“For God so loved the world He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.” John chapter 3 verse 16, The Bible
Science and Creation
If you have read Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion and would like to read one pastor’s response to it, please click here for the open letters written by David Robertson to Richard Dawkins.
As well as scientists who believe in Creation Science or Intelligent Design, there are also scientists who believe in evolution and yet still believe in God as Creator. As the unbelieving scientific world, and as a consequence much of the population, accepts the theory of evolution, it is very important to take note of those who although holding this view still recognize that the evidence points to God as Creator.
One of the best known of these evolutionary scientists who believe in God as Creator is Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project. In his book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief he says the following (pages 66-67):
“The existence of the Big Bang begs the question of what came before that, and who or what was responsible. It certainly demonstrates the limits of science as no other phenomenon has done. The consequences of Big Bang theory for theology are profound. For faith traditions that describe the universe as having been created by God from nothingness (ex nihilo), this is an electrifying outcome. Does such an astonishing event as the Big Bang fit the definition of a miracle?
“The sense of awe created by these realizations has caused more than a few agnostic scientists to sound downright theological. In God and the Astronomers, the astrophysicist Robert Jastrow wrote this final paragraph: ‘At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.’
“For those looking to bring the theologians and the scientists closer together, there is much in these recent discoveries of the origin of the universe to inspire mutual appreciation. Elsewhere in his provocative book, Jastrow writes: ‘Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements and the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same; the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.’
“I have to agree. The Big Bang cries out for a divine explanation. It forces the conclusion that nature had a defined beginning. I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that.’”
Later in his book, Francis Collins quotes Stephen Hawking in his book A Brief History of Time where he says:
“It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.”
However, having quoted an evolutionist who believes in a Creator God, the question has to be asked if evolution as a theory is actually viable in the light of the facts as they are now known. The following is a quote from In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation edited by John F Ashton PhD (pg 31):
“Hoyle, in a review of the literature, concluded that: ‘... there is not a shred of evidence to support the hypothesis that life began in an organic soup here on the Earth. Indeed, Francis Crick, who shared a Nobel prize for the discovery of the structure of DNA, is one biophysicist who finds this theory unconvincing. So why do biologists indulge in unsubstantiated fantasies in order to deny what is so patently obvious, that the 200,000 amino acid chains, and hence life, did not appear by chance?
“’The answer lies in a theory developed over a century ago, which sought to explain the development of life as an inevitable product of purely local natural processes. Its author, Charles Darwin, hesitated to challenge the church’s doctrine on the creation, and publicly at least did not trace the implications of his ideas back to their bearing on the origin of life. However, he privately suggested that life itself may have been produced in ‘some warm little pond’, and to this day his followers have sought to explain the origin of terrestrial life in terms of a process of chemical evolution from the primordial soup. But, as we have seen, this [theory] simply does not fit the facts (Hoyle 1983 p.23)’” (Fred Hoyle is quoted from his book The Intelligent Universe).
Interestingly, some evolutionists themselves realize that the reasons so many scientists cling to the theory of evolution are not necessarily scientific:
Richard Lewontin from Billions and billions of demons: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
Arthur Keith (President of the Royal Anthropological Institute) wrote: "Evolution is unproved and unproveable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable."
Evolutionists seem to have an enormous fear of Creation Scientists that means that Creation Scientists are ridiculed and evolutionists complain loudly if intelligent design is taught to children. Could this be because they know how flimsy the evidence for evolution really is, and they are secretly afraid that Creation Scientists may be right?
Why not take the time to read this book by James Le Fanu which calls on scientists to accept where the evidence they now have leads:
You could also read more on the following web-sites:
