I Don’t understand why this website calls itself “science” unless this word is used in the Latin translation meaning “knowledge.” Basing knowlege of a world creation on the Judeo/Christian Bible discounts all other peoples who do not subscribe to this particular text. Although creation myths (used in the sense of “metaphor”) abound in all cultures, why is this one book singled out as the “difinative authority/source” in the interpretation of science as knowledge? Is this because in this country the Bible is a major recognized source for the creation myth/metaphor? Where does this leave the majority of other peoples of Mother Earth? Besides, Jesus was a Jew, never a Christian. He wrote nothing. The gospels (writings which were not excluded by early Church “fathers”) were written many, many years after the man Jesus’ death.

And where exactly IS heaven? A place? Who or what is “god”? Male, female, both? I am proud to think that my four legged, winged and other creatures of this wonderful planet are related to me(and all other humans as well; we ARE mammals). I find this kind creatiun science “interesting,” as I find all myths which are deeply rooted in the collective consciouness of humankind. Evolution is Nature’s “miracle” and her/his science-that is, knowledge. Myths are what lead us to contemplate the uncontemplatable. They tell us much about our ancient history (or “her” story). Besides, if one could “prove” that a god exists, what would be the value of faith?

Thank you.

R.W.
USA


I Don’t understand why this website calls itself “science” unless this word is used in the Latin translation meaning “knowledge.”

The Compact Oxford English Dictionary defines science as:

  1. The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
  2. A systematically organized body of knowledge on any subject.

This site includes examples of both. Is your definition of science different?

Basing knowlege of a world creation on the Judeo/Christian Bible discounts all other peoples who do not subscribe to this particular text. Although creation myths (used in the sense of “metaphor”) abound in all cultures, why is this one book singled out as the “difinative authority/source” in the interpretation of science as knowledge?

A belief in the inerrancy and authority of the Bible is indeed my presupposition. All scientific data is in fact filtered and interpreted through presuppositions. For example, evolutionary scientists interpret data through their presupposition that God either does not exist, or is not really involved in nature. Such a presupposition is neither proven nor provable. Indeed, as we show in many articles on this site, a biblical presupposition is a better explanation of the observed data. (See our Get Answers section for a topical listing.)

James Hutton used to say, “The present is the key to the past.” He was wrong. His statement would not stand up in a court of law. While studying the present may be helpful, we cannot merely extrapolate back from present events to past events and expect to be correct. The only reliable key to the past is a trustworthy eyewitness account. The Bible is that eyewitness account. For further information on why we view the Bible as authoritative, see our list of Q&A on the Bible, or read Nothing But the Truth, by Brian Edwards.1

The existence of other creation myths actually lends strength to our case rather than weakening it. It shows that other cultures knew the truth of creation, but their stories have been altered from the correct biblical version over the centuries. It is common to suppose that some of these creation myths are older than the Bible. It can be shown that this is not the case. For example, see Osanai’s A comparative study of the flood accounts in the Gilgamesh Epic and Genesis.

Is this because in this country the Bible is a major recognized source for the creation myth/metaphor?

I just wanted to write a quick note of thanks for providing the resources and information that is so helpful in waging the battle for the truth of God’s Word.

This is prompted in part because I noticed a link to an article dealing with the Tiktaalik “discovery” on a “computer geek” website [link deleted per feedback rules] and so I submitted a link to AIG’s initial response. They actually posted it and so now potentially countless computer geeks the world over will have a chance to be “hooked” by your site (pun intended).

God bless you-
David Tuckerman
USA

To which country are you referring? Many suppose that this website represents American thought—it represents biblical thought. For instance, I am British. I live and work in Britain.

Where does this leave the majority of other peoples of Mother Earth?

Why do you call it ‘Mother Earth’? We are perhaps observing that you have a presupposition. Your opinions are based on that presupposition.

Besides, Jesus was a Jew, never a Christian. He wrote nothing.

Of course Jesus was Jewish. Indeed, the writers of all the New Testament books (with the possible exception of Luke, who wrote Luke’s Gospel and Acts) were Jewish. Christians are those who follow and worship Jesus.

The gospels (writings which were not excluded by early Church “fathers”) were written many, many years after the man Jesus’ death.

This is a common statement. However, you are misinformed. In fact, NT books were in use comparatively soon after Jesus’ death and resurrection. For example, Clement of Rome was quoting from the gospels as early as AD 95. It is likely that all NT books were written well before that date.

And where exactly IS heaven? A place? Who or what is “god”? Male, female, both?

What a lot of questions! I strongly suspect you have not asked these questions for an honest reply. You are simply expecting me to be stumped by your eloquence.

Where is heaven? That is an irrelevant question. Jesus described it as somewhere real, and that He could take people there. As for “who or what is a ‘god’?”—the word can be looked up easily in a dictionary. I don’t believe in just any old god, however—I believe in the God “who made the world and everything in it“ (Acts 17:24). He is described as “He” throughout the Bible.

I am proud to think that my four legged, winged and other creatures of this wonderful planet are related to me(and all other humans as well; we ARE mammals).

Scientists have yet to find that “missing link,” though. We are not related to the other animals, as they were created differently. We are often classed as mammals, because we lactate like mammals and give birth to live young. This is illustrative of God’s economy of design. Similar features are often assumed to mean common ancestry. In fact, these similarities are more indicative of common design rather than common ancestry. (See Common structures = common ancestry?)

I find this kind creatiun science “interesting,” as I find all myths which are deeply rooted in the collective consciouness of humankind.

Your concept of “collective consciousness,” which would not be shared by evolutionary scientists, betrays your religious position. Your comments are not neutral—they are from New Age-style philosophies.

I find science and creation interesting also. I am “standing on the shoulders of giants,” and stand in awe at the achievements of previous generations of scientists like Sir Isaac Newton.

Evolution is Nature’s “miracle” and her/his science-that is, knowledge. Myths are what lead us to contemplate the uncontemplatable.

Evolution is an odd sort of miracle then. It is a miracle that nobody has actually observed. In fact, evolution is itself a creation myth. It is a myth that is not based on scientific evidence, but is believed because it does not challenge the prevailing worldview (see Get Answers: Religion and Evolution).

They tell us much about our ancient history (or “her”story).

But the Bible tells us more, and with more authority.

Besides, if one could “prove” that a god exists, what would be the value of faith?

What is your definition of faith? Is it the extraordinary definition of Richard Dawkins that “Faith means blind trust, in the absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence”?2

By this definition, faith in the theory of evolution can be seen to be “blind trust, in the absence of evidence.”

But the Bible has a different definition of faith.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good testimony. (Hebrews 1:1,2)

Faith does not require evidence. True faith is the evidence. The word testimony is a legal word, showing that faith in God (i.e., the God of the Bible) is sufficient evidence. That is how Christians know to allow their science to proceed from their understanding of Scripture, rather than the other way around.

By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. (Hebrews 1:3)

Thank you.

R.W.
USA

It is my pleasure. I always appreciate the opportunity to point people towards the facts of my Lord Jesus Christ. I pray that this answer to your questions may go some way towards helping you find Him.

Paul Taylor, AiG–UK

Help keep these daily articles coming. Support AiG.

Footnotes

  1. Edwards, B., Nothing But The Truth, Evangelical Press, 2006. Back
  2. Dawkins, R., The Selfish Gene, Oxford University Press, p. 198, 1989. Back