Science and the Bible (with a view to Genesis or origins)

1. Science and the Bible(with a view to Genesis or origins)

2. Assumptions/Bias Assumptions/Bias

3. Assumptions/Bias Assumptions/Bias

4. It is often claimed or believed that science has proven the Bible to be wrong or untrue. Often claimed that evolution is a scientific fact; and the Bible is religion. “Evolutionists believe in science; creationists reject science.”

5. The last company I worked for was small (only 5 people) and 2 people were raised as Mennonites and 2 were raised as Catholics. All 4 had rejected Christ and one of the main issues was the “scientific” evidence against the Bible. Chad K. quoted in Creation Ministries International, June 2007 newsletter.

6. Need to understand what “science” is

7. Need to understand what “science” is • Need to understand how “science” has been redefined

8. Need to understand what “science” is • Need to understand how “science” has been redefined • Need to understand limitations of science

9. Science • The state of knowing: knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding • a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study (the ~ of theology)b: something that may be studied (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge (have it down to a ~)c: one of the natural sciences • a: knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws esp. as obtained and tested through scientific methodb: such knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena • A system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws (culinary ~) Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary

10. “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. … Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997

11. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997

12. Origins/historical OperationalScience Science -not based on direct -direct observation observation -cannot experiment upon -experimentsan historical event -an historical event is -repeatablenot repeatable

13. Origins/historicalscience Operationalscience

14. Science cannot prove an historical event took place. Can you scientifically prove the location of your maternal great-grandmother’s birth?

15. Science cannot prove what is true, it can only prove what is false.

16. The Null Hypothesis

17. The Null Hypothesis • The rejection of an hypothesis is to conclude that it is false, while the acceptance of an hypothesis merely implies that we have no evidence to believe otherwise.

18. The Null Hypothesis • The rejection of an hypothesis is to conclude that it is false, while the acceptance of an hypothesis merely implies that we have no evidence to believe otherwise. • Experimenter or statistician should always state the hypothesis that which he/she hopes to reject.

19. H0: There is no difference in lung cancer rates between smokers and non-smokers. H1: There is a difference in lung cancer rates between smokers and non-smokers.

20. Type I errorRejecting the null hypothesis when it is true. Type II errorAccepting the null hypothesis when it is false. Probability of committing a type I error is called the level of significance of the test and is denoted by α.

21. Science is tentative. What may be thought of as “scientific” may be overturned as new information or further discoveries are made.

22. Phlogiston? • first posited by Johann Becher, 1677 • an attempt to explain oxidation processes, such as, combustion and rusting of metals • for almost the entire 18th century the theory was more satisfying than alternatives • later experiments and discoveries showed better explanations

23. Big Bang Theory now falling out of favour with many scientists

24. Big Bang Theory now falling out of favour with many scientists • ”Junk” DNA, once thought to be evolutionary remnants, now found to be functional

25. Big Bang Theory now falling out of favour with many scientists • ”Junk” DNA, once thought to be evolutionary remnants, now found to be functional • How many planets in our solar system?

26. What is ‘evolution’?

27. What is ‘evolution’? • ‘change’?

28. What is ‘evolution’? • ‘change’? • Natural selection?

29. What is ‘evolution’? • ‘change’? • Natural selection? • ‘descent with modification’?

30. What is ‘evolution’? • ‘change’? • Natural selection? • ‘descent with modification’? • Evolution = random genetic mutations + natural selection + time

31. What is ‘evolution’? • ‘change’? • Natural selection? • ‘descent with modification’? • Evolution = random genetic mutations + natural selection + time • ‘molecules to man

32. What is ‘evolution’? • ‘change’? • Natural selection? • ‘descent with modification’? • Evolution = random genetic mutations + natural selection + time • ‘molecules to man’ • Beware of ‘bait switching’

33. Has science proven evolution to be true? 1930-2007 -Miller-Urey spark exchange chamber -NH3, CH4, water vapour, H in sparking chamber -got some amino acids and other compounds

34. amino acids are the basic building blocks of protein

35. amino acids are the basic building blocks of protein • are left-handed and right-handed amino acids

36. amino acids are the basic building blocks of protein • are left-handed and right-handed amino acids • mammalian protein only made of left-handed amino acids

37. amino acids are the basic building blocks of protein • are left-handed and right-handed amino acids • mammalian protein only made of left-handed amino acids • without a living mechanism, protein will form into 50:50 left-handed and right-handed (a racemic mixture)

38. Amino acid list 1. Glycine ------------ 2. D-Alanine L-Alanine 3. D-Valine L-Valine 4. D-Leucine L-Leucine 5. D-Isoleucine L-Isoleucine 6. D-Serine L-Serine 7. D-Threonine L-Threonine 8. D-Cysteine L-Cysteine 9. D-Cystine L-Cystine 10. D-Methionine L-Methionine 11. D-Glutamic Acid L-Glutamic Acid 12. D-Aspartic Acid L-Aspartic Acid 13. D-Lysine L-Lysine 14. D-Arginine L-Arginine 15. D-Histidine L-Histidine 16. D-Phenylalanine L-Phenylalanine 17. D-Tyrosine L-Tyrosine 18. D-Tryptophan L-Tryptophan 19. D-Proline L-Proline 20. D-Hydroxyproline L-Hydroxyproline • D – Dextrorotary (right-handed) L – Levorotary (left-handed) • Different forms are known as enantiomers (enantiomorphs) or stereoisomers.

39. simplest protein around 400 amino acids R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy, ninth printing 1993.

40. simplest protein around 400 amino acids • Borel’s law of mathematics: probability of 10-50 will never happen R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy, ninth printing 1993.

41. simplest protein around 400 amino acids • Borel’s law of mathematics: probability of 10-50 will never happen • assume earth is about 15 billion years old or 4.8 X 1018 sec. R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy, ninth printing 1993.

42. simplest protein around 400 amino acids • Borel’s law of mathematics: probability of 10-50 will never happen • assume earth is about 15 billion years old or 4.8 X 1018 sec. • over this time period a reaction rate of 10 billion/sec results in 1028 reactions R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy, ninth printing 1993.

43. simplest protein around 400 amino acids • Borel’s law of mathematics: probability of 10-50 will never happen • assume earth is about 15 billion years old or 4.8 X 1018 sec. • over this time period a reaction rate of 10 billion/sec results in 1028 reactions • probability to form a 400 amino acid protein by chance is 10-257 R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy, ninth printing 1993.

44. Scientists say ‘no’ to spontaneous generation and ‘yes’ to biogenesis (life gives rise to life).

45. Scientists say ‘no’ to spontaneous generation and ‘yes’ to biogenesis (life gives rise to life). but….many scientists believe that abiogenesis (biopoiesis) occurred in the distant unobservable, unrepeatable, unexperimental past.

46. Scientists say ‘no’ to spontaneous generation and ‘yes’ to biogenesis (life gives rise to life). but….many scientists believe that abiogenesis (biopoiesis) occurred in the distant unobservable, unrepeatable, unexperimental past. Isn’t this just spontaneous generation under another name?

47. Understanding what has been observed, what has been tested and what has been experimented upon will aid in discerning interpretation and the “just-so” stories.

48. “At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something the textbooks don't usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses. Boyce Rensberger, How the World Works, William Morrow, NY, 1986, pp. 17–18. Rensberger is an ardently anti-creationist science writer.

49. “As individuals they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position.” Boyce Rensberger, How the World Works, William Morrow, NY, 1986, pp. 17–18. Rensberger is an ardently anti-creationist science writer.

50. “Science … is not so much concerned with truth as it is with consensus. What counts as “truth” is what scientists can agree to count as truth at any particular moment in time … [Scientists] are not really receptive or not really open-minded to any sorts of criticisms or any sorts of claims that actually are attacking some of the established parts of the research (traditional) paradigm — in this case neo-Darwinism — so it is very difficult for people who are pushing claims that contradict the paradigm to get a hearing. They’ll find it difficult to [get] research grants; they’ll find it hard to get their research published; they’ll, in fact, find it very hard.” Professor Evelleen Richards, Science Historian, University of NSW, Australia, Lateline, 9 October 1998, Australian Broadcasting Corporation.