utopias of Soviet Russia, Communist China, and the Darwinian science of Nazi Germany, i.e. eugenics, euthanasia, etc… and present day abortion and euthanasia, as well as the overall degradation of morality in present day America, testify,,, the consequences of believing the false doctrine of Darwinian evolution have been downright catastrophic on man.

    But I agree with your overall sentiment, Darwinian evolution, and atheistic naturalism in general, should be rejected, first and foremost, simply because they are false.

    And grievously false at that.

    Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rzw0JkuKuQ

    In fact, it would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism, methodological naturalism and/or Darwinian evolution have turned out to be.

    Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification
    Excerpt: Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft).
    Bottom line, nothing is real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,,
    Paper with references for each claim page; Page 37:
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pAYmZpUWFEi3hu45FbQZEvGKsZ9GULzh8KM0CpqdePk/edit

    Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.

    To repeat, it would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism, methodological naturalism and/or Darwinian evolution have turned out to be.

    Verse:

    2 Corinthians 10:5
    Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

    Of related note, multiple lines of evidence from modern day science now, unequivocally, show that man is not nearly as inconsequential in this universe and on this earth as atheists have falsely been trying to portray us to be.

    Atheistic Materialism vs Meaning, Value, and Purpose in Our Lives – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqUxBSbFhog

    In fact, modern science even goes so far as to show that we are indeed “made in the image of God”

    In 2014 a group of leading evolutionary scientists stated that, after 4 decades of intense research, they have “essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,,”

    Leading Evolutionary Scientists Admit We Have No Evolutionary Explanation of Human Language – December 19, 2014
    Excerpt: Understanding the evolution of language requires evidence regarding origins and processes that led to change. In the last 40 years, there has been an explosion of research on this problem as well as a sense that considerable progress has been made. We argue instead that the richness of ideas is accompanied by a poverty of evidence, with essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,,
    (Marc Hauser, Charles Yang, Robert Berwick, Ian Tattersall, Michael J. Ryan, Jeffrey Watumull, Noam Chomsky and Richard C. Lewontin, “The mystery of language evolution,” Frontiers in Psychology, Vol 5:401 (May 7, 2014).)
    Casey Luskin added: “It’s difficult to imagine much stronger words from a more prestigious collection of experts.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....92141.html

    And Dr. Vedral, who is a Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, and who is also a recognized leader in the field of quantum mechanics, states, “The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena.”

    “The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena.”
    Vlatko Vedral – Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, and CQT (Centre for Quantum Technologies) at the National University of Singapore, and a Fellow of Wolfson College – a recognized leader in the field of quantum mechanics.

    It is hard to imagine a more convincing scientific proof that we are made ‘in the image of God’, and that we therefore have a very deep meaning and purpose for our lives, than finding both the universe, and life itself, are ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis, and that we, of all the creatures on earth, uniquely possess an ability to understand and create information, and, moreover, have come to ‘master the planet’ precisely because of our unique ability infuse information into material substrates.

    Verses

    Genesis 1:26
    And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

    John 1:1-4
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life, and that life was the Light of men.

    Perhaps a more convincing proof that we are made in the image of God, and that our lives truly do have meaning and purpose, could be if God Himself became a man, defeated death on a cross, and then rose from the dead to prove that He was indeed God.
    And that is precisely the claim of Christianity:

    Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, General Relativity and Christianity – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4QDy1Soolo

    Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words “The Lamb”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tmka1l8GAQ

    Verses:

    Colossians 1:15-20
    The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

  7. 7
    ScuzzaMan says:

    I think what the above comments are missing is that you can KNOW they’re false BECAUSE they have such deleterious consequences.

    Dealing with reality, as it actually is, is a prerequisite for prolonged success.

    Denying reality will eventually bite you hard in a soft place.

    Wherefore by their fruits shall ye know them

    … said some guy, who might be relevant to the definition (i.e. necessary elements) of Christianity.

  8. 8
    daveS says:

    ScuzzaMan,

    I think what the above comments are missing is that you can KNOW they’re false BECAUSE they have such deleterious consequences.

    Dealing with reality, as it actually is, is a prerequisite for prolonged success.

    Denying reality will eventually bite you hard in a soft place.

    That is true in some cases, certainly. If somehow I come to believe that I can fly, then it’s likely that I will encounter some very deleterious consequences. And when those consequences unfold, as I plummet to the ground, I would (briefly) realize that my belief is/was actually false.

    But does (or would) the existence of the ills that Miller describes tell me that naturalistic evolution is false? I don’t see how.

  9. 9
    daveS says:

    To clarify a little, in the last sentence of #8, I’m referring to the existence of those ills among people who accept naturalistic evolution.

  10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    daveS states;

    But does (or would) the existence of the ills that Miller describes tell me that naturalistic evolution is false? I don’t see how.

    and

    I’m referring to the existence of those ills among people who accept naturalistic evolution.

    The negative consequences for atheists believing false things, such as the false belief that there is no value, meaning, and purpose to life, is just one of the many lines of evidence that show us that their naturalistic/Darwinian worldview is false.

    Atheistic Materialism vs Meaning, Value, and Purpose in Our Lives – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqUxBSbFhog

    Moreover, these negative consequences for atheists play out both mentally and physically

    “I maintain that whatever else faith may be, it cannot be a delusion.
    The advantageous effect of religious belief and spirituality on mental and physical health is one of the best-kept secrets in psychiatry and medicine generally. If the findings of the huge volume of research on this topic had gone in the opposite direction and it had been found that religion damages your mental health, it would have been front-page news in every newspaper in the land.”
    – Professor Andrew Sims former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists – Is Faith Delusion?: Why religion is good for your health – preface
    “In the majority of studies, religious involvement is correlated with well-being, happiness and life satisfaction; hope and optimism; purpose and meaning in life; higher self-esteem; better adaptation to bereavement; greater social support and less loneliness; lower rates of depression and faster recovery from depression; lower rates of suicide and fewer positive attitudes towards suicide; less anxiety; less psychosis and fewer psychotic tendencies; lower rates of alcohol and drug use and abuse; less delinquency and criminal activity; greater marital stability and satisfaction… We concluded that for the vast majority of people the apparent benefits of devout belief and practice probably outweigh the risks.”
    – Professor Andrew Sims former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists – Is Faith Delusion?: Why religion is good for your health – page 100
    https://books.google.com/books?id=PREdCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA100#v=onepage&q&f=false

    Can attending church really help you live longer? This study says yes – June 1, 2017
    Excerpt: Specifically, the study says those middle-aged adults who go to church, synagogues, mosques or other houses of worship reduce their mortality risk by 55%. The Plos One journal published the “Church Attendance, Allostatic Load and Mortality in Middle Aged Adults” study May 16.
    “For those who did not attend church at all, they were twice as likely to die prematurely than those who did who attended church at some point over the last year,” Bruce said.
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/06/02/can-attending-church-really-help-you-live-longer-study-says-yes/364375001/

    Study: Religiously affiliated people lived “9.45 and 5.64 years longer…”
    July 1, 2018
    Excerpt: Self-reported religious service attendance has been linked with longevity. However, previous work has largely relied on self-report data and volunteer samples. Here, mention of a religious affiliation in obituaries was analyzed as an alternative measure of religiosity. In two samples (N = 505 from Des Moines, IA, and N = 1,096 from 42 U.S. cities), the religiously affiliated lived 9.45 and 5.64 years longer, respectively, than the nonreligiously affiliated. Additionally, social integration and volunteerism partially mediated the religion–longevity relation.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/study-religiously-affiliated-people-lived-religiously-affiliated-lived-9-45-and-5-64-years-longer/

    Can Religion Extend Your Life? – By Chuck Dinerstein — June 16, 2018
    Excerpt: The researcher’s regression analysis suggested that the effect of volunteering and participation accounted for 20% or 1 year of the impact, while religious affiliation accounted for the remaining four years or 80%.
    https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/06/16/can-religion-extend-your-life-13092

    But besides those personal negative consequences for Darwinian atheists, many lines of experimental evidence also show us that Darwinian evolution is false

    Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rzw0JkuKuQ

    As to the topic of atheists believing false things in general, as Donald Hoffman has shown through numerous computer simulations of population genetics, if Darwinian evolution were actually true then ALL of our observations of reality would be illusory.

    The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality – April 2016
    The cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman uses evolutionary game theory to show that our perceptions of an independent reality must be illusions.
    Excerpt: “The classic argument is that those of our ancestors who saw more accurately had a competitive advantage over those who saw less accurately and thus were more likely to pass on their genes that coded for those more accurate perceptions, so after thousands of generations we can be quite confident that we’re the offspring of those who saw accurately, and so we see accurately. That sounds very plausible. But I think it is utterly false. It misunderstands the fundamental fact about evolution, which is that it’s about fitness functions — mathematical functions that describe how well a given strategy achieves the goals of survival and reproduction. The mathematical physicist Chetan Prakash proved a theorem that I devised that says: According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness. Never.”
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality/

    The Interface Theory of Perception – 2015
    Donald D. Hoffman & Manish Singh & Chetan Prakash
    http://people.psych.cornell.ed.....erface.pdf
    http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/image.....15_PBR.pdf (follow-up discussion)

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    What If Evolution Bred Reality Out Of Us? – September 6, 2016
    Excerpt: Fundamentally, Hoffman argues, evolution and reality (the objective kind) have almost nothing to do with each other.,,,
    “Given an arbitrary world and arbitrary fitness functions, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but that is just tuned to fitness.”,,,
    So imagine you have two kinds of creatures living in an environment. The first is tuned to respond directly to objective reality — the actual independent reality out there. The other creature has behavior only tuned to its, and the environment’s, fitness function. The second creature could care less about what’s really going on in reality. What Hoffman’s theorem says is the fitness-tuned critter will — almost always — win the evolution game.,,,
    “We assume the ‘predicates’ of perceptions — space, time, physical objects, shapes — are the right ones to describe physical reality. And this theorem says that [such] predicates are [the wrong ones] almost surely.”
    In other words, evolution could care less if you perceive objective reality. It only wants you to have sex successfully.,,,
    http://www.npr.org/sections/13.....-out-of-us

    Donald Hoffman: Do we see reality as it is? – Video – 9:59 minute mark
    Quote: “Fitness is not the same thing as reality as it is, and it is fitness, and not reality as it is, that figures centrally in the equations of evolution. So, in my lab, we have run hundreds of thousands of evolutionary game simulations with lots of different randomly chosen worlds and organisms that compete for resources in those worlds. Some of the organisms see all of the reality. Others see just part of the reality. And some see none of the reality. Only fitness. Who wins? Well I hate to break it to you but perception of reality goes extinct. In almost every simulation, organisms that see none of reality, but are just tuned to fitness, drive to extinction that perceive reality as it is. So the bottom line is, evolution does not favor veridical, or accurate perceptions. Those (accurate) perceptions of reality go extinct. Now this is a bit stunning. How can it be that not seeing the world accurately gives us a survival advantage?”
    https://youtu.be/oYp5XuGYqqY?t=601

    Yet, reliable observation is a necessary cornerstone of the scientific method.

    Steps of the Scientific Method
    Observation/Research
    Hypothesis
    Prediction
    Experimentation
    Conclusion
    http://www.sciencemadesimple.c.....ethod.html

    Thus, since Darwinian evolution denies ‘reliable observation’, which is a necessary cornerstone of the scientific method itself, then obviously Darwinian evolution can never be based upon the scientific method and is therefore falsified once again in its claim to be a scientific theory.

    Moreover, completely contrary to what Hoffman found for Darwinian theory, it turns out that accurate perception, i.e. conscious observation, far from being unreliable and illusory, is experimentally found to be far more integral to reality, i.e. far more reliable of reality, than the mathematics of population genetics predicted. In the following experiment, it was found that reality doesn’t exist without an observer.

    New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It – June 3, 2015
    Excerpt: The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts.
    “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,,
    “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said.
    Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer.
    http://themindunleashed.org/20.....at-it.html

    Apparently science itself could care less if atheists are forced to believe, because of the mathematics of population genetics, that their observations of reality are illusory!

    As Richard Feynman stated: “If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”

    The Scientific Method – Richard Feynman – video
    Quote: “If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY

    Verse:

    2 Corinthians 10:5
    Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

  12. 12
    Seversky says:

    bornagain77 @ 6

    Yet the result of believing false things, besides the ‘simple’ fact that they are false and should, on that basis alone, not be believed, is the fact that they do indeed have bad consequences for us.

    False beliefs can certainly have unfortunate consequences for believers. Jumping off a tall building in the false belief that you can fly unaided like Superman will bring you up against hard reality somewhat abruptly – and fatally. But then so did the sincere belief that the effects of diabetes could be cured by prayer lead to the death of the daughter of the devout family that prayed so hard.

    As the supposed atheistic utopias of Soviet Russia, Communist China, and the Darwinian science of Nazi Germany, i.e. eugenics, euthanasia, etc… and present day abortion and euthanasia, as well as the overall degradation of morality in present day America, testify,,, the consequences of believing the false doctrine of Darwinian evolution have been downright catastrophic on man.

    The socialist dystopias of Soviet Russia, Communist China and Nazi Germany were built on political ideologies that were incidentally atheist. Do we really need to look at earlier theocratic states that were equally oppressive? Do we really need to review the virulent anti-Semitism of Martin Luther, one of the founding fathers of Protestantism?

    As for Darwin’s theory of evolution, like its subsequent developments, it is an attempt to explain what we observe around us. It is not a doctrine which decrees how we should behave towards one another.

    But I agree with your overall sentiment, Darwinian evolution, and atheistic naturalism in general, should be rejected, first and foremost, simply because they are false.

    Evolution, naturalism and atheism are far from perfect but they are truer than any of the alternatives in my view.

    In fact, it would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism, methodological naturalism and/or Darwinian evolution have turned out to be.

    Strange then that science and technology have proven to be more prodigiously fruitful and productive the more they have distanced themselves from religious presuppositions.

    Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.

    Do you believe that vaccines can protect you against some of the world’s worst diseases or do you prefer to rely on prayer? If you or someone close began to display some worrying symptoms of illness, would you consult the Bible or your family doctor?

    Sticks that turn into snakes, talking snakes, the parting of seas, someone turned into a pillar of salt for daring to look at God’s work, a crowd of thousands fed with a few loaves and fishes, water turned into wine – just which of us is adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination?

    In fact, modern science even goes so far as to show that we are indeed “made in the image of God”

    Just exactly what does that mean? Are we like God physically? Are you saying that God is a bipedal hominoid? Does He have a navel? Are we like God mentally? Given that we are not omniscient, that we do not see the innermost recesses of every other mind, that not a sparrow falls, etc that seems unlikely as well. So, again, in what way are we made in God’s image?

    And Dr. Vedral, who is a Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, and who is also a recognized leader in the field of quantum mechanics, states, “The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena.

    The problem with this is that information, in the sense we use in everyday conversation, is about something and that something precedes the information that we acquire about it. So if Dr Vedral envisages information as the foundation of all reality, preceding everything else, then he is using the word in a very different sense to the one I understand. If you’re familiar with Dr Vedral’s work, perhaps you can find a passage from his works which defines information in the sense he is using it.

  13. 13
    bornagain77 says:

    In defense of his false belief in Darwinian atheism, a false belief which, as mentioned at the bottom of post 10 continuing through post 11, “if Darwinian evolution were actually true then ALL of our observations of reality would be illusory”,,, regardless of that crushing fact Seversky states this anyway,

    False beliefs can certainly have unfortunate consequences for believers. Jumping off a tall building in the false belief that you can fly unaided like Superman will bring you up against hard reality somewhat abruptly – and fatally. But then so did the sincere belief that the effects of diabetes could be cured by prayer lead to the death of the daughter of the devout family that prayed so hard.

    First off, it might surprise Seversky to know that modern day hospitals and medicine in general owe their existence to Christianity:

    The Christian Origins of Hospitals – FEBRUARY 6, 2012
    Excerpt: as Charles Rosenberg shows in his volume, The Care of Strangers, The Rise of America’s Hospital System*, the modern hospital owes its origins to Judeo-Christian compassion. Evidence of the vast expansion of faith-based hospitals is seen in the legacy of their names: St. Vincent’s, St. Luke’s, Mt. Sinai, Presbyterian, Mercy, and Beth Israel. These were all charitable hospitals, some of which began as foundling hospitals to care for abandoned children.
    Similarly, in Europe, great hospitals were built under the auspices of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Indeed, an ancient French term for hospital is hôtel-Dieu (“hostel of God”). In 1863, the Société Genevoise d’Utilité Publique called on Swiss Christian businessman Jean Henri Dunant to form a relief organization for caring for wartime wounded. Thus, the emblem of the Red Cross was codified in the Geneva Convention one year later. In Britain, Dame Cicely Saunders founded the hospice movement by establishing St. Christopher’s Hospice in the south of London in 1967.
    https://biblemesh.com/blog/the-christian-origins-of-hospitals/

    The Christian Contribution to Medicine
    Many very important discoveries in many medical fields were made by people who held a Christian commitment and there is not room to mention them all here: William Harvey (circulation), Jan Swammerdam (lymph vessels and red cells) and Niels Stensen (fibrils in muscle contraction) were all people of faith, while Albrecht von Haller, widely regarded as the founder of modern physiology and author of the first physiology textbook, was a devout believer; Abbe Spallanzani (digestion, reproductive physiology), Stephen Hales (haemostatics, urinary calculi and artificial ventilation), Marshall Hall (reflex nerve action) and Michael Foster (heart muscle contraction and founder of Journal of Physiology) were just some among many others.

    The same can be said of the advance of surgical techniques and practice. Ambroise Pare abandoned the horrific use of the cautery to treat wounds and made many significant surgical discoveries and improvements. The Catholic Louis Pasteur’s discovery of germs was a turning point in the understanding of infection. Lister (a Quaker) was the first to apply his discoveries to surgery, changing surgical practice forever. Davy and Faraday, who discovered and pioneered the use of anaesthesia in surgery, were well known for their Christian faith, and the obstetrician James Simpson, a very humble believer, was the first to use ether and chloroform in midwifery. James Syme, an excellent pioneer Episcopalian surgeon, was among the first to use anaesthesia and aseptic techniques together. William Halsted of Johns Hopkins pioneered many new operations and introduced many more aseptic practices (eg rubber gloves), while William Keen, a Baptist, was the first to successfully operate on a brain tumour.
    Clinical medicine and patient care:
    It is not surprising to find that, again, due to their commitment to love and serve those weaker than themselves as Christ did, people of faith were at the forefront of advancing standards of clinical medicine and patient care throughout the ages. Thomas Sydenham is sometimes hailed as the ‘English Hippocrates’. He stressed the importance of personal, scientific observation and holistic care for patients, and he was one of the brave ‘plague doctors’ who did not desert the sick and dying during the Great Plague of London. Herman Boerhaave followed in Sydenham’s footsteps, and was very influential in pioneering modern clinical medicine, while William Osler taught all medical students to base their attitudes and care for their patients on the standards laid down in the Bible.
    https://www.cmf.org.uk/resources/publications/content/?context=article&id=827

    Louis Pasteur, renowned for his discoveries of the principles of vaccination, thought materialistic philosophers to be foolish.

    Louis Pasteur (December 27, 1822 – September 28, 1895) was a French chemist and microbiologist renowned for his discoveries of the principles of vaccination, microbial fermentation and pasteurization. He is remembered for his remarkable breakthroughs in the causes and preventions of diseases, and his discoveries have saved countless lives ever since.
    per wikipedia

    Louis Pasteur on life, matter, and spontaneous generation – June 21, 2015
    “Science brings men nearer to God.,,
    Posterity will one day laugh at the foolishness of modern materialistic philosophers. The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. I pray while I am engaged at my work in the laboratory.,,
    The Greeks understood the mysterious power of the below things. They are the ones who gave us one of the most beautiful words in our language, the word enthusiasm: a God within.,,,
    I have been looking for spontaneous generation for twenty years without discovering it. No, I do not judge it impossible. But what allows you to make it the origin of life? You place matter before life and you decide that matter has existed for all eternity. How do you know that the incessant progress of science will not compel scientists to consider that life has existed during eternity, and not matter? You pass from matter to life because your intelligence of today cannot conceive things otherwise. How do you know that in ten thousand years, one will not consider it more likely that matter has emerged from life? You move from matter to life because your current intelligence, so limited compared to what will be the future intelligence of the naturalist, tells you that things cannot be understand otherwise. If you want to be among the scientific minds, what only counts is that you will have to get rid of a priori reasoning and ideas, and you will have to do necessary deductions not giving more confidence than we should to deductions from wild speculation.”
    [en francais, Pasteur et la philosophie, Patrice Pinet, Editions L’Harmattan, p. 63.]

    Edward Jenner, who, like Pasteur, was a devout Christian, and who also was instrumental in the smallpox vaccination, was an English physician who was a champion of vaccination in spite of ‘fierce opposition and in the teeth of threats against himself.’

    “The most famous champion of vaccination was a Christian doctor, *Edward Jenner* who did his work against fierce opposition and in the teeth of threats against himself. In effect he wiped out smallpox from among the diseases that terrify mankind. He died from a cold caught carrying firewood to an impoverished woman.”
    http://www.rae.org/pdf/influsci.pdf

    As to polio and measles, John Enders, “The Father of Modern Vaccines”, towards the end of his life stated that “There must be a mind behind it all.”

    John Enders, MD
    Death Bed: “On a September evening at their water front home in Connecticut, in 1985, Enders was reading T.S. Eliot aloud to his wife, Carolyn. He finished and went to bed, then quietly died. He was eighty-eight. At his memorial service his friend, the Bishop F.C. Laurence, said, “John Enders never lost his sense of wonder – wonder at the great mystery that exists and surrounds all of God’s creation. This awareness is what gave him his wide vision and open mindedness, his continued interest in all things new, his ability to listen, his humility in the presence of this great mystery, and his never-ending search for the truth.” His widow said that John briefly revealed his heart when he told her, concerning how creation ran, “There must be a mind behind it all.”
    http://www.scienceheroes.com/i.....Itemid=117
    of note:
    T.S. Eliot’s extraordinary journey of faith
    http://www.abc.net.au/religion.....972229.htm

    The same can be found with the discovery of antibiotics. Antibiotics pioneer Ernst Chain said he “would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation” as Darwinism

    Ernst Chain: Antibiotics Pioneer
    Excerpt: In 1938, Chain stumbled across Alexander Fleming’s 1929 paper on penicillin in the British Journal of Experimental Pathology, which he brought to the attention of his colleague Florey.7 During their research, Chain isolated and purified penicillin. It was largely this work that earned him his numerous honors and awards, including a fellow of the Royal Society and numerous honorary degrees,8 the Pasteur Medal, the Paul Ehrlich Centenary Prize, the Berzelius Medal, and a knighthood.9,,,
    Chain concluded that he “would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation” as Darwinism.,,,
    Chain made it very clear what he believed about the Creator and our relationship to Him. He wrote that scientists “looking for ultimate guidance in questions of moral responsibility” would do well to “turn, or return, to the fundamental and lasting values of the code of ethical behaviour forming part of the divine message which man was uniquely privileged to receive through the intermediation of a few chosen individuals.”19
    http://www.icr.org/article/ern.....s-pioneer/

    Ernst Chain, who was awarded the 1945 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine, and is considered to be one of the founders of the field of antibiotics, spoke strongly against Darwin’s theory. He said the theory of evolution was a “very feeble attempt to explain the origin of species based on assumptions so flimsy that it can hardly be called a theory.” He referred to evolution as a “hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts.” He also said, “These classic evolutionary theories are a gross oversimplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they were swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest.” Chain concluded that he “would rather believe in fairies than to ever believe in such wild speculation of Darwin.”
    https://biblicalsignsintheheadlines.com/2016/03/21/debunking-evolution-challenging-the-lie-that-challenges-god/

    Philip Skell, another researcher in antibiotics, is scathing of the claim that Darwinian evolution has contributed to medicine

    “Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming’s discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.,,,
    Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology.
    Philip S. Skell – (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences.
    http://www.discovery.org/a/2816

    In fact, it is by recognizing the limits of what unguided material processes can do, (recognizing that there are in fact strict limits to what Darwinian processes can do), that the most promising avenues of medical research into new drugs that combat disease are now being found:

    Guide of the Perplexed: A Quick Reprise of The Edge of Evolution – Michael Behe – August 20, 2014
    Excerpt: If there were a second drug with the efficacy of chloroquine which had always been administered in combination with it (but worked by a different mechanism), resistance to the combination would be expected to arise with a frequency in the neighborhood of 1 in 10^40 — a medical triumph.
    per ENV

    The multiple drug cocktail that has been so effective in controlling HIV uses much the same strategy of being beyond the ‘edge of evolution’ that Dr. Behe elucidated in the preceding article:

    When taking any single drug, it is fairly likely that some mutant virus in the patient might happen to be resistant, survive the onslaught, and spawn a resistant lineage.
    But the probability that the patient hosts a mutant virus that happens to be resistant to several different drugs at the same time is much lower.,,,
    it “costs” a pest or pathogen to be resistant to a pesticide or drug. If you place resistant and non-resistant organisms in head-to-head competition in the absence of the pesticide or drug, the non-resistant organisms generally win.,,,
    This therapy has shown early, promising results — it may not eliminate HIV, but it could keep patients’ virus loads low for a long time, slowing progression of the disease.
    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/.....edicine_04

  14. 14
    bornagain77 says:

    Neurosurgeon Michael Egnor states Darwinian explanations by themselves are ‘worthless to medicine’.

    Darwinian Medicine and Proximate and Evolutionary Explanations – Michael Egnor – neurosurgeon – June 2011
    Excerpt: 4) Evolutionary explanations by themselves are worthless to medicine. All medical treatments are based on detailed proximate explanations.
    – per ENV

    Ferngren states “Darwin’s theory did not make a significant contribution to clinical medicine.”

    Limited role of Darwinism in medicine – May 2, 2014
    Excerpt: In eight well-written and thoroughly researched chapters, Ferngren takes the reader from ancient times to the Greco-Roman period, early Christianity, into the Middle Ages and the Islamic world, to the early modern period, and on into the 19th and 20th centuries. The roots of Western medicine, we learn, can be found in the transformative effects of Judeo-Christian traditions.
    But the story told here is also about the eclipse of those traditions. While it is not a book on or about Darwinism, Ferngren states accurately that “Darwin’s theory did not make a significant contribution to clinical medicine.”
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....-medicine/

    In fact, in so far as the Darwinian meta-narrative has influenced medical diagnostics, it has led to much medical malpractice in the past:

    Evolution’s “vestigial organ” argument debunked
    Excerpt: “The appendix, like the once ‘vestigial’ tonsils and adenoids, is a lymphoid organ (part of the body’s immune system) which makes antibodies against infections in the digestive system. Believing it to be a useless evolutionary ‘left over,’ many surgeons once removed even the healthy appendix whenever they were in the abdominal cavity. Today, removal of a healthy appendix under most circumstances would be considered medical malpractice” (David Menton, Ph.D., “The Human Tail, and Other Tales of Evolution,” St. Louis MetroVoice , January 1994, Vol. 4, No. 1).
    “Doctors once thought tonsils were simply useless evolutionary leftovers and took them out thinking that it could do no harm. Today there is considerable evidence that there are more troubles in the upper respiratory tract after tonsil removal than before, and doctors generally agree that simple enlargement of tonsils is hardly an indication for surgery” (J.D. Ratcliff, Your Body and How it Works, 1975, p. 137).
    The tailbone, properly known as the coccyx, is another supposed example of a vestigial structure that has been found to have a valuable function—especially regarding the ability to sit comfortably. Many people who have had this bone removed have great difficulty sitting.
    http://www.ucg.org/science/god.....-debunked/

    In fact besides medical malpractice, Darwinian evolution, with its false predictions, such as ‘junk DNA, has a long history of sending all of biological science down blind alleys instead of fostering medical breakthroughs:

    Why investigate evolution’s false predictions?
    Excerpt: The predictions examined in this paper were selected according to several criteria. They cover a wide spectrum of evolutionary theory and are fundamental to the theory, reflecting major tenets of evolutionary thought. They were widely held by the consensus rather than reflecting one viewpoint of several competing viewpoints. Each prediction was a natural and fundamental expectation of the theory of evolution, and constituted mainstream evolutionary science. Furthermore, the selected predictions are not vague but rather are specific and can be objectively evaluated. They have been tested and evaluated and the outcome is not controversial or in question. And finally the predictions have implications for evolution’s (in)capacity to explain phenomena, as discussed in the conclusions.
    https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/why-investigate-evolution-s-false-predictions

    Moreover, if atheists were truly concerned with maintaining a healthy society, (instead of just trying to maintain their atheistic beliefs no matter what propaganda they have to spew), then they should be first and foremost to renounce their atheism since atheism is shown to be very unhealthy for individuals and for society as a whole: See top of post 10 for references to that effect. Also see euthanasia, eugenics and abortion.

    Moreover, in his statement Seversky also tried to imply that prayer was completely ineffectual and that miracles can NEVER happen. He is wrong on both counts:

    Medical Miracles Really Do Happen
    Excerpt: No one knows exactly how often such cases occur. Approximately 3,500 medically documented cases of seeming miracles — based on reports from doctors in America and around the world dating to 1967 — have appeared in 800 peer-reviewed medical journals and cover all major illnesses, including cancer, heart disease, diabetes and arthritis.*
    http://www.care2.com/news/member/818150751/443473

    It’s Okay to Expect a Miracle | Christianity Today – Keener
    Excerpt: I got seven eyewitness accounts of people being raised from the dead. One was my sister-in-law, Therese. I asked my mother-in-law to tell me about it, with my wife translating from one of the local languages. My mother-in-law described how Therese was bitten by a snake. By the time my mother-in-law got to her, she wasn’t breathing. No medical help was available. She strapped the child to her back and ran to a nearby village, where a friend who was an evangelist prayed for Therese. She started breathing again.
    http://www.christianitytoday.c.....ml?start=1

    Miracles: Keener’s Reflections – video playlist
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....ature=plcp

    Miracles: Can a Scientist Believe in Miracles
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9G8o7JXlbE
    at the 24:00 minute mark of the preceding video the speaker. who is a scientist, gives testimony of his son being miraculously healed of an incurable disease

    Testing Prayer: Science and Miraculous Healing – Candy Gunther Brown at Boston College – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRfLooh3ZOk

    A Systematic Review of the Empirical Literature on Intercessory Prayer – March 2010
    Excerpt: Meta-analysis indicated small, but significant, effect sizes for the use of intercessory prayer,,
    http://rsw.sagepub.com/cgi/con.....t/17/2/174

    Bottom line, Seversky dishonestly tried to say that Christianity was antagonistic towards medicine, and science in general, and that prayer was completely ineffectual.

    Seversky is, as usual, completely wrong in his bias against Christianity.

    The truth of the matter is that Darwinian Evolution in particular, and Atheism in general, have been disasters for both medicine and science.

    As stated previously in the middle of post 6, ” it would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism, methodological naturalism and/or Darwinian evolution have turned out to be.”

    Verse:

    Luke 8:43-48
    And a woman having an issue of blood twelve years, which had spent all her living upon physicians, neither could be healed of any,
    Came behind him, and touched the border of his garment: and immediately her issue of blood stanched.
    And Jesus said, Who touched me? When all denied, Peter and they that were with him said, Master, the multitude throng thee and press thee, and sayest thou, Who touched me?
    And Jesus said, Somebody hath touched me: for I perceive that virtue is gone out of me.
    And when the woman saw that she was not hid, she came trembling, and falling down before him, she declared unto him before all the people for what cause she had touched him, and how she was healed immediately.
    And he said unto her, Daughter, be of good comfort: thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace.

  15. 15
    Pearlman says:

    if anyone is interested in a cosmological that fully aligns with scriptural testimony and attests to thousands not billions timeline see SPIRAL cosmological Redshift Hypothesis, that to date has help up well as the stronger science ie higher probability explanation of the natural observations, vs SCM-LCDM

Leave a Reply