Science And Bible

Science And Bible

Science and Bible

Science And Bible

Does science support or contradict the Bible?

The claim that science contradicts the Bible is popular but false, as science actually supports the Bible's details. As archaeology (see Jesus' Tomb, Golgotha, Hezekiah's Tunnel, Gihon Spring, Capernaum (above), Ephesus Theatre), astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology and other disciplines of science advance, more and more of the Bible that seemed improbable have been getting confirmed.

Science And BibleFor example, advances in nutrition, hygiene, medicine, and pharmacology are shifting the normal distribution curve of human life expectancy to the right and allowing more people to live past 100 years of age. Yet we cannot surpass - the normal distribution curve has an abnormal right tail (see image) - the 120 year limit that God set at the beginning of the Bible: And the Lord said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years" (Genesis 6:3).

Until Galileo Galilei invented the telescope in the 17th century, people could count the 5,000 or so stars that are visible to the naked eye and dismissed as exaggeration the statement in Jeremiah 33:22 that the stars "cannot be numbered." The 30x magnification of Galileo's telescope raised the number of visible stars to about 500,000 and silenced most of the skeptics, but a small minority continued to claim that 500,000 is still a number that can be counted, until later telescopes, including the Hubble, proved that the universe's hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars, indeed "cannot be numbered."

What about Darwin's theory of evolution that claims we are simply the product of random mutations over a very long time?

Imagine coming across 10 stones on the ground that form the letter "S." You may look down at those 10 stones and wonder if they had been placed like that by someone, or if something random like a flash flood had placed those stones in that pattern. But imagine coming across 10,000,000,000,000 stones on the ground that spell out the entire collection of Shakespeare's plays. You couldn't attribute that to some random cause, could you? You would have to conclude that somebody laid out those ten trillion stones with intent.

What's the point?

Charles Darwin didn't have the electron microscope and assumed the cell - the basic building block of all organisms and the starting point for his theory of evolution - to be just some uniform blob. But today's electron microscope shows each cell to be an incredibly complex organic machine made of about ten trillion atoms that are organized into highly specific, interdependent parts, all of which are needed for the cell to exist in the first place.

What is the point?

Fred Hoyle, the renowned British astronomer and atheist who originally coined the term "Big Bang" in 1949 said the words below at the end of his career three decades later. Bear in mind that entire universe has 'only' about 1080 (1 followed by 80 zeros) atoms, and there are more than 1,000 enzymes in the simplest cell, which is a bacterium:

"Life cannot have had a random beginning … The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 1040,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup."
- Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe,
Evolution from Space (London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1981)

"The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order."
- Fred Hoyle, The Big Bang in Astronomy, New Scientist,
Vol. 92, No. 1280 (November 19, 1981), p. 527

"If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of intelligent design."
- Fred Hoyle, Omni Lecture, Royal Institution,
London, January 12, 1982

What does the complexity of the cell mean for Darwin's theory of evolution?

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
- Charles Darwin, On The Origin of Species, 1859, p. 162.

Microevolution vs. Macroevolution

The other key flaw in Darwin's theory is that he confused microevolution with macroevolution.

"Microevolution," as we call it today, refers to the small, incremental changes within the same kind of organisms, meaning those that can mate and produce offspring, to give rise over time to diversity within that kind. Examples include the different breeds of dogs, or even a wolfdog, which is a cross between a dog and a wolf. Microevolution is God's mechanism for adding diversity to the living creatures that He created according to their "kind":

Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:24-25)

Microevolution is also why God commanded Noah to fill the ark not with all species of animals but with just one pair of each "kind":

"And of every living thing of all flesh you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. Of the birds after their kind, of animals after their kind, and of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive." (Genesis 6:19-20)

There was no need for Noah to fill the ark with 3 species and 40 subspecies of wolves, let alone 400 breeds of dogs. All he needed was one pair of wolves whose offspring will over many generations again proliferate into the different species and subspecies of wolves, dogs, coyotes, and jackals, all of which belong to the same family of animals, can mate with each other, and produce offspring.

What about "Macroevolution"?

Macroevolution is the myth that changes in one kind of organism give rise to a different kind of organism. Increasingly desperate efforts by evolutionists to find in the fossil records the "missing links" between different kinds of organisms to justify this claim continue to fail because missing links remain just that - missing - and will remain so because they cannot exist. For example, a human being with a serious genetic defect simply dies, not turn into some non-human animal or gain the ability to mate with an animal and produce offspring.

What did Darwin conclude at the end of his career?

"I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally - and more and more so as I grow older - but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."
- Charles Darwin in his 1879 (3 years before his death) letter to John Fordyce

What did Darwin mean by being "an agnostic"?

"Agnostic" is a Greek word comprised of the prefix "a," which means "without," and the root word "gnosis," which means "knowledge": agnostic means the one who doesn't know, and its Latin equivalent is "ignoramus," which means "the ignorant one."