To any wonderful FBCA student who may be reading this theses are my notes for our Cross Training Lesson. Remeber they my notes so excuse my grammer and typoes. Also I was dependent on two internet source in the lesson. The websites are given in the lesson. Feel free post any questions you may have. Enjoy. 
Cross Training : Do Science and Scripture Agree?If you talk to a non believer and try to get the justify their beliefs they will simply say that its not scientific and in fact that science and the Bible just plain disagree. And when it comes to a testing of the if would be foolishness not to go with science. They seem to think of science as the only thing that can tell you if anything is “real” and we should not believe “religion”. How can we respond to that does scripture and our faith really invalidated when you look at cold hard facts of science?
To begin to really take a look at the issue of Science and Scripture we must realize what we are dealing with here is not Science vs. Religion but it is really a question of how do you know that you know something. This is called Epistemology for the Greek word epistme which means to know.
So lets take a look a “Science” how is it that something becomes “science” Science guess what is not a set of facts it’s a set of observations! You guys have a heard of the scientific method right? Let’s go over that to see how “science” works.
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
That is how science knows something. What science really is a really just intelligent guesses. I am sure we know that is called science has changed over time. For example before the big bang theory “science” said the universe always existed. Now “science”says the big bang is how the universe started. Or take Chemistry for example who can tell me what is smaller than an atom? Protons, neutrons, and electrons. Once we were taught these were the smallest particles But now we know they even smaller elements still. So how is it that science keeps on changing? It is because science is not a set of rules the universe follows are set in stone. Science is not is not set of solid unchanging ultimate facts. Its really a set of guesses on how the universe works based on the scientific method. So you cannot say “Science says”. Science does not say anything science our collections of observations guess what? Science is not inerrant. So why would want to prove something by a set our best guesses. Ultimately you cannot prove or disprove something unless you actually know something for sure. So how some one disproves something with their set of best guesses? Do you remember how last week we saw about how knowledge does not mean much if we no standard to test it by well the same is true about Science. I am not trying to that there is no value to science but science is not an absolute standard of truth!
Now lets talk about the epistlemology of a Biblical Christian we have a completely different worldview and a completely different way of looking things. Unlike an unbelieving scientist we are not looking at world and trying to have figure out what truth is. We have truth revealed to us. We are extremely unique in that we do not have the problem the much of the rest of the world does. We do not have problem of a relative reality. But we have truth defined. First We can not search for truth because we have no measuring stick to test truth but God is infinite and sees all of time and space so we know that when he reveals truth it he has universal perspective. Truth is revealed to us in the Person of Jesus Christ.(John 14:6 )
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. Jesus defines himself as truth and we know that God’s word is Truth. Jesus said in John 17:17
Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth. Jesus Christ himself is truth. God’s word is also truth. From the truth standard that God gives us we can say we know truth or anything at all. Note this is incredibly different perspectives and how science can invalid the Bible no matter what anyone says. We are thinking about thing in two completely different ways. One starts out with the assumption you can only know truth if it is revealed versus I got to do figure out what it is. The difference is presuppositions and worldview. Presuppositions are the set of beliefs that one already has and just takes as assumed as the view things. Worldview is the particular way you view the.
Ok well the foundation that believer needs to is at the heart of science versus the Bible.
Next lets talk about a few of the “hot topics” in the whole area of science and the Bible. The first I am sure you know about. It has been in the news. Intelligent Design versus Evolution. Let us start with the infamous Evolution.
The Theory of Evolution can be divided into two parts, micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Micro-evolution deals with small changes within a species which adapt that species to be better suited to its environment. This process is well supported with scientific evidence and doesn't conflict with a Christian understanding of reality.
Macro-evolution claims that through major genetic mutations one species can evolve into another, so over a long period of time fish could evolve into insects, birds and mammals. From this concept it's suggested that all life could have evolved from simple chemical structures, thus life could have resulted from natural processes without the need for a creator.
Macro-evolution is highly contentious and its more extreme interpretations challenge conventional Christian thinking. It's sometimes suggested that God chose to create life through evolution, however, there's now a weighty and growing body of both scientific and philosophical evidence that discredits macro-evolution. This article very briefly surveys that evidence.
Creation vs. evolution - Origin of Life
Firstly, there's the question of how life itself originally got started. The theory of macro-evolution suggests how to develop from one species to another, but it can't explain how to jump from no life to life or from unconscious to conscious.
There are two questions in this area that macro-evolution can't answer. Firstly, the DNA molecules which store the genetic code for living beings are extremely complex even for the most basic forms of life. Where did the original injection of the genetic information for life come from?
The second question centres around an issue termed irreducible complexity. Even in the simplest life forms there are a number of different and complex components which must all be in place for life to occur. Take any of the components away and you no longer have life. The building blocks of living beings are complex and are not independent. How can these components have been assembled separately apart from pre-existent life?
Creation vs. evolution - The Missing Link
A second serious challenge to macro-evolution comes in the forms of fossils. The theory suggests that through genetic mutations over a long period of time, species gradually evolve into new species. If this were the case, you'd expect to find a whole spectrum of species within the fossil record at different stages of evolution.
However, the fossil records do not show life evolving from one species to another. On the contrary, there's a notable absence of any fossils of species at intermediate stages of evolution. Further, there aren't obvious intermediate species around today. The problem of the lack of evidence for transition between species is known as the Missing Link.
Creation vs. evolution - Geology and the history of Earth
Macro-evolution is understood to be a very slow process, random mutations taking place and becoming established over long periods of time. From developments in Geology and Earth Sciences, the window of history where conditions suitable for evolution have existed has become shorter and shorter. Many interpretations of macro-evolution have been abandoned as the time available for species to evolve was not long enough to account for the diversity of life we see.
Creation vs. evolution - Conclusion
Whilst there is widespread acceptance of the theory of micro-evolution, the question of macro-evolution continues to be hotly debated. Over the last fifteen years the tide of scientific opinion has been turning against the evolutionists. The complexity and apparent design of life has defied a purely naturalistic explanation and the problem of how life started remains unanswered by the scientific community.
In addition to the huge practical and theoretical difficulties associated with macro-evolution, the physical evidence presented by DNA code and the fossil record has not supported the theory. The available evidence seems to be pointing to the separateness of different species.
As the case for all life evolving from simple cell structures is looking less and less convincing, alternative explanations are needed. Science rests heavily on the principle of cause and effect. To account for the diversity of life on Earth, an adequate cause is required. Many in the scientific world are beginning to seriously consider the case for intelligent design in the universe. The consistent Christian claim of history is that the intelligent designer and sustainer of the universe is the God of the Bible.
This information first appeared at
http://www.everystudent.com/wires/evolution.htmlThis topic is vast so I can not hit everything I want but let me try to give you a few more reason to support the Biblical account of creation.
Then there’s the 2nd LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS. The evolution model would have you believe that we began as some kind of swamp goo and through chance-random process, evolved into the complex piece of humanity that we are now. The 2nd law of thermodynamics says that everything runs down, not up. Complex things break down, life becomes more disorganized, time and chance make things worse, not better. If you look around, everything starts out beautiful and then deteriorates. Trees, people, buildings, everything. Yet the evolutionists want you to believe that ONLY where evolution is concerned are we to disregard the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
THE SHRINKING SUN. Since 1836, the diameter of the sun has been measured to be shrinking about 5 ft. per hour. By going back in history and studying solar eclipses, scientists say that this shrinkage appears to be constant. Extrapolating backward, we find that the sun would have been so large one million years ago that no life at all could have existed on this earth. If we went back 20 million, which is still far short of the 5 billion many evolutionists claim as the age of the solar system, the edge of the sun would have touched the earth. The earth would have exploded long before the sun ever got that close.
This helps support the young Earth Theory that the Earth is not Billions of years old
CONSIDER THE HUMAN EYE. What animal, or back further, what piece of algae decided one day that we needed to see? And then began the billion year process of forming an eye, with all of it’s intricacies and marvels. Can we really be led to believe that we EVOLVED the eyeball.
This information was taken from:
http://www.linda.net/creation.htmlThere are just way too many Gaps for EVOLUTION to work
So many other topics to consider. Anthrotopic principle, and the difference between science and scientist.
As we close I wan to focus in on one topic.
Are the fields of Science and Christianity are they really enemies are they really incompatible? The answer is of course what is true can not contradict what is true. We know that the Bible is truth. Science can compliment the Bible and give more detail about the sovereign plan of the creator. Take the Big Bang theory for example, most people see it against Christianity but in reality its not. Popular science before the Big Bang theory said that the universe always existed but the Big Bang help prove the universe did not always exist. This helps prove the Biblical account of creation. The universe at some point had a beginning. Take Jonathan Edwards. He is probable America’s greatest theologian ever. He saw the glory of God in creation. He even gave God glory as he studied the flying spider seeing God’s provision and sovereignty. That is why here studied science. If we come back to my favorite Psalm.19 and consider verses one and two:
The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above] proclaims his handiwork. 2Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.Since we know that God is the sovereign creator of everything, the more we will see his hand at hand work and the more we can give him praise for the way he created his universe. We realize that there is real no true conflict between science and Christianity when science is viewed as the study of creator’s creation. The only conflict really occurs when people try to misuse “science” to push their philosophy. The thing to remember only source of truth is God’s revelation in the person of Jesus Christ and his Holy Word.
