CSI Series

I recently completed a five week series at Saving Grace called “CSI: Examining the Evidence for Creation”  You can listen to those sermons and download the handouts by visiting our sermon audio page here: http://www.savinggracelc.org/resources/sermons/current.html

What I hope to do in the next few blog posts is to summarize briefly some of the key points from those messages.  To do that, I am going to present the material in an order & organization completely different than the sermon series.  I hope this is helpful.

The first point I hope to make is that Both Darwinism (Evolution) and Creation are religious beliefs or worldviews.  Though we are regularly told that evolution is science and completely proven fact, what we discovered as we studied over the weeks is that it is anything but.  In fact, according to the scientific method, real science is:

1. observable
2. measurable
3. repeatable

Yet Darwinian evolution seeks to answer questions of origin and history.  It seeks to postulate about things which can no more be observed, measured or repeated than a 6-day creation or a global flood (see the first nine chapters of Genesis).  This makes me wonder whether this so called “science” of evolution is science at all, or whether it is more appropriately categorized as philosophy or religion.

In addition, consider this:  The a priori (preconceived) assumption of virtually every evolutionist is that there MUST be no God and that EVERYTHING must be able to be explained by materialistic arguments.  This is what’s called a “materialistic worldview.”  And it is dangerous to real science which should not allow wordviews, philosophies or religions to bias its observations or results.

Here’s the kind of bias I am talking about.  If two paleontologists come across a fossil buried among sedimentary layers of rock.  One scientist may postulate that the fossil is millions of years older than another fossil because of the layers in which they were found.  The other scientist, however, may disagree and say that in fact this fossil is approximately the same age as another fossil found several layers above it because, he postulates, the fossils were buried rapidly in a global flood.  Both scientists are looking at the same data, but the second scientist’s hypothesis won’t even be considered because his explanation involves something suggested in the Bible.  My question is, why aren’t the first scientist’s hypotheses considered “religious” in nature?  He (or she) is asserting an UNPROVABLE worldview/philosophy as the basis for his assumptions.  Yet in our mixed up world, the second scientist’s analysis won’t even be considered, even though it fits the data BETTER (very often, 6-day special creation and global flood explanations fit the data better than “uniformitarian” analyses) than that of his secular counterpart.  And all this is done citing the claim that the one analysis is “religious” and the other “scientific.”  Nonsense!  A materialistic worldview/philosophy is still a philosophy/religion and not science. Period.

One more thought on this… how “religious” do these assumptions of evolutionary scientists sound?

1. “given ENOUGH TIME anything can happen!”
2. “the processes we observe today were always the same throughout time.”

Who says?  To pound one’s fist on the table and assert the two statements above is scientific and not religious??  Why? Where’s their proof?  They don’t have any.  In fact the evidence suggests otherwise, but they won’t consider it because they have already made up their minds.

I will say it again, evolutionary scientists are not un-biased, and they are not non-religious.  They put forth their unsubstantiated arguments with all the same zeal as any religious adherent.

The Bible tells us in Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

I would say that evolutionary science fits this description entirely.  It’s NOT science.  It is a hollow and deceptive PHILOSOPHY which has pervaded our laboratories and classrooms, and we, as Christians, are warned against it.

I look forward to sharing with you next time many of the frauds and fakes that evolutionary science has put forth over the years.

Blessings!
PA