Unbelief Swallowing up a Bit of the Word of God Unbelief - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

A portion of the Word

• f God presented to

unbelief Unbelief reinterpreting the Word of God within its own categories “Unbelief controls my interpretation of the situation”

Unbelief Swallowing up a Bit of the Word of God

15

Unbelief challenged at the foundational level

“The Word controls my interpretation of the situation” Empowered by Eschatological Truths

Unbelief Forced into a Contrast in Many Areas Simultaneously

A portion of the Word

• f God presented to

unbelief as part of a network

16

17

“For the LORD is great and greatly to be praised; He is to be feared above all gods for all the gods

• f the peoples are idols,

But the LORD made the heavens. . . . Give to the LORD the glory due His name.”

Psalm 96:4–8

18

“You are worthy O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and by You will they exist and were created.”

Revelation 4:11

19

“You alone are the LORD, You made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and everything in it. The seas and all that is in them, And You preserve them all. The host of heaven worships You.”

Nehemiah 9:6

The Dynamics of Modern Scientific Communities

20

• Politically funding educational curricula and

research

• Manufactured consensus
• Secular agenda for training children
• Not “evidence-based decision making” but

“decision-based evidence making”

“Post-Normal” Science

21

“The concept of post-normal science goes beyond the traditional assumptions that science is both certain and value-free . . . The exercise of scholarly activities is defined by the dominance of goal orientation where scientific goals are controlled by political or societal

• actors. . . . In post-normal science, the maintenance of

quality, rather than the establishment of factual knowledge, is the key task of scientists. Scientists have to contribute to society by learning as quickly as possible about different [group] perceptions . . . instead of seeking deep ultimate knowledge.” [UK blogger citing the scholarly work of Funtowicz and Ravetz during the 1990s]

The So-Called War Between Religion and Science

22

Key book: President Andrew White’s book A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology “Their goal was to secularize society, replacing the Christian worldview with scientific naturalism. They understood very well that they were replacing one religion with another for they described their goal as the establishment of the ‘church scientific’.” Nancy Pearcey and Charles Thaxton, The Soul of Science

23

Walker Memorial Dining Hall at MIT

The Mural on the Left Side of the Hall

24

“You shall be as gods knowing both good & evil” Hygeia— goddess linked to Asclepius, god of medicine crowning the scientist Diplomats &

• fficers at the

council table

• f the world

Evil smoke with the dogs

• f war

Nature figure under the Tree

• f the

Knowledge of good and evil Good smoke with cherubs

Need & Requirements for Deductive Reasoning

25

Deductive reasoning needed to go beyond empirical observations to make theories and test them Requires immaterial laws of classification and logic Requires universality and invariance in laws of logic

Does Math Success Imply a Pre- Established Design?

26

Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

“The success of [scientific] procedure supposes in the

• bjective world a high degree of
• rder which we are in no way

entitled to expect a priori. There lies the “miracle” . . . .I think of the comprehensibility of the world as a miracle or an eternal mystery.”

Need & Requirements for Inductive Reasoning

27

Needed to make experience efficient—I don’t have to repeat experiences over and over again. Requires trust in uniformity (not uniformitarianism discussed later) Problem: how, apart from trust in the God of the Bible, can I believe in uniformity? (probability arguments can’t work because they rely upon uniformity!)

Need & Requirements for Ethical Behavior Throughout the Community

28

Science requires ethical commitment to deductive and inductive reasoning regardless

• f the political, publishing, and funding

consequences (no “manufactured consensus” & no post-normal science commitment to pre- established social goals) Experiment reporting must be honest—no fake data! Funding must be used for the stated purpose

• 6
• 2
• 4
• 8
• 10
• 12
• 14
• 16
• 18

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

Age of Universe Life Beginning Historical Period One Year One Hour One Second Sound Period Visible Light Period X-Ray Period

• 12
• 10
• 8
• 6
• 4
• 2

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

Time: Log10 (seconds)

Atom Molecules Bacteria

Spatial Domain of Natur e

One cm Man Mountains Sun Solar System Galaxies

Space: Log10 (cm)

T e mpor al Domain of Natur e

Deductions Deductions Conjecture Ultra-speed filming Telescope Deductions Microscope

Limits of Empirical Knowledge

29

BUT the sc ie ntific me tho d re q uire s spe c ia l a dditio ns (wo rldvie w de pe nde nt c o nje c ture s) in o rde r to pe ne tra te uno b se rva b le pa st & future do ma ins Ma n c re a te d to ha ve do minio n

• ve r na ture sta rting with the

c o rre spo nde nc e Go d c re a te d b e twe e n ma ny o f ma n’ s e mpiric a lly-b a se d c o nc e ptio ns a nd na ture ’ s de sig n

Direct Observation Historical Testimony Instruments

Reconstructed from Julio Garrido, “The Theory of Evolution and the Limitation of Human Knowledge,” CRSQ, March 1970, Vol 6, pp. 185-187

From Uniformity to Uniformitarianism

30

Uniformity of natural law = constancy of natural processes actually observed Uniformitarianism = the belief that (1) only natural processes observed today can be used to account for observed geological, chemical, and atomic structures; (2) the rate of such natural processes

• bserved today has always remained about

the same