Your session will end in  seconds due to inactivity. Click here to continue using this web page.

Understanding Biblical Creation

Friday, February 07, 2014 | Comments (4)

The creation/evolution battle received national attention recently from the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham. Biblical creationism is an issue many Christians struggle with as they weigh the evidence from the Bible against the cultural pressure toward an antisupernatural interpretation of the physical evidence.

Between May and August of 2010, John MacArthur and Grace to You presented a compelling series of articles demonstrating the strength of a biblical, six-day-creation view. As Ken Ham rightly pointed out, this debate is about worldviews, not evidence.

The resources you’ll find on our website are compelling because they stay above the fray of the usual arguments and focus on the transcendent biblical arguments for a normal, historical interpretation of Genesis 1—11. If you missed that series, click here to find all the articles from start to finish. We trust you’ll be challenged, encouraged, and strengthened by the clarity, consistency, and truth of God’s Word.

G. Gabriel Powell


Make a Comment

Click here to subscribe to comments without commenting.

You have 3000 characters remaining for your comment. Note: All comments must be approved before being posted.

Submit

#1  Posted by Elaine Bittencourt  |  Friday, February 07, 2014at 3:12 PM

I remember that series, it was really good! Thank you for the link Gabe.

(are you back on the blog? =) )

#2  Posted by Kimball Rogers  |  Friday, February 07, 2014at 9:58 PM

People say evolution started with the Big Bang. I simply tell people this is the first time God spoke the universe into existence. When God talks, it makes a VERY loud noise. i.e. a big bang!

#3  Posted by Stephen Perry  |  Thursday, February 13, 2014at 2:02 PM

Could God have made the universe in one second? No.

Could God have written the Bible differently today? No.

Could God have created one more or a trillion more stars then He did? No.

God could not do anything differently than what He perfectly purposed to do before the foundation of the world and did so according to His good and perfect will. These type questions only open the door to speculating that God could have considered alternatives which were inferior to what He perfectly did.

Another speculative question that should not be asked is, "What WOULD Jesus do?" That is not the correct question either. The correct question is, "What DID Jesus do?

#4  Posted by Steve Cornell  |  Saturday, February 22, 2014at 3:56 PM

We need more transparency about what science can and cannot do/prove. But this will end up requiring more honesty about ways that Theophobia has bound the academy to a philosophy of naturalism (theophobia - http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2011/01/29/theophobia-fear-of-religion-in-the-academy/).

I am troubled by the use of the tag "science" for what is really philosophy or religion. When scientists claims that the physical world is a self-contained system of impersonal natural laws without any outside involvement from a God or a Creator, they should have the intellectual integrity to admit that this opinion is beyond the reach of science and belongs to the discipline of philosophy or even religion.

Such a claim cannot even be offered as a "theory" because, in terms of science, this word implies a tested and proven postulation (which obviously can't be done).

When scientists are willing to acknowledge the shift of categories on questions of ultimate origin, then we can have an honest debate about the data used to suggest the plausibility of the philosophy. This would also require more honesty and humility about the validity of discovering truth in disciplines outside of science. A valid epistemology is not bound by one discipline.

Truth about "how it all began" cannot be resolved in scientific labs, but faith offers a different kind of evidence on the subject. A helpful line from Scripture states that, “every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything” (Hebrews 3:4). Whether one visits a construction site or a nature site, the logic consistently demands the same conclusion.

The science of evolution is not meant to offer a “story” that parallels the biblical account of creation. It’s not that scientists cannot postulate on the subject based on assumptions or patterns. They can do this in the same way that the science of intelligent design postulates origins based on design.



When we confuse faith and science, we fail to respect what each one contributes. On the science end of the discussion, perhaps a better question to ask is whether the idea that the material universe is all there is, was, or ever will be is more rational than believing an intelligent being created the world.

Steve Cornell