Posted on 04/06/2002 1:15:41 PM PST by f.Christian
Science continued its victorious march, with all of its attendant ramifications and side effects, throughout our own 20th century, and religious apathy and materialism have spread from the educated classes to all categories of people. This is especially true in Europe, where the percent of those who attend church has dropped into the single digits. It is true to a somewhat less spectacular degree in the United States, where the percentage attending church regularly has declined to below one half of the total population. Yet, despite the fact that the current has long run against traditional beliefs and traditional believers, and despite the ongoing ascendancy of science and of its immense prestige and philosophical dominance within our culture, an unexpected thing is happening. The very nature of new scientific discoveries is forcing honest scientists back towards that broader, deeper view of things and back to a serious reconsideration of the Christian believer's view of life and of the world around us. This is true at the level of the macrocosmic, revealed to us through telescopes and the instruments of astronomy, and at the level of the microcosmic, shown to us by researchers using sophisticated electron microscopes.
So remarkable and vigorous is this new trend that physicist Frank J. Tippler, while by no means himself an orthodox believer, nonetheless has proclaimed publicly that "theology is a branch of physics" and that "physicists can infer by calculation the existence of God...." Paradoxically, new evidences of God are emerging from the investigations of modern science. As Dr. Hugh Ross, who holds advanced degrees in both physics and astronomy, writes, "Often ... the stated basis for rejection of the God of the Bible is a lack of absolute proof of his existence. But we humans are limited to the space-time dimensions of the universe, and we lack the means to explore everything within those space-time dimensions. Therefore we are incapable of absolute proof for anything. Nevertheless, that does not mean we cannot draw secure conclusions. For example, we lack absolute proof that the earth is spherical rather than flat. Nevertheless, we accept the sphericity of the earth because the evidences for it have accumulated to such an abundance as to remove reasonable doubt. And as time and research progress, those evidences only increase. A similar state of affairs has developed and is continuing to develop for the existence of the God of the Bible."
Since, in the medieval world, philosophy and the methods of philosophy held sway, men of that time preferred to point to philosophical proofs of God's existence. Those methods continue to appear in many modern volumes of Christian apologetics. Typical are I.M. Andreyev's works, which set down cosmological, teleological, ontological, and ethical proofs for God's existence. Such collections of evidence were very appealing and satisfying to the cultivated minds of the Middle Ages, and they remain so to minds steeped in philosophical or theological reasoning. But they are, generally speaking, less convincing to more typical moderns, whose outlooks are permeated to a greater or lesser extent by the methods of empirical science. Our ancestors preferred abstract logic and reason, which corresponded to the medieval zeitgeist, the "spirit of the age," but most modern men like what they consider hard, solid proof that they can see or can at least know experimentally.
It now appears that science can deliver impressive new information about cosmogony -- the study of the origin of the universe -- and what it tells us is that our world and our universe are not products of some random, aimless, accidental process. On the contrary, there is abundant evidence that they exist as they do at the direction of a higher, supernatural intelligence, who has so ordered the enormously complex things He has created, including the enormously complex laws that govern the operation of physical creation -- from the motion of the heavenly bodies that make up our galaxy to the precise forms of the atoms that make up all matter -- that they are congenial to life here on earth.
Our own planet, earth, is unique among all of the heavenly bodies known to man. Science tells us that the earth is precisely positioned so as to make possible an abundance of life. Were it as much as two percent closer to, or farther away from, the sun, life would disappear. The precise tilt of the earth in relation to the plane of its orbit around the Sun is also essential to life, since it further stabilizes temperature and prevents extremes. An earth that rotated even slightly more slowly would produce differences in day and night temperatures that would make life difficult or impossible. A rotation more rapid would cause catastrophic wind storms that would sweep away everything in their paths. The speed of rotation is precisely what is needed for human life.
Volcanic activity and plate tectonics continually act to expand the area of dry land. This activity is offset, almost exactly, by the processes of erosion, making the land mass area more or less constant. Since huge masses of water tend to hold warmth, the precise ratio of land masses to oceans also tends to stabilize the earth's temperature. Furthermore, tectonic activity in ocean beds tends to stir up and recirculate nutrients washed into the oceans by erosion.
Carnegie Institution scientist George Wetherell recently determined that the arrangement of the planets in our solar system is propitious for life on earth. He believes that the giant planet Jupiter, bigger by two and a half times than all the other planets combined and with a colossal gravitational pull, tends to protect the inner planets from impacts from comets. In his judgment, the earth would be struck a thousand times more frequently were Jupiter not exactly where it is. Moreover, according to French astrophysicist Jacques Laskar, the highly regular orbits of Jupiter, Saturn, and the other outer planets act to stabilize the orbits of the inner planets, including that of the earth. Were that not the case, drastic changes in orbit would make our climate inhospitable for life. Dr. Hugh Ross points out that were the earth's mean temperature to cool by just a few degrees, the planet would experience a runaway freeze-up. Conversely, were the mean temperature to increase a few degrees, conditions would be generated that would cause a steady, ever-continuing rise in surface temperature. But none of these things happen; the earth's temperature remains constant.
Ross points out a truly amazing case of planning by an Intelligent Creator: "The sun's luminosity ... has increased by more than 35 percent since life was first introduced on earth. Such a change is more than enough to exterminate life. But life survived on earth because the increase in solar luminosity was exactly cancelled out each step of the way by a decrease in the efficiency of the greenhouse effect in earth's atmosphere. The decrease in greenhouse efficiency arose through the careful introduction of just the right species of life in just the right quantities at just the right times." How, he asks, could a strictly natural Darwinian process anticipate the physics of solar burning?
... Part1---comments(open)!
... Part2---comments(closed)!
Part2 is open for comments!
"Were it as much as two percent closer to, or farther away from, the sun, life would disappear. The precise tilt of the earth in relation to the plane of its orbit around the Sun is also essential to life, since it further stabilizes temperature and prevents extremes. An earth that rotated even slightly more slowly would produce differences in day and night temperatures that would make life difficult or impossible. A rotation more rapid would cause catastrophic wind storms that would sweep away everything in their paths. The speed of rotation is precisely what is needed for human life."
Too perfect(God) vs too dumb(evolution)!
Biblical creation was a supernatural event, that only one individual witnessed first hand. It will therefore, more than likely, never be supportable by the Scientific Method. In others words, it will be nigh impossible to prove scientifically. Although I do conclude there is evidence to indicate the Biblical account to be true, it is currently unsupported by the Scientific Method. That is why we call it religion and also why Christians must walk by faith.
Evolution (which has several definitions, you will have to determine which one you want to use) is not supported by the scientific method. The evolutionary concept (not theory) fails the scientific method on almost all levels. Therefore evolution is as much a religion as any other; except a morally bankrupt one.
Now to the question of whether evolution makes any claim on creation may be up for discussion. I do not believe the evolutionary concept on its basis makes any claim to answer the question of creation (initial creation of all matter). Some evolutionist do attempt to extrapolate backwards to some kind of random creation event from evolution but I believe that this is flawed on more levels than just one.
Comparing evolution and creation is mixing apples and oranges.
But given the choice between anything else and evolution, I will pick "anything else". It takes as much (if not more) faith to believe in evolution than the Biblical account of how life was formed.
IMHO W.K.
Watch the newbies and some of the oldies.
I considered myself...in my adult life a 100% Christian--full blown REPUBLICAN but...
I was still permeated with our cultural bias.
What I see differently---we never evolve--graduate...especially constitutionally it takes 2/3 rds vote to change limited--representative govt. based on immutable law...
the residual is rights--freedom...no dictators---political religion--correctness.
No social engineering other than the criminal--deviant!
There was the pharoh who did not know Joseph(truth/law)...slavery-tyranny(reno-hitler-clinton) was the residual of that!
This pharoh is political evolution...
imperialism--"popery"--DEVILCRATS...hillary for short---"do away with the electoral college"!
The pt. that I am trying to make---
the constitution---America is a miracle--gift from God and...
political-social evolution is the enemy--theist or atheist whatever!
We can not improve the Constitution---the basics...when that goes--forget it--everything!
Yeah...did you ever see the story about the guy out west a hundred years ago---
due to a mining accident a drilling rod went right through his head---
he survived 100% physically but...
morally he was a loose--self loading cannon...unlimited powder/projectiles---
same today with drugs/lies---zombies/evolution...
nuclear mental chain breakdown...re-re-re-action!
Govt. sponsored too!
The lead shield...separation of state--religion is gone!
including esp. the Reformation and enlightenment--all formed the American Republic...
evolution--post modernism is destroying it!
First define your version of evolution. There are so many, I just want us to start out on the same sheet of music.
W.K.
Just to set the record straight, I did not say evolution was scientifically unsupportable.
Here is what I said: "Evolution (which has several definitions, you will have to determine which one you want to use) is not supported by the scientific method. The evolutionary concept (not theory) fails the scientific method on almost all levels.
Therefore, and more accurately; evolution is not supported by the scientific method.
In addition, is not everything in part based on opinion; is that not what this forum is about? Especially when it comes to religion and life?
Also, where I studied should have no bearing on whether my statements are rational and factual.
W.K.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.