Tag Archives: belief

But I Don’t Have a Belief System!

belief system

My memory isn’t what it should be, but I do not remember anyone saying that he/she did not have a belief system until about 2 years ago. Almost daily now I seem to hear someone say that.
Anyone who claims that they do not have a belief system is either uneducated or dishonest. There is nothing wrong with being uneducated. God confronted Job out of the storm and asked Job, “Who is this who darkens counsel By words without knowledge? Now prepare yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer Me.” (Job:38:2,3) God then asks Job a series of difficult questions that I certainly could not answer. I seriously doubt that I would do as well as Job did.
One of the greatest benefits of a true education is to realize how little we really know. And that realization of our limited understanding extends to our lack of understanding of our belief system. But a lack of understanding is not the same as denial of reality.
“A belief system is a set of mutually supportive beliefs. The beliefs of any such system can be classified as religious, philosophical, ideological, or a combination of these.” Wikipedia (I quote Wikipedia because this should be common knowledge. You can find the same information in many, many other places.) You get up in the morning. Or you don’t. Whatever you do, the “why” is a belief. The combination of all the “whys” in your life is your belief system.
Everyone has a belief system. This is not a matter of opinion or a question of a point of view. This is a simple definition of terms. It is what the English words “belief system” mean. It does not require that we live our lives consistent with our belief system. We are all inconsistent, sinners, hypocrites, failing to live up to our own personal standards. But we all live our lives according to some belief system.
To deny that you have a belief system is to deny that you understand the basic meaning of English words. When we hear the words “green fence,” we all understand the basic meaning of the words. We might all have a different shade of green in mind. Perhaps we all have a different type of material in mind for the fence; wood, stone or metal. But the basic meaning of the words is required or people can not communicate.
What people mean when they say, “I don’t have a belief system” is that they are above morality. They believe that they can manufacture their own standards of right and wrong, that they are, in modern terms, above the law. Of course, that is not how they view themselves. They justify their actions and beliefs with phrases such as, “who are you to judge me?”
The frightening aspect is that people who really think that they do not have a belief system are the most easily manipulated by the unscrupulous tyrant. That tyrant might be a simple gang leader or he might be a Hitler or a Stalin recruiting brownshirts, SS, or KGB thugs.
Every single person I have met who claims that they do not have a belief system has the same belief system. They are either atheists or agnostics. They think of themselves as good because they help other people. But they are easily manipulated because they have never thought through their beliefs. They also get angry too easily when this is pointed out to them. While they insist that no one judge either their actions or motives, they are the first to judge other people.
I could write about these people for pages. But the real issue is not other people. How honest am I? Do I understand, and have I thought through, what I believe? Are my beliefs and convictions rooted and grounded in my sinful self and all the misery that will cause? Or are they rooted grounded in the eternal Word of God, with my sins washed in the blood of the Lamb?

1 Comment

Filed under Bible Teaching, Current Issues, Politics, Travel, Humor, Everyday observations

Basics Of Reality

hubble_sp01_01

Words mean things. “This is a green fence,” can be parsed, the adjective “green” and the noun “fence” can be made more precise, but the basic meaning of words is clear. I once had a business trip to plant where everyone spoke French. They found the one man who knew a little English. Between my knowledge of a little French and his knowledge of a little English, we completed our transaction. The old I Love Lucy show has a classic skit of a trip to Italy and the difficulty of a language (in that case several languages) barrier. No matter how difficult, language barriers can be overcome because words have meaning.

While some people believe that all reality is nothing but an illusion, for the rest of us, the material universe exists. We use words to describe it. The simple existence of the world is consistent with our experience. As John opens 1 John “what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands.” Reality either came into existence at some point in time or it is eternal. We describe this material existence with words.

Entropy says that all mass/energy transformations either conserve existing mass/energy at the level before the transformation or make the mass/energy less useable (a downward transformation as to the total available mass/energy). There has never been an observed exception to entropy.

This is consistent with the statement “In the beginning God created.” In six days God input and organized the mass and energy of the universe. Then God rested, that is, ceased inputting and organizing mass and energy. Later, God told Moses what He did and Moses recorded it in writing.

Today, the vast majority of mankind chooses to believe that this record is not true. They claim that their belief in deep time is based on evidence. But the evidence available to us today must be interpreted. We observe the surface of the sun, interpret that data and make assumptions about how the interior and core of the sun operate. These can be valid scientific theories, as long as we accept the limitation of being unable to verify our theories with observations.

These limitations apply to everything dealing with the past. In the recent past, we have written records to support the observable data. The recent past can be as recent as the assassination of JFK, or it can be the eruption of Mount Vesuvius burying Pompeii in A.D. 79. But without written records, we depart from science and rely entirely on interpretations of what we can observe today.

A light year is a unit of distance, not time. A God Who can speak the universe into existence can also place the photons of light across billions of light years in an instant of time.

Radometric samples are accurately handled and honestly evaluated in laboratories all over the world. But using the result of accurate laboratory information to arrive at a deep time date is a leap of faith. It is simply impossible to know either the original condition of the sample or the conditions prior to any witnesses who wrote down their observations. Since we know nothing of the condition of the original sample or what has happened to the sample since then, the laboratory results can only give us the oldest possible date in a range of dates. The interpreter also believes that nothing ever had any affect on the sample. A true scientific interpretation of the data would say that the age of the sample could be anywhere within a range beginning just before the sample was tested up to the oldest possible date.

Any date relying on counting existing material, such as the salt content of the ocean, varves, the number of craters on the moon or the layers in a glacier all require assuming deep time to be true to return a value using deep time. There is no observable evidence possible to scientifically prove that present processes formed the salt in the sea, the position of the continents, the number of craters on the moon, the formation of glaciers or any other current process.

The Grand Canyon was formed by an upthrust (uplift). Once we recognize that catastrophes, even local ones, formed the world we know and see today, we must state scientifically that the present is not the key to the past.

Using language in the normal way we use language, the only evidence of deep time is a religious leap of faith. If you believe in deep time, it is because you choose to. Not only is there no evidence of deep time, because we cannot send observers back in time (not even with the Hubble telescope), evidence is not possible.

“Unbelievable” is the proper response if you do not believe. Because it is completely belief.

Leave a comment

Filed under Current Issues, Politics, Excerpts from our Nonfiction Books, Scientific, Writing, Reviewing, Publishing, and about Blogging

There Are Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing — But Fear Not, Little Flock!

We attended a service where we discussed getting rid of much of the Bible Study material people use today, and focusing on the Bible itself. Our daughter attended a Sunday school where she was very disappointed by the lesson.

“A lot of what he said was loosely based on Scriptures (few biblical references) but when I brought up, ‘but Scriptures say,’ he would respond [with] something along the lines of, ‘Well, that’s true but that doesn’t apply to what I’m talking about,’ and kept putting down my translation, saying its too confusing. He keeps challenging us to go out [to evangelize] but … ” She went on to say that he implied that requiring people to do things that seem necessary for Christian growth is legalism.

Sadly, this is the majority position of those who claim to be believers. They teach the “little flock” in churches, and reaching large numbers has for these preachers and teachers taken the place of faithfulness to the Word of God. It doesn’t matter if the church is small, large, traditional or liberal. The trend seems to be universal across the country. “Doing whatever is necessary” to reach people is more important than holding fast to the truth you are supposed to be reaching them with.

The “wolves in sheep’s clothing” mentioned in the title are the people who want to pick and chose what to believe and what to teach about what the Bible says. They are also the people who study commentaries, spiritual self-help books, and other so-called Christian growth works to the point where they hardly study the Bible itself, or teach it in the churches, anymore.

The speaker we listened to this morning chose 1 Thessalonians 5, concerning the coming of the Lord, as his text. He had a very clear position on it. Yet, in the last few days I (Michael) have had several discussions on Facebook. What does the Bible teach about the future? What is the second death? Who is the antichrist? What does the return of the Lord mean? We have also discussed the more immediate concern of who, according to principles based in Scripture, to vote for to be president.

Many people pointed out that the Scriptures mean what they say, and to take them at face value. The complaints against that position boiled down to, “I don’t want to believe that.” It’s an issue of the will, not the understanding of the words.

Allegorical interpretations of the Scripture go back to Philo and Origen.

Nothing we study should take the place of the Bible. No authority should take the place of the Scriptures; not a pastor, not a priest, not any traditions. We should not love a family member above God’s truth. Nothing should detract from glorifying God. We should not let anyone tell us parts of the Bible should be ignored. We don’t get to pick and chose what is authoritative.

When do you stop judging the Bible and let the Bible judge you?

4 Comments

Filed under Bible Teaching, History, Uncategorized

Truth Stumbles in the Streets

In January 1975, I was a passenger in a multi-vehicle accident on an ice covered bridge in heavy fog near Knoxville, TN. The uninjured grabbed everything we could to flag oncoming traffic to stop. Tragically, we could not get everyone’s attention. Ignoring the fact that the bridge was covered in ice cost several people their lives that day.

Does ignoring the facts usually have such a tragic ending? No. Maybe that’s one reason we have a culture that puts a premium on mockery. Is truth really just a matter of opinion? How is it that the most attention-getting person in a group is the most skilled mocker?

When Jesus said believe in God, believe also in me. (John 14:1 KJV, NASB), Jesus was not asking his disciples, “So what are your opinions about God?” He used the word believe the same way Moses used it when God spoke to Moses out of the burning bush. Moses told God that they will not believe me. (Exodus 4:1 KJV). Moses told God that the elders of Israel would not accept the words of God as authoritative. Why? Because they would not accept Moses as a credible witness. Exodus 4:1 actually means they will not accept me.

Did you think the word believe, as used in the Bible, meant accept something without thinking, blindly? It means to examine the facts and come to a conclusion. The best example that I have come up with in our culture is a jury foreman, when the judge asks if the jury has reached a verdict. When the foreman responds “We find the defendant is guilty (or not guilty)” he means that they believe, because they have come to a conclusion based on the evidence. Yes, it is an opinion, but it is a reasoned, informed opinion based on the facts.

Have you noticed that our modern culture no longer believes in absolute authority? Believe now means “l like.” Haven’t you heard statements like “I believe I’ll take chocolate” or “I believe pinstripes are better than plaids”? Tobelieve in God no longer means a reasoned conclusion based on facts. While insisting on logic, proof, and evidence, in practice our Secular Humanist culture demonstrates that facts no longer matter.

Does everyone who names the name of Christ agree up to this point? The principles are rather clear and universal. We begin to run into problems when we attempt to go past the principles. May I give a few examples? I know this is sort of dangerous because we all tend to “go off on tangents.” I only want to use these as examples of ignoring the facts. Notre Dame, Brigham Young and Bob Jones University all have similar student honor codes. This story could have happened at any of these schools. The following quote is from the blog “BradentonPatch,” though there are hundreds of other blogs with the same basic information. “Chis Peterman, a senior at Bob Jones University, racked up demerits after he created an activist group on campus, [attacking the High School principal] and ultimately was kicked out when his last demerits were issued for watching the television show “Glee” off campus. This is the same demerit system used at all of the US military academies, such as West Point, Annapolis and the Air Force academy in Colorado. Many times and in many schools violations of an agreed-upon code of conduct enforced by this demerit system have resulted in student expulsions. Probably the most famous expulsion was West Point, in the case of the rowdy undergrad George Armstrong Custer (George was later reinstated and his record purged, so this does not show up in every history of West Point). The point is, for better or worse, the demerit system has been around awhile.

The Huffington Post posts the following: “So the problem with going to college at a baptist [sic, Baptist should be capitalized and Bob Jones is non-denominational] school like Bob Jones University that ‘s actively working toward returning America to the 1740s is that there are some super ridiculous rules. For example, you can only watch certain TV shows off-campus like Girls and Breaking Bad and reruns of Real Sex. Just kidding. Those shows are most definitely on the banned list.

“Chris Peterman, a student at BJU (insert middle school sense of humor here), claims watching Glee on his computer at an off-campus Starbucks got him in big trouble with the school. So much trouble in fact, that they banned him from graduation by suspending him.

“While I think we can all agree that the plot doesn’t always makes [sic] sense on the show, I doubt that’s why it’s on their unapproved list. I’m going to take a wild guess here and assume it has something to do with their positive portrayal of LGBT students as well as their openess [sic] when it comes to discussing teen sexuality.”

I quoted the article in its entirety. It has no explanation for omitting important facts which turn the entire article into a lie. This is the modern “style.” The Huffington Post probably does not even think of this as a lie because everything in the article is factual (sort of). Simply omitting important information is “not important,” as long as it supports their religious beliefs. And apparently spelling words correctly isn’t important, either.

Is that example unclear? Please let me try again. JFK died 49 years ago, so the basic information about his administration is an established fact. Right? I was so wrong. In a facebook post a few weeks ago, I used JFK as an illustration. JFK was assassinated when I was in the 2nd grade in 1963. I pointed out that his administration was known for immorality. When he died, our teacher talked to us about his death, the school principle talked to us, another person came to school to talk to us, family members talked to me, our pastor talked to us, and so did others. I was only in second grade, so it is all kind of muddled, but the one thing I remember clearly is most, if not everyone, started off with something like, “JFK was an immoral man, but…” At that time, I knew nothing about the policies, religion, political party or history of JFK. All I remember were the eyelevel tabloids.

Was I right to post this as an illustration of something else entirely? Here are some of the comments: 1)”Is it your business to know the details of the confessional?” 2)”As a second grader, I seriously doubt you even know what the word hypocrite meant back then, and suspect the only ones painting the Roman Catholic church as anything were anti-Catholic bigots who have taught you very well to follow in their footsteps.” 3)”You say that public sins should be dealt with publicly, but how many people during JFK’s day knew of his shenanigans? Pretty much nobody, at least not the public.”

To this last comment I wrote, “JFK was a well known serial fornicator.” The same writer replied, “JFK’s pecadillo’s (sic) were not known by the public during his life.”

Why should I include these quotes in this blog? This is a blog about how to treat facts. First, I was alive and remember the tabloids and what people told me. But even if people do not believe me, the following is easily found after searching only a few minutes. The January 2, 1962 issue of Look magazine published a special on the Kennedys. It was quite favorable, but it included a small article on two secretaries who were nicknamed Fiddle and Faddle. National Enquirer (some question as to which tabloid was first) began publishing articles about JFK’s mistresses. In 1962 there were no large-audience-syndicated radio announcers like Howard Stern or Rush Limbaugh. Every little station throughout the country had its own stable of announcers. Some picked up on this story. The real news came with the death of Marilyn Monroe, August 5, 1962. When the report said that last person she called was JFK (true or not), that statement unleashed a worldwide media frenzy. In 1963, DNC Chairman John M. Bailey circulated a private memo wondering if JFKs immorality would become such a campaign issue that it would bring down the Democratic Party in the 1964 elections. He mused that maybe JFK should not run again.

This information is easy to find. Once again, this is not about JFK. It is completely about being truthful in handling facts. Yes, there are issues with facts on both sides and like a good juror, we must examine the facts carefully and come to the correct conclusion.

,

2 Comments

Filed under Bible Teaching, History, Uncategorized

Belief Excerpts from Antidisestablishmentarianism I from Chapter 11. What Is Science to a Secular Humanist?

Like any religion which enthrones man in God’s place, there is a desperate and irrational need to attack true religion. “Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence,”3 says Richard Dawkins. In the Bible, in the founding documents of US history and in the US court system prior to the liberal takeover, belief was (and still is in reality) a legal term. Belief is the decision of a juror based on evidence. Faith is the action one takes based on belief based on tested evidence. The modern Secular Humanist twists the word “faith ” to mean the opposite of its historical definition. “Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.”4 This is the “blind leap of faith ” of Karl Barth and neo-orthodoxy, not the historic meaning of faith found in the Bible and US history.

The faith of the secularist, which is truly “in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence,” has a religious belief that the material universe is all that is, was or ever will be. The material universe is the ultimate reality. “Who is more humble?” asked Carl Sagan, “The scientist who looks at the universe with an open mind and accepts whatever the universe has to teach us, or somebody who says everything in this book [the Bible] must be considered the literal truth and never mind the fallibility of all the human beings involved?”5 Sagan is pretending humility while arrogantly dismissing the possibility that God might have actually written down His words out of love for his creation.

_________________________________________

1 Pierre Charron, De la sagesse (Of Wisdom, In Three Parts), French version, 1601, Translated by Samson Lennard, Eliot’s Court Press for Edward Blount and Will, Aspley, London, c.1615.

2 Charles Watts, “The Secularist’s Catechism,” complied in an undated book published by Watts & Co. entitled: Pamphlets by Charles Watts, Vol. I, originally written in 1896.

3 Richard Dawkins, from a speech at the Edinburgh International Science Festival, April 15, 1992.

4 Dawkins, The Richard Dimbleby Lecture: “Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder,” BBC1 Television November 12, 1996.

5 Carl Sagan, in an interview with Charlie Rose, late-night PBS talk show host, 1996.

1 Comment

Filed under Bible Teaching, Excerpts from our Nonfiction Books, Writing, Reviewing, Publishing, and about Blogging

Intellectual Reasons for Belief

We, as Christians, as often asked by people who believe that they are intellectuals why we believe what we believe. I am not aware of any brief list which is not woefully inadequate. The following list could easily be expanded, but it is a good ready reference. (Please note that many of these points are dealt with in Antidisestablishmentarianism.)

I. Evidence from reason

A. The Design of the universe demands a Designer

B. Life begets life; no scientific evidence of any form of spontaneous generation

C. Thermodynamics

1. 1st law of thermodynamics: matter and energy are interchangable and can neither be created or

destroyed.

2. 2nd law of thermodynamics: (entropy) all energy transformations are in a downward direction.

The universe is gradually deteriorating from a position of greater complexity and order to an

eventual end of complete disorder with the simplest elements, probably only hydrogen, motionless

at a uniform temperature.

II. Evidence from ancient writings

A. The value of oral tradition: many cultures disdain writing (Thoth/Plato)

B. All of the oral traditions and writings which are mentioned here are pre-Christian

C. New Zealand: The Lore of the Whare-wananga; or the teachings of the Maori College

D. Egyptian: History of Creation

E. Mayan: Popol Vuh and The Book of Chilam Balam of Chumayel

F. Mexican: Origin de los Indias

G. Japanese: The Kojiki

H. Babylonian/Assyrian: Enuma Elish: The Seven Tablets of the History of Creation and Another

Version of the Creation of the World by Marduk

I. Greek: Hesiod Theogony, Plato Critias

J. Roman: Ovid Metamorphoses

K. Norse: The Poetic Edda, Voluspp

L. Hopi

M. Cherokee

N. Persian: Zoroastrianism Bundahis

III. Evidence from the Scriptures

A. The authority of God

1. God existed before the material universe and everything material was created by God. John 1:1-3,

Col 1:16, Heb 1:10

2. God upholds the material universe today Heb 1:2,3

3. The material universe is temporary. Heb 1:10,11 Matt 24:35 2 Peter 3:10, Rev 20:11, 21:1

B. The origins of the material universe

1. heavens and earth Gen 1:1

2. “the earth was formed out of water and by water” 2 Pet 3:5

3. “the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep; and the Spirit  of  God was moving over the surface of the waters.” Gen 1:2

IV. Evidence from the material world: What we can know from our senses.

The following scientific facts do not prove the Bible or the Biblical timeline to be true. While each of these scientific facts work within a Biblical framework or timeline, they tend to discredit the possibility of Uniformitarianism.

A. Genetics

1. Mitochondrial DNA is passed from mother to daughter

a. estimates of the rate of mutations were made based on uniformitarian assumptions and mitochondrial Eve was estimated to be 144, 000 years old.

b. a 500 year old sample was taken; the calculated results show mitochondrial Eve to be approximately 6,500 years old (Nature Genetics vol. 15, April 1997 pp. 363-367. )

2. Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon DNA samples are both well within the range of modern homo sapiens.

3. Lucy and other proposed links between homo sapiens and animals have DNA samples well within the range of modern animals.

4. RNA

B. Dating methods

1. potassium/argon

2. uranium 235

3. Carbon 14: it becomes such a small amount that it is almost unnoticeable after about 60,000 years and disappears entirely after a little more than 100,000 years. All fossils which have been tested have C14.

4. all dating methods have an unknown point of origin

C. Ammonites

1. extinct marine creatures

2. wide dispersement

3. intact

4. on top of Mount Everest

D. Rock layers put in place while still moist

1. sharp bends, folds following matching contours

2. massive sections at unusual angles

E. Volcanism

1. modern lava flows have dates compatible with lava flows dated as ancient

2. physical appearance of recent eruptions shows multiple layers laid down

in minutes or seconds

F. Sea levels

1. salt content; no evidence of constant flow

2. massive recent rise in sea levels

3. Hudson river canyon

4. Niagara river canyon

G. Antarctica

1. evidence that Antarctica was once warm

2.  ancient maps with the land mass of Antarctica visible

H. Starlight

1. uniform background radiation

2. uniform red shift

I. Fossils

1. fossils not formed today: require unusual conditions to make fossils

2. massive fossil beds; billions of creatures, died in agony

3. creatures which do not exist today

4. very large creatures; very different climate

5. petrified wood

6. coal

J. Entombed creatures younger than fossils

1. different from fossils: different creatures and a different climate

2. usually frozen

3. ivory still usable

4. huge numbers

K. Lake Titicaca

1. salt content, marine life; highest lake in world (12,507 ft.)

2. tilted

3. city under water

4. existing city now far from water once a port

L. Massive stone structures

1. thousands of buildings and ruins of buildings

2. everywhere on earth

3. how they were made; either

a. poured in place like cement

b. floated into place

c. used a technology of which we are unaware

4. why they were made

a. to impress (who?)

b. protection from earthquakes

c. public works projects

d. unknown reasons

M. Insects in Amber

N. Diamonds can be manufactured

1. less than a year to make

2. are currently being manufactured in quantity

O. salt content of oceans

1. inconsistent flow rate: we do not know how much salt was

coming into the oceans as little as 3,000 years ago.

2. using ocean salt levels for dating is circular reasoning: assuming constant flow proves age; age is proved by salt levels

P. varves

Q. ice cap layers

1. assumption made that each layer represents one year

2. missing squadron

Conclusion: Many books are written to explain each subpoint. Few people, however, will stay around to listen. This list is a good starting point, however, for honest people who are legitimately seeking the truth.

1 Comment

Filed under Current Issues, Politics, Excerpts from our Nonfiction Books, History, Scientific

The Religion of Physics IV: What is “Scientific Evidence?”


All quotes, unless otherwise noted, are by Stephen Hawking from his book A Brief History of Time.

“A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations.”

“Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory.”

“There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, and science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win, because it works.”

“If they will not believe you (Moses) or heed the witness of the first sign, they may believe the witness of the last sign. But if they will not believe even these two signs or heed what you say, then you shall take some water from the Nile and pour it on the dry ground; and the water which you take from the Nile will become blood on the dry ground.” Exodus 3: 8,9 NASB

In the Bible the word belief means intellectually examining the evidence, and accepting the evidence. The Bible uses the word belief the same way we think of a juror examining the evidence. The juror votes according to what he believes about the evidence. Actively following up on that evidence is faith and passively following up on the evidence is trust.

Anyone can examine evidence, come to certain conclusions about that evidence and believe that their conclusions are correct. Orville and Wilber Wright believed that a heavier than air machine could fly. Their faith in that belief built an airplane. After building the airplane, they trusted in what they built and flew it. Our beliefs can be incorrect. We can place our faith in things which are not true. We can trust in things which are not true and people who will let us down.

The difference between the religion of Stephen Hawking and the Bible is absolute truth. The Bible claims to be absolute truth. Though few people today believe that it is absolute truth, all honest people know that it claims to be absolute truth. The religion of Secular Humanism demands that there is no absolute truth.

A very tiny number of people ever gain access to the multimillion-dollar equipment necessary for modern physics experiments. Only a tiny number of that tiny number are privileged enough to set up and run their own experiments. Of these who run their own experiments, very few ever see the experiments of others. These physicists are trusting in the records of others. They believe that the total sum of the experiments performed worldwide will reduce or eliminate error. They have faith in the peer review process.

They also believe, with a dogmatic faith, that the records of the Bible are untrue, or at least unscientific. Yet the historic record of Moses meets every test for science. It has multiple, credible witnesses. It was repeated. It can be falsified. It accurately predicted the future. It is based on observation and reason, Men reject Moses, not because of science, but because their religion is opposed to Moses.

“What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands concerning the Word of Life.” 1 John 1:1. NASB This is both scientific and legal testimony. John is either telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth or he is lying.

The scientific information of the Bible records that the processes which govern the universe today are different from the processes which brought the universe and life on this planet into existence. These records are as scientific as the photographic plate which record the collision of antimatter with matter. As anyone can mistrust or disbelieve the photographic plate, or the interpretation of the information on that plate, so we can mistrust or disbelieve the scientific information recorded in the Bible.

Secular Humanists believe that the miracles of Moses were not scientific because they cannot duplicate them today. Yet these same men believe in peer-reviewed studies which they cannot duplicate, such as a supernova. The only difference is that they believe in the results of these studies, while they reject the historic accounts of Moses.

The scientific records of Moses have no less authority than the peer-reviewed studies produced today. The basic difference is the information. Modern peer-reviewed studied usually have false conclusions for the primary content. The actual scientific data is usually contained in footnotes, appendices and attachments. In the published articles the conclusions usually lead. I believe the reason for this common layout is the difficulty very educated men have understanding how the available data supports their conclusions.

By contrast, the scientific data in the Bible is clearly laid out. From the beginning of the Bible we must simply choose to believe or reject the clearly laid out evidence of the witnesses. The data in the Bible is scientific.

1 Comment

Filed under Bible Teaching, Current Issues, Politics, Excerpts from our Nonfiction Books, History, Scientific