Faith and Science by faith_in_focus

focusin

Faith and Science

Adjunct Professor of Philosophy, Loyola University, Maryland

Adjunct Professor of Ethics, Stevenson University, Maryland

Deeper Harmony Foreword

Alvin Plantinga, one of the most celebrated philosophers of religion in the past century, in his volume Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism, Oxford University Press, 2011, p. ix, claims the following thesis statement: "There is a superficial conflict but deep concord between science and religion, in particular theistic religion, and superficial concord but deep conflict between science and naturalism." Werner Heisenberg, a notable quantum mechanics physicist, in the same spirit, allegedly affirms: "The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass, God is waiting for you. ” [it is not proven that this quote can be found in Heisenberg’s writings, but it reflects the spirit of his ideas].

Both Plantinga and Heisenberg, deep investigators of the reality, understood that behind the superficial clash between theistic understanding of the world and naturalism [ontologically], there is deeper harmony between religious and scientific comprehension of the deepest fundamental reality of things. Without the need for evidence for the supernatural intervention

of God, scientifically, we might recognize that at the deepest level of the subatomic world there is a mystery. Mystery belongs not to the pattern of the evolutionary predicted models, but to the unpredictable model of weird sustaining of the world that puzzles us daily. Believing in the Creator, therefore, does not contradict the contemporary scientific endeavor or scientific pattern of thinking. The problem is not in the lack of God’s presence or revelation, the problem is in our inability to penetrate and comprehend the most profound reality and find the mystery of divine harmony. On the most fundamental level, concord between religion and science is evident to those who seek the most essential principles of reality.

Faith in Focus magazine is one of the recent modest attempts to promote the understanding of this harmony between faith and reason, revelation, and nature. Investigating deep philosophical, scientific, or theological conundrums will always bring us closer to a deeper understanding of the reality graciously given to us by the Creator. The goal is always deeper harmony.

Faith and Science

Message from the Editor

Dr. Devron A. Thomas Pastor/Apologist/Chief Editor faithinfocus1986@gmail.com

Message from the Editor

Dear Friends:

The subject of God’s existence has been a focal point of rigorous scrutiny, engendering multifaceted discussions across various intellectual and philosophical domains. The fundamental proposition of the theistic worldview, a belief system that posits the existence of a personal God who is the creator and sustainer of the universe, is that there is a God who has a spiritual, immaterial nature and that His nature is prima facie in the order of being. The theistic worldview places God as the Creator of the universe, imposing order and design upon and within it Consequently, nature is an expression and revelation of the grand plan of the Creator.

In contrast to the Judeo-Christian-theistic tradition, evolutionary psychologist Daniel Dennett presents a different viewpoint, asserting, “God is, like Santa Clause, a myth of childhood, not anything a sane, undeluded adult could literally believe in. That God must be abandoned altogether….” This perspective, though different, is a valuable and respected part of the discourse we aim to foster, acknowledging the diversity of perspectives in our intellectual community. Christopher Hitchens lends support when he posits, “All attempts to reconcile faith with science and reason are consigned to failure ”

Religion and science, two great cultural forces, are often perceived as separate aspects of our belief system and understanding. The relationship between them has been tumultuous, multifaceted, and intriguing. Religion, far from being a less developed science, is an interdependent way of thinking, beliefs, and actions. It opens up new and unknown fields of human experience, such as the concept of divine revelation or the experience of transcendence, offering believers solutions to problems otherwise unsolvable, even with the assistance of science and its methods. The complexity of this topic, with its ongoing debates and evolving understandings, is a testament to its intellectual richness and the need for continued exploration

Considering the stark disparity between the naturalistic and theistic worldviews, this edition of “Faith in Focus” aims to uphold the following theoretical assertions: The belief in God and science is not inherently contradictory. 1. Belief in God is rational. 2. Theism, evolution, and naturalism form an incongruous triad 3 Join us as we embark on this journey!

Evidence For God

Dr. Devron A. Thomas Chief Editor/ Pastor/ Apologist

The notion of God’s existence is argued to be more probable than His nonexistence. While absolute proof akin to mathematical demonstration is elusive, evidence such as the intricate biological systems, the existence of objective moral values, and the precise physical constants that allow for life’s existence sufficiently support the hypothesis of God’s existence.

One philosophical argument, the cosmological argument, suggests that everything in the universe has a cause, and this chain of causes must ultimately be attributed to God. Similarly, the teleological argument, with its profound implications such as the existence of complex life forms and the beauty of the natural world, suggests that the universe’s intricate and aweinspiring order and design indicate an intelligent designer, namely God Furthermore, the moral argument contends that the presence of a higher power best explains the existence of objective moral values. These moral principles are universally valid, regardless of individual beliefs or cultural norms. For example, the value of human life or the wrongness of murder are often considered objective moral values.

From a scientific standpoint, proponents of God’s existence, in their quest for understanding, refer to the fine-tuning of the universe. This refers to the precise physical constants and conditions that allow for the existence of life, which they posit is most logically ascribed to the existence of God. Others, in their pursuit of knowledge, examine consciousness and the origin of life. They propose that the hat just as we have a natural existence of a divine being best elucidates

these phenomena, suggesting that God is the source of life and consciousness. John Calvin asserts that cognizance of God’s existence is embedded within the human psyche and results from natural intuition. This claim is considered indisputable. Natural intuition refers to a deep-seated, instinctive understanding or belief not based on conscious reasoning or evidence To preclude the possibility of individuals seeking refuge in claims of ignorance, God has, by His design, instilled in all humans a fundamental comprehension of His majestic divinity. Continuously refreshing this awareness, He consistently bestows new insights upon humanity. Alvin Plantinga, a renowned philosopher, once articulated inclination to form perceptual beliefs under certain conditions, similarly, we have an innate tendency to form beliefs such as “God is speaking to me, ” “God has created all this,” or “God disapproves of what I've done” under widely recognized circumstances. According to Plantinga, a person who forms one of these beliefs under such conditions is well within their epistemic rights and is not displaying any epistemic defect. Plantinga suggests that such a person may know the proposition in question. Thus, a person who accepts belief in God as foundational demonstrates no deficiency or flaw in their noetic structure. While the succinct arguments I have presented above may increase the likelihood of believing in God’s existence, they are not intended to establish God’s existence through deductive reasoning alone.

concordance of multiple premises generally assumed to be true. Instead, they offer philosophical and scientific perspectives that can significantly contribute to your personal contemplation of God’s existence. Whether you embrace belief in God or not, exploring these arguments can deepen your understanding of the complexities of existence and belief systems, highlighting the ongoing importance and relevance of this intellectually stimulating conversation. If you are on a personal journey to understand who God is, I wholeheartedly encourage you to pursue this knowledge. Have confidence that He will make Himself known to you at the right moment in a way that resonates with your unique intellectual and spiritual journey Remember, you are not alone in this quest. 1

C o s m o l o

i c a l A r g u m e n t , ” F a i t h a n d P h i l o s o p h y 1 7 ( 2 0 0 0 ) : 1 4 9

3 C S L e w i s , M e r e C h r i s t i a n i t y ( H a r p e r S a n F r a n c i s c o ; R e v i s e d &

E n l a r g e d e d i t i o n , 2 0 0 9 ) , 1 5

4 W . G i t t , I n T h e B e g i n n i n g W a s I n f o r m a t i o n ( B i e l e f e l d ,

G e r m a n y : C h r i s t l i c h e L i t e r a t u r V e r b r e i t u n g . 1 9 9 7 ) : 5 9 , 6 7 .

5 M . D e n t o n , E v o l u t i o n : A T h e o r y I n C r i s i s ( B e t h e s d a , M D : A d l e r & A d l e r , 1 9 8 6 ) 2 6 3

6 J o h n C a l v i n , I n s t i t u t e s o f t h e C h r i s t i a n R e l i g i o n ( G r a n d R a p i d s ,

M I : W i l l i a m B E e r d m a n s P u b l i s h i n g C o m p a n y , 1 9 9 8 ) , 4 3

7 A l v i n P l a n t i n g a , “ S e l f - P r o f i l e , ” i n A l v i n P l a n t i n g a , e d J a m e s E

T o m b e r l i n a n d P e t e r V a n I n w a g e n , P r o f i l e s 5 ( D o r d r e c h t ,

H o l l a n d : D R e i d e l , 1 9 8 5 ) , 6 4

Dr. Augustin Tchamba

Adjunct

Professor

Adventist University of Africa

Former Chair of STAR University of the Southern Caribbean

While Christians often cite the Genesis 1 creation account as a cornerstone of their belief in God’s existence, Philosophers have long sought to provide such evidence through the ontological argument The ontological argument is a philosophical concept that attempts to prove the existence of God by arguing that the very concept of God implies his existence. Due to the limited space to answer the question I raised in the title; I will suggest one argument each.

The ontological argument, a philosophical concept, holds significant relevance in the context of the biblical narrative. It posits that human beings, irrespective of their cultural or religious background, inherently perceive the notion of a perfect being that surpasses their own existence. This concept, when viewed through the lens of the biblical narrative of God’s creation, provides a compelling philosophical basis for the biblical argument. The ontological argument, in essence, aligns with the biblical narrative by suggesting that our inherent perception of a perfect being reflects God, the perfect creator described in the Bible.

The first statement of the biblical account story, a genuinely awe-inspiring narrative, is found in Gen 1:1-3. This passage, often called the creation story, reads, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.” (NIV)

The biblical creation account, far from being a mere story, is a profound and foundational text that offers tangible evidence of God’s existence through the act of creation

This awe-inspiring statement of fact, as recorded in scripture, provides clear and direct evidence of the existence of God. No human was present during creation week to challenge this factual statement, except God We continue to reap the benefits of this statement today. The impact of creation is vital for the world’s sustenance. We derive nutrients from the sunshine, rejuvenate our cells during the night, and prepare to face the next day’s challenges. Scripture abounds with references to the God who created everything through His spoken word. This undeniable fact underscores the power of God, who, in the biblical argument, ‘called out of nothing’ the essential elements necessary for the world’s survival. Anselm of Canterbury, one of the most articulate proponents of the ontological argument, noted that for something to be conceived to exist in the mind is itself evidence of the reality of that conception outside the mind. That reality is more significant than what is conceived, and that is God The argument follows that since the human mind can only conceive of what exists, God must exist because we would not be able to conceive of God unless there was God. Likewise, everything else we conceive of, from automobiles to blue, exists Therefore, our idea about this perfect, highest being called God is derived from the actual existence of this God.[1]

Despite their distinct approaches, the philosophical and biblical arguments harmoniously converge, presenting a compelling and robust evidence of a God whose existence transcends human comprehension and who brought the world into existence through His spoken word

The philosophical argument aligns with the biblical text in Ex 3:14, where God reveals Himself to Moses as the “I am who I am. ” This phrase, often interpreted as a declaration of God’s self-existence and eternal nature, is a pivotal element in the biblical argument for God’s existence. This is the same God who created light and darkness (Gen 1:3-5), separated waters from the sky (Gen 1: 6-8), called forth vegetation (Gen 1: 11-13), and brought into being the greater and lesser lights (Gen 1:14-19).

The God of Genesis 1’s creation account and the perfect being proposed by Anselm exist and continue to reveal themselves. We can assert that the biblical account of creation and the philosophical ontological arguments of the perfect being provide evidence of God’s existence. However, it’s important to acknowledge that there are counterarguments to these claims, such as the problem of evil or the challenge of proving the existence of a perfect being. The question then becomes: Are we prepared to engage with this divine reality, a reality that transcends our understanding and yet shapes our existence in profound ways?

[1]Fred Hoyle, quoted in Alvin Plantinga, “The Dawkins Confusion,” Books & Culture 13, no. 2 (March/ April 2007): 21, http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/1.21.html.

Divine Designer

Dr. Bethia Thomas Environmental Impact Assessment Specialist

Introduction

As you peer skyward into the celestial expanse on a clear, starry night, a profound sense of wonder might captivate you. Alternatively, seated along the coastline, contemplating the boundless reach of the vast oceans, you may ponder the complex dynamics that govern wave behaviour. Moreover, when scrutinising the seemingly rudimentary structure of a delicate blade of grass, its transient nature contrasts with the intricate compositional intricacies that evoke a sense of awe.

The natural world is replete with countless examples of divine design that evoke a profound sense of wonder and admiration. The concept of divine design refers to the proposition that the natural world manifests attributes indicative of being meticulously and consciously fashioned by a transcendental entity or divine agency. It posits that the intricacy and aesthetic appeal observed in diverse natural phenomena are not stochastic happenstances, but rather deliberately crafted (Craig 1988). This paper seeks to explore the manifestations of divine design in various natural phenomena, providing insights into the profound beauty, intricacy and order that underlie our natural world.

The Wisdom of a Divine Designer

Far from functioning as a detached draftsman engaged solely in the initial design, we must consistently portray the biblical creator Jesus Christ as the omnipresent and immanently involved architect responsible for every facet of the created order (Barclay 2011).

Psalms 104:24 reminds us that “…in wisdom you made them all” . A new scientific discipline, dubbed bioinspiration or biomimetics, has been born out of this ‘wisdom’ and involves studying and learning from the wisdom displayed everywhere in creation, to solve scientific and engineering problems (Allen 2010, Forbes 2006, French 1994). A few examples of such technologies include butterfly-inspired design of Thermal Imaging Devices, Bionic Science and flight, the science of navigation and eco-location (Bergman 2024).

In the subsequent paragraphs, we examine the sophisticated manifestations of the Creator's wisdom as evidenced by the intricate arrangement of genetic information in DNA and the discernible numerical and pattern-based structures found in the natural world

DNA Points to Intricacy of God

The nucleotide bases arranged within the DNA molecular chain are structured into genes, and these genes are further organised into specifically arranged gene clusters. These arrangements facilitate the transcription of longer transcripts, which represent combinations of distinct gene messages Scientists have observed the bidirectionality of the human genome, leading to the conveyance of diverse messages when read from opposite orientations, thereby enhancing spatial efficiency This bidirectionality substantially augments the diversity of encoded transcripts and protein products derived from the same genomic region or resources. This attribute is not a result of chance (Seiglie 2012, Meyer 2009)

Shapes, Numbers, Patterns, and the Divine Proportion in God's Creation

The logarithmic spiral observed in the shells of organisms like the chambered nautilus maintains its identical form as it grows larger due to the equiangular and logarithmic nature of its path. This form, known as the "golden spiral," is universally present in a wide variety of natural phenomena such as hurricanes, the cochlea of the human ear, ram ' s horns, seahorse tails, growing leaves, DNA molecules, beach waves, tornados, galaxies, and comet tails. It is also found in whirlpools, sunflower seed patterns, and the construction of mammalian ears. This spiral follows the precise mathematical pattern of the Fibonacci Numbering Sequence, in which each successive number is the sum of the two preceding numbers. The Fibonacci sequence and its resulting spiral ratio have been extensively utilised in the creation of sculptures, works of art, and infrastructure due to their aesthetic appeal to the human eye (Garland 1987, Runion 1990, Wilson 2002).

The geometric configurations, numerical relationships, logarithmic spirals, and the golden ratio permeate all manifestations of existence They manifest in both animate and inanimate phenomena. Their symmetrical attributes, aesthetic appeal, and mathematical precision are conspicuously evident in all natural domains Although absolute flawlessness is not universally attainable, their presence throughout the entirety of creation defies attributions to mere chance or evolutionary mechanisms. The most logical inference is that the designer of the cosmos is a cognitive, sentient entity, who fashioned these entities as tangible indicators of His imperceptible yet personal presence (Wilson 2002).

When discussing natural design, it is important to note however, that this concept is just a small component of the broader biblical concept of creation and is more implied than expressly stated. Instead of portraying the biblical creator as a distant designer who creates without subsequent involvement, it is essential to emphasise the intimate and attentive involvement of the creator God in every facet of the created world.

Conclusion

This paper illuminated the intricacies and symmetries of divine design as exemplified in the natural world. The elucidated examples offered a deeper comprehension of the coherent structure and transcendent aesthetics that pervade the cosmos Through this investigation, we are prompted to contemplate the profound sense of astonishment and reverence that the notion of divine design elicits, thereby enriching our understanding of the intricacies of the world in which we reside and our Heavenly Creator, Jesus Christ

References

Allen, Robert. 2010. Bulletproof Feathers: How Science Uses Nature's Secrets to Design CuttingEdge Technology: University of Chicago Press

Barclay, Oliver 2011 "Design in Nature " Biologos, accessed June 04th, 2024 https://biologos org/articles/design-in-nature#introduction

Bergman, Jerry 2024 "Affirmations of God’s Existence from Design in Nature " Answers in Genesis, accessed June 04th, 2024 https://answersingenesis org/is-god-real/affirmations-of-godsexistence-from-design-in-nature/

Craig, William Lane 1988 "Barrow and Tipler on the Anthropic Principle Vs Divine Design " The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 39 (3): 389-395

Forbes, P 2006 The Gecko’s Foot: Bio-Inspiration Engineering New Materials from Nature : Norton WW & Company, New York

French, Michael J 1994 Invention and Evolution: Design in Nature and Engineering: Cambridge University Press

Garland, Trudi Hammel. 1987. Fascinating Fibonaccis: Mystery and Magic in Numbers: ERIC.

Meyer, Stephen C. 2009. Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design: Zondervan

Runion, Garth E 1990 The Golden Section: ERIC

Seiglie, Mario 2012 "God, Science and the Bible DNA Discoveries Demonstrate Divine Design " Beyond Today, accessed June 04th, 2024 https://www ucg org/the-good-news/god-science-andthe-bible-dna-discoveries-demonstrate-divine-design

Wilson, Fred 2002 "Shapes, Numbers, Patterns, And The Divine Proportion In God's Creation " The Institute for Creation Research, accessed June 04th, 2024 https://www icr org/article/shapes-numbers-patterns-divine-proportion-gods-cre

A Christian Perspective on Science

Dr. Devron A. Thomas Chief Editor/ Pastor/ Apologist

Introduction

Science has been a subject of extensive debate and contemplation among scholars and researchers. It has been approached from various angles, with experts and scholars offering diverse perspectives. Some view science as a systematic and rational method for understanding our world, while others critique it as limited by human biases and perceptions Despite these differing views, science remains an essential field of inquiry that continues to shape our understanding of the universe. Its influence is evident in numerous areas, including medicine, technology, environmental conservation, and space exploration. In the modern era, science is often perceived as a discipline that operates solely within natural phenomena, excluding any possibility of supernatural intervention or explanation. This viewpoint, known as naturalism, asserts that the laws of nature are the sole governing principles in the universe and that the universe and life have no inherent purpose or meaning Over time, naturalism has gained traction in the scientific and philosophical communities and is seen as a rational and evidence-based approach to understanding our world. However, some argue that naturalism is limiting, as it fails to account for the full complexity and mystery of the universe and human existence. This ongoing debate between naturalism and supernaturalism, philosophical and existential, has persisted for centuries and is likely to continue, highlighting the dynamic nature of this discourse.

This article addresses the following questions: 1) What are the presuppositions and nature of science? 2) What is the role of objectivity and rationality in scientific theorizing, and how should it be employed? 3) How can we differentiate between scientific and non-scientific claims? 4) What influence have Kuhnian and postmodernist perspectives had on science? 5) What part should the Christian worldview play in examining these concerns?

Questions Answered

In its most rigorous sense, science refers to systematically acquiring and organizing knowledge through observation, experimentation, and analysis. Throughout history, the term science has taken on various connotations and has been employed by diverse communities to mean multiple intellectual pursuits and investigations.

Albert Einstein defines science as “the century-old endeavor to bring together using systematic thought the perceptible phenomena of this world into as thoroughgoing an association as possible.” Einstein’s definition of science is a profound and comprehensive statement that encapsulates the essence of scientific inquiry. The definition accentuates the significance of human curiosity, a fundamental aspect of our nature, in unraveling the mysteries of the world around us and the necessity for systematic analysis to comprehend the intricate and multifaceted phenomena in our universe. Einstein’s emphasis on “bringing together” the perceptible 1

phenomena of this world implies that science strives to unify and integrate our understanding of the natural world. The phrase “ as thoroughgoing an association as possible” implies that science aims for completeness and comprehensiveness in its efforts to comprehend the natural world. However, it is worth noting that Einstein’s definition of science has limitations. The definition may be viewed as excessively focused on the natural sciences, mainly concerned with observable and quantifiable phenomena. This definition may not entirely encompass the breadth of inquiry in other disciplines, such as the humanities and social sciences, which also involve systematic thought and inquiry but deal with more complex and less tangible phenomena. It is widely agreed upon that science is a systematic and methodical approach to comprehensively and coherently studying the natural world. At its core, science is an inquisitive pursuit that endeavors to unearth fundamental truths about the workings of the universe Through observation, experimentation, and logical interpretation, science seeks to discern the intricacies of the natural realm’s past, present, and future states. Del Ratzsch provides a succinct and cogent summary when articulating, “Those three concepts, the empirical, the objective, and the rational, are key to the nature of science.”

Scientific inquiry is embedded within the broader epistemological framework of presuppositions that are not amenable to empirical verification but are grounded in the theistic worldview. These presuppositions, or foundational beliefs, include the postulation of a well-ordered natural world, the intelligibility of natural phenomena, and the principle of causality.

The concept of a rationally or dered universe owes its provenance to the JudeoChristian tradition, which posits that the universe had an absolute temporal beginning, a singularity from which all matter, time, and space emerged. These presuppositions, rooted in the Christian worldview, provide a philosophical basis for scientific inquiry, guiding scientists in their search for understanding and truth. Contemporary cosmological research and discoveries lend substantive empirical support to this theological claim of the universe’s temporal finitude. The Christian worldview opposes pantheism, which posits that the universe and its constituents are imbued with divinity. Christianity, on the other hand, asserts that the universe is not synonymous with its Creator and that the Creator transcends all created beings. This fundamental theological distinction affords a framework to investigate the natural world. Loren Eiseley contends:

The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and used its methods in the faith, not the knowledge that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation. … It is undoubtedly one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that that assumption sustains science today. 3

Eiseley’s assertion highlights a fascinating paradox in the annals of scientific history. He opines that the origin of science was rooted in an act of faith that posited the universe as amenable to rational interpretation. According to Eiseley, this conviction guided early scientists in their quest for knowledge and discovery. However, modern science has gradually distanced itself from faith, and many contemporary scientists argue that their endeavors have little to do with religious or spiritual convictions. Instead, they depend on the scientific method, empirical evidence, and logical reasoning to propel discovery and advance our world comprehension. Yet, the scientific enterprise is built upon myriad presuppositions that inherently bear theistic implications, thereby warranting the conclusion that theistic underpinnings are relevant and crucial to the scientific pursuit. The epistemological concepts of rationality and objectivity are of utmost importance in shaping certain debates in modern science. Therefore, a comprehensive understanding of scientific objectivity is essential to grasp the essence of the scientific pursuit. Within the scientific framework, objectivity refers to the property of scientific claims that accurately depict factual information about the world. Bernard Williams explains that “the substance of the absolute conception (as opposed to those vacuous or vanishing ideas of ‘the world’ that were offered before) lies in the idea that it could non-vacuously explain how it, and the various perspectival views of the world, are possible.” Williams expounds that the crux of the absolute conception, in contradistinction to the hollow or transient notions of “the world” that were put forth earlier, resides in its ability to provide a meaningful explanation of how it can sustain itself and the manifold perspectival

interpretations of the world. In other words, “ on the traditional view…..Anything other than the empirical could not affect theory evaluation, and observation was considered neutral.”

Given that science operates within a particular cultural milieu, it is imperative to consider other contextual factors in formulating ideas and concepts Despite its inherent limitations, science cannot provide conclusive answers to all questions about life. Instead, it can only indicate what does not work and cannot necessarily ascertain what is valid or effective in any absolute sense. Hence, science cannot be deemed entirely objective, as it cannot solely generate definitive answers or solutions. Other disciplines are equally valuable in the pursuit of truth Rationality is a critical element for both science and the scientist, particularly in the quest to unravel the mysteries of existence. Rationality refers to making informed judgments concerning behavior, thoughts, or decisions. As a discipline, science is rational because natural phenomena are neutral data points. However, due to personal biases, scientists may not constantly evaluate the available data objectively or rationally. Raymond Nickerson posits:

One thing is clear: rationality is not an allor-not-at-all affair. People cannot be divided neatly into two categories: those who are always rational and those who never are. Most people are rational on some occasions and irrational on others, rational about some topics and not so rational about others, and so on.

According to Nickerson’s postulations, it is evident that the concept of rationality cannot be categorized as an absolute binary phenomenon. The human population cannot be parsed into two distinct groups of individuals who are either entirely rational or completely irrational. Instead, most people display varying degrees of rationality on different occasions, demonstrate rationality towards certain subjects while exhibiting irrationality towards others, and so forth. The notion of rationality is a multifaceted and nuanced construct influenced by several contextual and individual factors. As a result of this imbalance, “contemporary philosophy of science has tried to incorporate the lessons of the Kuhnian approach without losing the insights of earlier periods.”

Meanwhile, delineating the boundaries between science and non-science is a formidable task that requires a profound understanding of epistemological principles. According to Karl Popper’s epistemological framework, authentic science is characterized by its adherence to universal laws capable of withstanding rigorous empirical testing and falsification. He postulates that “all universals are dispositional ” The philosophical concept of “all universals are dispositional” posits that properties or qualities predicated on an object or a thing are fundamentally potentialities or dispositions. In other words, universals are not actual entities but modalities of possibility, tendencies, or predispositions toward a particular state or behavior. The concept of dispositional universals holds significant implications for diverse areas of philosophical inquiry, including metaphysics, epistemology, and ontology, and has engendered considerable scholarly discourse and controversy among philosophers.

Furthermore, Popper surmises these natural laws are synonymous with “physical laws.” He proposed that specific disciplines, specifically psychology, sociology, and theology, are inherently flawed or misleading. According to him, these fields can be characterized by various trends and principles, ultimately undermining their scientific validity and credibility. Popper’s philosophical perspective on the nature of genuine universals is limited to the realm of inquiry investigated by the natural sciences. However, Dani Strauss’s scholarly works offer a more apt and nuanced approach to this issue. Strauss posits that the demarcation criterion between scientific and non-scientific modes of thinking lies in the cognitive attention exercised by the observer. Renato Coletto sums up Strauss’s view accurately when he writes: Abstraction in itself is not typical of science. Strauss gives the example of a child “abstracting” the different characteristics of a bird (beak, tail) and later on identifying different types of birds on that basis. This abstraction “lifts up ” certain entities (wings, feathers, etcetera). We can therefore call it entitary abstraction. Science, on the other hand is busy with modal abstraction in the sense that it looks at animals, plants or anything else via modal aspects. We can look at animals, for example, via the biotic aspect, or the historical, or the juridical aspect.

Therefore, “all modal aspects serve as points of entry for scientific explorations of the world in which we live, and as a consequence the disciplines using those points of entry are to be regarded as having scientific status. This is equally true of mathematics, physics, history, law, or theology.”

On the other hand, Thomas Kuhn challenges science’s established, conventional, and philosophical perspectives in his work, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” Kuhn conceptualizes science as a construct that embodies a collective outlook or viewpoint among scientists regarding fundamental principles, methodologies, and guidelines that must be adhered to. Accepted or standard science, according to Kuhn, is the science that is carried out when members of a particular field share similar perspectives on the theories that are acceptable or unacceptable and the various approaches to be adopted when addressing problems in that specific discipline. Kuhn refers to this concept as a “paradigm.” The paradigm encompasses the scientific community’s perception of the world and how knowledge is assimilated In essence, the advancement of scientific knowledge does not follow a strictly linear trajectory but instead undergoes intermittent transformations, known as paradigmatic revolutions He puts it this way:

Achievements that share these two characteristics I shall henceforth refer to as ‘paradigms,’ a term that relates closely to ‘normal science.’ By choosing it, I mean to suggest that some accepted examples of actual scientific practice –examples which include law, theory, application, and instrumentation together– provide models from which spring particular coherent traditions of scientific research.… Men whose research is based on shared paradigms are committed to the same rules and standards for scientific practice.

Kuhn argued that anomalies are typically set aside and are only used to justify rejecting a theory during revolutions.

Furthermore, he contended that on an enormous scale, the history of science should not be told as a story of uninterrupted progress but only change. Nevertheless, the theoretical construct of paradigms holds the potential to provide a robust framework for scientific inquiry, guiding the course of research through shared standards and methods. By facilitating communication and collaboration among researchers, paradigms engender a sense of cohesiveness and continuity in scientific practice, with researchers building upon and augmenting previous work to develop fresh insights. Examining the scenario from an alternative point of view, paradigms may impinge on scientific inquiry’s creative and innovative potential, as researchers may need to be more inclined to challenge or depart from established norms and practices. Moreover, paradigms may be influenced by sociocultural factors, such as prevalent ideologies or biases, leading to a myopic focus or the exclusion of particular perspectives or approaches.

In summary, while paradigms hold promise for scientific research, it is imperative to critically appraise the benefits and limitations of this theoretical construct to ensure its judicious and productive application.

In his analysis of Kuhn’s philosophy of science, Ratzsch critiques Kuhn’s claim that scientific revolutions involve a paradigm shift. Ratzsch argues that Kuhn’s account fails to provide a clear definition of what constitutes a paradigm and that it is ambiguous whether scientific revolutions involve a fundamental shift in knowledge or merely a change in how knowledge is organized. Furthermore, Ratzsch suggests that Kuhn’s account implies a relativistic

view of science that undermines the possibility of objective truth claims. Overall, Ratzsch’s analysis challenges Kuhn’s influential account of scientific revolutions and raises essential questions about the nature of scientific knowledge. For certain post-modern intellectuals, the epistemic strife concerning the definition of science is deemed inconsequential or reducible to a mere issue of semantics. For example, Laundan posits, “the fact that 2400 years of searching for a demarcation criterion has left us empty-handed raises a presumption that the object of the quest is nonexistent.” Laundan's proclamation is a bold and contentious assertion that necessitates a critical evaluation and appraisal. Firstly, it is imperative to acknowledge that Laundan’s statement pertains to the quest for a demarcation criterion that distinguishes science from non-science. While it is true that there is no universally accepted demarcation criterion, it does not necessarily imply that the object of the quest is inexistent One could argue that the absence of a demarcation criterion indicates the complexity of the task and that the search for such a criterion is ongoing. Secondly, it is worth noting that Laundan’s statement may be excessively pessimistic Although the search for a demarcation criterion has not yet resulted in a universally accepted criterion, this does not necessarily indicate that such a criterion does not exist. Instead, it may suggest an ongoing debate and disagreement over what such a criterion should encompass. Finally, it is critical to note that Laundan’s statement presumes that the search for a demarcation criterion is the only means of establishing the objectivity of science. This assumption is problematic because it overlooks the fact that there are other ways of establishing the objectivity of science, such as through empirical evidence, replicability, and peer review.

While Laundan’s statement raises an intriguing point about the challenges of establishing a demarcation criterion between science and non-science, it is crucial to subject this statement to critical scrutiny and assessment to avoid an excessively pessimistic outlook on the search for such a criterion. Multiple and divergent perspectives on science and its appropriation can result in a state of perplexity and disorientation. A reliable point of reference is required to mitigate this issue, which can be found in theistic worldview. Within the Christian paradigm, the omniscient deity is posited as the ultimate source of knowledge regarding general and special revelation. Bruce Demarest and Gordon Lewis posit, “the disclosure of God in nature, in providential history, and in the moral law within the heart, whereby all persons at all times and places gain a rudimentary understanding of the Creator and his moral demands.” It can be posited that there exists a congruity between special revelation and science insofar as science may be construed as the exploration of God’s universal revelation, much like how theology may be conceived as the exploration of God's specific revelation. Norman Geisler articulates this idea in the following manner:

Systematic theology is as meaningful as science is, for theology is to the Bible (God’s special revelation) what science is to nature (God’s general revelation). Both are a systematic approach to the truths God has revealed in a non-systematic way. In each case, God has given the truths and left it for man to organize them in an orderly way.

In situations where there seems to be a contradiction between the two methods of divine revelation,it is more often than not

due to the limitations of the theologian or scientist who is charged with deciphering the information at hand. The ultimate predicament is not with the information but with the interpreter’s explanation. In such cases, the sacred texts are frequently considered less authoritative than the other modes of revelation. William Craig posits, “The whole point of the double revelation theory was supposed to prove that these two revelations must agree; if they do not appear to do so, it must be because we are misinterpreting either one or both. But the Bible always seems to come out on the short end.” Craig's observation sheds light on the complex challenge of reconciling divergent sources of revelation Craig posits that the double revelation theory was devised to demonstrate the necessity of harmonizing these two sources. However, the Bible appears to be the primary source, often left in a precarious position This has profound implications for those who regard the Bible as the authoritative source of their religious convictions. It suggests the presence of discrepancies within the text that are challenging to reconcile with other sources of revelation. This predicament engenders skepticism and perplexity among adherents striving to comprehend their faith. Simultaneously, it accentuates the significance of meticulous exegesis when engaging with religious texts. It is crucial to account for the contextual and historical background of the text to prevent misapprehension.

While general revelation may hold authority, it should not be prioritized over special revelation, which is the ultimate and final authority. Although the two forms of revelation are compatible, the scientific framework should be guided by scripture rather than the reverse.

Woltz writes, “They are plain in a way that general revelation never is, have a ‘perspicuity’ not found in the book of nature. Therefore, the Scriptures are like a verbal commentary on creation's dimly perceived sign language.” Scientific inquiry is a fundamental human endeavor to explore the intricacies of the natural world. However, the limitations of human perception and inquiry restrict access to certain truths that underpin the functioning of the universe. In this context, special revelation, which represents the divine testimony of the Creator, can provide a unique perspective on such realities. Therefore, tota, prima, and sola scriptura principles should be followed to understand the workings of the natural world, recognizing that God is the ultimate source of knowledge and wisdom.

Conclusion

While the primary objective of science is to explore and elucidate the workings of the natural world, religions strive to unravel the mysteries that lie beyond it by invoking devotion. It is pertinent to note that science and religion are not inherently contradictory, and the pursuit of truth is not limited to scientific inquiries alone. Science is adept at answering questions about “how” things work, whereas religion seeks to address the “why” questions. It is, therefore, essential to recognize that the discovery of God or any divine entity cannot be achieved through scientific means, as it cannot be reduced to mere mathematical proof. If God were to be discovered through scientific methods, it would imply that God is no greater than the person who discovered him. The methodology employed in arriving at scientific truths is valid and valuable but

limited in scope. Hence, alternative avenues must be sought to seek truths beyond the natural world. It is crucial to note that even before scientists pursue knowledge about any natural phenomenon, they have several presuppositions guiding their investigation. While conflicts may exist between scientists and theologians, science and religion need not be perceived as antagonistic or mutually exclusive disciplines. There are several ways in which they can productively interact. It is essential to recognize that while science is a means of general revelation, faith, and theology are avenues of special revelation, and there is no inherent conflict between them.

The ongoing philosophical and existential debate between naturalism and supernaturalism underscores the significance of comprehending scientific inquiry’s underlying assumptions and epistemological basis, the epistemic virtues of objectivity and rationality in scientific theorizing, and demarcation criteria for distinguishing scientific from non-scientific claims.

The Christian perspective, with its distinctive metaphysical and epistemological commitments, can enrich the ongoing conversation concerning the nature and limits of scientific knowledge.

1 A l b e r t E i n s t e i n , I d e a s a n d O p i n i o n s , T r a n s . S o n j a B a r g m a n n .

( N e w Y o r k : C r o w n P u b l i s h e r s , I n c . 1 9 5 4 )

2 D e l R a t z s c h , S c i e n c e a n d I t s L i m i t s : T h e N a t u r a l S c i e n c e s i n

C h r i s t i a n P e r s p e c t i v e C o n t o u r s o f C h r i s t i a n P h i l o s o p h y

( W e s t m o n t : I V P A c a d e m i c , 2 0 0 9 ) , 1 4

3 S e e A l e x a n d e r V i l e n k i n , M a n y W o r d s i n O n e : T h e S e a r c h f o r

O t h e r U n i v e r s e s ( N e w Y o r k , N Y : H i l l a n d W a n g , 2 0 0 6 ) , 1 7 6

4 L o r e n E i s e l e y , T h e I m m e n s e J o u r n e y : A n I m a g i n a t i v e N a t u r a l i s t

E x p l o r e s t h e M y s t e r i e s o f M a n a n d N a t u r e ( N e w Y o r k : V i n t a g e

B o o k s , 1 9 5 8 ) , 6 2 .

5 B e r n a r d W i l l i a m s , E t h i c s a n d t h e L i m i t s o f P h i l o s o p h y ( N e w

Y o r k , N Y : R o u t l e d g e , 2 0 1 1 ) , 1 3 9 .

6 D e l R a t z s c h , S c i e n c e & I t s L i m i t s : T h e N a t u r a l S c i e n c e s i n

C h r i s t i a n P e r s p e c t i v e C o n t o u r s o f C h r i s t i a n P h i l o s o p h y

( W e s t m o n t : I V P A c a d e m i c , 2 0 0 9 ) , 6 6

7 Raymond Nickerson, Aspects of Rationality: Reflections on What It Means to be Rational and Whether We Are (New York: Psychology Press, 2008), 418

8 Ibid , 66

9 Karl R. Popper, Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (London: Rutledge & Kegan Paul, 1963), 118

10 Karl R Popper, The Poverty of Historicism (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1961), 5.

11 Karl R Popper, Normal Science and Its Dangers In: Lakatos I & Musgrave A , (Eds), Criticism and The Growth of Knowledge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), 57- 58.

12 See Dani F Strauss, “Does It Make Sense to Distinguish Between the Natural Sciences and the Humanities?” Tydskrif vir Christelike Wetenskap, 2001, 37(1-2):25-36.

13 Renato Coletto, “Science and Non-Science: The Search for A Demarcation Criterion In the 20th Century” Tydskrif vir Christelike Wetenskap, 2011, 77.

14 Ibid , 79

15 A L Samian, “The Impact of Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions on Sociology of Science.” Akademika, 1994, 44 (1): 127.

16 Thomas S Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions 2nd Edition, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1970), 10

17 Ratzsch, Science & Its Limits: The Natural Sciences in Christian Perspective Contours of Christian Philosophy, 61

18 L Laudan, “Views of Progress: Separating the Pilgrims from the Rakes,” Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 1980 10 (Sept.):275.

19 See J R Moore, “Geologists and Interpreters of Genesis in the Nineteenth Century,” in: Lindberg D C and Numbers R L (Eds ), God and Nature (Berkeley, CA University of California Press, 1986), 322.

20 Bruce Demarest and Gordon Lewis, Integrative Theology: Knowing Ultimate Reality, the Living God (Grand Rapids, MI, Zondervan, 1987), 61.

21 Norman Geisler, “The Relation of Purpose and Meaning in Interpreting Scripture,” Grace Theological Journal, 1984, Fall 5

22 William L. Craig, “Evangelicals and Evolution: An Analysis of the Debate Between the Creation Research Society and the American Scientific Affiliation,” J Evangelical Theological Society 1974, 17(3):141 23 A M Wolters, Creation Regained (UK: Paternoster Press, 1996), 32 24 Devron A. Thomas, God, Science and Miracles (Devron Thomas: St. Lucia), 117-122

The

Fossil Record and Radiometric Dating Methods

Dr. Devron A. Thomas Chief Editor/ Pastor/ Apologist

Introduction

The interpretation of specific fossil records, such as the Burgess Shale and the Ediacaran biota, and the accuracy of radiometric dating methods, like potassium-argon dating and uranium-lead dating, have sparked intense debate and controversy in the scientific community. This intellectual battleground is where evolutionists and young earth creationists clash, each holding diametrically opposing views. Scientists who uphold the Genesis account of creation interpret the fossil record in light of the great deluge described in Genesis This article aims to provide a concise overview of the incompatibility of these specific fossil records and radiometric dating methods with the evolutionary worldview, inviting you to delve into this complex and fascinating debate.

My Contention

Evolutionists hypothesize that layers of rocks are formed very slowly, and what is observed in geology today is the same process as what happened in the past. They theorized that the earth is billions of years old and species have emerged from a predecessor One species that existed previously transformed into another organism over time, and all species have come into being this way. This transformation proceeds gradually over billions of years

Emil Silvestru, a geologist and young earth creationist, presents a rigorous scientific argument that the fossil record shows that what is seen in the Cambrian layer of :

earth’s strata is sudden complexity of life forms rather than gradual increases in complexity. Silvestru rejects the evolutionary explanation for the origins of life as interpreted by proponents of evolution. His contention is that if it took millions of years to form these transitions in the fossil record, numerous intermediate species, often referred to as 'transitional forms,’ should have lived during the vast period when these transformations were supposedly occurring. For example, some half-fish/half-reptile creatures should have lived in the past and acquired some reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they already had. Or there should have existed some reptile/bird creatures that had acquired some avian traits in addition to the reptilian traits they already possessed If these animals existed, there would have possibly been millions or billions of them. Also, the remains of these creatures should be present in the fossil record. Furthermore, the number of these transitional forms should have been even more significant than present animal species, and their remains should be found worldwide. Darwin observed the absence in the transitional forms

Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not see innumerable transitional forms everywhere? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?... But, as by this theory innumerabletransitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in

the crust of the earth?… But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me.

With a theory now in crisis, many evolutionists made several attempts to find the missing link, only to do more harm to the theory of evolution. Thomson thus writes, “When a major group of organisms arises and first appears in the record, it seems to come fully equipped with a suite of new characters not seen in related, putatively ancestral groups. These radical changes in morphology and function appear to arise very quickly.” Carroll expresses similar sentiments when he writes, “Despite more than a hundred years of intense collecting efforts since Darwin's death, the fossil record still does not yield the picture of infinitely numerous transitional links that he expected ” The discovered fossils indicate that, in contrast to the evolutionary perspective, life emerged on earth in a fully developed state, rather than gradually. Macroevolution necessitates the occurrence of multiple simultaneous alterations within an organism. However, the viability of such changes is contingent upon the flawless coadaptation of its nascent components during its development. Gould further observed, “the absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” Thus, the fossil record reveals that species emerged rapidly, with totally different structures, and remained the same over the longest geological epochs

Based on the aforementioned discourse, it can be ascertained with confidence that the emergence and progression of life do not necessitate a span of billions of years It is not imperative for any living entity to undergo a complete transition from one species to another. The fossil record provides numerous instances of abrupt and fully developed appearances of distinct organisms. For instance, the initial bats, pterosaurs, and birds exhibited full-fledged aerial capabilities. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that the earliest known sea turtle possessed full anatomical development and a sophisticated salt excretion system, essential for preventing rapid dehydration in a marine reptile. 1 2 3

Research conducted by Snelling has demonstrated that scientists exhibiting a predisposition towards the evolutionary paradigm tend to extrapolate the age of the earth to be billions of years, primarily due to a multitude of erroneous assumptions. Snelling posits, “It has to be assumed that all the daughter isotopes found in rocks today have been derived by radioactive decay of the parent isotopes It also has to be assumed that the rate of decay of the parent isotopes in the past has occurred constantly at the same rates measured today.” He further states that “there is no way any scientist can know whether these two assumptions are correct because the evidence only exists today in the present. We can’t go back to test the past millions of years and check that the rates of radioactive decay were the same then as they are now ” The current scope of scientific measurement is inherently limited to present conditions, rendering it incapable of directly observing past events through contemporary testing methodologies. Time travel is not feasible, preventing direct access to historical states and the environmental factors that may have influenced the formation of geological specimens. As a result, radiometric dating cannot be unequivocally heralded as the definitive solution to evolutionary inquiries, underscoring the importance of recognizing the constraints of scientific methodologies and advocating for sustained scientific inquiry and exploration

From a scientific perspective, radiometric dating has many flaws. About forty different radiometric dating techniques are based on a different radioactive isotope. While these other methods can be helpful, their dates are inaccurate. Snelling contends that “the truth is that the age of the earth has been established by dating meteorites,

which are not earth rocks. They have come from somewhere else in the solar system, and their source is assumed to have formed simultaneously as the earth.” Also, the contention that half-lives remain constant for millions of years is only an assumption and raises serious questions. Many scientists think that radiometric dating directly contradicts the Biblical record of recent creation As a result, the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) has embarked on a journey to unravel the science behind these dating techniques. Together with many Bible-believing geologists, the ICR scientists have made vital observations that could safely allow us to reject the millions of years that radiometric dating produces. These observations are as follows:

1. Rocks of known age always show vastly inflated radioisotope ages

2. Various radioisotope methods or even attempts using the same method yield discordant ages more often than concordant ages.

3 Many dating methods that don't involve radioisotopes, such as helium diffusion, erosion, magnetic field decay, and original tissue fossils, conflict with radioisotope ages by showing much younger apparent ages. These observations demonstrate that radiometric dating is unreliable and cannot be accepted as a reputable science (Institute for Creation Research, 2020). Additionally, many studies have revealed that rocks of known ages are much younger than initially perceived. Snelling tested 23 examples of rocks of known ages and demonstrated in 23 of 23 cases, these radioisotope “ ages ” rose orders of magnitude above the rock's actual ages These rocks produced ancient K-Ar ages when they were previously tested. Contrary to assumption, extra argon had entered the hardening volcanic rocks from sources

other than radioisotope decay, significantly skewing the rock's apparent isotope ages. Another noteworthy example is the Kishenehn Formation, which is younger than 46, 43, 33, or 30 million years. It may only be thousands of years old. This would explain why it still contains abundant biodegradable oil and fresh, red blood protein remnants

The scientific community supports creationists regarding the inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and inadequacies of radiometric dating. Because radiometric dating is inaccurate with rocks of known ages, it seems highly improbable that this technique will be accurate on rocks of unknown ages.

From a scientific perspective, radiometric dating has many flaws About forty different radiometric dating techniques are based on a different radioactive isotope. While these other methods can be helpful, their dates are inaccurate. Snelling contends that “the truth is that the age of the earth has been established by dating meteorites,

Conclusion

Contrary to popular belief, rocks and fossils form quite rapidly Fossils require conditions that we would typically associate with a flood. Various evolutionists' attempts to explain away the facts have not been successful. None of the theories proposed by evolutionists can provide a mechanism for crossing significant biological gaps. There has been no proof of any possibility for genetic changes of this magnitude. Hence, these theories fall far short of providing sufficient evidence for the absence of missing links in the fossil record.

The fossil record represents the geological history of the earth and its inhabitants, providing evidence of past life forms and their evolution over time The interpretation of these records has been the subject of intense debate, with different

schools of thought offering varying perspectives. For example, the evolutionary worldview contends that the fossil record supports the theory of gradual evolution At the same time, young earth creationists argue that the fossils result from the catastrophic flood described in Genesis. Radiometric dating methods determine the age of rocks and fossils by measuring the decay of radioactive isotopes. These methods are based on the assumption that these isotopes' decay rate has remained constant over time. However, young earth creationists have challenged this assumption, arguing that the decay rates may have been affected by various factors, including changes in the earth's magnetic field and solar radiation.

Taken together, these issues highlight the complex and contentious nature of the interpretation of fossil records and the accuracy of radiometric dating methods. While the scientific community continues to grapple with these issues, it is clear that the fossil record and radiometric dating methods are incompatible with the evolutionary worldview, and further research is needed to reconcile these discrepancies

In conclusion, then, Snelling is correct when he posits that “radiometric dating methods sometimes yield conflicting results, but the technique itself is scientific and reliable, and once the results are interpreted in a biblical framework, they yield clear patterns that help us better understand the earth’s history since creation six thousand years ago. ”

1 C h a r l e s D a r w i n , T h e O r i g i n o f S p e c i e s b y M e a n s o f N a t u r a l

S e l e c t i o n ( N e w Y o r k , N Y : M o d e r n L i b r a r y , 1 9 9 8 ) , 1 2 4 - 1 2 5

2 K S T h o m s o n , M o r p h o g e n e s i s a n d E v o l u t i o n ( O x f o r d : O x f o r d

U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 9 8 ) , 9 8

3 R L C a r r o l l , P a t t e r n s a n d P r o c e s s e s o f V e r t e b r a t e E v o l u t i o n

( C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 9 7 ) , 2 5

4 S t e p h e n J . G o u l d , “ T e a c h i n g A b o u t E v o l u t i o n , ” I n M . J . S m i t h ,

e d . E v o l u t i o n N o w : A C e n t u r y A f t e r D a r w i n ( N Y : M a c m i l l a n

P u b l i s h i n g C o . , 1 9 8 2 ) , 5 6 - 5 7

5 R H i r a y a m a , “ O l d e s t K n o w n S e a T u r t l e , ” N a t u r e , 1 9 9 8 ,

3 9 2 ( 6 6 7 8 ) : 7 0 5 – 7 0 8

6 A n d r e w A S n e l l i n g , “ R a d i o m e t r i c D a t i n g a n d P r o o f , ” A n s w e r s i n G e n e s i s , D e c e m b e r 3 0 , 2 0 1 1 D a t e o f A c c e s s : 7 t h A p r i l 2 0 2 0

h t t p s : / / a n s w e r s i n g e n e s i s o r g / g e o l o g y / r a d i o m e t r i c -

d a t i n g / r a d i o m e t r i c - d a t i n g - a n d - p r o o f /

7 I b i d

8 S n e l l i n g , “ R a d i o m e t r i c D a t i n g a n d P r o o f , ” A n s w e r s i n G e n e s i s ,

D e c e m b e r 3 0 , 2 0 1 1 .

9 S e e L . V a r d i m a n , e t a l . ( E d s . ) , R a d i o i s o t o p e s a n d t h e A g e o f t h e

E a r t h V o l . I I , I C R , E l C a j o n , C A , C R S , ( C h i n o V a l l e y , A Z , 2 0 0 5 ) .

1 0 I n s t i t u t e f o r C r e a t i o n R e s e a r c h R a d i o m e t r i c D a t i n g D a t e o f

A c c e s s : 8 t h A p r i l 2 0 2 0 : h t t p s : / / w w w i c r o r g / c r e a t i o n - r a d i o m e t r i c /

1 1 A n d r e w s A S n e l l i n g , “ E x c e s s A r g o n ” : T h e “ A r c h i l l e s ” H e e l " o f

P o t a s s i u m - A r g o n a n d A r g o n - A r g o n “ D a t i n g ” o f V o l c a n i c R o c k s

A c t s & F a c t s 1 9 9 9

1 2 A n d r e w A S n e l l i n g , “ R a d i o m e t r i c D a t i n g : M a k i n g S e n s e o f t h e

P a t t e r n s , ” A n s w e r s i n G e n e s i s , J a n u a r y 1 , 2 0 1 0

Cosmic Dance

By: Dr. Bethia Thomas

In the vast expanse of cosmic dance, Where stars collide and atoms prance, God and Science intertwine and weave, In a symphony of existence, can we both believe?

From the tiniest quark to the galaxies afar, Science unveils the secrets, like a guiding star, While God's eternal wisdom, a boundless sea, Infuses life and purposee into all that be.

In quantum realms and cosmic rays, Science charts the course of endless days, Yet in the human heart and spirit's flight, God's love and grace illuminate the night.

In equations bold and theories grand, Science seeks to understand, But in faith's embrace and sacred lore, God's presence resonates evermore.

So let us marvel at the wondrous fusion, Of God's creation and Science's conclusion, For in this cosmic tapestry we find, The boundless brilliance of Divine Design.

6 God our Creator in six literal days, Our Savior, Redeemer, the Ancient of Days, Leaves Science behind, with all other cares, For the God of Heaven, Creation declares!

Dr. Devron A. Thomas Chief Editor/ Pastor/ Apologist

Final Thought

The dichotomy between creation and evolution, often seen as conflicting paradigms, actually share a fundamental unity: both propose that the universe and life are the outcomes of unique events. Recognizing this common ground is crucial for fostering a more nuanced understanding of the creation-evolution debate, inviting you to explore this topic with a fresh perspective.

The foundational doctrine of Creation is firmly grounded in Scripture. Before God, there was nothing, and after Him, there will be Nothing. He is the ultimate, the Originator, and the Sustainer of all reality (Colossians 1:16, 17). Creation is a core and independent concept in the Bible, representing a historical event that predates and exists separately from the experience of salvation. This deep-rootedness in Scripture should provide a sense of security and grounding in our faith. The creation-evolution debate and the theological attempt at harmonization occur at the conclusion level without considering the nature of the process through which theologians and scientists arrive at their respective beliefs.Therefore, the controversy is not primarily about faith and science. On the contrary, the conflict lies in two scientific enterprises:

Christian theology and the empirical sciences. An exact description of origins cannot be proved by science, whether a random explosion or a supernatural creation. The evolutionary evidence for the origin of the universe is simply not convincing. It is worth noting that the universe's origin is a single past event, meaning it happened once and cannot be repeated or observed directly. Consequently, it is not subject to the scientific method of testing and reproducing. To adequately grasp and understand how this universe came into being, deep personal faith is required, either in a random big bang or an orderly creation by the God of the universe. The Genesis account of creation is perhaps a better explanation than the evolutionary framework. To grasp the mystery of the teaching about creation, we must read the scriptures with an open mind and allow the Holy Spirit to speak to the heart. When this is done, we can see ourselves as the created, who stand about our Creator. A careful examination of the evidence will conclude, “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth” (Genesis 1: 1)

Faith and Science

focusin