Are you a watcher?
or a dancer?
POISON KISS Stage 5
Let's practice
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
And 1
And 2
And 1
And 2
Now you add this
And 1
And 2
And 1
And 2
Step 4
We are not girls, we are Poison
For more infomation >> Beauty and the Beast
For more infomation >> MINI 1.6 COOPER S John Cooper Works! LEER! XENON! NL AUTO! 163PK! - Duration: 0:54. 
For more infomation >> CIVILIZATION VI Resmi Başlangıç Rehberleri: Savaşa Hazırlanmak - Türkçe Altyazılı - Duration: 3:42. 
For more infomation >> Лизун за одну минуту своими руками! Челлендж! - Duration: 4:15. 
For more infomation >> Brauchen wir eine Katzensteuer? | Zur Sache Baden-Württemberg - Duration: 5:38. 
For more infomation >> ♣♣♣শালীর দুধ টিপে টিপে বড় করলো ভাই,তারপর গুদ ফাঁটানো চোদাচোদি এত আছেই♣♣BCT[Bangla Crime Tamasha]♣ - Duration: 10:43. 
For more infomation >> Volvo V50 1.6 D2 S/S Summum Leer, Navigatie, Lmv, Pdc - Duration: 1:19. 
For more infomation >> 10 Acteurs Qui Sont MORTS Pendant La Production D'un Film - Duration: 6:00. 
For more infomation >> Mercedes-Benz E-Klasse 220 D LEASE EDITION Automaat - Duration: 1:41. 
For more infomation >> Bean Boozled Kihívás: Depressziósak Lettünk.... - Duration: 9:37. 
For more infomation >> Volvo C30 D2 ADVANTAGE 14% - Duration: 1:53. 
For more infomation >> Volvo XC70 2.4 D5 185 Pk AWD Automaat Summum ECC/Leder/Navi/Xenon/PDC/18" LMV - Duration: 1:14. How did science begin? What sort of a worldview provides a basis for studying nature?
The Biblical basis for modern science, this week on Creation Magazine LIVE!
Welcome to Creation Magazine LIVE! My name is Richard Fangrad.
and I'm Calvin Smith. Now this week on Creation Magazine LIVE our topic
is, the biblical basis for modern science. Now there have been countless books,
papers and articles written on the relationship between Christianity and science. In this
next half hour we're going to, hopefully, summarize and simplify that whole discussion
by examining how science got off the ground to start with.
If that sounds like a monumental task, stick around. To begin, we can certainly admit that
many people see science and Christianity as incompatible. One of the more famous people
to weigh in on this topic was the late evolutionary paleontologist Stephen J. Gould. In a 1997
essay titled "Non-Overlapping Magisteria" (or NOMA) for Natural History magazine, Gould
writes this, "The net of science covers the empirical universe: what is it made of (fact) and why
does it work this way (theory). The net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning
and value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider,
for starters, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty). To cite the arch cliches,
we get the age of rocks, and religion retains the rock of ages; we study how the heavens
go, and they determine how to go to heaven." All right well that's very eloquent and sounds good. Science
is about things that we can observe and faith is about things that cannot be observed. Atheist
blogger PZ Meyers takes it a step further saying, "Science and religion are incompatible.
Simply completely, irreconcilably incompatible." Yes well you must wonder what he thinks was going on
in the heads of the founders of modern science. Many of them were founded by believers in
creation. You can see a sample here, there are famous names in the fields of Physics,
Chemistry, Biology, Geology, Astronomy, Mathematics and others. All of these people and many more
of the founders of science believed in creation. We actually did a show a couple of years ago
that we called, "Famous creationists, from Newton to Sarfati" where we highlighted
just a few of them, in the time we had, but for most of that half hour show we had a scrolling
list of creation scientists in the bottom right corner of the screen. You can see it
online at creation.com/cml4-15 Now, if science and religion are really
incompatible, were these people schizophrenic? No, they believed the Bible and they did good science.
Historians of science disagree with Gould and PZ Meyers. They point out that modern
science first flourished under a Christian world view while it was stillborn in other
cultures like in ancient Greece, China and Arabia.
That's because the basis of modern science depended on the assumption that the universe was made
by a rational Creator. An orderly universe makes perfect sense only if it were made by
an orderly Creator. For example, evolutionary anthropologist and science writer Loren Eiseley
stated, "The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made
use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe
controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had
set in operation… It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science,
which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith
that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that
assumption." You can see in that quote that as an evolutionist that
Dr Eisley is surprised by what his research into the history of science actually revealed. But,
this shouldn't be surprising to Christians. We can confidently say that what we see in
God's world agrees with what we read in God's Word, so there isn't going to be
a contradiction between the two since, since the same God who made the world also wrote
the Word. But if you have a distorted view of who God
is and what the Bible is, obviously, you're not going to see it that way; you'll compose
something like Gould's NOMA idea. Okay, but why did science develop under a
Christian worldview and not others? It's not surprising why it did when we look at
why science works at all, really. There are some essential features that make science possible, and they
just didn't exist in non-Christian cultures. So we're going to look at some of these after a short break. And we'll see you in just a moment...
Did you know that the rock layers in the Grand
Canyon provide strong evidence for the Biblical Flood?
The Grand Canyon, with its distinctive layers exposed in the canyon walls, has been carved
through a high plateau. However, if we follow the layers into the eastern part of Arizona,
we see the same rock units about a mile lower in elevation. In this area, we see significant
folding of the layers. According to conventional geology, this uplift
and folding occurred long after the sediments had hardened into rock, so it should have
caused significant fracturing of the rocks. But this is not what we find. Instead, it
appears that the layers—which supposedly represent 300 million years of earth history—have
undergone plastic deformation, without fracturing. This suggests the sediments were soft and
unconsolidated when they bent. This contradicts evolutionary earth history, but it fits nicely
with the layers forming during the Biblical Flood and being bent before they had become
hard rock. To find out more from Creation Ministries
International visit our website Creation.com.
OK if you've just tuned in, this week we are talking about the biblical basis for modern science. Now much of the content for this week's
program comes from a great article by Dr Jonathan Sarfati titled, "The Biblical roots of modern
science". You can read it online at creation.com/roots Read that article for details that we won't
have time to cover in this half hour. Right, now we've mentioned that there are aspects of
a Christian worldview that actually make science possible, and they don't exist in non-Christian cultures.
So what are they? We have a list of 8 of them. The first one is: There is such a thing as
objective truth. Objective truth refers to something that is true for all people regardless
of their feelings or beliefs. Jesus said, "I am the way, and the truth,
and the life. No man comes to the Father except through me." That's an objective truth, it applies to everyone regardless of beliefs or feelings.
But postmodernism, for example, denies objective truth.
One example is, "What's true for you isn't true for me." It's all about subjective
truth. Another postmodern claim is, "There is no truth"—so is that statement true?;
or "We can't know truth"—so how do they know that? That worldview collapses on
itself and could never be the basis of science. Right, it just folds in on itself. Number 2: The universe is real. This sounds
kind of obvious, but many eastern philosophies believe that the universe is an illusion; that a physical
universe doesn't exist. There's no point in trying to investigate an illusion by experimenting
on it, it doesn't work. The universe is real, because the Bible makes it clear that God created a real physical
heavens and the earth. Number 3: The universe is orderly. If there
is no creator, or if Zeus and his gang were in charge, or if there are gods constantly
warring among themselves, there would be no basis for the assumption that their universe
is going to be orderly. It would all depend on who's in charge of the universe this week. So some
Eastern religions teach that the universe is a great "Thought". Well, I guess it could
change its mind then couldn't it? Yes, sure. Hebrews 13:8 describes God as, "the same
yesterday, today and forever", that's a good basis for the assumption that the universe that
He created will operate according to fixed laws, that He put in place, that don't change. Because God doesn't change.
A fundamental facet of science is deriving laws that provide for predictable outcomes.
And this is possible only because the universe is actually orderly, so an experiment you do yesterday will be the same as today and the same as tomorrow. It's necessary for science.
Number 4: The universe is ordered in such a way that it can understood by humans through
investigation and experimentation. Now if the universe just popped into existence all by
itself, on what basis would you expect it to be ordered? And ordered in such a way that
humans can perceive the order? It's an assumption that you have to make in order to do science.
And once again, the Bible provides a basis for making that assumption: God is sovereign,
He created an actual physical universe and gave humans the abilities and responsibility
to manage the Earth. So humans must be able to understand the creation since God commanded
us to manage it. Also, He was free to create as He pleased. So the only way to find out
how His creation works is to investigate and experiment.
Number 5: Man can and should investigate the world, because God gave us dominion over His
creation. So creation isn't divine. We don't need to sacrifice to the forest god when you cut
down a tree, or appease the water spirits to measure its boiling point. Rather, as Kepler
said, his scientific thoughts were "thinking God's thoughts after Him." I love that, thinking God's thoughts after Him.
And number 6: Man can initiate thoughts and actions, they are not merely the results of deterministic
laws of brain chemistry. This is a deduction from the biblical teaching that man has both
a material and immaterial aspect. The immaterial aspect of man means that he is more than matter.
In the same way his thoughts aren't bound by the makeup of his brain.
But if "thought" is just the results of the laws of chemistry playing around in our brains,
as some evolutionists have stated, then there's no basis for making this assumption, and therefore,
no basis for doing science. Right, so number 7: Man can think rationally and logically,
and that logic itself is objective. Now this is a deduction from the fact that people were
created in God's image, and from the fact that Jesus, the Second Person of the Trinity,
is the logos, as it says in John 1:1–3. If evolution were true, then there would be
selection only for survival advantage, not necessarily for rationality. One more assumption
that makes science possible is the final one is that: Results should be reported honestly. Now there's obviously a clear biblical
basis for that because God has forbidden lying. But if evolution were true, then why not lie?
It is not that surprising that scientific fraud is an increasing problem. It's not
that atheists can't be moral, but they have no objective basis for this morality from
within their own system. So there are some of the assumptions required
to do science, all of which have a reasonable basis within a Christian worldview. And when we
get back we'll show how those assumptions provided the basis for science to begin and grow.
Are you skeptical about Christianity? Perhaps
you're a Christian but know someone who won't consider Christianity.
Christianity for Skeptics is one of CMI's most popular books. Written by Drs Steve Kumar
and Jonathan Sarfati, this powerful resource refutes many attacks on the Christian faith.
It contains cutting edge research, solid theology and a summary of the Christian roots of science.
Questions about Islam, atheism, suffering, evidence for God, and more are answered. Full
of bright, catchy illustrations and a sleek, modern style, this book draws in any reader.
Purchase this resource, and many others at creation.com
On this week's episode we are talking about the biblical basis for modern science. And we
just finished outlining several assumptions required for science. For more details see
the article "Why does science work at all?" at creation.com/whyscience
Allright, given that the Christian worldview provides a reasonable basis for those assumptions it's
no wonder that it was, for the most part, people with that worldview who got modern
science going, got it off the ground. Sociologist and author Rodney Stark affirmed,
"Science was not the work of western secularists or even deists; it was entirely the work of
devout believers in an active, conscious, creator God." Now that has got to be an astounding
statement to most of today's non-Christians who see Christianity as a religion for people
who don't think. To the modern mindset, as indicated
by the quotes we sampled a few minutes ago, science and religion are incompatible! So
discoveries like this one by historians of science are shocking to them.
Well science is incompatible with most religions, but not Christianity.
It's incompatible with atheism. Atheistic beliefs provide no basis for doing science.
Which is kind of ironic. Yes. It is. Okay, let's take a look back through
history now to see how a biblical understanding of the universe spurred scientific discovery
and invention. The Middle Ages stretched from the fall of the Western Roman Empire in the fifth
century up to the fifteenth century merging with the Renaissance at that time.
And that period used to be called the "Dark Ages", but responsible historians recognize
that it was far from dark. It was a period of great scientific advances; results of the
logical thought patterns of the Scholastic philosophers of the Church, and the inventiveness
and mechanical ingenuity developed by people in monasteries actually.
James Hannam, who has a Ph.D. in the History of Science, from the University of Cambridge
in the UK, wrote, "During the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church actively supported a great
deal of science, which it also kept control of when speculation could impinge on theology.
Furthermore and contrary to popular belief, the Church never supported the idea that the
earth was flat, never banned human dissection, never banned zero and certainly never burnt
anyone at the stake for scientific ideas. … Popular opinion, journalistic cliché
and misinformed historians notwithstanding, recent research has shown that the Middle
Ages were a period of enormous advances in science, technology and culture. The compass,
paper, printing, stirrups and gunpowder all appeared in Western Europe between AD 500
and AD 1500." Well that's amazing! Here's another historian of science
who sees that the church was at the forefront of scientific discovery.
Moving forward, toward the end of the middle ages the church was a mess. It had blended
many man-made ideas and superstitions into the teaching of the church obscuring basic
truths. While Europe in the Middle Ages still had a Judeo-Christian world view, it took
the Reformation to recover the high view of Scripture that the early church had.
With this came the recovery of a plain or historical-grammatical understanding of the
Bible, recovering the understanding of the New Testament authors and most of the early
Church Fathers. This turned out to have a huge positive impact on the development of
modern science. Peter Harrison, formerly a professor of history and philosophy at Bond
University in Queensland, Australia, he was at one time the Professor of Science and Religion at the University
of Oxford, he wrote this, "It is commonly supposed that when in the early modern period individuals
began to look at the world in a different way, they could no longer believe what they
read in the Bible. In this book I shall suggest that the reverse is the case: that when in
the sixteenth century people began to read the Bible in a different way, they found themselves
forced to jettison traditional conceptions of the world."
Elsewhere he wrote, "Strange as it may seem, the Bible played a positive role in the development
of science. … Had it not been for the rise of the literal interpretation of the Bible
and the subsequent appropriation of biblical narratives by early modern scientists, modern
science may not have arisen at all. That's astounding! In sum, the Bible and its literal interpretation have
played a vital role in the development of Western science."
Now we're going to continue with more when we get back and it's going to be surprising to you....
Evolutionists have long proposed that nearly all our DNA—98%— is junk; that it has no function whatsoever. They said this because
evolution needs lots of junk DNA for three reasons. Firstly, there are too many mutations, which
damage us, but if nearly all of them occur in DNA that is junk DNA, then they are less of
a problem. Secondly, if mutations---accidental changes---created
us, then accidents cannot create DNA with 100% function; this would be unbelievable.
Thirdly, if mutations created us, they must have occurred in lots of DNA that had no function,
to allow lots of experimentation without damaging the existing functions.
However modern science reveals that nearly all of our DNA actually has a function is
a huge problem for evolution. Creationist scientists have doubted the junk
DNA idea all along, although because we live in a fallen world, they expected to find
some damaged DNA that might appear to be junk—but not much.
To find out more from Creation Ministries International visit our website CREATION.com.
OK our subject this week is the biblical basis for modern science. Now we've looked at how
the Christian worldview provided a solid philosophical basis for science, now we're looking at
scientific advancement throughout history, let's continue with that. Yes now non-Christians experts in the history of science
agree that it was by taking the Bible straightforwardly (or literally)—taking the text as the author
intended—led to a dramatic advancement in science. Stephen Snobelen, Assistant Professor
of History of Science and Technology, University of King's College, in Halifax, Canada, writes
in a similar vein, and also explains the somewhat misleading term "literal interpretation".
He writes, "Here is a final paradox. Recent work on early modern science has demonstrated
a direct (and positive) relationship between the resurgence of the Hebraic, literal exegesis
of the Bible in the Protestant Reformation, and the rise of the empirical method in modern
science. I'm not referring to wooden literalism, but the sophisticated literal-historical hermeneutics
that Martin Luther and others (including Newton) championed."
He even mentions Newton. Amazing. And Professor Snobelen explains the reasons why scientists
started to study nature in the same way they studied the Bible. So, just like they studied
what the Bible really did say, rather than imposing outside philosophies and traditions
on it, they also studied how nature really did work, rather than accepting philosophical
ideas about how it should work, which was similar to allegorizing readings of Scripture
to make it say what they think it should say. He writes, "It was, in part, when this method
was transferred to science, when students of nature moved on from studying nature as
symbols, allegories and metaphors to observing nature directly in an inductive and empirical
way, that modern science was born. In this, Newton also played a pivotal role. As strange
as it may sound, science will forever be in the debt of … biblical literalists.
It's amazing! Wake up Richard Dawkins! Can't you just hear the screams of all those angry atheists out there that we run into quite a bit, comments on the show, who want nothing to do with God?
People who dream of the "eradication of Christianity" (as one atheist who wrote
in through our website put it), they're convinced that Christianity is 'holding
back scientific progress' and is a backwards religion and it's actually the very opposite. Exactly.
We should clarify that when we talk about science we're not referring to evolution.
Evolution isn't science, it's a history. It's a belief about what has gone on in
the past; an attempt to explain the universe naturalistically (without God). It has nothing to do with observable science. Right.
That is incompatible with Christianity, and it's incompatible with science also. If we want
to do this visually, here's Christianity and its origins account (recent creation),
here's science, and here's evolution beginning with a big bang and ending with people. Science
as we've been discussing here goes with the Bible and Christianity.
So you've got Christianity, the Bible and science on one side and evolution all by itself
over here. Science, logic, reason, all that good stuff fit with Christianity while evolution
can't even account for any of it. Of course that's not what everyone is taught
today, is it? Not at all.. You have to dig a little,
but not too much, it's not like these books and papers we've been quoting from here are kept
in secret vaults where only a few people have access to it.
It's a sad comment really on the education system where people are only taught one view: "evolution
is scientifically supported and Christianity is anti-scientific", or that "it is a
non-overlapping magisteria and incompatible with science." That type of thing.
Hey, that's why we do this show right?! To educate people with truth.
So let's get back to our history lesson here, let's continue with that. Professor Harrison, who we quoted
from just a little while ago, has researched another commonly overlooked factor in the development of science, get this;
belief in a literal Fall and a literal first Adam. That's right.
Founding modern scientists, including Francis Bacon, reasoned that the Fall not only destroyed
man's innocence, but also greatly impaired his knowledge. Right.
The first problem, man's innocence was remedied by the innocent Last Adam, Jesus Christ—His sacrifice enabled
our sin to be transferred to Him, and His righteousness (His perfect sinless life) to
be transferred to believers in Him, as stated in 2 Corinthians 5:21, one of my favorite verses. Having Christ's perfect
life be imputed to you is the only way to get to Heaven.
But as for recovering what they believed to be Adam's encyclopedic knowledge, they looked
to science. And we'll let Professor Harrison explain why when we get back.
Creation Ministries International staff, many from a wide variety of scientific disciplines,
have produced thousands of articles now available in a massive online database.
Some of the topics covered include:
The feasibility of Noah's Ark and evidence for a global flood
Scientific arguments that explain observations in astronomy within a 'young earth' time
frame. Recent discoveries that support dinosaurs
fitting with Biblical history. Evidence from biology that shows that the
type of change that is observed in living things has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.
Got questions? Get answers at Creation.com
Welcome back. If you just tuned in this week we're looking at the biblical basis for
modern science. Science was advanced through the belief in
a literal Fall of a literal first man Adam. For the reasons why we turn to Professor Peter Harrison,
professor of history and philosophy at Bond University in Queensland, Australia and formerly
Professor of Science and Religion at the University of Oxford. He writes, "New [sic] literal
readings of the creation narratives in Genesis provided 17th century thinkers with powerful
motivating images for pursuing the natural sciences. Adam was thought to have possessed
a perfect knowledge of all sciences, a knowledge lost to posterity when he fell from grace
and was expelled from the Garden of Eden. The goal of 17th century scientists such as
Francis Bacon and his successors in the Royal Society of London was to regain the scientific
knowledge of the first man. Indeed, for these individuals, the whole scientific enterprise
was an integral part of a redemptive enterprise that, along with the Christian religion, was
to help restore the original race to its original perfection. The biblical account of the creation
thus provided these scientists with an important source of motivation, and in an age still
thoroughly committed to traditional Christianity, the new science was to gain social legitimacy
on account of these religious associations." And elsewhere he writes, "For many champions
of the new learning in the seventeenth century, the encyclopaedic knowledge of Adam was the
benchmark against which their own aspirations were gauged. … The experimental approach,
I shall argue, was deeply indebted to Augustinian views about the limitations of human knowledge
in the wake of the Fall, and thus inductive experimentalism can also lay claim to a filial
relationship with the tradition of Augustinianism." So there is a remarkably solid connection
between the Bible, and the Christian worldview and the origin and rapid development of modern
science. Yes. So, let's review what we've said. God-haters
often ridicule the Bible, especially its account of creation. But …
Science requires certain presuppositions to work at all, and these are found in the Bible.
Europe in the Middle Ages, with its general Christian world view, saw great advances in
science and technology. The Reformation, with its emphasis on the
authority of Scripture and a historical-grammatical understanding, led to a great leap forward
in science as these methods of studying the Bible were carried over into the study of
nature. Belief in a literal first man, Adam, and his
Fall, inspired science as a means to rediscover knowledge Adam had before the Fall.
And finally, it is futile to expect continued fruits of the scientific enterprise while
undermining its roots in biblical Christianity. Right, and that last point is interesting. The roots of Christianity...well not the roots...Christianity is being
undermined today all over the place, not just in scientific fields where it's been tossed out. No, no we can't allow conclusions that might end up with the supernatural
because 'that's not scientific' and... Well and the scripture says you know the truth becomes a lie and lie becomes the truth, etc.
and here we have proof from secularists admitting that in order to do science properly you need to have that correct mindset
and yet all I hear from atheists and skeptics all the time is you guys are totally non-scientific, you don't believe in science, and as we've actually shown in certain quotes
on this show a couple of times is that science has often been re-defined as...Naturalism...something that equates to naturalism. It's just ridiculous...
Amazing. Creation Magazine LIVE! We get a lot of information from former articles in Creation magazine.
You can view a free digital copy online at creation.com/free-mag
Have a look at it. If you like it, sign up. Get it into your home.
Next week on Creation Magazine LIVE: Using the Bible to defend the Bible. See you then...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment