Scientific integrity and the gospel of Christ

WorldNetDaily ^ | 4/10/04 | Kelly Hollowell

[Tribune7]

This Easter weekend, I answer one of the more disparaging questions I'm asked by secularists. That is: "How can a true scientist believe in the gospel message of Christ?" The answer begins with a proper definition of science.

Science is the study of nature through empirical evidence. A truly scientific theory, by definition, must be testable by repeatable observations or experiments. Yet there are many observations in nature that cannot be scientifically tested. Take the creation of the natural world.

As explained by the big-bang theory, all the matter and energy of the universe was compressed into a cosmic egg that inexplicably exploded. But nobody knows where the cosmic egg came from, or how it arrived. Neither has a single important prediction of this theory been confirmed. Even worse, it contradicts multiple principles, including the first and second laws of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of mass.

That means the big-bang theory is largely a faith-based idea.

[longshadow]

"Neither has a single important prediction of this theory (Hot Big Bang Cosmology) been confirmed."

Apparently, this woman's PhD isn't in astronomy or astrophysics.

A good starting place to debunk her silly notions about the BB is here:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm#News

Here's a brief snippet of what Ned, who is a bona fide PhD in Astronomy, has to say:

---

What is the evidence for the Big Bang?

The evidence for the Big Bang comes from many pieces of observational data that are consistent with the Big Bang. None of these prove the Big Bang, since scientific theories are not proven. Many of these facts are consistent with the Big Bang and some other cosmological models, but taken together these observations show that the Big Bang is the best current model for the Universe. These observations include:

• The darkness of the night sky - Olbers' paradox.
• The Hubble Law - the linear distance vs redshift law. The data are now very good.
• Homogeneity - fair data showing that our location in the Universe is not special.
• Isotropy - very strong data showing that the sky looks the same in all directions to 1 part in 100,000.
• Time dilation in supernova light curves.

The observations listed above are consistent with the Big Bang or with the Steady State model, but many observations support the Big Bang over the Steady State:

• Radio source and quasar counts vs. flux. These show that the Universe has evolved.
• Existence of the blackbody CMB. This shows that the Universe has evolved from a dense, isothermal state.
• Variation of T_CMB with redshift. This is a direct observation of the evolution of the Universe.
• Deuterium, ³He, ⁴He, and ⁷Li abundances. These light isotopes are all well fit by predicted reactions occurring in the First Three Minutes.

Finally, the angular power spectrum of the CMB anisotropy that does exist at the several parts per million level is consistent with a dark matter dominated Big Bang model that went through the inflationary scenario.

---

Ned Wright may not be as pretty as as the author of this article, but in matters Cosmic, he is opining on matters in which he is an expert; she isn't.

[PatrickHenry]

Typical, closed-minded, materialist, left-wing propaganda. Why can't you be reasonable? Why all the personal attacks? Why do you deny the domain of the supernatural? You should least let the alternative theory be taught in the schools. What are you afraid of? Your whole worldview is faith-based.
</creationism mode>

[Ignatz]

That means the blood of Mary that would have been marred by sin did not mix with the perfect blood of Christ shed on the cross

The author may have erred, but not for the reasons you cite. Mary was free from original sin. That is from whence the concept of the "Immaculate Conception" is derived. Immaculate Conception does not, as many believe, perhaps even the author, refer to Mary's virginity, but rather to her being free from original sin. Unfortunately, the rest of us are not so lucky.
Anyway, the mixing of her blood with Jesus' is a moot point.
It would be interesting to speculate, then, that Jesus died on the cross for the salvation of mankind, with the exception of his own mother (who didn't need it)!

[Fiddlstix]

BTTT

[Dinsdale]

Jesus says 'let he that is without sin cast the first stone'

A rock whizzes by him hitting the harlot square in the temple. She drops like a sack of potatos.

Jesus sighs deaply then turns slowly and says 'Mother....'

[VadeRetro]

That's okay. I don't have to be right all the time to retain my paramount position.

If this is some sort of oblique reference to that Romania business, my home Atlas had been sabotaged by agents of Duane Gish.

[VadeRetro]

Mary was free from original sin.

Of what virgin was she born and how did that happen?

[PatrickHenry]

Mary was free from original sin. That is from whence the concept of the "Immaculate Conception" is derived. Immaculate Conception does not, as many believe, perhaps even the author, refer to Mary's virginity, but rather to her being free from original sin.

Unlike many of the people I run into here, I don't pretend to be a theologian, nor do I imagine my layman's opinions on such matters are of much interest. I knew that the "Immaculate Conception" wasn't about Mary's virginity, but I thought it was a term for the way in which Jesus was conceived. And I thought it was Jesus who was free of original sin, not Mary. But I may be very wrong in my understanding. My only reason for posting in this thread was to discuss a few scientific issues the author mentioned. Her theology is something I'll leave to experts in that field. I'm not qualified to debate in that area.

[PatrickHenry]

If this is some sort of oblique reference to that Romania business ...

I've decided to overlook that one. With all this new-fangled plate tectonics stuff, I suppose there once was a time when Romania was landlocked.

[tortoise]

Mary was free from original sin.

So was I, so I had to acquire it myself.

[TopQuark]

It does not appear that she published anything in science. She has taken size years to complete her Ph.D. and immediately after that went for a law degree.

I wish her well, of course, in her endeavors. Kelly Hollowell, J.D., Ph.D.
Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist, Patent Attorney
(USA)

Biography

Dr Hollowell is the founder of Science Ministries, Inc. Before that, she worked as Corporate Counsel and Executive Editor of Science at Christianity.com Inc. Previously, Dr Hollowell has worked at the following:

• 1998&#8211;2000: Patent Attorney at Kaufman & Canoles, Norfolk, VA.
• 1997&#8211;1998: Science Consultant at BAPIC Environment Technologies in Virginia Beach, VA
• 1995&#8211;1996: Forensic Toxicologist at DUI Laboratory, Department of Clinical Pathology, Miami School of Medicine, Miami FL.
• 1989&#8211;1990: Assistant Director of Technical Analysis at Robertson Laboratory Corporation, Madison, NJ
• 1987&#8211;1988: Research Assistant for Rad-Cure Corporation, Livingston, NJ

Education

Admitted To Practice:

• 1999 &#8211; Virginia State Bar
• 1998 &#8211; U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Degrees:

• J.D. &#8211; Regent University, Virginia Beach, Virginia: 1996-1999, Cum. GPA 3.5
• Ph.D. in Molecular and Cellular Pharmacology &#8212; University of Miami, Miami, Florida: 1990-1996, Cum. GPA 3.4; Doctoral Thesis: DNA Technology, Cloning, Analysis
• B.A. &#8211; New College, Sarasota, Florida: 1983-1987, Cum. GPA NA

Honors/Awards/Associations

• Regent University Law School: Dean&#8217;s Scholarship, Law Grant
• National Institute of Health Scholarship for Scientific Research
• University of Miami: Department of Pharmacology Scholastic Scholarship
• New College: Foundation Scholastic Scholarship

Publications

• Cloning: Exposing Flaws in the Preembryo-Embryo Distinction and Redefining When Life Begins, Regent University Law Rev. 11, 1998.
• Above article, Abstract for the Institute for Creation Research, Impact Article 310, April 1999.
• Cryp-2, A Novel Receptor Type Tyrosine Phosphatase Selectively Expressed by Developing Neurons, coauthored with Bixby, J. Neurobiology, Oct.1996.
• Identification of Two Novel Tyrosine Phosphatases with Selective Expression in Brain<, coauthored with Bixby, Abstract for the 24^th Annual Meeting of the Society for Neuroscience, 1994.

Public Speaking Engagements

• CBN Studio 700 Club, Interview: Cloning Proves Life Begins at Conception, March 1999.
• Christian Medical and Dental Association at the Medical College of Virginia, Lecture: Cloning Proves Life Begins at Conception, October 1999.
• First Baptist Church of Norfolk VA, Weekly Lecture Series: Faith and Scientific Fact, September&#8211;November 1999.
• Institute for Creation Research Radio Broadcast, Debate: Creation versus Evolution, with Dr Eugenie Scott of The National Center for Science Education, September 1999.
• Institute for Creation Research Radio Broadcast, Interview: From Darwinian Thinking to Abortion &#8212; The Devaluation of Life, October 1999.
• Institute for Creation Research Radio Broadcast, Interview: The Human Genome Project &#8212; Evidence of a Creator, November 1999.

Return to Biography List page

[bondserv]

Hello Junior,

A couple points for you to consider. Red letters signify a quote of Jesus.

"love your neighbor,"

1. Your idea of love your neighbor and Jesus' idea are not the same.

Mark 6:9-11
9 But be shod with sandals; and not put on two coats.
10 And he said unto them, In what place soever ye enter into an house, there abide till ye depart from that place.
11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

Matt 10:34
34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.
37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.<
38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

("love your neighbor," and Christ died for our sins) has absolutely nothing to do with science, and science has nothing to do with it.

2. Christ had alot to say about origins.

Matt 19:4-6
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Mark 13:19
19 For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be.

Science either conforms to what He said or it doesn't and He is not to be trusted as the Creator.

John 1:1-3
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Considering "Sciences" track record, Jesus is the safe bet at reliability. That is to say, you are wrong on both counts. (Politically incorrect of me eh?) :-)

[Junior]

Honestly, neither of your excerpts on Jesus' comments on origins is, in any way, contrary to science...

[Karl_Lembke]

It is my understanding that, while nutrients and other components pass from the mother's blood to the child's, and waste products pass from the child's blood to the mother's, their actual blood does not intermingle.

Except when it does. Although mother and child don't have a common circulatory system, blood does tend to leak back and forth. This is why testing for Rh factor is important. If the mother's body creates antibodies to the baby's blood, it can be very nasty.

[Karl_Lembke]

If the universe is all that exists, and, according to the "Big Bang Theory", the universe is continually expanding, then what is the universe expanding into?

Hmmmm???

A very good question. Unfortunately, you seem to be asking it as if you honestly believe you're the first person ever to have asked it, and as if there can be no possible rebuttal to it.

Do you have any interest in reading the literature to see what proponents of the big bang theory think is happening, or are you satisfied with your pretensions of learning?

[Physicist]

PatrickHenry is correct. The physics statements by the author are flatly wrong.

There is mounting evidence, among secular scientists, that Big Bang cosmogony may not be correct.

That's not true, either. In just the last two years, the quantitative verification of the predictions of the Big Bang model improved by several orders of magnitude. The only alternative models that are still viable are the ekpyrotic/cyclic models, and these depend on some fairly dramatic assumptions (such as the existence of large extra dimensions, collisions between parallel universes, and the like).

[Alamo-Girl]

Happy Easter to you, Tribune7! Hugs!!!

[Tribune7]

Happy Easter to you too.

[bondserv]

Honestly, neither of your excerpts on Jesus' comments on origins is, in any way, contrary to science...

??

Matt 19:4
Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,...

Referring to:

Gen 1:27
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Straightforward must be foreign to those restricted to scientific thinking. This clearly contradicts the evolutionary model. I agree that nothing Jesus says is contrary to real science, for He invented the physical laws that manage our universe.

Notice Jesus attention to detail in the fact that He qualified the time this event took place "at the beginning". Our best defense against the lies of Satan is the Word of God.

Matt 4:1-10
1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungered.
3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,
6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Jesus made a world that He could walk in. (Rather anthropic of me, eh?)

[Physicist]

If the universe is all that exists,

Careful, here. The Big Bang theory makes no such assumption. "Universe" as defined in BB cosmology translates to something more like "all that you can geometrically travel to".

and, according to the "Big Bang Theory", the universe is continually expanding, then what is the universe expanding into?

This question comes up regularly, but it's based upon a misconception that, unfortunately, physicists do more to perpetuate than to correct. Let me see whether I can set you straight.

The problem is that the expanding universe is typically visualized as something like a stretching rubber sheet, or a raisin-laden plum pudding expanding as it bakes. The problem is that these are physical objects that exist in--and take up--some region of space. Over time, these growing objects take up more space, leaving less space for other objects, and either displacing those objects or reaching the limits of the available space. Once the plum pudding fills the oven, there's a problem.

The expansion of the universe isn't like that. The universe is not an object; it doesn't "take up space". It is space. As it grows, it doesn't mean that there is less space for objects; it means there is more space for objects. Nothing needs to be displaced to admit its expansion.

I can tell by the look on your face--as I imagine it--that you aren't satisfied. So here's another way to think about the problem. Don't say that the universe is expanding. Insist that it remains fixed. Say instead that the things in the universe--galaxies, rulers, paper plates, Brooklyn (sorry, Mrs. Allen), atoms, people, Dukakis/Bentsen campaign buttons--are all shrinking. It's mathematically equivalent, right? But it doesn't require you to postulate that anything is "outside".

So why don't you have the same conceptual problem that you had when you viewed it the other (equivalent) way? Think about it.