You should some time read Hugh Ross. His story is amazing. He was extremely precocious, graduated from college by age 19, etc. When he was a young man, he decided to use his love for and knowledge of science to prove all religions false. One by one, he took the scriptures of various religions and found statements that could be proven false scientifically. The hardest part, he said, was finding statements to which a scientific inquiry could apply, but once he did, it was easy to show them to be unscientific.
He was not a Christian more than anything else, but he purposely saved Christianity and the Bible for last. He said the first thing he noticed was that the Bible was absolutely full of claims to which a scientific inquiry could be applied. There were many historical references too which could be analyzed for their truth value.
For two years he worked on this, writing provably true statements in one notebook and provably false statements in another. Trouble is, the first notebook was filled and the second notebook had nothing that he could really say was provably false.
In looking at the creation story, he noted that the Bible's creation story was amazingly scientific in that it describes 11 events and those events are recorded in exactly the order our knowledge of science would dictate them to be in. For instance, light must be present for plants to grow, or land must be present for "beasts" to exist. He said that the chances of Moses, with no knowledge of these scientific facts, could not have possibly gotten these 11 events in the right order. The chances against it happening by chance were astronomical. The closest any other creation account came was the Babylonian creation account which correctly ordered 2 of 13 events.
Hugh Ross is considered a heretic by those who take the Bible's creation account literally, but you can decide for yourself if you want to read more here.
Where do we get the information about what is actually science regarding the beginning of life? From scientific text books, of course, and information given by scientists, most of whom scoff at the idea of Creation by an Omnipotent God.
Is the Carbon14 system of dating accurate? Only back about 2,000 years, and then not consistently (there have been living mollusks dated at over 2000 years!). Scientists also use the geological strata to date archeological evidence, and archeological evidence to date the geological strata. They also make assumptions based on their pre-disposed ideas to date their finds. Lucy is a prime example of that kind of dating......they said it just 'looked like' it was that old.
Does anyone in the scientific community admit that many 'scientific discoveries' to support evolution, such as the Piltdown man are hoaxes?
Some members of the scientific community recognize that what is being taught in schools as 'fact' is bunk, but have you heard them admit it publicly? Are you aware that an evolutionary scientist admitted in writing, that evolution was impossible, based on geological and scientific reality, but to acknowledge any other explanation for the beginning of life would mean he would have to acknowledge the existence of God.....and he refused to do that.
The growth of widespread acceptance of theory of evolution was perpetuated by atheists in the 19th century, whose purpose was to declare God 'dead.' I submit, that believing what (atheistic) scientists declare as 'fact' regarding evolution is comparable to believing what the media declare as 'fact' regarding politics. They have a vested interest in the outcome.
I firmly believe that the evil of abortion is a direct and logical extension of the belief in evolution. Where is the value of human life if we are no more than algae evolved?
On the flip side. If we believe that the story of Creation is 'just a story,' then where does it stop? Is the story of Noah just a story? Jonah and the big fish? Daniel in the Lion's Den? Jesus on the cross? If we take out the foundational truth of God's creation, where does that leave us?
This is not to say that there is not allegory in the Creation story. There is no way to prove a literal Adam (though Paul in Romans 5 certainly makes him sound like he is a real individual), or a literal Eve, but if we begin believing the scientists at the expense of the truth of Scripture, we are removing, IMO, something very critical to our basis of our faith.
Wow! End of sermon! Sorry!!