Ultimate Truth: The Results

            Alright, so what’s the big deal? We threw out the Bible’s views and replaced it with the beliefs of scientists. We get “Jesus” AND the respect of the world. We can keep hold on Jesus’ resurrection and throw the rest out. What’s the price of a little compromise?

            The next generation is the price.

            Studies are showing that two-thirds of the next generation of church kids will not be there when they are older. Why? I’ll set a common scenario before you.

            Dave gets to school on Monday. All throughout the week he learns several things:

1. Science is the only source of truth (science class)

2. We all came from animals and are no more important than animals (science class)

3. There is no truth (any class)

4. The Bible is false and filled with fairy tales (any class)

5. Etc.

            Then Dave goes to church on Sunday. He learns that the Old Testament is full of wonderful stories that most likely didn’t really happen. His teachers tell him that the only thing he really has to hold on to is the resurrection of Jesus. Dave also learns to not offend others because we should just love everyone.

            He asks his pastor what the Bible says about the beginning of the world. His pastor responds that the beginning of the world is found in Genesis, but that it is myth. The beginning of Genesis was just meant for poetry, much like the Psalms.

            He asks his pastor if the flood was global. His pastor shrugs and said that the flood possibly didn’t even happen, and that if it did, it was local.

            He then goes back to school, where his growing doubt is bolstered. Some of his school teachers even tell him that his pastor will side with them when it comes to science! He goes to school to learn truth; he goes to church to learn about nice stories that never happened.

            Tell me, through the years, which side will have a greater effect?

The Next Generation

            The next generation asks some practical questions. “Why should I trust the Bible?” “If I can’t trust some of the Bible, which parts do I trust?” “If I can’t trust all of the Bible, why should I trust any of it?”

            We took some of the authority of the Bible and put it behind scientists. The youngest generation takes the next step and  doesn’t see the Bible as authoritative at all.

            The next generation realizes what the older generation did not. You cannot have two ultimate truths. It’s the Word of God or the word of men. When you take one over the other, that is the death knell. There is no going back. The church of the 1800s and 1900s chose science as the bearer of truth; it was only time before the Bible was totally discredited.

            Once the Bible fell, what is Christianity? Not worth waisting a Sunday morning, the next generation will tell you.

Ultimate Truth: Which Is Our Standard?

            What I'm getting to is that the Christian's ultimate standard is the Bible. It's what we build our mind and actions around. It's what preserves us and defines us. Without the Bible every doctrine could be challenged as unauthentic or outright heresy.

A Horrible Scenario

            Now imagine a Christian looking at Jesus' life and saying, "You know, I believe the Gospels are no longer correct the way they've been read for almost two thousand years. Yes, they are history... but modern scholarship tells us that those kinds of miracles are impossible. But I don't want to chuck out all of the Gospels, so here's what I'll do.

            "I'll REINTERPRET these previously historical documents and claim they contain general, vague, poetical truths. Never mind that the authors intended them to be taken as historically accurate point by point. They just contain things that science has shown cannot happen naturally. I'll pick and choose what I want to take literally."

            Now, what is immediately apparent? This Christian does not hold the Word of God as his ultimate truth! He hold the opinions of the scientific majority as the higher truth. When the scientific majority disagrees with the Bible, it's the Bible that must be reinterpreted, not the research done by these scientists.
            But Christians wouldn't do this to the Bible, right? Right?

Not So Fast

            This is exactly what's happened to the way we treat Genesis. In Genesis chapters 1-11, the Bible is crystal clear that the world was created in six literal days. Moses is also clear that animals reproduced after their own kinds ("kind" meaning the modern genus or family, not species). He is also clear that the flood was global.

            This interpretation (Young Earth Creationism, or YEC) has been THE interpretation for thousands of years. Granted, the occasional person –Augustine comes to mind– liked to play around with the Creation week. However, the flood was global, the animals didn't change kinds, the earth was young, and so on and so forth.

             Then in the 1700s and 1800s, non-Christian naturalist scientists started seriously coming up with ways of looking at the world apart from God. Now, they weren't the first academics that didn't believe in God, it's just that their previous theories never gained very much traction in the pro-Christian Western world.

            The first thing they tried to do was to make the world old. "With time, anything is possible" has been the naturalist's cry. Geologists looked at rock layers and chucked catastrophism (the worldwide flood), replacing it with uniformitarianism (the slow-moving processes we see today have been going on since the earth formed).

            With geology having been done in, the focus went to the animal world (zoology, biology, etc.). With Darwin's theory becoming popular, it was pretty apparent that God wasn't necessary to explain the life we see. With Evolution, all you need is time. Billions of years of it, if you believe today's scientists.

            Now what was the Christian to do? Could these non-Christian scientists really be wrong? Of course not! This is science, the ultimate standard of truth! The Bible must be reinterpreted to accommodate naturalism, obviously.

            So we panicked. In came Old Earth Creationism (OEC, also known as theistic evolution), which was the Bible with the first eleven chapters being thrown out. Six days? Preposterous! They must've been six undefined ages. Animals reproducing after their own kinds? Never! We obviously came from an ancient one-celled organism. A global flood? Ha! Moses was obviously being poetical, or the flood was local.

            We held the opinions of the scientific majority as our ultimate truth. Never mind that the people behind these theories were not Christians (and therefore looking to explain the world naturally). Never mind that Genesis is pretty clear about how everything came to be (otherwise it wouldn't have taken until the 1800s for a seriously contradictory interpretation to come out). The clear teaching of the Word of God bowed to the majority of finite scientists.

            We are no better than the man who reinterpreted the Gospels.

What Science Can't Tell You: Others

            Alrighty, this post sums up some of the other limitations of science:

1. Science can’t determine value. It can’t tell you which person is better-looking, which pianist is better, etc. That is more of a cultural/situational question.
2. Science can’t answer anything about morality, or prove or disprove that it exists. That’s more of an anthropological/sociological/theological question.
3. Science can’t prove or disprove the supernatural*, or really help in this area at all. That’s more of a theological/metaphysical question.
4. Science** can’t prove anything, period.

            Why did I list these shortcomings of science? Not because I dislike science, but because our culture worships it but doesn’t understand its boundaries. We trumpet scientific knowledge as absolute truth, while forgetting point #4. No one points out what we can’t learn from science. No one points out that what we do learn from science is subject to change.

            You’re welcome.

*Now, science cannot prove or disprove the supernatural. It can’t study the supernatural. It can, however, show that the most likely explanation to a situation is not physical. This is where a person’s worldview (Christianity or some other religion) steps in and says, “Ah, I can explain that.” Why is Jesus not in that tomb? Christianity explains that. How could the world come from nothing? Christianity explains that. Et cetera.

**People personify science. It drives me crazy in debates (“science shows…”), but for general discussion it’s easier than saying, “the scientific community believes that…”, or “scientists have done research…”. Never let a person personify science in a debate (because they are incorrect), but I generally do in these posts because that makes things simpler.

What Science Can't Tell You: Teleology (ooh, big word)

            Another limitation of science is the fact it can’t tell you the purpose of anything. This is also known as teleology, for those of you who are more philosophically-inclined.

            Why do we breathe? Why does blood flow throughout our bodies? Why is the earth perfectly distanced from the sun? Why is the percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere just so?

            The answer: so we can live.

            The problem: science can’t give you that answer.

            Science can tell you what happens when you breathe in and out (oxygen is absorbed and carbon dioxide is released). Science can tell you what happens when blood circulates (oxygen is given and waste is collected). Science can tell… never mind, you get the picture.

            Science can’t answer the why (purposes, goals) of anything, but it can answer the what and the how. The fact of the matter is that you will have to look elsewhere (theology and philosophy) for these answers.

What Science Can't Tell You: Presuppositions

            The first thing science can’t explain is presuppositions (also known as postulates in geometry). These are basic facts about our existence that have to be true before we can even observe the world (i.e. do science). What are these presuppositions? There are many, but I will just give a few of my favorites:

1. The world is logical, orderly, and consistent (follows the laws of logic)
2. The world functions under the laws of science
3. There is absolute truth (moral relativism aside)
4. Our senses are accurate

            We take these truths for granted. However, they have to exist before we can even do science. Science can’t explain WHY these truths are there. If scientists tried to prove these things, it would sound like “our senses are accurate because we have used our senses and have found that they are accurate.” That’s the best science can do, and it would be circular reasoning.

            These facts presuppose (come before) science; science can’t turn around and explain why they are there.

            So what can explain these things? Enter philosophy and theology. Theology is the study of divine revelation and its implications, while philosophy is the study of the fundamental tenets of knowledge and thought. An individual’s worldview will try to explain why the world is the way it is using at least one of these methods.

            However, science can’t explain these things.

Umm, Why Should I Care?

            You may be thinking, “Why should I care about this?” The reason is that what you believe needs to be able to explain presuppositions. If it cannot, life is logically absurd.

            Take atheism, for example. It can’t explain ANY of these five. Why is the world orderly? Certainly not because of an explosion! Why does nature obey the laws of science? Not because of an explosion (which actually needs scientific laws before it can happen in the first place... but I digress). Why are our senses accurate? Not because lightning struck a pile of organic soup.

            Et cetera.

            Atheism is absurd because it can’t explain the foundations of our existence. Buddhism and Hinduism are the same way (sorta).

            If how we think is a building, it needs a foundation, right? Some are stronger than others.

What Science Can't Tell You

            The god of the 21st century masses is science. Standing unthreatened, its prophets and preachers (scientists) deliver truth to the masses. Absolute truth. What is in those test tubes can’t lie, right?

            What you won’t ever hear from scientists is that science cannot tell you many things. There are things it can't explain or even begin to explore. But people today worship science as truth; they parade it as either: 1) the ONLY way to attain knowledge*, or 2) the knowledge attained through science is the best (surest) knowledge there is**.

            Now, I’m not knocking science. I’m an apologeticist wanna-be (enthusiast), and I love reading about how science confirms God and a young earth.

            However, people go through life thinking science is infallible. I’ll just be going over a few of the shortcomings of this field of knowledge.



*Strong empiricism/scientism. The belief that all knowledge is gained through observation. If something can't be learned from an experiment, it can't be known for sure.
**Weak empiricism/scientism. The belief that, yes, there are other ways of attaining knowledge. However, those fields (philosophy, theology, etc.) are inferior to science in terms of gathering knowledge. Also, the knowledge attained through these methods aren't as sure or trustworthy as knowledge gained through science.