Circular “Science”

<quote>

Bill Nye referred to a “body of knowledge,” and his beliefs are part of this “body of knowledge,” so the ungodly historical stories are part of what Bill calls “the body of knowledge.” With bravado, Bill defined “science” as a method plus this “body of knowledge,” so, in his mind, no one dares to challenge his beliefs. The “body of knowledge” confirms his beliefs. By his definition, the “body of knowledge” is science, so this definition means that Bill’s beliefs are science.

Consider how Bill’s logic works. He assumes big bang, billions of years, no creation, no worldwide Genesis Flood, and no way to know God personally. Then, he adds those assumptions to the body of knowledge. He then labels this body of knowledge “science.” Then, what he is now calling “science” proves his original assumptions. He says that “science” proves big bang, billions of years, no creation, no worldwide Genesis Flood, and no way to know God personally. But what’s really happening? His assumptions are proving his assumptions. It’s circular reasoning.

On the other side of the debate, Ken Ham said that he knows God, and he said that everyone who seeks Christ finds Christ. That means we can know Christ, and we can test this truth. Therefore, we don’t have to take Ken’s word for it since anyone with an open mind can test it. Built on this foundation, Ken said God reveals the history of the universe through the Bible.

Ken and Bill agree that Bill bases the historical part of this “body of knowledge” on assumptions. Ken brought it up, and Bill made a statement defending the basis of his thinking. They disagree on whether assumptions are a trustworthy way of knowing. Bill believes that assumptions are a trustworthy way of knowing everything and Ken believes that assumptions aren’t a trustworthy way of knowing anything.

Ken’s interpretation of scientific observation rests on what God reveals to him through Scripture since he knows that revelation is necessary for understanding origins history, and scientific observation confirms what God reveals through Scripture. Because of this knowledge, Ken uses the divine revelation in the Bible as a starting point for thinking.

</end quote>

#RealFaith&Reason

Have you read this book yet?

 

 

http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_1_-_Scientia.pdf

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Choose: Divine Revelation or Make-Believe

<quote>

While it seemed like Ken Ham and Bill Nye debated Creation versus evolution, they really debated revelation versus make-believe. However, Bill would highly object to anyone calling his made-up assumptions “make-believe.” Also, both men became aware of the revelation-versus-make-believe debate. Both addressed it. Ken defended revelation. Bill defended assumptions. So the debate was (and is) about how to reason and how to know the truth, and it wasn’t (and isn’t) about Creation versus evolution.

</end quote>

#RealFaith&Reason

Have you read this book yet?

Get your free copy of Real Faith & Reason, which shows the intersection of faith, reason, truth, and sanity.

http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_1_-_Scientia.pdf

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

The Big Difference in Thinking

<quote>

The observations are the same for both men [Bill Nye and Ken Ham], but ungodly thinking interprets observations using assumptions, while godly thinking interprets observations using divine revelation. Therefore, the question is, should we interpret observation based on assumptions or divine revelation? Every other question is a smokescreen distracting from the real issue.

</end quote>

#RealFaith&Reason

Have you read this book yet?

http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_1_-_Scientia.pdf

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Assumptions

<quote>

Bill Nye feels certain that “science” proves what he believes.

He believes that the Genesis Flood didn’t happen.

He believes that Noah couldn’t have built the Ark.

He’s also convinced that there was a huge bang billions of years ago that created everything from nothing.

He thinks this bang caused the stars to form.

He’s certain that those stars made all the other elements and that natural causes formed the earth.

He’s convinced that lifeless molecules turned into living organisms.

He claims to know that those living organisms evolved into human beings.

Bill also feels sure that no one can know God.

Ever confident, Bill admits that his proofs for his opinions consist of assumptions, but he insists that those assumptions come from experience, so he feels justified in using the assumptions to “prove” all his interpretations. In other words, all of Bill’s evidence ultimately rests on assumptions.

</end quote>

#RealFaith&Reason

Have you read this book yet?

Get your free copy of Real Faith & Reason, which shows the intersection of faith, reason, truth, and sanity.

http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_1_-_Scientia.pdf

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

The Foundation of the Creation-Evolution Argument

<quote>

In their two debates, Bill Nye and Ken Ham agreed on many things. For example, they agreed that natural laws exist and have probably stayed the same over time. They agreed about the observations, and they agreed on the facts. They only disagreed on certain interpretations of the facts. So both Bill and Ken use the same scientific observations to come to their different conclusions. On the one hand, Ken said the following:

Creation is the only viable model of historical science confirmed by observational science in today’s modern scientific era.

Ken is saying observations point to the Creation event and the worldwide Flood event. On the other hand, Bill argued that observations point to a big bang, billions of years, and molecules turning into people without God. Since their conclusions conflict using the same observations, we conclude that something weird happens between observations and conclusions, and the debate was about this weird thing that happens.

Now we’ve discovered that this weird thing that happens is interpretation, and the two men came into conflict during the process of interpretation. They disagree about the conclusion since they disagree on how to interpret observations. They would agree with each other if they could agree about how to interpret observations. But Bill insists that assumptions are the key to interpreting observation, while Ken insists that revelation is the key to interpreting observation.

As part of his argument, Bill Nye claimed his assumptions “come out of experience.” However, Bill oversimplifies it. Assumptions don’t come directly out of experience. However, Bill is right to say that assumptions don’t come from nowhere since they come from worldviews, and we’ll explore this truth more fully in a coming trip of our journey, “The Problem of Worldviews.”

</end quote>

Keep in mind that God speaks to us through the Bible, and it’s by divine revelation that we know God speaks to us through the Bible. God supplies the truth by revealing it, and God supplies the discernment between His voice and all others. Our part is to listen, receive, submit, and obey.

#RealFaith&Reason

Have you read this book yet?

http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_1_-_Scientia.pdf

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Scientists Disagree

<quote>

Scientists disagree about interpretations of observations. Based on their interpretation of observations, some scientists assume there was no Creation event or worldwide catastrophic Flood event. However, other scientists interpret the same observations and decide the Creation and worldwide catastrophic Flood events took place. So scientists with the same training, using the same observations, propose different theories of origins. Horrors!

Those who worship scientists get upset that some scientists disagree with the majority. They think those who disagree with the majority have lost touch with reality and aren’t “real scientists.” On the other side are those who are just as amazed that anyone could disagree with the scientific interpretation that agrees with Scripture. Those on each side stand amazed that the others are so thickheaded. This divide illustrates the great debate between scientists, a debate that’s caused by different methods of reasoning rather than different observations.

The difference is in the interpretation of evidence. We interpret, but groupthink, worldviews, peer pressure, assumptions, presuppositions, and divine revelation influence our judgment. Often, we listen to the loudest voice or the one that agrees with what we’ve always thought. Our brute-beast minds find something that seems to work and settle on this pragmatic solution even when our choice isn’t the best.

</end quote>

#RealFaith&Reason

Have you read this book yet?

Get your free copy of Real Faith & Reason, which shows the intersection of faith, reason, truth, and sanity.

http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_1_-_Scientia.pdf

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Book Review: Studies in the Book of Ecclesiastes

Book Review of a Book Related to Science, Evolution, Creation, Scriptural Authority, and the Realness of God

Review: Studies in the Book of Ecclesiastes by Mike Viccary

Studies in the Book of Ecclesiastes is a structured investigation of the entire book of Ecclesiastes, comparing it to Song of Solomon, Proverbs, New Testament Scripture, and more. Mike takes a book that many have avoided or thought to be negative and explains that the viewpoint is from one who is under the sun. The term “under the sun” refers to one who has a materialistic or deistic view of God. It would refer to what I would call a naturalistic Christian. It would refer to the old-earth dogmatist and the evolutionist. Mike shows how Ecclesiastes shows the limitations of the mind that has no real relationship with Christ. The book is well-written, easy to be understood, and can be read in an evening or two. You may want to take the time to study it after your initial reading. I’ll include a quote that’s longer than my review since it seems to me that this succinct quote sums up the point of the entire book.

“One of the greatest freeing moments in my life was to realise that my pursuit of truth was never going to succeed until I grasped that it wasn’t a theory, nor a system, nor a scheme that would do the trick, but a person. The realisation that Christ Jesus was not just a person in history, but the One who came from heaven, died for sins, was raised to new life and then ascended into heaven for all eternity was stunning. This moment started my relationship with God. That theme (relationship with God) is the subject of the Song of Songs. However I do not feel capable, nor at liberty, to speak on such a high subject. My life and path have been a testimony to the insufficiency of modern science (and of all man’s thoughts), and to the abundance of God’s goodness in and through His word by the power of the Holy Spirit.”

The book is free to download at this address: https://www.mikeviccary.com/studies-in-ecclesiastes

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Lord, Give Us the Desire

<quote>

Our gracious Heavenly Father, we bow before You in submission. Lord, we desire to do Your will. We thank You for the many promises that You make to us as You speak through Scripture. You have promised that You won’t give us something other than the Holy Spirit when we ask for the Holy Spirit. You have promised that we’ll know the words that come from You if we truly desire to do Your will. For that reason, we pray that You give us the desire to do Your will and the power to do Your will. Amen.

</end quote>

#RealFaith&Reason

Have you read this book yet?

http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_1_-_Scientia.pdf

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Speculations: Scientific and Theological

<quote>
Stories about evolution and the age of the earth get labeled “science,” but naturalism is also labeled “science,” and naturalism eliminates God. . . .

When we read Scripture, we’re interacting with the Almighty. As we read the Bible, God tells us that He reveals reality using methods other than the Bible. We’ve just considered the example of this revelation in the first chapter of Romans. True science is revelation, and true science never contradicts Scripture.

Even so, speculations of scientists and theologians often contradict Scripture because speculation is just made-up stuff. The Holy Spirit is our teacher, and God reveals and confirms this fact through Scripture and experience. And this revelation is good news since, given the problem the human mind has in proving that a premise is true, sound reason can never consist of a cold, lifeless, intellectual exercise. Truth always directly involves Jesus. He is Truth, and outside of His presence, there’s no true knowledge as we shall see.

“Hearing from God may be mocked by some like Joy Behar, but it is nothing new and it’s definitely not mental illness as she said. The Bible is full of examples of people hearing from God. Jesus said, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me” (John 10:27). Those who have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ know what this means. I’m thankful that today He still speaks to us through His Word and through His Holy Spirit working in our lives. Aren’t you?” (Franklin Graham)

If we were to try to deny the methods of revelation God mentions through the Bible, our denial would be extra-biblical. The Bible doesn’t deny those methods. Instead, the Bible refutes such a denial since it lays out several ways that God reveals besides speaking to us through the Bible. Therefore, if we were to assert that God reveals only through Scripture, we would be making an extra-biblical assertion in conflict with Scripture. Besides, we would be claiming that no one could know Christ. We would be saying the Holy Spirit doesn’t lead anyone in this daily walk.

Counterfeits of divine revelation exist. So what’s the issue? By being too broadly defined, the term “extra-biblical” confuses us, so we need a term more specific than “extra-biblical.” When God spoke to Paul, it was extra-biblical but not in conflict with Scripture. Still, some extra-biblical doctrines conflict with Scripture, and the conflict with Scripture shows these extra-biblical doctrines are false.

Similarly, some extra-biblical doctrines add speculative interpretations to Scripture from the fallen sarx mind. Even if they don’t conflict with Scripture, they violate God’s command not to add to His words or to diminish His words. And as long as we’re going down this path, it might be good to remember humans aren’t the only ones who make up stuff. Demons also lie, which is another form of made-up stuff. Satan even used Scripture to tempt Christ, but Christ easily detected the deception just as Christ in you can detect deception.

Despite these errors, God can say things not specifically laid out in Scripture. For instance, God can lead a man to choose the right wife, or God the Father can draw an atheist to Christ by speaking directly to his conscience or through a Christian’s example. The Holy Spirit can tell a Christian to apologize to a friend she offended. Such leading is technically extra-biblical. However, God commands us to seek His leading. Therefore, we need this form of extra-biblical knowledge. Since the term “extra-biblical” can mean both good and evil, it’s not a helpful term, so we’ll consider the difference between made-up stuff and divine revelation. The dichotomy between made-up stuff and divine revelation is more meaningful than the term “extra-biblical.”

Something being extra-biblical isn’t necessarily wrong or evil, but making up stuff and calling the made-up stuff true is evil. It’s a lie, and lies are an abomination to God. We can easily see the problem with making theological claims that require adding made-up stuff to Scripture. And some extra-biblical doctrines originate in assumption-based interpretations of the Bible.
</end quote>

#RealFaith&Reason

Have you read this book yet?

Get your free copy of Real Faith & Reason, which shows the intersection of faith, reason, truth, and sanity.
http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_1_-_Scientia.pdf

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Take Wisdom With You

<quote>
“On the one hand, it is true that modern science does not require a person to be a Christian: it recognizes a general human condition, according to which the procedures and results of science must be accessible to any competent investigator, regardless of ideological or religious persuasion. So it is fair to say that practicing science does not require one to see science as a vocation. But on the other hand, those scientists who are Christian lose a great deal when they are trained to see their work merely as a profession. Indeed, as Nancy Pearcey has argued, these scientists often experience considerable internal confl¬ict, because they do not see how to relate their life as a Christian with their work as a scientist.” (The Intersection of Science & Christian Theology)

When we go out to do our work, we’ll be more successful and satisfied if we take Christ with us to our work. Why not make use of knowing the Person Who has all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding? Why not develop that relationship through open communication with the only counselor, teacher, and leader who knows all things?

“A Christ against culture approach is liable to reject at least some of science on the grounds that its assumptions, aims, practices, and claims conflict with allegiance to Christ and His Word. At a moderate level, this might involve refusing to seriously evaluate or use particular statements, theories, and technologies. A more extreme reaction would be to reject the work and institutions of science altogether as idolatrous and godless diversions from Christ. Either way, it is likely that Christians with this perspective will feel uncomfortable about scientific work and this will disincline them to pursue science as a vocation.” (The Intersection of Science & Christian Theology)

The culture is the world. This quote isn’t condoning being a friend of the world since God tells us that whoever is a friend of the world is an enemy of God. We aren’t of the culture, but we’re in the culture. We influence the culture for Christ. We recognize that God has revealed some knowledge to people who deny Christ, and we can learn from them. However, we know that they can only function at the brute-beast level, and they know it too. When they begin to speak about things like history, the future, morality, epistemology, or ontology, they’re out of their league. We may want to be gentle if we have to tell them that, but we need to remember that they don’t have a basis for rational thought.

“Evolution is just as religious as Creation because both views require faith on the part of their adherents. No one saw God create the universe, and no one saw the “big bang” occur. Both views are religious as far as origins are concerned.” (Fables and Facts about Creation and Evolution)
</end quote>
#RealFaith&Reason

Have you read this book yet?

http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_1_-_Scientia.pdf

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail