1. From the philosophy of science: No absolute knowledge is available. The idea of autonomous human reason has been shown to be invalid according to present-day theories of science. All of man’s science has a preliminary character, as Popper maintained [P5, p. 280–281], “The old scientific ideal of episteme—of absolutely certain, demonstrable knowledge—has proved to be an idol. The demand for scientific objectivity makes it inevitable that every scientific statement must remain tentative for ever . . . for it is not his possession of knowledge, of irrefutable truth, that makes the man of science, but his persistent and recklessly critical quest for truth.”
Bible-believing Christians ought to know that there are no scientific philosophical objections today which prohibit the use of the Bible for explaining the facts of nature (creation science). The fundamental concepts of the Bible are God’s revelation, a source which far surpasses human reason and comprises a rock-solid foundation. A scientist who is predisposed to evolution (see evolutionary assumption E1) can present his models as hypotheses only, which—according to Popper—stand on unstable marshy ground.
2. From creation research: Questions of origin can only be answered when an a priori revelation is available (see assumption C6). We agree with W. Pauli, winner of the Nobel prize in physics, who said that all scientific methods fail when questions of origin are involved. Biblical enunciations thus have a wider range of applicability than scientific statements. The present author has discussed this question fully in [G2, p. 21–24].
When we creation scientists describe nature convincingly and consistently, our model will not be acceptable to some people, because it implies the living God’s existence and assumes the truth of the entire Bible. This is not surprising, for science is completely secularized, and theology is largely liberalized. Popper holds the plausible view that a competing theory is best vindicated if it survives the most stringent tests. If this criterion is applied to the acceptance of creationism, its rapid growth should be significant.
3. From theistic evolution: Proponents of theistic evolution relegate the Bible to a subordinate role. When the Bible is quoted, the purpose usually is to read other meanings into the Scriptures, namely those required by evolution. Many contemporary scientists and believers have unfortunately been led astray to a false understanding of the Holy Scriptures.
Help keep these daily articles coming. Support AiG.
“Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?” This DVD features Bill Nye and Ken Ham debating one of the biggest questions concerning the scientific community today.