Wednesday, May 15, 2013
“The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever” (Isaiah 40:8 KJV).
One frequent charge the lost world levels against Christians preaching and teaching the Holy Bible is, “That ‘old’ book has nothing to do with me!” Is this a valid objection?
The mainstream scientific community ridicules the Bible creationist scientist such as myself because I believe in an invisible God whose Book cannot be tested in a lab. I am pressured to believe “unbiased science” instead of “religious speculations,” but so far, no scientific lab I ever visited demonstrated macroevolution in practice and not merely in theory. The evolutionist’s system is also of faith: he or she can no more repeat in the lab a supposed “molecules to man” scenario any more than we can scientifically replicate the creation events of Genesis. Our belief in a creation account we did not witness firsthand, is no more “absurd” and “speculative” than the evolutionist’s claim that all the millions of species of organisms descended from one common ancestor (which they admit they never witnessed either, remember). By the evolutionist’s standard, both he and the Bible creationist are on level ground—both have faith in an immaterial concept.
The Bible, although not designed to be a science textbook, is nevertheless a scientifically-accurate book: the science in the Bible corroborates significant portions of what secular scientists believe today (air mass, ocean currents, expanding universe, the human body indeed contains elements from earth’s crust, et cetera).
What does the “old” Bible have to do with you? Scientists study how processes operate in the natural world, but the Bible claims why they occur in light of the spiritual world. For instance, the volcanism and seismicity (earthquakes) we witness today are largely the result of the Great Deluge of Noah’s day.
Empirical evidence—what can be seen, touched, tasted, smelt, or heard—is not the ultimate source of truth. We all have a soul (a will, a seat of emotions, et cetera) and a spirit (a mind), none of which can be perceived by any of the five senses. Should we deny their (our) existence, too?