Science and the Study of the Past

 How good science is at studying the past is a central point to the discussion of origins. One of the primary assumptions made by evolutionists is that the past can be studied and understood as easily as the present functioning of the universe can. They seem to think that the same degree of certainty can be obtained about the present functioning of the universe and its past. They do this by ignoring the fact that while we can see how the universe operates today, we cannot observe the past. This means that studying the past requires a lot of philosophical assumptions to be applied when interpreting evidence.

When we are studying the operating principles of the universe in the present, we can focus on specific observations and experiments in the present to see what the results are. However, we cannot actually see the past. Even when observing a distant object in space we cannot observe what could be seen before we looked through the telescope. As a result, we cannot actually test the past, because everything we see we observe in the present. If more than one theory can produce what we currently see in the universe, you cannot distinguish between them scientifically, except by eliminating a possibility by showing that it could not have happened.

What about forensics, you may ask? Yes, forensics is dealing with the past, but it is also not perfect. It is actually a good example of how science can go wrong when dealing with the past. In forensics, the forensic scientist on the case looks at the evidence and tries to construct a theory about what happened. Sometimes that theory is wrong because there is another factor for which there is no evidence. In fact, this is one of the reasons why the longer a case lingers the less likely it is to be solved. That is because evidence tends to degrade with time. It is also interesting to note, that forensics is in part about finding intelligent involvement in a past event, however, evolutionists exclude intelligent involvement as a starting assumption.

This is a key problem when trying to study history scientifically, that is you have to make assumptions about the past. A key assumption made by institutionalized science is absolute naturalism. This assumption eliminates the possibility of any intelligent involvement in the origin and subsequent history of the Earth and the universe. It excludes any divine involvement and therefore it excludes history as described in the Bible before any evidence is even looked at. You see the Bible describes two major supernatural acts of God in Earth’s history, Creation, and the Genesis Flood. If you try to determine the history of the Earth, based on the assumption that only natural processes were involved, you have to assume that these two events never occurred. Consequently, if these events actually did occur as described in the Bible and you tried dating the earth based on naturalistic presuppositions, you will inevitably derive an age for the earth that is much older than it really is. This is because both of these events would have thrown off the dating methods that are used.

A prime example of this is the age of the Earth. Institutionalized science commonly gives an age for the earth of 4.5 billion years. This figure assumes that the earth formed naturalistically by collapsing out of a cloud of dust and gas, however, few people realize that the paper also states that if it did not form that way it could be any age younger than 4.5 billion years. By the way, while not specifically stated in the paper 6,000 years is less than 4.5 billion years. This of course is just one of many examples, but it makes the point quite well.

The problem with trying to scientifically study history is that we do not have access to the past and so we have to make assumptions. Consequently, any theory about the history of the earth or the universe or anything else in it requires making assumptions that can never be tested. As a result, these theories are only as good as the assumptions behind them.

So, while it is possible to apply scientific methodology to past events, it is limited by the fact that we can only observe what exists in the present. Because we cannot observe past events, we need to rely on the records and other evidence about the past that we can study in the present. One of the problems that result from this, is the fact that it is always possible to add extra hypothetical events to a model to explain away problems with the original concept. Sometimes there are legitimate reasons for this because there are other clues, but it is far too easy for such just-so stories to be invented to patch a theory about the past. However far too often it is extremely difficult and even impossible to test these stories. It is a major reason why science is limited when studying the past.

The Ultimate Answers Pack

Answers for Kids Box Set

The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock 

Warrior Press

Flood by Design

The Biblical Basis for Modern Science

The Real Nature of Science

 Science is at the heart of the question of origins and the age of the earth. Evolutionists like to claim that science shows the universe evolved from a super dense super-hot state in what is commonly called the Big Bang and that the Earth collapsed from a cloud of dust and gas about 4.5 billion years ago. They also claim that life formed naturally from lifeless chemicals and then evolved into all the living things we see today including man. They further deny any legitimacy of creation science. However, discussing origins or any other topic scientifically requires knowing what science is.

Science is not a collection of unquestionable facts, but it is actually a methodology for acquiring knowledge. This methodology is known as the scientific method. While you can find some variations in the exact wording, the basic concept is as follows:

1. Define the problem.
2. Develop a hypothesis that solves the problem.
3. Performing an experiment or observation to test the hypothesis.
4. If the hypothesis does not fit the experiment or observation repeat #2.
5. If the hypothesis is a close fit to the experiment or observation refine the hypothesis and repeat #3.
6. If the hypothesis agrees with the experimental observation, then write up the results.
7. Report the results of your work.

In many ways, this is a trial-and-error process, and each step is not always carried out by the same individual. For example, theoretical work is often tested by others who have the skills and or equipment to do the actual experiments or observations. A key point to note is that the hypothesis needs to make one or more testable predictions in order to be able to develop an experiment or observation that will test it.

So, what makes something scientific? First of all, there is nothing in this process that requires a naturalistic hypothesis. The key requirement is that your hypothesis has to produce at least one testable prediction the failure of which will show the hypothesis to be false, to qualify as scientific. There is a tendency within academia and institutionalized science to add the restriction that a hypothesis needs to be a totally naturalistic explanation. The justification for this is that you can explain away anything by throwing it under the label of supernatural, however, that is only true if that is only as far as you take it. After all the same argument can be made with the general label of naturalistic. If you are dealing with a specific supernatural event, that leaves detectable evidence then it is a testable hypothesis and would still qualify as scientific. The same thing goes for including intelligent agency, as long as an intelligence leaves testable evidence behind from its activity, then such a hypothesis can be considered scientific. In fact, both forensics and archaeology distinguish intelligent activities from natural phenomena. Any rule excluding either intelligent or supernatural explanations is an artificial limitation based on philosophical presuppositions that eliminate the possibility of God as an explanation before any data is actually looked at. The simple fact is, that as long as an explanation produces one or more predictions the failure of which shows the hypothesis to be false, it can be considered scientific regardless of the nature of that hypothesis. Otherwise, you cannot consider science to be a true search for knowledge.

There are those who will reject as science or scientific evidence anything that has not been through formal peer review. Not only that but the formal peer review has to be from acceptable publications or else it still does not count. There are two types of peer review formal and informal. Formal peer review is a gatekeeping mechanism for publication in scientific journals. Informal peer review is reporting the results in a book or other format, that then gets reviewed by others and either accepted or not. There is nothing wrong with either of these approaches but over-reliance on formal peer review as a qualification of science is problematic, particularly when limited to relatively few journals. The point is that the results of scientific research do not magically become science by being published in the right scientific journal. However, this is the position that some people seem to take, and it is particularly common among evolutionists.

At its heart, science is a methodology for acquiring knowledge. As good as it is, science is not perfect. The fact is that science works best when dealing with what is happening in the present and studying currently active phenomena. This makes it an excellent process for learning about how the universe functions, but philosophical presuppositions can get in the way, particularly when the phenomenon being studied cannot be studied directly. This can be the case with the extremely small, the extremely large, the extremely distant, and the past. The simple fact is that the further something is from direct observation, the harder it is to study it scientifically and the more likely that philosophical presuppositions can get in the way of finding the truth.

The Ultimate Answers Pack

Answers for Kids Box Set

The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock 

Warrior Press

Flood by Design

The Biblical Basis for Modern Science

The Term Evolution as Used by Evolutionists.

 Naturally, evolutionists use the word “evolution” a lot, but the problem is they do not use it consistently. They often use it outside of biology with terms like cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, planetary evolution, and chemical evolution. Chemical evolution is another term for abiogenesis, which is the idea of life spontaneously coming into existence from non-life. Because abiogenesis is an easy thermodynamic target, evolutionists often tried to separate it from universal common descent biological evolution even though you cannot have universal common descent without first getting the first living cell. However, the biggest problem is the tendency of evolutionists to use the word “evolution” in four different ways about biology. This is done to cause confusion between the four for the express purpose of applying evidence for the first three, to the fourth way they use it.

Sometimes evolutionists will simply tell you that evolution is just changes over time and that organisms do indeed change over time. Now, this is the strict dictionary definition of the word “evolution” and by this definition, we all individually evolve over our lifetimes. However, there is way more to the idea of biological evolution than this. In fact, it is not the idea of evolution that creationists would disagree with. When evolutionists use this tactic, they are trying to skirt the actual issue of universal common descent, which is where the real dispute is. Any evolutionist who uses the word “evolution” in this manner within the context of biological evolution is just trying to avoid the real issue, by confusing it.

There are times when evolutionists will tell you that evolution is just changes in the frequency of gene varieties over time. Now while this is a legitimate biological usage of the term, most of the time when the word “evolution” is used particularly in the context of “the theory of evolution” it is not limited to this simplistic definition. Once again, this is a usage of the word “evolution” in the context of biology that creationists would not disagree with. When evolutionists use this tactic, they are trying to skirt the actual issue of universal common descent, which is where the real dispute is. Once again, using the word “evolution” this way is just trying to avoid the real issue, by confusing it.

Yet another approach is to equate evolution and adaptation. Now adaptation does qualify as evolution under the two earlier definitions. However, it is not the full extent of what the theory of evolution refers to. It is true that as organisms of the same kind have diversified into different environments, they have developed new species, in the sense that they become isolated breeding populations. Interestingly enough if Charles Darwin had stopped there it would have been a legitimate scientific work. The problem is that he speculated not just about the origin of species but on the universal common ancestry of all living things. Evolutionists will routinely point to evidence of adaptation such as bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics and insects developing resistance to pesticides. However, in both cases, the resistance is a result of damage being done to the gene producing the particular enzyme that is being attacked by the antibiotic or pesticide. The enzyme in question does not work as well as it used to, but the resistant variety takes over because the nonresistant population is killed off. These results do not demonstrate the type of change that universal common descent requires for it to be viable.

The final way evolutionists used the word “evolution” is by referring to the theory of evolution, which is specifically dealing with universal common descent. This is where the real disagreement is, this is also where actual science is departed from, and atheistic mythology takes over. The primary evidence put forward for the universal common descent of all life on Earth is physical and genetic similarities between different kinds of organisms. It ignores the fact that these similarities can be accounted for by a common designer. Furthermore, there is no degree of difference even between humans and chimps that would be considered evidence against common ancestry, which makes the entire notion unfalsifiable. Furthermore, it has never been demonstrated that natural selection or any other naturalistic process is capable of producing the new complex specific information that would have to come about for universal common descent to be correct. For example, fish do not have lungs but to have evolved into amphibians they would have had to develop them. Despite a lack of any evidence that this is even possible, universal common descent is used to interpret biological and fossil data in a manner that makes it look as if it were proven beyond a reasonable doubt, even though there is no actual evidence that it works.

Consequently, evolutionists used the word evolution in different ways to confuse the real issue. When talking with an evolutionist, it is necessary to ask them what they mean by evolution. Meanwhile, it is important for creationists to always clarify the word evolution so that they cannot twist what we are saying. When we refer to universal common descent, always use the term “universal common descent” or “universal common descent evolution.” Doing so will force the discussion to remain on the real topic of concern and not to get off on any of these other side points that result from evolutionist word games.

The Ultimate Answers Pack

Answers for Kids Box Set

The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock 

Warrior Press

Flood by Design

The Biblical Basis for Modern Science

Is the Word Evolutionist a Derogatory Term

 If you have done any online discussion about universal common descent evolution, you will notice that the proponents of evolution tend to denounce the term evolutionist. They will often claim that it does not exist even though a simple Google search shows that it is accepted as a word by multiple dictionaries. They usually go on to claim that it is only used by creationists as a derogatory term to make evolution sound like it is just a belief system.

First of all, this claim is not true. Not only is the word “evolutionist” found in dictionaries as referring to “a person who believes in the theory of evolution” but it is used simply as a general term for those who accept the theory of universal common descent evolution, and often the entire Big Bang to man story. This is because while not identical they are part of the same overall view of history. So, it is not intended to be derogatory nor imply anything about the theory itself, it is simply a general descriptive term for those who accept that particular theory.

Furthermore, evolutionists reject this label while also refusing to supply an objective alternative term that they will accept. This is mainly because they want to equate their view of history to science, consequently, many of them reject any term other than scientists. This Is it inherently biased notion.

As a result, we have a situation, where we have a word that is well recognized as referring to the adherences to and promoters of universal common descent evolution, but they reject it at the same time refusing to supply an objective alternative. This allows them to complain every time they are called evolutionists making conversation difficult at even this basic level. Unfortunately, this is just the beginning of evolutionary wordplay.

The Ultimate Answers Pack

Answers for Kids Box Set

The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock 

Warrior Press

Flood by Design

The Biblical Basis for Modern Science

Why Does the Question of Origins Matter?

 The nature of our origin is important to who and what we are. This is because from a Biblical perspective we are special creations of God. We were created for a purpose. From a purely naturalistic and evolutionary perspective, we are nothing but cosmic accidents without any purpose whatsoever. So, the question of origins gets at the heart of who and what we are. Are we special creatures created for a purpose, or just cosmic accidents? The difference between these two makes for a big distinction.

Biblical Creation is based on the history of the Bible. That history includes creation around 6,000 years ago and a global flood around 4,400 years ago. Both of these would have been supernatural acts of God, so any effort to explain the world around us by purely naturalistic means would result in age estimates there are many times larger than they really are. This is the primary problem when it comes to dating what we see on this planet.

The fact is that the Big Bang to man evolutionary story is fundamentally atheistic. The ideas on which it was based have their roots among 18th-century atheists and deists. Modern ideas about universal common descent evolution, in particular, predate Charles Darwin and was being discussed by atheists including Charles Darwin's grandfather Erasmus Darwin. In fact, Charles Darwin got his ideas about universal common descent from reading his grandfather’s writings. You do not even have to look that far back to see the atheistic influence in this story. All you have to do is look at the reaction to intelligent design, or any suggestion of intelligent involvement in the process. Proponents of the Big Bang to man evolutionary story like to stress that there was no planning involved but that everything we see is just a result of unintelligent totally naturalistic forces. Yes, not everyone involved in creating it has been an atheist, but an atheistic perspective is abundantly clear.

This may come as a surprise to some people, but creationism is an alternative to naturalism, not evolution. Both creationism and naturalism are philosophical starting points for developing theories about the history of the world and universe. The Big Bang to man story is what you get when you try to explain the universe by totally naturalistic forces and exclude God from your reasoning as a starting condition. Biblical creation on the other hand not only allows for the consideration of God but requires God as an integral part of it. So, ultimately the question of origins is a question about whether or not God is taken into account when trying to understand the evidence.

There are several reasons why all this matters. The first is the logical fact that whether or not you include God when you try to explain the world around us has a profound influence on the conclusions that you come to. Furthermore, where we came from is a critical part of who and what we are. If we are just cosmetic accidents, then nothing special is lost when you slaughter millions of unborn babies or even full-grown adults. However, in the Biblical account of our origin is true then we are created in the image of God, and we are special indeed and the slaughtering of our fellow human beings is a crime against God. Finally, Jesus himself spoke of both the creation and the Genesis flood as real history. So, the very credibility of Jesus Christ is at stake in this issue. There is no room for compromise, either God created the world, or the world created itself. Which position you take affects how you see the world around us in the very evidence you are studying.

For further reading:

Scoffers: Responding to Those Who Deliberately Overlook Creation and the Flood by Simon Turpin 

 4 Volume Answers Book Box Set Paperback by Ken Ham 

The Ultimate Answers Pack

Answers for Kids Box Set

The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock 

Warrior Press

Flood by Design

The Biblical Basis for Modern Science

Quantum mechanics and the nature of reality

There is an interesting video on what quantum mechanics shows about reality and how it fits with Biblical creation.

The Ultimate Answers Pack

Answers for Kids Box Set

The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock 

Warrior Press

Flood by Design

The Biblical Basis for Modern Science

The Information Universe Part 5

The Ultimate Answers Pack

Answers for Kids Box Set

The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock 

Warrior Press

Flood by Design

The Biblical Basis for Modern Science