Creation vs. Evolution
During the 45 years I spend as a scientist and engineering manager, I believed in Darwinian Evolution. I was taught Evolution in school, and I took courses in Paleontology and Geology in college which supported changes occurring over millions of years of Earth's history. During my career, I met a number of scientists who professed to be Christians, and they seemed to be able to harmonize their faith with their understanding of science. Some of those were world-class scientists, by the way. No one ever talked to me about Creationism.
When I became a follower of Jesus Christ in the year 2000 (at age 60). I believed the Bible was a true historical account dictated to men by God, who wrote it down, but there remained a nagging problem with the millions of years of geological history. I embraced the Gap Theory, and shoehorned the millions of years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, as many Christians have done. Because Satan was already in his fallen state in Genesis 3:1, his fall had to have taken place before that time. But where in the chronology? I put it before Genesis 1:2 in the gap.
In 2001, I attended a conference on Intelligent Design, and their material convinced me that Evolutionary theory had some serious flaws. Also in that time frame, I attended a creation conference, and their material convinced me that the Biblical narrative was correct. They presented many scientific arguments that explained that the Earth was actually very young. Of particular interest to me was the work done by Dr. D. Russel Humphreys on Carbon Dating and other radiological dating methods. Dr. Humphreys gave me a booklet he published of arguments for a young earth. http://creation.com/d-russell-humphreys-cv
Since then, my Biblical research centered on end times prophecy, and I set Genesis aside for the time being. However, Several years ago, I attended another creation conference which was produced by Ken Ham of "Answers In Genesis." https://answersingenesis.org/answers/ Ken Ham's material is very good, and appears to be theologically sound in all respects. I could not find anything about Lucifer's fall in their material, but otherwise, they do a great job of defending the Bible and explaining the effects of Noah's Flood on the earth and it's inhabitants. Shortly afterward, I visited the Kentucky Creation Museum, which presents Answers In Genesis' material in striking visual ways using good science.
They explain that "good science" as opposed to "bad science" is a matter of worldview. All scientists collect data, but then the data must be analyzed and interpreted. Worldview creates a different starting point when analyzing data. If a scientist approaches data with an open mind, and says "I will follow the evidence wherever it leads me," you have a different position than one who says "I will examine this evidence with my Evolutionary worldview, and I will seek Evolutionary explanations for the effects I observe." You have an example of bad science in the latter case. That is not to say that bias does not enter in. We are all biased in different ways, so two observers of an event are likely to come up with different descriptions of what they saw.
Most recently, I attended another creation conference, which featured a number of speakers from different ministries, each with vastly different backgrounds. The common thread among all these speakers was that the Bible is true, Evolution has no scientific evidence whatsoever, the earth is only a little over 6000 years old, and most of what we see today is the aftermath of a world-wide catastrophe called Noah's Flood. Each speaker presented material which was convincing in supporting their position taken from Astronomy, Geology, Paleontology, Biology, Genetics and other scientific disciplines. Conclusion: good science supports the Bible. Bad science can be made to support just about anything.
I have moved from the "Old Earth Creationist" camp to the "Young Earth Creationist" camp. I believe that all of this relates to our natural world and it's time frame. The fall of satan is an event that occurred in the spiritual realm, and the spirit realm has no time or distance dimension.
When I became a follower of Jesus Christ in the year 2000 (at age 60). I believed the Bible was a true historical account dictated to men by God, who wrote it down, but there remained a nagging problem with the millions of years of geological history. I embraced the Gap Theory, and shoehorned the millions of years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, as many Christians have done. Because Satan was already in his fallen state in Genesis 3:1, his fall had to have taken place before that time. But where in the chronology? I put it before Genesis 1:2 in the gap.
In 2001, I attended a conference on Intelligent Design, and their material convinced me that Evolutionary theory had some serious flaws. Also in that time frame, I attended a creation conference, and their material convinced me that the Biblical narrative was correct. They presented many scientific arguments that explained that the Earth was actually very young. Of particular interest to me was the work done by Dr. D. Russel Humphreys on Carbon Dating and other radiological dating methods. Dr. Humphreys gave me a booklet he published of arguments for a young earth. http://creation.com/d-russell-humphreys-cv
Since then, my Biblical research centered on end times prophecy, and I set Genesis aside for the time being. However, Several years ago, I attended another creation conference which was produced by Ken Ham of "Answers In Genesis." https://answersingenesis.org/answers/ Ken Ham's material is very good, and appears to be theologically sound in all respects. I could not find anything about Lucifer's fall in their material, but otherwise, they do a great job of defending the Bible and explaining the effects of Noah's Flood on the earth and it's inhabitants. Shortly afterward, I visited the Kentucky Creation Museum, which presents Answers In Genesis' material in striking visual ways using good science.
They explain that "good science" as opposed to "bad science" is a matter of worldview. All scientists collect data, but then the data must be analyzed and interpreted. Worldview creates a different starting point when analyzing data. If a scientist approaches data with an open mind, and says "I will follow the evidence wherever it leads me," you have a different position than one who says "I will examine this evidence with my Evolutionary worldview, and I will seek Evolutionary explanations for the effects I observe." You have an example of bad science in the latter case. That is not to say that bias does not enter in. We are all biased in different ways, so two observers of an event are likely to come up with different descriptions of what they saw.
Most recently, I attended another creation conference, which featured a number of speakers from different ministries, each with vastly different backgrounds. The common thread among all these speakers was that the Bible is true, Evolution has no scientific evidence whatsoever, the earth is only a little over 6000 years old, and most of what we see today is the aftermath of a world-wide catastrophe called Noah's Flood. Each speaker presented material which was convincing in supporting their position taken from Astronomy, Geology, Paleontology, Biology, Genetics and other scientific disciplines. Conclusion: good science supports the Bible. Bad science can be made to support just about anything.
I have moved from the "Old Earth Creationist" camp to the "Young Earth Creationist" camp. I believe that all of this relates to our natural world and it's time frame. The fall of satan is an event that occurred in the spiritual realm, and the spirit realm has no time or distance dimension.
Comments