Stephen M. Barr is a theoretical physicist at the Bartol Research Institute of the University of Delaware, and he believes the current battles between “science” and “religion” on the theories of origins are avoidable. He writes, in the article The Miracle of Evolution,
If biology remains only biology, it is not to be feared. Much of the fear that does exist is rooted in the notion that God is in competition with nature, so that the more we attribute to one the less we can attribute to the other. That is false. The greater the powers and potentialities in nature, the more magnificent must be nature’s far-sighted Author, that God whose “ways are unsearchable” and who “reaches from end to end ordering all things mightily.” Richard Dawkins famously called the universe “a blind watchmaker.” If it is, it is miracle enough for anyone; for it is incomparably greater to design a watchmaker than a watch. We need not pit evolution against design, if we recognize that evolution is part of God’s design.(1) Here is one creationist’s attempt to unite the current teachings of evolution with the teachings of the Bible. But is it really this simple? Barr continues.
The question for science is whether the neo-Darwinian account of evolution is sufficient to explain all instances of biological complexity. Many scientists are supremely confident that it is, which is strange, given that so little is known about the steps by which some complex structures actually evolved.(1)
In a similar vein, Eric Hovind writes, scientifically speaking, “Evolutionist proponents of the big bang theory claim that planets and stars formed when bits of matter and gas were compressed spontaneously. But this violates Boyle’s law of gas established in the seventeenth century, which states that gases cannot be compressed without some intervening mechanism. So what is the evolutionists’ intervening mechanism? Nothing. It happened all by itself; it was a miracle. They likewise believe that biological organisms could produce offspring of higher complexity simply by means of natural selection. This is not science, however, and must also fall within the realm of miracle. In fact, evolutionists hold on to many more miracles (or assumptions) in their religion of evolutionism.”(2)
It is yet another example of secular scientists relying on miracles, “As is common in evolutionary literature, Brunet and Arendt do not ask whether hard parts (skeleton) evolved, but only how they evolved. According to the “rules of science,” questioning naturalism is forbidden. By limiting one’s explanatory toolkit to unguided natural processes, however, difficulties arise. There’s nothing like an appeal to miracles to get around a difficulty. As Finagle advised, “Do not believe in miracles. Rely on them.”(3)
As scientists began to decode the human DNA molecule, they found something quite unexpected—an exquisite “language” composed of some 3 billion genetic letters. It’s hard for us to fathom, but the amount of information in human DNA is roughly equivalent to 12 sets of The Encyclopaedia Britannica— an incredible 384 volumes’ worth of detailed information that would fill 48 feet of library shelves!(4)
“The precision of this genetic language is such that the average mistake that is not caught turns out to be one error per 10 billion letters. If a mistake occurs in one of the most significant parts of the code, which is in the genes, it can cause a disease such as sickle-cell anemia. Yet even the best and most intelligent typist in the world couldn’t come close to making only one mistake per 10 billion letters—far from it. So to believe that the genetic code gradually evolved in Darwinian style would break all the known rules of how matter, energy and the laws of nature work. In fact, there has not been found in nature any example of one information system inside the cell gradually evolving into another functional information program.) (5)
Yet you will never hear these facts in evolutionary circles, nor in secular atheist college classrooms. But the absolute truth is that neither the study of Science, nor specifically the study of Biology, is incompatible with belief in Creation. They will in fact inevitably lead directly back to God.
America, just 50 years ago, was known to have the greatest educational system in the world. Perhaps the greatest in all of history. No rational person would say the same today. What happened?
A mere 50 years, a tiny drop in the ocean of time has passed, and we now have one of the least successful, least effective, most profligately wasteful educational systems in the world. As stated by educational expert Arne Duncan, “At no level – early childhood, K-12, higher ed – are we even in the top 10 internationally. And that should scare us. It is scary and it does not bode well for the future.” (1)
What happened? Well, of course, many things have happened. Atheism happened. Scientism happened. Working moms happened. Multiculturalism happened. Abortion happened. Substance abuse happened. Indoctrination happened. But how did we get from fidelity, to foolishness in education?
Without any attempt to inject politics, “At the state and federal level, the United States spends more than $620 billion dollars on K-12 education each year,” Trump said on Sept. 8, 2016. “That’s an average of about $12,296 dollars for every student enrolled in our elementary and secondary public schools.”(2) Even the liberal-leaning site Politifact admits this is true. We once had the best schools, but now all we are left with is the most expensive schools in history.
Perhaps no single factor can be isolated upon which to cast all the blame. But we can be certain that the cause is NOT a lack of teachers, nor a lack of funding. These simplistic, knee jerk responses have been tried ad nauseam for decades, with massive, seemingly perpetual increases in funding. And the results? Massive, seemingly perpetual losses in educational outcomes for students.
Education, first and foremost, must pass on truth. Educational techniques are important but not essential. Many different teaching styles can be successful. Class sizes and budgets are, in the end, far less important than educational content. Style, in the end, is vastly less important than substance. No educational system that denies ultimate truths can, in the end, be successful.
Our public educational systems, and most of our original colleges and universities, were founded on a belief in the Bible and a desire to pass on the teachings and beliefs contained therein. Then came the scientific revolution, and the sexual revolution. And from the top down, educational systems have come to represent atheism as the new norm, and eventually to ridicule all things associated with the Bible and Christianity. Oddly enough, as that process has occurred, all the measures of educational excellence have simultaneously declined.
Columnist Dennis Prager has stated that a causal factor of the rise in atheism is the “secular indoctrination of a generation,” and that “From elementary school through graduate school, only one way of looking at the world – the secular – is presented. The typical individual in the Western world receives as secular an indoctrination as the typical European received a religious one in the Middle Ages.”(3)
What is the source or reason for this indoctrination? There have been amazing advances in the scientific fields that have captured the imagination of teachers, students, and school boards alike. So much so that they have nearly all fallen prey to the fad of scientism. And in the process, students have come to expect the “magic” of science to solve all their problems, without room for faith, logic, mind, will, or even perseverence.
Austin L Hughes, Carolina Distinguished Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of South Carolina, in his superb article The Folly of Scientism, writes, “Of all the fads and foibles in the long history of human credulity, scientism in all its varied guises — from fanciful cosmology to evolutionary epistemology and ethics — seems among the more dangerous, both because it pretends to be something very different from what it really is and because it has been accorded widespread and uncritical adherence.“(4)
Jason Barney adds, “Scientism is a problem because the field of education is not a hard science, but a branch of moral philosophy, scientia mōrālis. Every philosophy of education necessarily relies on a previously established account of what it means to be human. But scientism screens out such foundational questions about man, the good life, and ultimate purpose, in an attempt to be more precise—or precise in a different way—than the subject matter admits of (cf. Aristotle, EN I.3, 1094b12-15). In so doing, it does not actually attain a neutral, “objective” viewpoint; instead, half-baked philosophies and unexamined assumptions rush back in, as seven demons take the place of the one that was exorcised. Scientism promises us firmer knowledge, not swayed to and fro by the winds of history and the waves of philosophy, but in reality it delivers only ignorance of how we are recycling old ideas by recasting them into new, scientific-looking forms.”(5) Wow! What a succinct and cogent realization! If only our educators could see and understand this!
As I wrote in “To Teach. To Educate. Or to Tell the Truth“, teaching is a high calling, and that high calling involves always instilling truth, not lies. It also involves equipping students to search out truth, and recognize falsehood. But today, even in American high schools, colleges and universities this is often not the case. We instead see a focus on messengers, and messaging, and political correctness.Truth, the student is told, is always relative, not absolute. Many educators focus on instilling “liberal values” and “fighting creationist propaganda” rather than evaluating the issues themselves, or seeking out truth in the midst of lies. They have even created “safe spaces” where students and groups can avoid any open debate that threatens their preconceptions or their liberal mindset. Teachers with a more conservative mindset often feel cowed into submission, unwilling to face the persecution certain to come if they stray from the secular atheistic agenda.
The solution to “what is wrong with schools in America” is not funding, or class size. It is not methods, or media. It is not even school choice or neighborhoods. All of these may have positive or negative impacts and should be addressed. But the solution to America’s educational dilemma is admitting that:
For decades we have taught the lie of scientism.
For decades we have promoted godlessness and atheism.
For decades we have allowed concern with populist topics like sexism and racism to overshadow all other concerns, including education itself!
If we could just find and teach the truths of literature, history, and science in their proper context, in the eternal light of God and the Bible, all these other educational concerns will vanish. If we return to teaching Truth, the minds of our next generation will be the best educated in all of history.
Do you believe the Bible, or do you believe “science”? More importantly, is there any rational or logical reason you must choose between the two?
If one were to listen to the media hype, the Hollywood explanations, prime time TV, or many liberal college professors, one might assume there are just two choices in cosmology. A person can either can believe “science” or one can have “faith” in the Bible story. But is this even remotely true? Is it even sensible to place science and faith in different camps? Or is this entire scenario a false dichotomy?
Many of my previous posts have already discussed the evolutionary side of this issue very thoroughly, and I believe we have more than adequately proven that belief in evolution is neither logical, nor scientific. Belief in evolution is clearly a faith based choice. If you read my earlier blogs, “Astonishing Ice Age facts“, or “The Data in the Strata“, or “A Totally Modern View on Evolution” you will understand that belief in Evolution is not a scientific choice or preference, but rather a philosophical one. There are vastly more scientific facts and principles supporting Creation, than those supporting the Big Bang or Evolution.
Perhaps belief in Evolution stems from a prideful desire to elevate man to the point of understanding all of the Universe and Creation. Perhaps, as noted in the earlier blog “To Teach. To Educate. Or to Tell the Truth?” it is just generational indoctrination. Or maybe it originates in the illogical belief that avoiding belief in God as our Creator will somehow avoid the consequences of our sins, failures and rebellion. Regardless, as the tagline of this blog has stated from the beginning, “It takes a lot of FAITH to believe in evolution.”
The evidence (outlined in 80 or so blogs over the last year) clearly shows that belief in Evolution is a faith based choice. But what of the other side? Is belief in Creation merely a “Scientific cop out”? Do proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) and so-called “creation scientists” abandon scientific processes and base their beliefs totally on religious principles? Not so, according to the following quote from Casey Luskin originally posted at OpposingViews.com. Speaking of ID (Intelligent Design), he writes;
“One can disagree with the conclusions of ID, but one cannot reasonably claim that it is an argument based upon religion, faith, or divine revelation. Nothing critics can say—whether appealing to politically motivated condemnations of ID issued by pro-Darwin scientific authorities, or harping upon the religious beliefs of ID proponents—will change the fact that intelligent design is not a “faith-based” argument. Intelligent design has scientific merit because it is an empirically based argument that uses well-accepted scientific methods of historical sciences in order to detect in nature the types of complexity which we understand, from present-day observations, are derived from intelligent causes.”(1)
Luskin further explains, “The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. As noted, ID begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can tested and discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures through genetic knockout experiments to determine if they require all of their parts to function. When experimental work uncovers irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.”(2)
Luskin “gets it”. Most secular atheists don’t. There is absolutely NO logical reason to separate science vs faith on issues of cosmology, or any issues related to where humanity or the universe originated. However, if one were to objectively discuss which cosmology has more scientific support, I believe firmly that Creation science would win the argument. Still, the point remains, there is no reason to “choose” one or the other. Science, unimpeded and freely practiced, is not in opposition to Scripture!
As I wrote in the blog “BIG GOD. small god. Why Cosmology Matters.“Atheists say creation is impossible because it would have required something miraculous, something fantastic, something unbelievable, something outside the bounds of science. Creationists say that the The Big Bang and Evolution are impossible because they would have required something miraculous, something fantastic, something unbelievable, something outside the bounds of science.” And BOTH are correct.
In essence, as written by Stephen C. Meyer, “Proponents of neo-Darwinism contend that the information in life arose via purposeless, blind, and unguided processes. ID proponents contend that the information in life arose via purposeful, intelligently guided processes. Both claims are scientifically testable using scientific methods employed by standard historical sciences. ID thus is based upon the claim that there are “telltale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause.”(3)
You have a mind. You have an intellect. (Both of which are, by the way, strong arguments for ID.) You get to choose whether you believe secular stories about a universe that magically appeared from nothing and life that created itself, or to believe in an Almighty Creator God. But you cannot use as your crutch any statement that you don’t believe in Creation because it is not scientific. Not if you want to be intellectually honest.
Scientific textbooks show a diagram of the big bang and the subsequent expansion of the universe. So it must be true! Right? Someone took the time to draw a diagram, and lots of people copied and reproduced it, so it is a proven scientific fact, right? Well, lets look into that.
First, let’s consider just the basics about the who, what, when, where and why questions. People (secular atheistic scientists) claim they “know” the big bang occurred 13 Billion years ago. But who or what caused it, why did it occur, and where was the Bang? If it occurred, shouldn’t we be able to tell WHERE? In fact, scientists have been looking for the answer to that question for decades! Here is an explanation written by Marcus Woo from the site Livescience.com:
“Looking up at a clear night sky, you see stars in every direction. It almost feels as if you’re at the center of the cosmos. But are you? And if not, where is the center of the universe?
The universe, in fact, has no center. Ever since the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago, the universe has been expanding. But despite its name, the Big Bang wasn’t an explosion that burst outward from a central point of detonation. The universe started out extremely compact and tiny. Then every point in the universe expanded equally, and that continues today. And so, without any point of origin, the universe has no center.” (1)
So apparently, since they could not find where the center was, they have decided there was no bang, or maybe the bang was everywhere at once. But first there was nothing, then EVERYTHING appeared ALL AT ONCE from nothing… EVERYWHERE.
In fact “everything and everywhere just appeared all at once from nothing” is a quick summary of what science has to say about Origins.
There was nothing, and then there was everything. You can see that Scientific Cosmology has no answers. Sounds more like a lot of scientists gossiping about things they frankly admit (among themselves) they don’t understand. So to cover their lack of understanding, they say maybe there is a missing dimension, or maybe you (and I) are just not smart enough to understand. Some even say our entire universe appeared from another dimension… (as if that is any sort of a scientific explanation!)
Woo continues, “So far, theoretical ideas and observations — such as those of the cosmic microwave background radiation, the afterglow from the Big Bang — point to a remarkably flat universe. But cosmologists still aren’t sure if the universe is indeed flat or if the curvature is so wide that the universe only appears flat — similar to how Earth feels flat on the surface.”(1)
Did you catch that? Now of course the meaning of flatness in cosmology is entirely different than the meaning of the same word in geometry. Nevertheless, people used to think the earth was flat, and now cosmologists refer to the universe being “flat”. But note the phrase “cosmologists still aren’t sure“… but wait! I thought scientists knew exactly when the Big Bang occurred and how hot it was and that it came about due to the famous Heisenberg uncertainty principle!
“That the universe has no center — and, by extension, no edge — is consistent with the cosmological principle, the idea that no place in the universe is special. Observations of how galaxy clusters are distributed and the cosmic microwave background reveal a cosmos that, when you zoom out far enough, does indeed look the same everywhere. Throughout history, humans have wrongly thought we were at or near the center of the universe —whether that center was the Earth, the sun or even the Milky Way galaxy. But no matter how special we humans think we are, the universe has, so far, shown otherwise.” (1)
So let me get this straight. There was a Big Bang. But since there is no sign of where the Big Bang occurred, we just assume it’s hidden, or maybe it is curved or flat or in a different dimension. But nevertheless, Woo and the scientists somehow know that we are certainly NOT at it’s center? To further explain this, let’s go to another well know internet site that explains the Big Bang, Cosmology and the “inflationary universe”.
“Like dark matter, cosmic inflation (even if it is not actually proven beyond all doubt) is now usually seen as part of the standard Big Bang theory, and to some extent the two additional concepts rescue the Big Bang theory from being completely untenable. However, other potential problems still remain.“(2)
So you see, what we really have in the Big Bang is a “completely untenable” theory that must needs be rescued by any means necessary! But anyway, the ONE thing you can be sure of is that it is all under control due to the immensely strong effects of dark matter, right? That invisible , undetectable , theoretical stuff that holds everything together and keeps the universe “flat” (keeps it from exploding into nothingness).
But what is dark matter? Scientist don’t know. What caused it? Scientists don’t know. How does it act? Where did it come from? Scientists don’t know. How do we test it or prove it or find it or measure it? Scientists don’t know. Hmmm. That’s a lot of not knowing for people who assure us they know exactly how old the universe is and who assure us they know everything originated an a big bang…
Or back to the original question. Where is the center of the universe? Here is info from the site spaceanswers.com:
“If you were around in the 1500s, during the time of the Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus, then the answer to this question would have been the Sun. Obviously, despite how we see the planets and stars moving across the night sky, our star is not at the centre of the Universe. So what is?
Today astronomers believe that there is no centre to the cosmos. You might think that there must be a central point – after all, the Big Bang must have started somewhere? While great explosions of say, a bomb, do start from one point, the Big Bang that is believed to have created our Universe nearly 14 billion years ago was a different matter entirely and appeared to happen everywhere all at once – time and space did not exist before the Big Bang and so there was no point from where it could have erupted from.” (3)
If any of that makes sense to you, and explains where the universe originated… congratulations. Because scientists still don’t know. They really don’t have a CLUE!
Isaiah 66:2 “For My hand made all these things, Thus all these things came into being,” declares the LORD “But to this one I will look, To him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word.”
Scientifically speaking… someone lied to you. When they told you “Evolution has been scientifically proven” or “Evolution was the mechanism by which life appeared and grew on Earth“… they lied. They probably even told you if you ever doubted evolution, you must be a religious fanatic, science denier, or a hopelessly ignorant person. (Also a lie.) But here are 9 SCIENTIFIC problems with evolution. Just 9 are listed here, but there are thousands more..
The fossil record does not support Evolution. For proof see my prior blog post “The Data in the Strata” and also see “Intelligent Design has Scientific Merit in Paleontology” (www.discovery.org/a/7271). As written by Casey Luskin, “ID predicts irreducibly complexity. Because irreducibly complex structures require all of their parts to function, they cannot arise in a gradual, step-by-step manner. If many characteristics of life are irreducibly complex, then ID leads us to expect that the fossil record will exhibit a pattern of abrupt appearance of novel, fully functional body plans that do not develop in a gradual, step-by-step fashion. This is precisely what we typically find in the fossil record.” (1) So in point of fact, the fossil record actually supports CREATION.
Molecular biology has completely failed to demonstrate Darwin’s “Tree of Life”. See my prior blog post “Branch or Vine?”. That diagram you have seen in dozens of textbooks, some sort of “tree” or branched diagram allegedly illustrating the “inter-connectedness of all species”… It doesn’t exist in nature. Nowhere in the real world have scientists found evidence that the species actually evolved, or are evolving, one from another. And genomics has virtually destroyed any possibility that such a tree could exist by showing patterns of genetic changes completely inconsistent with any known evolutionary paths.
The geological strata do not support gradual evolution. Archaeologists have almost universally agreed that life seemed to appear suddenly, more or less all at once, not gradually as predicted by evolution. (They will tell you it was millions of years in the past… but this also is unproven.) Wikipedia states, “In 2017, fossilized microorganisms, or microfossils, were announced to have been discovered in hydrothermal vent precipitates in the Nuvvuagittuq Belt of Quebec, Canada that may be as old as 4.28 billion years old, the oldest record of life on Earth, suggesting “an almost instantaneous emergence of life“.(2) Note “almost instantaneous.”
The Fossil record does not support gradual evolution. There are no proven transitional fossils. (There there should be countless billions of transitional fossils if evolution were true.) As stated in Wikipedia, “More than 99% of all species of life forms, amounting to over five billion species, that ever lived on Earth are estimated to be extinct. Some estimates on the number of Earth’s current species of life forms range from 10 million to 14 million, of which about 1.2 million have been documented and over 86 percent have not yet been described.”(2) Yet of all these millions of living and extinct species, none have been proven to be transitional!
There is no evidence of current evolution. The rate of evolution required to transition from apes to man would have required extremely frequent changes (several positive mutations every year) in order to evolve in just a few million years. Yet in hundreds of years, no one has ever seen any current signs of evolution! And of course, this does not even account for the fact that negative mutations VASTLY outnumber any possible positive mutations, and these too are largely missing!
Evolution cannot explain the origin of life. The law of abiogenesis states life cannot create itself.(3) This law has never been disproven. Evolution could never have occurred because life could never have begun.
Even the most primitive forms of self-replicating life are incomprehensibly complex. The idea of a “primordial chemical soup” which is transformed into a living cell so completely unscientific it is laughable. (4) A single living cell is more complicated in its chemical and electrical engineering processes, as well as its manufacturing processes than the most advanced, largest city on earth!
No “primordial soup” could have existed in the first place because the proteins would have of necessity been all isomers (not a random mix) and they would have been degraded by natural processes a thousand times more quickly than they could have ever formed. (5) Those ancient “experiments” from a hundred years ago which supposedly showed that the building blocks of proteins could have appeared accidentally when lightning hit ancient ponds were fundamentally flawed in dozens of ways.
Evolution (and its best friend Old Earth Cosmology) have no explanation for why the earth or the universe is so perfectly fine tuned for lifeto occur. Things like gravity, radiation, rate of expansion, tides, temperatures, and many more universal constants are so finely tuned that even minor alterations would make life as we know it absolutely impossible. (6)
So, all things considered, the most plausible SCIENTIFIC explanation for life on earth is… Genesis. 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”
You can’t have an Ice Age without extremely warm oceans and really cold air…
You can’t have an Ice Age without extremely warm oceans and really cold air…
You can’t have… Well, you get it. Secular science has good geological evidence that an Ice age occurred. There are telltale signs all over the northernmost landscapes that suggest massive erosive patterns from huge ice sheets and glaciers. But while most secular geologists have absolutely no idea how or why these occurred, geologist Tim Clarey, Ph. D. believes he has the answers in his article “Subduction Was Essential for the Ice Age.”
An ice age requires massive, enormous, unprecedented, ridiculous, astronomically unbelievable amounts of snow. Estimates require at least 4,000 inches of snow a year just to keep up with melting snow at the leading edge! That’s not even considering how much is needed to create the massive fields of ice to begin with!
As Written by Michael Oard, “melting in a dry, cool Ice Age climate (50°F, or 10°C, average summer temperature) near the edge of the ice sheet is about 400 inches (10 m) of ice a year. One inch of ice corresponds to an average of 10 inches of powder snow. So for Minneapolis this would represent 4,000 inches (100 m) of powder snow a year, which is about 100 times their annual average. So, even during a relatively cool summer, the amount of snowfall required is tremendous.”(1)
Such massive amounts of snow require constantly replenished moisture in the atmosphere. The only possible source of such abundant moisture is you guessed it, WARM OCEANS. Why is this important?
For decades secular atheist scientist have told us they understand the ice ages. They claim to know when they occurred, and they claim to know what caused them. But if you ask any secular scientist how they explain the astronomically vast amounts of moisture that would have been required to create the glaciers… you can hear the crickets. They have no idea. Most do not even address the topic!
Traditional ice age explanations involve only periods of extended cold. The theories postulate that there might have been extended decades or centuries of cold because of sun spots, or wobbles in the earth’s orbit, or changes in the axis. Scott Elias writes,
“Fluctuations in the amount of insolation (incoming solar radiation) are the most likely cause of large-scale changes in Earth’s climate during the Quaternary. In other words, variations in the intensity and timing of heat from the sun are the most likely cause of the glacial/interglacial cycles.”(2)
Or as written by Sandy Eldredge and Bob Biek, “Glacials and interglacials occur in fairly regular repeated cycles. The timing is governed to a large degree by predictable cyclic changes in Earth’s orbit, which affect the amount of sunlight reaching different parts of Earth’s surface. The three orbital variations are: (1) changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun (eccentricity), (2) shifts in the tilt of Earth’s axis (obliquity), and (3) the wobbling motion of Earth’s axis (precession).”(3)
Note that there is still no mention of moisture, just cold. But at least the plebeian Wikipedia is honest, stating, “The causes of ice ages are not fully understood for either the large-scale ice age periods or the smaller ebb and flow of glacial–interglacial periods within an ice age.” (4)
So who, exactly, does have a plausible explanation for both the COLD air and the WARM oceans? Well, it turns out that creation science may have the explanation. Creation meteorologist Michael Oard has written extensively about ice ages, and he states that an ice age would require much warmer oceans than we have today and much cooler summers then we have today. And what could cause such conditions? According to Tim Clarey, Ph.D. “the answer is the rapid subduction involved in catastrophic plate tectonics.”(5)
But what is catastrophic plate tectonics? It involves rapid movement of continental plates, and subduction of these massive plates over and under one another (as might have occurred when Pangaea broke up and plates moved rapidly toward their current positions.) At such times, it is likely, almost guaranteed, that large areas of the earth’s molten core on which the plates rested would have been exposed to the oceans, and unbelievably massive quantities of ocean water would have been vaporized into steam and then converted into water vapor, and subsequently rain or snow. Thus providing PLENTY of warm water and cold atmospheric conditions… just right for an Ice Age!
At that same time, the same plate subductions would have created hundreds or thousands of volcanoes. Those volcanoes were ejecting millions and millions of tons of aerosolized gases, chemicals, and ash high into the atmosphere and blocking the sun (probably for many years) leading to atmospheric cooling. So it is extremely likely that if there was a global flood caused by plate tectonics and subduction, it would probably have been followed soon after by an ice age!
So to summarize, catastrophic plate tectonics (rapid movement of the large continental plates from ancient Pangaea toward their modern locations) wold have caused:
1.) Exposure of huge areas of magma under the oceans, vaporizing vast quantities of ocean water.
2.) Massive persistent rains for weeks or months while the continents moved and “mountains bowed down” (continental plates subducted and immersed).
3.) Expulsion of billions of tons of ash and sulfur into the stratosphere through volcanic venting, with subsequent rapid cooling of the earth.
4.) And finally an Ice age as the warm oceans continued their rapid evaporation, but the Northern and Southern hemispheres experienced severe cooling from volcanic shielding.
So the best, most plausible explanation for the ice age seems to be catastrophic plate tectonics. This means that in order to provide both warm oceans, and cooler atmospheres, we can look to the Biblical account of the flood. It turns out that massive amounts of water in the atmosphere were also required for a global flood, as written in Genesis 7:19, “And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered.“(6) But it was not enough to just have “lots of water” in order for the top of the mountains to be covered. It almost certainly required the mountains themselves to bow down! And this, too, involves catastrophic plate tectonics.
Psalm 104:6-9 reads, “6You covered it with the watery depths as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains. 7But at your rebuke the waters fled, at the sound of your thunder they took to flight; 8they flowed over the mountains, they went down into the valleys, to the place you assigned for them. 9You set a boundary they cannot cross; never again will they cover the earth.”
Job 9:5 reads, “He who removes mountains, and they know it not, when he overturns them in his anger”.
Those who believe the “Uniformitarian” assumptions assure us (with absolutely NO evidence) that Pangaea was hundreds of millions of years in the past. They say the rate of continental drift we see today is the rate that has been present for millions of years. But if you read my prior blog “The Uniformitarians” you will see that such blatant over-reach is common on the part of secular geologists. And you will see that they routinely fail to actually apply Uniformitarian principles, only applying these assumptions when it is convenient for them and for their secular agenda. (See prior posts for proofs including the Himalayas, the moon, the ocean floor sediment, and more.)
As I wrote there, “The principle of uniformitarianism has never truly been applied, because in every setting of science, whether astronomy, cosmology, evolutionary biology, or geology, there are glaring problems that require major adaptions or exceptions for the principle to be even loosely applied.”
So, as with much of science, the secular atheistic interpretations about the Ice Ages may be in conflict with the Bible, but the actual scientific facts are not. If you want to understand the Ice Ages, your best bet is understanding the events surrounding the Flood. For a very good discussion see the site at Answers in Genesis “The Mystery of the Ice Age“.(7)
Opinions on the validity of evolutionary theory are often viewed as being US vs THEM. People believe that the Christian church is “against” evolution and scientists are “for” evolution. Nevertheless, many thoroughly trained scientists firmly believe in Creation, and church leaders today from different denominations often have opposing views on the validity of evolution. Some insist we must believe the atheistic scientists and their interpretations. Pope Francis stated, “Evolution of nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation because evolution presupposes the creation of beings which evolve.”(1) Others Christian leaders insist that the Bible creation story is accurate. So in discussing the possibility of evolution, I can’t help but wonder what would Jesus say? (Also see my Prior blog, What Would Jesus Say?)
Respected authors from nearly all the world’s great religions and even many atheists have acknowledged that Jesus was a great man, a great teacher, a great intellect, or a great prophet. Billions of Christians believe, and Scripture teaches, that He was literally the Son of God and had access to the infinite knowledge of his Father in Heaven.
Jesus spent his early life studying the Scripture (the Torah) and he was so intimately acquainted with it that he amazed the scholars of the day at the age of twelve years when he stayed behind in the temple after his family left Jerusalem.
46 After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions.47 Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. 48 When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.” 49 “Why were you searching for me?” he asked. “Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?” (Luke 2:46-49)
So first let it be established that Jesus had great knowledge of and respect for Scripture. In fact Jesus Jesus quotes directly from Genesis chapter one, treating it not as allegory or fiction, but as the real, historical Word of God, saying, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female…” (Matthew 19:4) and also “But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’” (Mark 10:6 – parallel passage, but slightly different wording).
In addition, Jesus clearly accepted Noah and the flood as historical fact, saying,
37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark;39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.40 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left.41 Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left. 42 “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. (Matthew 24:37-39).
Jesus held a high view of all scripture, including the verse in the Bible and the Torah which states, God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. (Genesis 1:31)
Genesis 1:26 God (with Jesus and the Holy Spirit) says let US make man.
Then 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 birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” (Genesis 1:26)
This is important because the “US” here mentioned indicates that Jesus was present, with God the Father, at creation. (This is what is called the Doctrine of the Trinity. It is why Christians say God is Three in One.) Jesus had intimate knowledge of all the events which occurred at creation. If evolution had been God’s preferred mechanism, Jesus would have known and directed the evolutionary process. But that is NOT what he said. There are of course many, many other verses which are applicable to those who take the high view of scripture (as Jesus did) that have implications for the creation vs evolution debate. A few are listed here:
“I have made the earth, and created man on it. I—My hands—stretched out the heavens, and all their host I have commanded” (Isaiah 45:12).
All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:3 ESV)
Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. (Genesis 2:7 ESV)
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1 ESV)
For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (Colossians 1:16-17 ESV)
So, all things considered, it is evident that Jesus knew all the details of creation from an intimate, personal perspective, and he taught nothing about accidental cosmology, nothing about randomness in creation. Every aspect of creation was purposeful. Everything was for the glory of God.
In fact, scientists who are professing Christians would do well to remember Jesus’ words in Matthew 6:33. “But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.34 Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself.”By seeking first God’s Kingdom, no scientist will fall prey to vanity, or pride or empty deceit, but will rather seek real, eternal scientific and spiritual Truths! Or perhaps even more to the point… “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.” (Colossians 2:8 ESV)
And finally, anyone who studies theology, knows that God created a perfect world, which is now under the curse of sin because of man’s actions. The theology of Christianity, sin, faith, and redemption is based on a perfect, created world, spoiled by the sin of humanity. It is based on a fallen world, and the entire fallen human race in desperate need of a Savior. “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.” (Romans 5:12-14) What happens to such a theology when death and evolution have supposedly been present for hundreds of millions of years before man ever appeared? It becomes worse than irrelevant. It becomes nonsense.
If there was no Garden, no perfect creation, no Serpent, and no sin, then what would be the purpose of a Savior? Why, in Heaven’s name, would a Loving God allow his only Son to die a torturous death on the cross, unless it was exactly what the Bible says, the only path to redemption and salvation?
For decades Christians have taken a back seat to secular scientists and atheists in speculation about the origins of the universe. But this no longer sufficient, no longer wise, no longer necessary. And scientists who are Christians are stepping forward by the tens of thousands to support the creation story.
“Those many Christians today who are active in the biological sciences are amazed as we uncover more and more of God’s creative actions in our daily research. We do not look for God in the ‘gaps’ in our scientific knowledge, but instead worship God for the whole of his created order, including those remarkable evolutionary processes that God has used for his creative purposes.” Denis Alexander(1)