, , ,

Whether in magazines, newspapers, the internet, or media you often hear quotes like this in reference to macro-evolution (courtesy of Bill Nye “the so-called science guy”):

Science is the key to our future, and if you don’t believe in science, then you are holding everybody back.  And it’s fine if you as an adult want to run around pretending or claiming that you don’t believe in evolution, but if we educate a generation of people who don’t believe in science, that’s a recipe for disaster.

Now there is a huge presupposition that has already been decided for you when you hear quotes like this in the media…the presupposition that macro-evolution is science.  You think that a man who calls himself the “science guy” would truly understand what science is, but he does not.  And this misconception has crept into our culture, into our schools, and sadly to say even into our churches.

What is Science?

Simply put, science means knowledge.  And I as a scientist love to classify, define, and quantify things as to not generalize and therefore, increase my error or ambiguity in a debate or conversation.  However, the majority of scientists who have an underlying agenda to increase the belief in atheism love to generalize when it comes to the subject of science.  They in fact, deny science when taking about their “science.”

Evidential Science

Evidential science is based upon the scientific method.  It is observational science that is able to be reproduced and retested and compared against standards.  It has the ability to observe causes and record data of the effects and retest to confirm accuracy and precision.  We have used evidential science to discover the laws of chemistry, law of physics, equations that govern our universe, fundamental constants such as the acceleration of gravity, the laws of biological information, as well as the laws of mathematics.

The atheist cannot account for this logical order and the discovery of existing laws in the universe.  The macro-evolutionist inherently believes in chance and of a naturalistic explanation to everything – however this falls severely short in accounting for any of these logical and intelligent laws which are transcendent truths that have always existed.

Think about the linear relationship between the force of gravity and an object’s mass.  As the mass increases, the force of gravity proportionally increases at the same rate (which is the constant of the acceleration of gravity, -9.8m/s^2).  This relationship between force and mass as well as gravity has always existed, even before we had discovered it.  It has been intelligently created and naturalism cannot account for it.  Even if the evolutionist explains this constant of gravity as naturally occurring from the mass and radius of the planet and its relationship between the mass of an object, then the evolutionist has to explain why the earth has an absolutely perfect mass and radius which works in perfect harmony with all the other planets, moons, and the sun in our galaxy with those having perfect masses and radii.  Eventually, you go crazy thinking about the perfection in the creation and sustaining of our universe by God Himself.

Historical Science

Most of the time when you hear quotes or read an article about so-called “science” they are referring to historical science.  This is the study of the effects in history that is not able to be retested or reproduced.  We do have the results of these historical occurrences such as the fossil record, sedimentary layers, light from distant stars, or geological studies.  And whether you are a Christian or an evolutionist, the fact is we all have the same evidence.

But the ability to take this evidence and lead back to information about the cause is done through assumptions and worldviews.  The reason why assumptions and worldviews come into play is because we cannot retest or reproduce via the scientific method.  Anything in history, whether it is George Washington’s foot size, a volcanic rock’s exact age, or the age of the Earth, they cannot be determined by the scientific method and evidential science.

The Starting Point

If Christians and evolutionists both agree with evidential science, then why would evolutionists not want to distinguish between the two when talking about macro-evolution (the same can be asked why they won’t distinguish between micro- and macro-evolution)?  The answer is very simple…atheists have a naturalistic, man-centered worldview which would love to ignore the evidence of God’s existence (ie. creation and the Bible) as to not have a Creator that they are accountable to.  And so they are willing to exchange the truth for a lie, suppress the truth that God has revealed to them, and group all of science in one basket to suit their will.

The foundational point or starting line is an individual’s worldview.  If one has a man-centered, naturalistic, or an atheistic worldview, historical evidence will be viewed in a certain way to account for that worldview and they will label something as science even when there is no evidential scientific proof.  If one has a Biblical worldview, the historical evidence will force you to the cross, to understand your sin and disobedience against your Creator, and compel you to respond in repentance and faith in the only one who saves, Jesus Christ.  And all historical science will be viewed in the light of what God has revealed in the Bible.  Again, we all have the same evidence from historical science, but it is our worldview that helps us view that evidence.

Therefore, it is a dilemma that everyone faces.  Are you going to accept man’s words – which are fallible, changing, and leads to death; or accept God’s Word – which are infallible, constant, and leads to life through the Savior?

True science leads to true knowledge which leads to Christ – the author of all science.