FAITH AND SCIENCE: Are They in Conflict?

___________________________________________________________________ The Bible teaches us that God has spoken to us through nature (general revelation) and Scripture (specific revelation). Yet people of faith often fear that the study of nature (science) will be a threat to faith while the new global atheis is declaring science to be the ene y of religion. This session will e!plore these issues and seek a Biblical understanding of how faith and science relate. ___________________________________________________________________ The cover article of an issue of Time "#aga$ine%& 'ebruary ()**& featured a concept known as +Singularity., -t is not a athe atical singularity or a black hole& but a o ent in hu an history when futurists predict that achines will have e!ceeded hu an intelligence by such a argin that hu an e!istence as we know it will change forever. .- agine&/ the article suggests& .a co puter scientist that was itself a super0 intelligent co puter. -t would work incredibly 1uickly. -t could draw on huge a ounts of data effortlessly. -t wouldn,t even take breaks./ #achines creating achines...technological capacity growing e!ponentially...hu an life being e!tended by decades& even centuries...artificial superhu an intelligence that can .write books& ake ethical decisions and appreciate fancy paintings./ The ti e line2 3ust over 4) years fro now5 'uturists are predicting that by the year ()67 +Singularity, could be upon us. 8uoting again fro the article& .-n that year9 given the vast increases in co puting power and the vast reductions in the cost of the sa e& the 1uantity of artificial intelligence created will be about a billion ti es the su of all the hu an intelligence that e!ists today./ Sound far0fetched2 :ven ;<S< hosts what is now a five0year0old Singularity =niversity for graduate students and high level e!ecutives.

The offspring of science& in the for of advanced technology& is one reason why understanding the integration of faith and science is so i portant. >ow will faith relate to a +singularity, world and what kind of ethical fra ework will be needed to guide that kind of technological e!plosion2 =nderstanding the integration of faith and science is also i portant because of how the new atheis is increasingly characteri$ing science as at war with religion& or at least replacing the need for God. -n words attributed to the secularist?atheist Bertrand @ussell& .@eligion is so ething left over fro the infancy of our intelligenceA it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines./

So e of us with conservative Bhristian upbringings ay have been e!posed to the church,s own version of that +war&, being taught that science was contrary to Biblical teaching. <t ti es ore highly educated people have

wondered if they can re ain in the church given a so ewhat anti0intellectual bias that has subtly been advanced. Still others have walked away fro faith co pletely& believing that science is irreconcilable with Scripture and& in fact& disproves Scripture.

Perspectives
<s a follower of Bhrist& a Centecostal and a student of the sciences& assu ptions over the years have been the followingD y starting

=nderstanding how and why things work in the natural world does not preclude the e!istence of a personal God. >e is ore than +God of the gaps., <ll truth is God,s truth& because >e is Breator of all. The capacity of the hu an intellect to be curious& to investigate and to learn is a God0given attribute& not a threat to y faith. The very nature of God hi self& i printed in what >e has scientific study possible. ade& akes

There has always been a direct link in Scripture between God,s creation and God,s characterD The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of his hands. (Psalm 19:1) God s invisi!le "#alities$his eternal power and divine nat#re$have !een clearly seen, !eing #nderstood from what has !een made. (%omans 1:&') Because of this - would often leave science classes feeling like - had been in a +worship service&, so to speak. Science is the e!ploration of the natural world. -f our starting assu ption is that discovering how the natural world works will eli inate need for a God to e!plain what we see in the world& then our faith will be threatened. But does discovering the beauty of a painting ean that there ust not be a painter2 8uite the oppositeEboth the Fld and ;ew Testa ents teach us that the created order reveals the glory and character of a creator God. Croverbs G declaresD () *wisdom+ was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked o#t the hori,on on the face of the deep.... Then ) was the craftsman at his side. ) was filled with delight day after day, re-oicing always in his presence, re-oicing in his whole world and delighting in mankind.. (vv. &/, 0'101)

This was also part of y Hoy in studying the sciences. #ost every scientist& in fact& has tasted that uni1ue +delight, in discovering the handiwork of God revealed in astrono y& biology& botany& che istry& physics& geology and the breadth of scientific endeavor. Ioving God with +all of our inds, (#atthew ((D4J) actually calls us to that delightEe!ploring and being in wonder of all God,s handiwork. ;ot only does he +know, it all but he +designed, it all. >ere is an invitation to curiosity and intellectual pursuit in a way that does not threaten our faith& but glorifies and honors our Breator.

<nd yet the tensions that potentially e!ist between Biblical faith and scientific advance can still be perple!ing and faith challenging. >ow can we gain further perspective on all of this2 Fne of the historic declarations of the Bhristian faith is the KBelgic BonfessionK (*7LL). -t is of special interest because it asserts that God has revealed his truth in two booksE>is Mord and >is works& or Scripture and nature. Specifically& it declares thatD .Me know >i by two eans .../

.'irst& by the creation& preservation& and govern ent of the universe& since that universe is before our eyes like a beautiful book in which all creatures& great and s all& are as letters to ake us ponder the invisible things of GodD >is eternal power and his divinity& as the apostle Caul says in @o ans *D(). <ll these things are enough to convict en and to leave the without e!cuse./ .Second& >e akes hi self known to us ore openly by >is holy and divine Mord& as uch as we need in this life& for >is glory and for the salvation of >is own./

Theologians often characteri$e Scripture as +specific revelation, and nature as +general revelation., Both revelations& being fro God& are +infallible, and bring us to the conclusion that +all truth is God,s truth., There is therefore no conflict between God,s Mord and his works. The =.S. <sse blies of God,s official position paper on .The Noctrine of Breation&/ ()**& (www.ag.org) statesD .Me affir that God and God alone is the designer and creator of the universe and of life. The discoveries of science had been utili$ed by skeptics to 1uestion the accuracy of the biblical accounts. -n response& believing scientists and biblical scholars consider no funda ental conflict to e!ist between God,s Mord and >is works. The theories of the scientists are constantly changing with the introduction of new evidence. By contrast& the Scriptures are always the final& unchanging authority for Bhristian faith.... =lti ately& then& when God,s Mord and God,s Mork are properly understood and taught by reverent scholarship& there is no disunity./

Mhat is +fallible, is our interpretation of Scripture and natureEbecause of the hu an ele ent involved.

The study of Scripture is the work of theology and the study of nature is the work of science.

Both disciplines& theology and science& re1uire hu an interpretation& thereby aking the fallible. The nu ber of Bhristian deno inations provides a ple evidence for a diversity of viewpoints when it co es to interpreting Scripture. Science& too& can be far less than obHective. - would often be surprised during y graduate studies in engineering at how subHective the interpretation of one set of data could be& with one interpretive ca p being defensive and even +at war, with the other.

Scripture and nature are infallibleA theology and science are not. God s 2ord God s 2orks ;ature Science

)nterpretation %evelation

Scripture Theology

34ampleD .=ntil the ti e of Bopernicus (*764) and Galileo (*L6()& virtually everyone assu ed the earth was a stationary body around which all the other heavenly bodies revolved daily. Scripture see s to teach the i ovability of the earth (Csal O4D*A OLD*)). 3oshua *)D*4 says the sun stood still during the battle in the valley of <iHalon. >owever& a growing body of physical evidence de onstrated that a athe atically and physically far si pler e!planation of the astrono ical observations entailed revolution of the earth and the other planets around the sun./ (Crof. Navis Young& Balvin Bollege& 3nrichment 5o#rnal& 'all ()*()

Me understand today that& in light of evidence fro the +book of nature&, the scripture te!ts in Galileo,s era were not interpreted with +fra e of reference, in ind (i.e.& the surface of the earth) fro which it looks like the sun is the obHect that is oving. ;either was there consideration of the fact that poetic passages should be interpreted less literally than the ore didactic teaching passages in Scripture.

=lti ately Scripture and nature& God,s Mord and his works& will not contradict one another. >owever& the sa e cannot be said about +theology, and +science., Both are prone to errors because of the hu an factor. +<pparent, contradictions should therefore not be grounds for either abandoning faith or ridiculing science. @ather& it ought to bring us& as learners& to the kind of hu ility called for in :cclesiastes 7D(D

God is in heaven, and yo# are on earth, so let yo#r words !e few. (3cclesiastes 6:&!)

#eanwhile we +doubt our doubts, and give apparent contradictions ti e to resolve without abandoning our faith.

Christianity and the Advancement of the Sciences

Bhristianity has& in fact& been at the forefront of scientific discovery throughout historyD

ohannes !epler "#$%#&#'()*E'ather of #odern <strono y .Fn #ay *7& *L*G& it ca e to hi in a flashD The s1uares of the periods of revolution are to each other as the cubes of the ean distances fro the sun. >e felt e!uberant and fancied that he had been given a orsel of heavenly knowledge that had& up until now& been denied to an. +- feel carried away and possessed by an unutterable rapture over the divine spectacle of the heavenly har ony.,/ +o,ert -oyle "#'.%&#'/#*E'ather of #odern Bhe istry .The vastness& beauty& orderliness& of the heavenly bodiesA the e!cellent structure of ani als and plantsA and the other pheno ena of nature Hustly induce an intelligent and unpreHudiced observer to conclude a supre ely powerful& Hust& and good author./ Isaac Ne0ton "#'1.&#%.%*E'ather of #odern Chysics?Balculus .This ost beautiful syste of the sun& planets and co ets could only proceed fro the counsel and do inion of an intelligent and powerful Being./ 2ichael Faraday "#%/#&#3'%*EChysicist and Bhe ist .Speculations2/ he asked with astonish ent. .- have none. - a resting on certainties. - know who - have believed& and a persuaded that >e is able to keep that which - have co itted unto >i against that day5/ Sam4el F5 -5 2orse "#%/#&#3%.*E-nventor and Cainter .#ore than once& and whenever - could not see y way clearly& - knelt down and prayed to God for light and understanding9. - have ade a valuable application of electricity not because - was superior to other en but solely because God& who eant it for ankind& ust reveal it to so eone and >e was pleased to reveal it to e./ 6ord !elvin "7illiam Thomson* "#3.1&#/)%*E:ngineer& #athe atician& -nventor& Chysicist

.No not be afraid of being free0thinkers. -f you think strongly enough you will be forced by science to the belief in God& which is the foundation of all @eligion. You will find science not antagonistic& but helpful to @eligion./

ames Cler8 2a90ell "#3(#&#3%/*EChysicist .God& who has created an in Thine own i age& and ade hi a living soul that he ight seek after Thee and have do inion over thy creatures& teach us to study the works of Thy hands that we ay subdue the earth to our use& and strengthen our reason for Thy serviceA and so to receive Thy blessed Mord& that we ay believe on >i who Thou has sent to give us the knowledge of salvation and the re ission of our sins. <ll which we ask in the na e of the sa e 3esus Bhrist our Iord./ :eor;e 7ashin;ton Carver "#3'1&#/1(*EBotanist& -nventor .Mhen - was young& - said to God& +God& tell e the ystery of the universe., But God answered& +That knowledge is reserved for e alone., So - said& +God& tell e the ystery of the peanut., Then God said& +Mell& George& that,s ore nearly your si$e., <nd he told e./

=S< Today (writer #ark -. Cinsky& Sept. (O& ())G) reported on the nu ber of British scientists who are e bracing evangelical faith at the pinnacle of their careersD .Mhile i possible to 1uantify& a surprising nu ber of pro inent British researchers at the pinnacle of their fields& with worldwide reputations in the physical and biological sciences& proclai their evangelical Bhristian faith. .'irst& they say the likelihood that intelligent& carbon0based life originated in the universe by chance is infinitesi ally inute. <nd second& they proclai their belief in what they accept as the first0hand& biblical accounts of 3esus, life& death and physical resurrection./ <s recounted by Ti Peller in his book The %eason for GodD

.<lister #cGrath& a theologian with an F!ford doctorate in biophysics& writes that ost of the any unbelieving scientists he knows are atheists on other grounds than their science./ Nr. <lan Iight an& #assachusetts -nstitute of Technology (#-T)& wrote in his >arvard =niversity Cress book& 7rigins: the 8ives and 2orlds of 9odern :osmologists D .@eferences to God or divine purpose continued in the scientific literature until the iddle to late *G))s. -t see s likely that the studied lack of religious references after this ti e resulted ore fro a change in social and professional convention a ong scientists rather than fro any change in underlying thought. -ndeed& contrary to popular yth& scientists appear to have the sa e range of attitudes about religious atters as does the general public./

7hy Did Scientific Investi;ation Flo4rish Historically 0ithin the Conte9t of a Christian 7orldvie0?
@ather than contradicting faith& is there so ething in Bhristianity that actually fostered scientific investigation throughout the centuries2 @enowned physical che ist and evangelical believer Nr. >enry Schaefer ---& in his book ;cience and :hristianity: :onflict or :oherence< (=niversity of Georgia Crinting& ()*4)& responds in this wayD .The best answers - have seen to this 1uestion were for ulated by y =niversity of Georgia che istry colleague Crofessor Mesley <llen. >is (slightly odified) five answers to this 1uestion are as followsD *. -f Bhristianity is true& the universe is real& not illusory. The universe is thus the product of a God whose character is i utable& at variance with pantheistic notions which place inherent distrust in sensory e!perience in a ercurial world. (. -f Bhristianity is true& the universe& being divinely created& is of inherent value and thus worthy of study. This conclusion supplants any =eitgeist (spirit of the ti es) which would view science as a ere intellectual pasti e. 4. -f Bhristianity is true& nature itself is not divine& and thus hu anity ay probe it free of fear. This was an i portant reali$ation in the early eras do inated by superstitions about the natural environ ent. Morship and ulti ate reverence is reserved for the Breator& not the creation& nor hu ans as creatures therein. 6. -f Bhristianity is true& ankind& for ed in the i age of God& can discover order in the universe by rational interpretation. That is& the codes of nature can be unveiled and read. Mithout such faith& science ight never have developed& because it ight have appeared i possible in principle. 7. -f Bhristianity is true& the for of nature is not inherent within nature& but rather a divine co and i posed fro outside nature. Thus& the details of the world ust be uncovered by observation rather than by ere rational using& because God is free to create according to >is own purposes. -n this way science was liberated fro <ristotelian rationalis & whereby the Breator was subHected to the dictates of reason constructed by hu ans. Such Gnosticis & which transfor ed speculation into dog a& under ined the open0endedness of science./ The world fa ous athe atics professor fro F!ford =niversity& Nr. 3ohn Ienno!& su ari$ed it this way in his book ;even >ays that >ivide the 2orld (Qondervan& ()**)D .Me think that& since God is the author both of his Mord the Bible and of the universe& there ust ulti ately be har ony between correct interpretation of J

the biblical data and correct interpretation of the scientific data. )ndeed, it was the conviction that there was a creative intelligence !ehind the #niverse and the laws of nat#re that gave the prime stim#l#s and moment#m to the modern scientific "#est to #nderstand nat#re and its laws in the si4teenth and seventeenth cent#ries..

7hat a,o4t the Islamic 7orldvie0 and its +elationship to Scientific Advance?
-n the 3anuary ()*4 edition of The 3conomist& an article entitled .The @oad to @enewal/ begins by docu enting the following statisticsD .The sleep has been long and deep. -n ())7& >arvard =niversity produced ore scientific papers than *J <rabic0speaking countries co bined. The world,s *.L billion #usli s have produced only two ;obel laureates in che istry and physics. Both oved to the MestD the only living one& the che ist <h ed >assan Qewail& is at the Balifornia -nstitute of Technology. By contrast 3ews& outnu bered *)) to one by #usli s& have won JO. The 7J countries in the Frganisation of the -sla ic Bonference spend a puny ).G*R of GNC on research and develop ent& about a third of the world average. < erica& which has the world,s biggest science budget& spends (.ORA -srael lavishes 6.6R./
(httpD??www.econo ist.co ?news?international?(*7J)LJJ0after0centuries0stagnation0science0 aking0co eback0isla ic0world0road)

The article goes on to docu ent a ore recent resurgence in scientific advance in the -sla ic world. <lthough there is debate within the -sla ic world as to whether the 8ur,an is pro0science or anti0science& the record of history has not been friendly. This co only known history is recounted in an easily accessible Mikipedia article on Science and -sla D .<ccording to any historians& science in the #usli civili$ation flourished during the #iddle <ges& but began declining at so e ti e around the *6th to *Lth centuries. <t least so e scholars bla e this on the rise +of a clerical faction which fro$e this sa e science and withered its progress., :!a ples of conflicts with prevailing interpretations of -sla and scienceEor at least the fruits of scienceEthereafter include the de olition of Ta1i al0NinKs great -stanbul observatory of Ta1i al0Nin in Galata& +co parable in its technical e1uip ent and its specialist personnel with that of his celebrated conte porary& the Nanish astrono er Tycho Brahe., But while BraheKs observatory +opened the way to a vast new develop ent of astrono ical science&, Ta1i al0NinKs was de olished by a s1uad of 3anissaries& +by order of the sultan& on the reco endation of the Bhief #ufti& so eti e after *7JJ <N./ (httpD??en.wikipedia.org?wiki?-sla _and_science)

Ho0 Then Sho4ld 7e 6oo8 at Science?

6et me challen;e yo4 to avoid either demonizing or deifying it5 G

-nstead of either demoni,ing or deifying science& respect it for what it is& be in awe of the wonders of the created order& and stay Biblically focused and hu ble.

How do we avoid demonizing science? o <void ocking science (or those who study it) fro the pulpit& or leaving the i pression that a person cannot be +s art, and +spiritual, at the sa e ti e. o Be a learner yourself and do not settle for overly0si plistic answers to co ple! issues. o Give voice to people in your circles of influence who are regularly integrating science and faith in their own vocations. <ffir rather than Hudge those being called into scientific vocations& and support the spiritually. Breate foru s in which people ay discuss these issues.

o <void the te ptation to only 1uote fringe& anti0religion scientists who ay not always represent the ainstrea of scientific thought. o No not be inti idated by the ore scientifically educated people in our churches or ake fun of the as all being +godless.K o <void creating a church culture in which either thinking or asking honest 1uestions is frowned on or penali$ed. o Peep your preaching close to the te!t of Scripture and the relevant needs of real people. o >elp people understand the potentially negative effects of technology on their relationships and their use of ti e. o No not be dog atic about subHects that you know little about. <ugustine warned us *L centuries agoD .;ow it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Bhristian& presu ably giving the eaning of >oly Scripture& talking nonsense on these "scientific% topicsA and we should take all eans to prevent such an e barrassing situation& in which people show up vast ignorance in a Bhristian and laugh it to scorn./

How do we avoid deifying science? Fn the other hand& while not de oni$ing science neither should we deify it. Science cannot and will not replace God. 'or it to do so& it would need to be

o niscient& all0knowing. Science would need to be able to analy$e all of reality fro at least one di ension outside of that which God could potentially e!ist if it is to conclusively disprove his e!istence. o Two of the ost ground0breaking scientific theories in the history of science e erged during the ()th centuryD *. The Theory of %elativity (. ?#ant#m Theory *. The Theory of %elativity is based on the scientific& physical observation ade over a century ago that the speed of light (4))&))) kilo eters per second) always easures the sa e no atter what reference fra e you easure it fro . The i plications of that lead to :instein,s space0ti e curvature and the reality that the closer to the speed of light you travel the ore ti e slows and space contracts. -f one twin travels to a nearby star and back at nearly the speed of light for () years (earth ti e) and the other twin stays on earth& the twin on earth will have aged () years but the twin who left will have only aged one or two years. This would be a per anent age difference and has been verified e!peri entally with +twin clocks.,

<t the actual speed of light& ti e stops and the 4 di ensions of space disappear. -t is like there is a cos ic speed li it to the universe beyond which we cannot see fro our reference point. (. ?#ant#m Theory see s to predict its own li itations as well. -t describes a world in which subato ic particles behave both like co pact points and diffuse waves. This +wave0 particle duality, was de onstrated by :instein for light& by de Broglie for electrons& and is present in all subato ic particles. 'urther ore& according to the >eisenberg =ncertainty Crinciple& we cannot know both a particle,s e!act position and o entu ( otion) at the sa e ti e. -n fact& the very act of observation changes what you see at a subato ic level& and what you observe can be deter ined by how you observe itD <n electron will appear as a wave if the easure ent is refined. otion

<n electron will appear as a particle if the position easure ent is refined.

*)

o -n the words of physicist @oger 3ones (Physics for the %est of @s) who teaches at y al a ater& the =niversity of #innesotaD .8uantu theory clai s that science can provide no pictures of the inner workings of nature . . . ;ot only are we blind to the workings of nature& but even our brief gli pses are of no obHective& independent reality but of a subHective& observer0deter ined world./ o -t would see as if the Theory of @elativity puts a ceiling above us at the ti e?space threshold and that 8uantu Theory puts a floor under us& blinding us to the inner workings of nature. -n other wordsD o Science cannot be o niscient. There are no grounds upon which we should be te pted to deify it. Science& by its very nature& does not possess the necessary tools to +disprove, God.

7hat A,o4t 2iracles? Are They Not Scientifically Impossi,le?

Science is only e1uipped to test for natural causes and so cannot be e!pected to e!plain iracles& or eli inate the . Fne of the cutting edges of scientific e!ploration today isD <The =nified Field Theory>

Gravitational 'orce :lectro agnetic 'orce Strong ;uclear 'orce Meak ;uclear 'orce

The 1uest is to find the unifying theory of all four of the funda ental forces in such a way that e!plains all the other laws of nature. :instein needed four di ensions (three space and one ti e) to solve the relativity e1uations& but an area of athe atics called String Theory re1uires at least eleven di ensions to solve the e1uations. <lthough i possible to visuali$e in three0di ensional space& the results predict the outco es of both the theories of relativity and 1uantu echanics. >ugh @oss& Aeyond the :osmosD .The re arkable advance of research reveals a God who lives and operates in the e1uivalent of at least eleven di ensions of space and ti e. Such e!tra0di ensional capacities are ore than ade1uate to

**

resolve the doctrinal conflicts and parado!ical issues that have divided the church and perple!ed both believers and unbelievers for centuries./

Concl4sion

3esus& God,s Son& entered the confines of ti e and three0di ensional space in order to reach us. -f - could su ari$e the entire Bible in one sentence& it would be thisD .The God who created us has acted to rescue us./ The death and resurrection of 3esus and the subse1uently powerful outpouring of the >oly Spirit& which is continuing to this day& is the tangibly real story that ust always define our lives. Science has not changed the fact that .all have sinned and co e short of the glory of God/ (@o ans 4D(4). Science cannot disprove God. ;either can science re edy the pathology of the hu an heart or address the issues of ulti ate eaning. Fnly so ething +other&, so ething +super0natural&, so ething +beyond nature, can do thatEthe death of 3esus in our place& paying for our sinA and his resurrection fro the dead& securing victory over death and evil. The God of the cos os ca e to be the Iord and Savior of our lives& redefining life,s purpose and releasing our potential. South <frican physicist& George :llis& professor of <pplied #athe atics at the =niversity of Bape Town& is both a Bhristian believer and one of the early collaborators with Stephen >awking. -n his book& ?#ant#m :osmology and the 8aws of Bat#re& :llis states the following four unchanging propositionsD *. God is the creator and sustainer of the universe and of hu ankind& transcending the universe but i anent in itA (. God,s nature e bodies Hustice and holiness& but >e is also a personal and loving God who cares for each creature (so the na e +father, is indeed appropriate)A 4. God,s nature is revealed ost perfectly in the life and teachings of 3esus of ;a$areth& as recorded in the ;ew Testa ent of the Bible. 3esus was sent by God to reveal the divine nature& su ari$ed in +God is IoveA, 6. God has an active presence in the world that still touches the lives of the faithful today.

*(

?+I:INS AND C+EATI?N: Does Science Contradict :enesis?

___________________________________________________________________ Fne of the ost controversial areas of the faith?science dialog is a perceived conflict between conte porary scientific discoveries and a Biblical understanding of the Genesis account of creation. This session will ake a case for the necessity of a Breator and overview the three pro inent interpretations of Genesis * in the evangelical world as they relate to scientific discoveries. ___________________________________________________________________

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)
The first assertion of Scripture is that the world as we know it is neither a a cos ic accident. God is the creator and originator. istake nor

<ccording to Genesis *D*& this is the +beginning, of the storyEGod,s intentional and purposeful creation of all that is. Fur first e!posure to the nature of God in Scripture is the display of >is creative capacity. o Fur hu an creativity is one of several e!pressions of the fact that we have been created in the i age of God. o <lthough God,s creation of the world ended with >i resting on the seventh day& >is creative work continues on to this day through the work of rede ption (>is rescuing and restoring of what >e has created)D Therefore if anyone is in :hrist, he is a new creationC the old has gone, the new has comeD (& :orinthians 6:1/) o So eday& God,s ongoing creative work will e!tend again to all of creationD Then ) saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. (%evelation &1:1)

+Theis , is the worldview built on the pre ise that God is the creator of all that e!ists and lives. <n atheist once confessed to e& .- have to ad itEif God did create us& that would change everything./ Theis puts God at the beginning of hu an e!istence and therefore at the center of hu anity,s identity& dignity and value. The Breator beco es the ulti ate reference point for >is creation.

*4

+Scientis &, on the other hand& is the worldview that builds on the pre ise that all there is can be e!plained by natural processes& accidental +cause and effect, outco es with no divine +initial, cause. o Scientis uses science& but is not to be confused with science.

o Scientis is a philosophical worldview that involves non0theistic assu ptions that cannot be proven. -n fact& when all of the data is e!a ined& scientis re1uires ore faith than theis .

Mhen :instein was developing his theories of general and specific relativity a century ago& the scientific co unity believed in the +steady state, nature of the universeEthat the cos os had no beginning and presu ably no end. >owever& to :instein,s surprise& his field e1uations for general relativity indicated a beginning point to the universe& which he found theologically unsettling and scientifically unpopular. o -n order to counter this& :instein arbitrarily added an anti0gravity ter (the cos ological constant) to one side of the relativity e1uations in order to ake the predict what he wantedEa steady state universe. This was scientis over science. o :instein later re oved the ter blunder, of his scientific career. and called its insertion the +greatest

o Today it is largely un1uestioned in the scientific co unity that& in spite of the theistic i plications and unanswered +how, 1uestions& our universe does have a specific starting point. >ere we find so e initial co on ground between science as it presently stands and Genesis *D*.

Creation and the Trinity

The first verse of Genesis * identifies +God, as the intentional creator of the heavens and the earth& the ulti ate +first cause., The second verse of Genesis * references the >oly Spirit as hovering over our initially dark and for less planetD Bow the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the s#rface of the deep, and the S irit of God was hovering over the waters. (Genesis 1:&)

-n the third verse of Genesis * there is reference to +wordKEGod spoke the word and creative activity resulted.

*6

End God said, (8et there !e light,. and there was light. (Genesis 1:0) o The +word, of creation& however& takes on specific identity in the ;ew Testa ent by virtue of the incarnation of Bhrist. )n the !eginning was the 2ord, and the 2ord was with God, and the 2ord was God. Fe was with God in the !eginning. !hro"gh him a## things were made$ witho"t him nothing was made that has been made. . . . End the 2ord *5es#s+ !ecame flesh and made his dwelling among #s. (5ohn 1:110, 1Ga) Fe *5es#s+ is the image of the invisi!le God, the first!orn over all creation. %or by him a## things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visi!le and invisi!le, whether thrones or powers or r#lers or a#thoritiesC a## things were created by him and for him. Fe is !efore all things, and in him a## things ho#d together. (:olossians 1:1611/) )n these last days, he *God+ has spoken to #s !y his ;on *5es#s+, whom he appointed heir of all things, and thro"gh whom he made the "niverse. The ;on is the radiance of God s glory and the e4act representation of his !eing, s"staining a## things by his owerf"# word. (Fe!rews 1:&10a)

The interplay of 'ather& Son and >oly Spirit in the creation event de onstrates the all0enco passing invest ent that God has ade in >is creation& Hust as >e later does in the rede ption of creationD 9ay the grace of the &ord 'es"s (hrist, and the #ove of God, and the fe##owshi of the Ho#y S irit !e with yo# all. (& :orinthians 10:1G)

Because we are created by God we are not a istake& and we are not abandoned. -t is as if hu an beings carry a sign hung around their necksD <2ade in the ima;e of :od @ handle 0ith care5> o This redefines how we view ourselves& how we treat others and how we ake oral decisions. o -f& on the other hand& we are Hust cos ic accidents& we are not only unredee able but we have no definable worth independent of either the utilitarian social standards or the hu an preHudices of the aHority. This akes us little ore than victi s.

*7

Fine T4nin; Evidence for a Creator

Ban science either prove or disprove that God created the universe2 ;o& science does not have the tools to ake such a deter ination. >owever& the evidence leaves no other realistic alternatives. -n his book& ;cience and :hristianity: :onflict or :oherence (()*4)& physical che ist >enry Schaefer writesD .Science is pri arily concerned with facts& not otive& and thus a co plete scientific description of the creation does not necessarily rule out a providential account at the sa e ti e. Millia Caley,s fa ous design argu ent suggests that if you are taking a walk in the woods and find a watch on the path& you should not conclude that the watch Hust asse bled itselfE despite the fact that we can take the watch apart& look at every single part and co pletely understand how it works. Me look at the watch on the path and prudently conclude that it was designed by so e higher intelligence./

The world0fa ed British theoretical physicist Stephen >awking e!pressed it this way (E Arief Fistory of Time& p. *(7)D .The laws of science as we know the at present& contain any funda ental nu bers& like the si$e of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the asses of the proton and the electron.... The re arkable fact is that the values of these nu bers see to have been very finely adHusted to ake possible the develop ent of life./

Fne illustration of this is the nuclear fusion fueling the heart of our sun,s furnace. The process involves two deuteriu nuclei (a deuteriu nucleus has one proton and one neutron) fusing to for one heliu nucleus (two protons and two neutrons). >owever& the ass of the heliu nucleus is OO.4 percent of the ass of the two deuteriu nuclei. <ccording to :instein,s fa ous e1uation :S c( (where : is energy& is ass and c is the speed of light)& this slight differential in ass is converted into large a ounts of energy (the principle behind ato ic bo bs). But noteD o -f the ass difference were OO.6 percent& stars would shine too di ly to support life. o -f the ass difference were OO.( percent& too uch energy would be given off to allow for star for ation in the first place.

Nr. 'rancis Bollins& the < erican geneticist who first se1uenced the hu an geno e& e!plains in ore detailD .Mhen you look fro the perspective of a scientist at the universe& it looks as if it knew we were co ing. There are *7 constantsEthe gravitational constant& various constants about the strong and weak nuclear force& etc.Ethat have precise values. -f any one of those constants was off by even one part in a illion& or in so e cases& by one part in a illion illion... atter would not have been able to coalesce& there would have been no gala!y& stars& planets or people./

*L

-n his book& E :ase Egainst Eccident and ;elf17rgani,ation & Nean Fver an e!a ines so e of these constants and their necessarily precise relationships to one another. >ere are Hust a few of anyD o .-f the strong nuclear force were only ( percent stronger& two protons could bind despite their electrically charged repulsions& and...the universe would consist ainly of heliu and very little hydrogen. >ydrogen& of course& was necessary for the for ation of the sun and the for ation of li1uefied water& both necessary for the for ation of life.... < ( percent decrease in the strength of this force& on the other hand& would render unstable certain of the heavy ele ents which are prere1uisites for life./ o .The strength of the force of gravity precisely atches the strength of the electro agnetic force to allow for the for ation of a star such as the sun.... -f the electro agnetic force were only slightly stronger& all stars would be red and too cold for the e ergence of life. -f the force of electro agnetis were slightly weaker& all stars would be e!tre ely hot blue giants which would burn out before life could e erge fro any planet orbiting a star./ o .'or the e!istence of life& the nu ber of electrons ust be eticulously balanced to an accuracy of one part in *) 4J with the nu ber of protons. Mithout this balance the force of gravity which was essential to the for ation of stars and planets would have been overwhel ed by the electro agnetic force./ o .The electro agnetic force binds protons and electrons in ato s. <n electron,s path around an ato ,s nucleus governs the ability of the ato to bond with another ato in the for ation of olecules. -f the electro agnetic force were slightly increased in strength& an ato would not share an electron with other ato s and olecules would not for . -f the force were slightly weaker& the electrons would not re ain in their paths around an ato ,s nuclei. <ccordingly& any change in the strength of the electro agnetic force would preclude the for ation of life./

<strophysicist >ugh @oss& in his book The Hingerprint of God, suggests that over 4) para eters in the sun0earth0 oon syste alone also ust co e into precise align ent for life to e!ist on planet earth. >e esti ates that the odds of this happening are re otely s allE. uch fewer than a trillionth of a trillionth of one percent of all stars will have a planet capable of sustaining advanced life./ >ere are Hust a few of those para etersD o Carent star distance fro the center of the gala!y -f fartherD 1uantity of heavy ele ents would be insufficient to ake rocky planets. -f closerD stellar density and radiation would be too great.

*J

o Surface gravity -f strongerD at osphere would retain too uch a onia and ethane. -f weakerD planet,s at osphere would lose too uch water. o <!ial tilt -f greaterD surface te perature differences would be too great. -f lessD surface te perature differences would be too great. o Gravitational interaction with a oon -f greaterD tidal effects on the oceans& at osphere& and rotational period would be too severe. -f lessD orbital obli1uity changes would cause cli atic instabilities. o #agnetic field -f strongerD electro agnetic stor s would be too severe. -f weakerD there would be inade1uate protection fro hard stellar radiation. o Thickness of crust -f thickerD too uch o!ygen would be transferred fro at osphere to the crust. -f thinnerD volcanic and tectonic activity would be too great. the

o Seis ic activity -f greaterD too any life0for s would be destroyed. -f lessD nutrients on ocean floors would not be recycled to the continents through tectonic uplift. .You have a better chance of winning the Balifornia lottery *6) consecutive ti es where you purchase Hust one ticket each ti e than of getting a hu an0 life0supporting planet or oon via naturalistic eans5/ (@oss& Enthropic Principle vs Pre!iotic Principle& @easons.org& Nec. *4& ()*))

The astrono er and athe atician 'red >oyle (Ba bridge =niversity)& an atheist& calculated the odds of (&))) en$y es& each perfor ing specific tasks necessary to for a single bacteriu like :. coli& to be one in *) 6)&))). >e once wroteD .< co on sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has onkeyed with physics& as well as with che istry and biology& and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The nu bers one calculates fro the facts see to e so overwhel ing as to put this conclusion al ost beyond 1uestion./

Bioche ist& geneticist and agnostic #ichael Nenton& su s it up well in his book 3vol#tion: E Theory in :risis:

*G

.To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by olecular biology& we ust agnify a cell by a thousand illion ti es until it is () kilo eters in dia eter and rese bles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like Iondon or ;ew York. Mhat we would then see would be an obHect of unparalleled co ple!ity and adaptive design. .Fn the surface of the cell we would see illions of openings& like the port holes of a vast space ship& opening and closing to allow a continual strea of aterials to flow in and out. -f we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supre e technology and bewildering co ple!ity.... -t is the sheer universality of perfection& the fact that everywhere we look& to whatever depth we look& we find an elegance and ingenuity of an absolutely transcending 1uality& which so itigates against the idea of chance. .-s it really credible that rando processes could have constructed a reality& the s allest ele ent of whichEa functional protein or geneEis co ple! beyond our own creative capacities& a reality which is the very antithesis of chance& which e!cels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of an2/

Fr& as astrono er @obert 3astrow& another agnostic& puts it rather poetically in his book& God and the Estronomers& .'or the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason& the story ends like a bad drea . >e has scaled the ountains of ignoranceA he is about to con1uer the highest peakA as he pulls hi self over the final rock& he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries./

7hat a,o4t :enesis #?

The 1uestion as to how God created& and therefore how to understand& Genesis *& is a subHect of significant and current debate within the evangelical co unity. This is probably where the greatest perceived conflict between faith and science e!ists. o Scientific evidence consistently dates the age of the universe at *4.JL billion years old and the age of the earth at 6.7J billion years old. The aHority of scientists also believe that life on earth evolved over vast a ounts of ti e fro a +prebiotic soup, to the abundance of life found on the planet today& including hu an beings. o ;u erous 1uestions are raisedD Noes this contradict Genesis *2 -s Genesis * eant to be read as a scientific docu ent2 -s Genesis * historic or poetic2

<t stake has been the faith of any people who have wondered if they can trust the rest of Scripture if science appears to contradict the first chapter of the Bible.

*O

o -t ay be helpful to recall that Scripture and nature are infallible& but our hu an interpretations of the are not. Fur conclusions fro Scripture ay be wrong (as in the ti e of Galileo) or science,s conclusions fro nature ay be wrong (they are constantly under revision as new discoveries e erge). o -t is& therefore& wise not to reHect our faith or give up on the possibility of a relationship with Bhrist& Hust because we cannot fully reconcile perceived (and possibly inaccurate) conflicts between Genesis * and science.

-n their short book :hristian Perspectives on 7rigins& =.S. <sse blies of God professors Nr. #ike Tenneson (biologist) and Nr. Steve Badger (che ist) outline the three pri ary points of view regarding the Genesis creation account e!istent within the :vangelical and Centecostal worlds today in the following su ary annerD o <Ao4n; Earth Creationists (Y:B) like to call their position KScientific Breation.K Y:B typically interpret the biblical creation accounts as scientifically accurate historical narrative. Thus& they clai that both the Bible and scientific evidences support these conclusionsD (*) God suddenly ade the physical real and life& (() out of nothing& (4) in si! consecutive (60hour periods& (6) about L&)))0*7&))) years ago. (7) <ll theories of acroevolution are reHected& (L) as is a universe that is billions of years old. Pen >a & Nuane Gish& and >enry #orris are so e of the ost widely known adherents of Y:B./ o <?ld Earth Creationists (F:B) accept the scientific evidences for a universe that is billions of years old& but they argue that God created everythingEincluding lifeEby a series of creative acts that took place over a long period of ti e. This position is also known as KCrogressive Breation.K <dherents often disagree on when each of these creative acts occurred. F:B generally reHect acroevolution but believe that God directly created life pretty uch as it e!ists today. Breation accounts in the Bible are interpreted as historical narrative but not necessarily as a scientific e!planation of how God created. >ugh @oss is probably the ost widely known conte porary proponent of F:B./ o <Evol4tionary Creationists (:B) are also known as theistic evolutionists. They accept the scientific evidence for a universe that is billions of years old and e brace conte porary biological theories of evolution& but they stress that God guided the evolution of e!isting life for s fro the original life for s that >e created. Breation accounts in the Bible are not thought to be historical narrative or scientifically accurate. :B generally atte pt to har oni$e theories of acroevolution with the Biblical accounts of origins. #any :B 1uestion the e!istence of a historical <da and :ve. 'rancis Bollins& Penneth #iller& >oward 3. van Till& and Nenis Ia oureu! are advocates of :B./

()

Mith that overview& let us look a little ore deeply at each of these three views. :ach has its challenges. Mhat is ;FT in 1uestion with any of their proponents is that (*) God created and that (() the ;cript#res are inspired. o Ao4n; Earth Creationism has the aHority of scientific evidence against it at face value& but Y:B believe that this is the si plest and plainest understanding of the Genesis account. They believe that as science keeps changing the evidence for an earth as young as L&))) years old will eventually prevail. This view was first populari$ed by <nglican <rchbishop =ssher (*7G*0*L7L) in ;orthern -reland& who calculated Sunday& Fctober (4& 6))6 BB& to be the date of the earth,s origin based on a J0day& (60hour?day week for the origin of the universe.

>is calculations were based on calendar cycles and Biblical genealogies. < conte porary& Nr. 3ohn Iightfoot (*L)(0*LJ7)& Tice0 Bhancellor of Ba bridge =niversity& calculated the creation of an to be at OD)) a & Fctober (4& 6))6Ethis calculation preceding =ssher,s.

God created the #niverse with Imat#rity !#ilt into it & Hust as he created <da and :ve as fully developed hu ans with the i ediate appearance of age. This& as well as relativistic effects and possible changes in the speed of light over ti e& account for being able to see stars today that are illions of light years away. The J,''' to 16,''' year age of the earth is ded#ced from the specific genealogies o#tlined in Genesis & working backwards to <da and :ve& who are referred to by 3esus and the ;ew Testa ent readers as literal hu an beings. >eath co#ld not have preceded the fall of Edam and 3ve in the garden& and the whole of the gospel is dependent on a literal understanding of the recorded persons& ti elines and events in Genesis. Bat#ral selection (evol#tion) is !iologically impossi!le, godless, and contrary to the plain reading of Genesis 1. %adiometric dating is inconsistent and ineffective as a dating ethodology. The glo!al flood of Boah s time e4plains the earth s present geological formations as well as the fossil record. -f the +fountains of the deep, opening up (Genesis JD**) refers to tectonic activity on the ocean floor& then the global upheavals

(*

and shifts in water asses would account for rapid sedi entary layering of the earth,s surface and the instant fossili$ation of plants and ani als. ('or ore& see The Bew :reationism: A#ilding ;cientific Theory on a Ai!lical Ho#ndation by Caul Garner& :vangelical Cress& ())O.) o ?ld Earth Creationism understands +yo , (the >ebrew word for +day,) to ean +age, or +era, and not necessarily a (60hour solar day. The sun and oon do not appear until the 6 th creation +day.,

<da being created& tending the garden& na ing ani als& e!periencing loneliness and having a wife would be too uch to fit into the (6 hours of the Lth day (Genesis () The Jth day of God resting fro the work of creation see s to be an epoch that stretches into the present. :arly church fathers such as 3ustin #artyr& -renaeus& Ble ent of <le!andria& and Frigen& as well as <ugustine in the 6 th century& did not view the +days, in Genesis * as literal (60hour solar days. ;atural selection (evolution) is reHected due to the rapid appearance of species at certain ti e intervals. >owever& Genesis * is considered historically accurate& with the se1uence of +days, aking perfect sense scientifically if one reads Genesis * fro the perspective of an observer standing on the earth,s surfaceD *. (. 4. 6. 7. L. J. G. O. Breation of physical universe Transfor ation of earth,s at osphere fro translucent 'or ation of a stable water cycle :stablish ent of continent(s) and ocean(s) Croduction of plants on the continents Transfor ation of the at osphere fro transparent Croduction of s all sea ani als Breation of sea Breation of birds a als ankind a als translucent to opa1ue to

*). #aking of land **. Breation of

(>ugh @oss& The Hingerprint of GodA for ore& see ;even >ays that >ivide the 2orld by Nr. 3ohn Ienno!& Qondervan& ()**) ((

o Evol4tionary Creationism does not view Genesis * as historic& but as a genre of ancient near0eastern literature written for the purpose of co unicating to non0scientifically literate -sraelites the truth about God and hu anity in contrast to the pagan yths that would have surrounded the . The nu ber J was co only used in a sy bolic way to de onstrate co pleteness and the Genesis * account was written with a chiastic& poetic structureD Form Day # Day . Day ( Iight (day) Narkness (night) Sea <ir Iand Tegetation SU SU SU SU SU SU F4llness Sun #oon 'ish Birds Breatures #an Day 1 Day $ Day '

This is so eti es referred to as the +fra ework, understanding of Genesis *& ost consistent with an old age for the earth and a God0guided evolutionary process for the for ation of life on earth. Both God as Breator and the authority of Scripture are both held to in this view& with no significant conflict e!isting between the discoveries of evolutionary science and this understanding of Genesis *.

.-n su ary& Genesis * teaches us about the Breator and his work in artistic ter s& but does not intend to give us a condensed version of geological history or infor ation about the age of the earth. The Breator has endowed us with the curiosity and skill to figure that out on our own. #oses intended that the divine revelation of Genesis * would introduce us to our Breator God./ (Navis <. Young& .The Base for an Fld :arth (The Iiterary 'ra ework -nterpretation)&/ 3nrichment 5o#rnal& 'all ()*(& p. G*) ('or ore& see The 8ang#age of God by 'rancis Bollins& 'ree Cress& ())J)

Here Is 7hat 7e !no0 for S4re from :enesis:

(4

The universe and everything in it had a beginning. >u an history had a beginning. There is only one God& and >e is Yahweh. God is personally and inti ately involved in >is creation. God considered the creation good.

God created everythingEincluding lifeEin the physical universe. God brought everything into e!istence for >is own purposes. >u ans (and only hu ans) are created in God,s i age. God created hu ans to live in loving relationship with >i other. and with each

The first hu ans disobeyed God (sin)& destroying our relationship with God. God punished hu ans for disbelieving and disobeying >i . The rest of GenesisEindeed& the rest of the BibleEreveals God,s great desire for fellowship with hu ans to be restored.

(Badger and Tenneson& :hristian Perspectives on 7rigins)

THE ASSE2-6IES ?F :?D AND THE D?CT+INE ?F C+EATI?N

(Bo piled by Nr. :dgar IeeA presented to the General Cresbytery <ugust ()**) 'ro the beginning& our 'ellowship has avoided the te ptation to write a highly prescriptive creed. -nstead& our founders chose to establish basic funda entals of faith to which all who desired fellowship could subscribe.

The first State ent of 'unda ental Truths (S'T) in *O*L states that it .is not intended as a creed for the Bhurch& but only as a basis of unity for the inistry alone (i.e. that we all speak the sa e thing * Bor *D*6A <cts (D6().... ;o clai is ade that it contains all truth in the Bible& only that it serves our present needs as to these funda ental atters./ Mhile the S'T certainly assu ed that God is Breator& our early leaders chose not to write a separate article on .Breation&/ nor did they include a direct ention of the doctrine of Breation. The only reference to creation in the first S'T is found in S'T 4& .#an& his 'all and @ede ption/ ";ow S'T 6& .The 'all of #an/%D o .#an was created good and uprightA for God said& +Iet us i age and in our likeness./... ake an in our

-n *OL*& S'T (& .The Fne True God/ was a ended by including the phrase& .the Breator of heaven and earth9./ To the present ti e& the General Bouncil has not chosen to approve any one creation .theory/ or . odel/ as the official position of the 'ellowship. There has been roo for debate on various theories& or odels& held by godly people who recogni$e the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures.

(6

<?G leaders fro

early days see ed to have held various viewsD

o The KGap TheoryK was very popular a ong our early leaders (though have not researched each one individually). o The Scofield @eference Bible& first released in *O)O and revised in *O*J& populari$ed the KGap Theory&K which was very influential throughout the 'ellowship in the teaching and preaching of our any early leaders. o Blarence Iarkin,s >ispensational Tr#th& published in *O*G and revised in *O()& was also very popular with several generations of <?G leaders and preachers.

.This "original% creation was in the dateless past. -t was not at the beginning of the first day as described in Gen. *D407. The si! days, work...was the restoration of the earth (not the heavens or starry space).../ (p. (*).

'rank #. Boyd in Eges and >ispensations (GC>& no date "flyleaf inscription read *O66%) carefully pointed out& .There is no conflict between the Bible and science./ -n his book& he presented two approaches to the creation accountD o Fne approach was what we now call Kprogressive creationis K or Kage0 day&K which Boyd referred to as .seven long periods designated as KdaysK (p. *J). o The second was what we now call the KGap Theory&K which Boyd favored (p.*J). o Mhile Boyd see s to have preferred a literal si!0day KreconstructionK of the earth& he says& .The record of Gen. *D404*A (D*04 refers not to the work of the original creation& !#t to a period (why not seven literal days2E.<nd the evening and the orning were the first day/Ecf. also :!. ()DO0**) of regeneration or reconstr#ction administered !y the ;pirit of God (Gen. *D(& lst clause) to !ring the earth o#t of its chaotic condition/ (pp. *G0*O "italics ine%).

C. B. ;elson& Ai!le >octrines& follows the S'T and does not have a treat ent of creation& nor does it espouse a particular theory of creation. :. S. Millia s& ;ystematic Theology (*O74), did not include a treat ent of the doctrine of Breation but he did assu e divine creation and taught the KGap TheoryK which presupposed an Kold earthK created in the dateless past before the Genesis account. >e wrote&

(7

o .Genesis *D* tells of the original creation of the earth. >ow long ago this ay have been no one knows.../ (ST& -& *J0*G). Millia s then goes on to advance Scofield,s view of the KGap Theory.K

.The first creative act refers to the dateless past& and gives scope for all the supposed geologic ages. 9 the earth had undergone a cataclys ic change as the result of a divine Hudg ent9/ (*G).

The *OJJ Cosition Caper follows the S'T in affir ing God as Breator but& like the S'T& it does not support any one creation theory. Stanley #. >orton& ed. ;ystematic Theology: E Pentecostal Perspective (GC>?Iogion& *OO6) does include a study of the doctrine of creation (Bhapter J .The Breation of the =niverse and >u ankind&/ pp. (*70(74). >orton discusses four odels (theories) of creation held by evangelical Bhristians and finds difficulties associated with each of the (.all current atte pts to har oni$e the Bible and science are plagued with difficulties/ "(44%)D *. Theistic evolutionEwhich is not discussed .because its proponents basically accept everything secular evolution proposes with the proviso that God was superintending the whole process/ (((4) (. The gap theory& also called the ruin?reconstruction theory 4. 'iat creationis & also called the young0earth theory 6. Crogressive creationis & also called the age0day theory

BonclusionD .9it would be helpful if proponents of all views would recogni$e that the Scriptures si ply do not speak in support of their views with the degree of specificity they would like/ ((46).

(L

Assem,lies of :od Position Paper on Creation

"adopted A4;4st .)##* 0005a;5or; (SelectedD final two sections) The Reality of Creation Genesis *V4 accurately co unicates God,s creation of the heavens and the earth. =sing language that appears to e ploy both prose and poetry and that contains both literal and sy bolic ele ents& the story is a si ple yet beautiful and co pelling narrative intended to speak to all hu ankind. The co ple!ity of creation is such that hu ans will never fully co prehend it. But the essage that God alone is Breator plainly has been co unicated to all who& through the ages& hear and read the Genesis account. Fur understanding of God as Breator is rooted in a divine revelation of real events that occurred in ti e and space. #oreover& our understanding of God as @edee er is rooted in the revelation of God,s dealings with -srael in history and in the historical events of the life& death& and resurrection of >is Son. Iikewise& the ;ew Testa ent treats the first <da as a historical person (@o ans 7D*6A * Borinthians *7D67A * Ti othy (D*4&*6). Genesis ( declares God for ed <da fro the dust of the earth and breathed into hi the breath of life. This act indicates that hu ans are distinct fro ani als and that God did not for <da fro so e previously e!isting creation (* Borinthians *7D4O). So e have contended that the first two chapters of Genesis are poetical and are to be taken as parables. But a co parison of poetical references to creation (Neuterono y 4( and 44A 3ob 4GD6V**A Csal s O)A *)6D7VO) shows that the Genesis account is in prose for & though it ay contain so e poetic language. :ven so& however& poetry in the Bible often describes actual& historical events& so the use of poetry does not ake this account fictional. -t is significant that although creation events are not stated in odern scientific ter inology& divine acco odation to hu an li itations puts the in vivid and understandable language that provides a reliable record for all peoples in all ti es (:phesians *D*G). Creation and Science Me affir that God and God alone is the designer and creator of the universe and of life. The discoveries of science had been utili$ed by skeptics to 1uestion the accuracy of the biblical accounts. -n response& believing scientists and biblical scholars consider no funda ental conflict to e!ist between God,s Mord and >is works. The theories of the scientists are constantly changing with the introduction of new evidence. By contrast& the Scriptures are always the final& unchanging authority for Bhristian faith. Bhristians have historically believed that .all truth is God,s truth./ God reveals hi self finally and authoritatively in the Scriptures& >is special revelation. -n a subsidiary but not conflicting way& >e also reveals hi self in the general revelation of >is created order. .The heavens declare the glory of GodA the skies proclai the work of his hands. Nay after day they pour forth speechA night after night they display (J

knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard/ (Csal *OD*V4). =lti ately& then& when God,s Mord and God,s Mork are properly understood and taught by reverent scholarship& there is no disunity. .'or since the creation of the world God,s invisible 1ualitiesEhis eternal power and divine natureEhave been clearly seen& being understood fro what has been ade& so that en are without e!cuse/ (@o ans *D()). God has revealed hi self in such a way as to invite us into an e!ploration of >is nature through both the Mord and >is Mork& the Bible and scientific e!ploration. -n su ary& we see that the Bible fro beginning to end identifies God as the Breator. .By faith we understand that the universe was for ed at God,s co and& so that what is seen was not ade out of what was visible/ (>ebrews **D4). .'or he spoke& and it ca e to beA he co anded& and it stood fir / (Csal 44DO).

+ecent Ao4n; Earth Creationists Developments:

httpD??www.answersingenesis.org?get0answers?topic?argu ents0we0dont0use Mhy should a Bhristian inistry aintain a list of argu ents creationists should avoid2 <s a inistry& we want to honor God and represent Bhrist well when we defend >is Mord. This eans using honest& intellectually sound argu ents that are based in Scripture& logic& and scientific research. Because there are so any good argu ents for a recent creation (which the Bible clearly teaches)& we have no need to grasp at strawsEargu ents using 1uestionable logic and tenuous or no evidence. <nswers in Genesis is not willing to distort evidence or resort to bad logic to defend the Bible. (These listings are not co prehensive but are instead so e of the faulty argu ents.) Ar;4ments that sho4ld never ,e 4sed *. #oon dust thickness proves a young oon. (. The (nd Iaw of Ther odyna ics began at the 'all. (-f so& how could <da and :ve have eaten and digested their food that they were told to eat before the 'all2) 4. ;<S< co puters& in calculating the positions of planets& found a issing day and 6) inutes& proving 3oshua,s .long day/ (3oshua *)) and >e$ekiah,s sundial ove ent (( Pings ()). 6. There are no beneficial L. Moolly a utations. 7. Narwin recanted on his deathbed. oths were flash fro$en during the 'lood catastrophe. J. -f we evolved fro apes& apes shouldn,t e!ist today. (-n an evolutionary worldview& ankind did not evolve fro apes but fro an apelike ancestor& fro which both hu ans and apes of today supposedly evolved.) G. ;o new species have been produced. (G ost co on

O. @on Myatt has found

uch archeological proof of the Bible.

Ar;4ments that sho4ld ,e avoided ",eca4se f4rther research is still neededB ne0 research has invalidated aspects of itB or ,i,lical implications may disco4nt it* *. :volution is Hust a theory. (.Theory/ has a stronger eaning in scientific fields than in general usageA it is better to say that evolution is Hust a hypothesis or one odel to e!plain the untestable past.) (. #icroevolution is true but not acroevolution. (Ceople usually ean that we see changes within a kind but not between kindsA however& the i portant distinction is that we observe changes that do not increase the genetic infor ation in an organis .) 4. There was a water vapor canopy surrounding earth before the 'lood. 6. #itochondrial :ve is only L))) years old. 7. The Gospel is in the stars. L. The 3apanese trawler =#iyo 9ar# caught a dead plesiosaur near ;ew Qealand. (Iater research showed it to be a basking shark.) J. The earth,s a!is was vertical before the 'lood. ( Genesis 1:1G reveals seasons did e!ist prior to the 'lood.) G. Calu!y tracks prove that hu ans and dinosaurs co0e!isted. O. Stars are closer than we are led to believe. *). There was no rain before the 'lood. ( Genesis &:GKJ& a passage co only used to support this& is speaking of Breation Meek& prior to the creation of an. -t ay not be wise to assu e this proHects into the future until the 'lood.) **. The speed of light has decreased over ti e. *(. There are no transitional for s. (-t would be better to say there are no inter ediates between two different kinds. Me find variant transitional fossils for ani als within the sa e kindEhorse to a horse for e!a ple but that is e!pected in a biblical worldview.) Common misconceptionsCmis4nderstandin;s

:arth,s division in the days of Celeg ( Genesis 1':&6) refers to catastrophic splitting of the continents. (>ow could the ountains of <rarat in Genesis L:G have e!isted on Nay *7) of the 'lood for the <rk to land in& if the :urasian& <frican& and <rabian plates had not collided to for these ountains yet2) The Septuagint records the correct Genesis chronology. (#ethuselah would have lived *J years after the 'lood without being on the <rk. This is a proble .) The phrase .science falsely so called/ in * Ti othy LD() (P3T) refers to evolution.

(O

#an could only live to *() years as per Genesis J:0. (Then how could any of ;oah,s descendants outlive *() years& including <braha 2 This akes better sense as a countdown to the 'lood.) The -ntelligent Nesign #ove ent is a Bhristian Mo en have one ore rib than en. ove ent.

<rchaeoptery! is a fraud. The Geneva Bible Society used Toltaire,s house to produce Bibles. (This has never been verified.)

4)

PE+S?NH??D AND ETHICS: 7hat Can Science Not Do?

______________________________________________________________ The issue of what akes us distinctively hu an and how we ake oral and ethical decisions related to life& death and the use of technology lies outside the do ain of science itself. >ere faith beco es essential and infor ed pastoral care is needed. This session will e!plore the i plications of the Biblical understanding of hu anness as it relates to ethical decision0 aking in life and pastoral preparedness in the local church. ______________________________________________________________ <Science is po0er 0itho4t 0isdom a,o4t the 4ses of po0er5> (:ric Bohen& )n the ;hadow of Progress& ())G) :rwin Schrodinger& the id0()th century scientist after who the ost i portant e1uation in science is na ed (The Shrodinger :1uationEdescribing 1uantu echanics wave functions)& wrote towards the end of his career ( Bat#re and the Greeks, *O76)D .- a very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around e is very deficient. -t gives us a lot of factual infor ation& puts all of our e!perience in a agnificently consistent order& but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart& that really atters to us...it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly& good or bad& God and eternity. Science so eti es pretends to answer 1uestions in these do ains but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take the seriously./ There are three D4estions that science in and of itself cannot ans0er: o Mhat akes us uni1uely hu an2 o -s our ind?soul ore than our physical brain2 o Mhere does oral authority co e fro 2

The inability of science to answer these 1uestions& however& does not leave us without answers. >ere& where science cannot reach& faith needs to step in to do the necessary work of defining hu an identity& purpose and appropriate ethical boundaries for hu an behavior. o :veryone believes so ething& but not every belief syste provides a sufficient +fra ework, for addressing these +nonscientific, issues. -t really does atter what we believe5 o ;aturalis ,s +survival of the fittest, is a woefully inade1uate fra ework for understanding or e!plaining love& beauty& honor& selflessness& devotion& purpose& self0control& spiritual hunger& and personal sacrifice. o Bhristian faith& however& does provide such a fra ework.

4*

A -i,lical Frame0or8
Then God said, (8et #s make man in o#r image, in o#r likeness, and let them r#le over the fish of the seas and the !irds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creat#res that move along the gro#nd.. ;o God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created himC male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:&J, &/) ...the 8ord God formed the man from the d#st of the gro#nd and !reathed into his nostrils the !reath of life, and the man !ecame a living !eing. (Genesis &:/) -t begins with the Genesis * assertion that (God created man in his own image. coupled with the Genesis ( assertion that God (!reathed into his nostrils the !reath of life.. -n other words& our +hu anity, finds definition and significance relative to our Breator.

Me are not

istakes or the products of rando

biological chance.

;either are we erely physical beings (+dust,). Fur uni1ue personhood is rooted in a spiritual center ((!reathed...the !reath of life . with the capacity to have fellowship with& align with and reflect our Breator ((image of God.). Me are ore than Hust our brains. <lthough ani als are living& created beings as well& they are not uni1uely +hu an, or +living persons, in this sense of being ade in the i age of God and having his breath breathed into the . o The Genesis *D(G andate to (r#le over. the ani al kingdo & as well as <da ,s action of +na ing, the ani als& reinforces the foundational 3udeo0Bhristian pre ise that hu ans are ore than Hust higher0level ani als and are& in fact& distinct fro the ani al kingdo . o The <postle Caul follows through on this in the ;ew Testa ent with a state ent about our bodies that cannot be ade of any ani alD >o yo# not know that yo#r !ody is a temple of the Foly ;pirit, who is in yo#, whom yo# have received from God< (1 :orinthians J:19) o This& in fact& is the foundational pre ise underlying Caul,s apologetic in the previous verses for hu an se!ual purity and a onoga ous arital ethic. Fur orality is a conse1uence of creative design.

Bontrary to this& advances in the study of neuroscience have caused so e scientists to speculate that spirituality and religious interest are a product of an evolutionary biology which has been +hard0wired, into our brains for

4(

survival. -n other words& spirituality is purely a function of brain che istry& leaving us with the 1uestion& .have we created God rather than God creating us2/ o <d ittedly& if our brains were dead we would not be knowingly responsive to hu an spiritual activity. -t is also not surprising that functioning brains would register spiritual activity in so e way& along with the associated e otions. o >owever& this alone does not prove that brain che istry is responsible for generating spiritual e!periences. There is a significant difference between +response, and +generation., o There is also a logical contradiction inherent in these naturalistic clai s. -n the words of Ti Peller in his book& The %eason for GodD .-n the last part of Nawkin,s The God >el#sion he ad its that since we are the product of natural selection& 0e canEt completely tr4st o4r o0n senses. <fter all& evolution is interested only in preserving adaptive behavior& not true belief. .-f our cognitive faculties only tell us what we need to survive& not what is true& why trust the about anything at all2 .-t co es to thisD -f& as the evolutionary scientists say& what our brains tell us about orality& love& and beauty is not real V if it is erely a set of che ical reactions designed to pass on our genetic code V then so is what their brains tell the about the world. Then why should they trust the 2/

Castor Nick 'othD <The spirit is deeper than the corte9 of the ,rain5>

-iolo;y and -i,lical Personhood

God personally superintends our biological for ation as hu an beings& sacred gift. Hor yo# created my inmost !eingC yo# knit me together in my mother s wom!. ) praise yo# !eca#se ) am fearf#lly and wonderf#lly madeC yo#r works are wonderf#l, ) know that f#ll well. 9y frame was not hidden from yo# when ) was made in the secret place. 2hen ) was woven together in the depths of the earth, yo#r eyes saw my #nformed !ody. Ell the days ordained for me were written in yo#r !ook !efore one of them came to !e. 44 aking life a

(Psalm 109:1011J)

<sse blies of God Cosition CaperD .Sanctity of >u an IifeD <bortion and @eproductive -ssues/D .Breation in the divine i age is not only an e!pression of the incalc4la,le val4e God places upon hu an life& it also signifies that :od has soverei;n po0er over life. >e is both giver and sustainer of life./

Bioethicist Nr. Scott @ae& Biola =niversity& adds this critical insightD (()** <G 'aith?Science lecture& paraphrase) .Cersonhood is a atter of essence& not function. -t is not a degreed property. The difference between an e bryo in the lab and a fetus in the wo b is one of location. <n e bryo + atures, into a fetus& then a child and then an adult. This is a contin##m of + aturity, fro conception on. The fetus is not +prehu an, and then +hu an, at so e point./

The Biblical fra ework further asserts that +purpose, is woven into the fabric of our physiological develop ent in our others, wo bsD Ell the days ordained for me were written in yo#r !ook !efore one of them came to !e. (Psalm 109:1J) Aefore ) formed yo# *5eremiah+ in the wom! ) knew yo#, Aefore yo# were !orn ) set yo# apartC ) appointed yo# as a prophet to the nations. (5eremiah 1:6)

This is central to what akes us uni1uely hu an as created in the i age of God. Me are ore than cos ic accidents or erely a set of neuro0che ical reactions. God& in creating us& has also i printed us with purpose. o Scientis reduces us and strips away any apologetic for hu an purpose beyond personal survival and self0benefit& oving us in the direction of evolutionary deter inis . o Theis elevates us and clothes us with significance& value and destiny& oving us in the direction of hu an freedo . There is no higher view of either God or hu an beings than is portrayed in Genesis * and (.

<s a part of creative design& God has i printed each of us with a genetic code. :very living organis has +genes, which have to do with traits passed on fro +parents, to +offspring., :ach gene for s a portion (or se1uence) of N;< and is co prised of +nucleotides.,

46

o <nalogyD < gene is like a +sentence, and the +nucleotides, are like the letters. The se1uence of nucleotides deter ines the se1uence of a ino acids which in turn fold into proteins (which carry out any of the functions of living cells). The relationship between the nucleotide se1uence and a ino acid se1uence is known as the +genetic code., =nder the leadership of Nr. 'rancis Bollins& the se1uencing of the hu an geno e was co pleted in ())4 V a truly historic achieve ent in understanding so e of the building blocks of life. N;< is the chain ade fro four types of nucleotide subunits. These N;< chains are coiled into +chro oso es, V every hu an cell (trillions) has 6L chro oso es& (4 fro each parent. Fne of the (4 pairs is the +se! chro oso e, pair with fe ales having an WW chro oso e and ales having an WY chro oso e.

o The field of genetics holds great possibilities for the prevention and cure of disease. >ere is Hust one e!a ple (< y Boghland& The Bew ;cientist, 'ebruary ()*4)D .Type * diabetes& while controllable& is not curable at this point. The edia has devoted considerable attention to preli inary studies using gene therapy in beagles "dogs% that indicate a potential treat ent for the disease. Scientists inserted two genes into beagles whose pancreases did not produce the insulin needed to regulate blood sugar. 'ive of the dogs did not re1uire insulin inHections after treat ent./ o =nfortunately& technologies related to the hu an geno e will also raise significant ethical issues as the capabilities of +genetic engineering, advanceEse! selection& predesigned children& cloning& etc. o Fne helpful resource in the field of bioethics fro an evangelical& Biblical perspective is .The Benter for Bioethics and >u an Nignity/ (www.BB>N.org) and its related publications and websites (such as www.bioethics.co and www.everydaybioethics.org).

:enetics and Homose94ality

Given the growing acceptance of ho ose!uality in the Mestern world& the 1uestion as to whether ho ose!uality is a genetically deter ined state has taken on increasing i portance. -s it a natural e!pression of being biologically +hu an2, The

47

proposition that there is a +gay gene, has been increasingly used to legiti i$e ho ose!uality as +natural, and even +nor al., Mhat is the truth2

Before looking at the scientific evidence& we ust re e ber our Biblical fra ework. >u ans are fallen creatures subHect to defor ity and disease& which would include da age to the hu an geno e according to what we know now. There is uch scientific evidence for genetic dispositions towards ail ents such as heart disease& diabetes& cancer& etc.& as well as ental illness and possibly even alcoholis & violent behavior and other behavioral abnor alities. o 3ust because there ay be& in part& genetic causation& this does not in and of itself ake sinful behavior +right., -t si ply evidences our fallenness and brokenness as hu an beings& in need of a Savior. o There is also uch evidence that genetic behavioral tendencies are also greatly influenced by habits& environ ent and spiritual transfor ation. >u an behavior is a product of both +nature, and +nurture., These kinds of genetic tendencies are not e1uivalent to the color of your skin or si$e of your nose& which have nothing to do with +nurture., -t therefore cannot be asserted that ho ose!ual identity is a +hu an rights, issue.

o <n actual +gay gene, has never been discovered& but if there is so e day found to be a genetic disposition towards ho ose!uality& it does not change the Biblical conclusion that it is an aberration of God,s created design. -t would still be no ore + orally Hustifiable, than a genetic disposition towards alcoholis would legiti i$e alcoholis and its related destructive behaviors. Mhat about the current science regarding genetics and ho ose!uality2 :!tensive survey research and writing on this subHect has been done by Nr. Stanton I. 3ones& Crovost and Crofessor of Csychology at Mheaton Bollege near Bhicago& -llinois. >e co0authored with @egent =niversity professor& #ark <. Yarhouse& the book Fomose4#ality: The @se of ;cientific %esearch in the :h#rch s 9oral >e!ate (-nterTarsity Cress& ()))).

#ore recently Nr. 3ones authored the article .Se!ual Frientations and @easonD Fn the - plications of 'alse Beliefs about >o ose!uality/ which was digitally published at www.christianethics.org in 3anuary ()*(. <n abbreviated version of this essay was digitally published under the title .Sa e0se! Science/ at www.firstthings.co & 'ebruary ()*(. -t is fro this article that the following selected e!cerpts are takenD .< recent research synthesis by Gary Gates of the Millia s -nstitute& a think tank at =BI< Iaw School dedicated to se!ual0orientation law and public

4L

policy& suggests that a ong adults in the =nited States& Banada& and :urope& *.G percent are bise!ual en and wo en& *.* percent are gay en& and ).L are lesbians "4.7 percent total%. This infre1uency akes it hard to find participants for research studies& leading researchers to study easy0to0access groups of persons (such a visible participants in advocacy groups) who ay not be representative of the broader ho ose!ual population. .@ecent studies show that fa ilial& cultural& and other environ ental factors contribute to sa e0se! attraction. Broken fa ilies& absent fathers& older others& and being born and living in urban settings all are associated with ho ose!ual e!perience or attraction. .To say that psychological and environ ental variables play a part in causation does not ean that biology does not& rather Hust not to the e!tent that any gay0affir ing scholars clai . The two ost influential conte porary theories of biological causation focus respectively on fraternal !irth order and geneticsA each has so e level of support& !#t for modest1si,ed ca#sal effects at !est. .The fraternal !irth order theory hypothesi$es that so e others develop so ething akin to an allergic reaction to their body,s encounter with the ale hor ones generated by their ale fetus& and hence anifest a hor onal resistance against the asculini$ation process in the developing ale fetus. #ales who were the product of such wo bs are inco pletely asculini$ed. <nd it is posited that the ore ale children such others bear& the ore profound their reactions and the greater the likelihood that the later0born sons will be ho ose!ual. .@ecently& "researcher <nthony% Bogaert analy$ed two nationally representative sa ples and found only an e!ceptionally weak older0brother effect& but only for sa e0se! attraction& not for sa e0se! behavior. Then he analy$ed an independent and truly representative sa ple eight ti es the si$e of his previous studies& finding no older0brother effect. <t roughly the sa e ti e& a study of two illion Nanes and another of *)&))) < erican teenagers both failed to find the effect. -t is thus ystifying why any gay0affir ing researchers still confidently assert...+that gay en have significantly ore older brothers& on average& than straight en., .-f there is a genetic co ponent to se!ual orientation& then the ore two people share their genetic endow ent& the ore likely they are to share the sa e se!ual orientation. The then0 oribund genetic theory received a huge boost fro 3. #ichael Bailey,s fa ous *OO* study that recruited subHects "genetically identical twins& fraternal twins and non0twin brothers% through advertise ents and posted announce ents throughout Bhicago,s gay co unity. .The findings of Bailey,s new study "ulti ately% failed to reach statistical significance. The ballyhooed genetic effect shrunk considerably& a fact that failed& of course& to capture any edia attention and is often left out of the te!tbook treat ents of the subHect. -n ()*) an i pressive and uch larger study utili$ing the Swedish Twin @egistry produced al ost identical resultsD a ong the J* pairs of identical ale twins& of who at least one twin was gay& 4J

in only seven cases (O.G percent) was the second twin also gay& yet another statistically insignificant result. .-n contrast to the hubris of those prone to aking e phatic pronounce ents& what we do not yet know "scientifically% about the causation of se!ual orientations dwarfs the bit that we are beginning to know. <nd the fact that causation is indubitably a co ple! and ysterious by0product of the interaction of biological and psychological variables confounds the assertion that se!ual orientation is Hust like skin color& deter ined at birth or even conception. <nd contrary to the suggestions of so e& the involve ent of so e biological influence does not prove that change in se!ual orientation is i possible. .The contributions of science to this area& however& re ain sketchy& li ited and pu$$ling. -t is re arkable how little scientific hu ility is in evidence given the pri itive nature of our knowledge./

6ifeB DeathB and Ethical Iss4es

The Biblical inHunction to not ODLD

urder co es as early in Scripture as Genesis

2hoever sheds the !lood of man, Ay man shall his !lood !e shedC Hor in the image of God has God made man.

Scientific advances in edicine and edical technology have created significant ethical issues in light of this. <t what point do we cross a line and play God with life2 <nd Hust because we are able to do it technologically& does that ake it right2 Biblically& God is active both in the conception of life and the concl#sion of life& and is sovereign over all of life. Neliberately taking away life at either its beginning or end violates God,s do inion over life and takes us beyond Biblically ethical behavior into dangerous territory. In Fitro FertiliGation (<sse blies of God Cosition CaperD .Sanctity of >u an IifeD <bortion and @eproductive -ssues/) .There are nu erous ethical issues to be evaluated in such a process& including the financial costs& the harvesting of sper and ova& and the nurturing of ultiple living hu an e bryos& not all of which likely will be i planted in the uterus. The disposal of unused e bryos is an acute ethical issue since they represent the beginning of hu an life. .'urther& there ay also be serious danger to the life of the other in the event that ultiple babies survive to full ter & which ight call for the selective abortion of one or ore of the babies.

4G

.Given these grave concerns& it is i perative that those who elect this procedure prayerfully seek godly and knowledgeable counsel& and engage edical professionals with co patible ethical standards. Me disapprove any procedure that results in the destruction of uni planted e bryos./ A,ortion (<sse blies of God Cosition CaperD .Sanctity of >u an IifeD <bortion and @eproductive -ssues/) .The <sse blies of God views the practice of abortion as an evil that has been inflicted upon illions of innocent babies and that will threaten illions ore in the years to co e. <bortion is a orally unacceptable alternative for birth control& population control& se! selection& and eli ination of the physically and entally handicapped. .Mhile edical technology ay now allow prenatal diagnoses of so e edical conditions& it is critical to re e ber that GodKs love is unconditional and above any consideration of physical or ental li itations. Thus& while it ay be per issible to pursue prenatal testing so as to better provide for the needs of an unborn child& it is i per issible to use prenatal testing to deter ine whether or not an unborn child should be allowed to live. 3ohn Balvin e!pressed the horror of abortion in co enting on :!odus (*D(*&(( (Bo entaries of the 'our Iast Books of #oses& vol.4)D +The fetus& though enclosed in the wo b of his other& is already a hu an being& and it is a onstrous cri e to rob it of life which it has not yet begun to enHoy. -f it see s ore horrible to kill a an in his own house than in a field& because a an,s house is his place of ost secure refuge& it ought to be dee ed ore atrocious to destroy a fetus in the wo b before it has co e to light., .-n the odern era& situations in which pregnancy seriously and i inently threatens the life of the other are e!ceedingly rare. -f& however& responsible diagnoses confir that childbirth is likely to result in the death of the other& historic Bhristian faith usually has favored the life of the other above that of the unborn child. =nlike the unborn child& the other is a ature person with established fa ily and societal relationships and responsibilities./ +eprod4ctive Clonin; (<sse blies of God Cosition CaperD .Sanctity of >u an IifeD <bortion and @eproductive -ssues/) .The <sse blies of God believes that reproductive cloning is i oral and a atter of grave concern. -n the cloning process& the person is not conceived fro the union of the father,s sper and the other,s ovu . The genetic aterial is drawn fro only one person and anipulated in the laboratory& with so e risk of conta ination& before i plantation in the surrogate. There are also grave physical risks for persons who ay be cloned. <ni al cloning has de onstrated the potential for birth defects and pre ature aging. Scientists have no way of knowing what 4O

type of horrors ay be visited upon cloned individuals or upon hu ankind at large through such a process./ E4thanasiaE<t the other end of life& suicide and euthanasia (or doctor assisted0suicide) are also a violation of God,s sovereignty over life. <lthough co passion ay be the otive& secularis and scientis provide no eaningful ethical boundaries preventing the progression fro ercy0killing to the killing of the weak& vulnerable and those considered unwanted or not useful by society. Biblically& the weak and the vulnerable& the youngest and the oldest a ong us are our greatest responsibility. The <sse blies of God Cosition Caper .Sanctity of >u an IifeD Suicide& Chysician0<ssisted Suicide& and :uthanasia/ statesD .#any factors have energi$ed the right0to0die ove ent& including sincere concerns over e!cessive reliance on life0sustaining technologies and inade1uate pain0relief care for the ter inally ill. -ts driving force& however& is a istaken& deceptive& and evil philosophy that devalues suffering people. Bonse1uently& our opposition to the ter ination of hu an life ust be understood in spiritual ter s and ust be guided by biblical principles. Specifically& the Bhurch ust (*) proclai hu ankind,s dignity as God,s sovereign creation& (() reassert God,s authority over life fro conception to death& and (4) affir eaning and hope for suffering hu anity./ Artificial 6ife S4pportE#edical technology has enabled artificial life support& without which a person would die naturally. -s it ethical to decline artificial life0sustaining treat ent& or to +pull the plug, on a loved0 one on life0support2 The answer in this case would see to be +yes, as long as any of the following factors are present (Nr. Scott @ae& bioethicist)D *. There is a co petent patient re1uest& (. 'urther treat ent is futile& 4. The results of staying on life0support would be burdenso e than beneficial. ore

The underlying Biblical perspective is that in Bhrist& death is defeated. >eath is not a termin#s, !#t a transition. The <sse blies of God Cosition Caper& .Sanctity of >u an IifeD Suicide& Chysician0<ssisted Suicide& and :uthanasia&/ e!presses it this wayD .'or the believer& death is not a final defeat but a transition in which the perishable is e!changed for the i perishable& the te poral for the eternal& the i perfect for the perfect. The believer e!periences assurance even when facing death. 3ob concludes& IMo# will call and ) will answer yo#C yo# will long for the creat#re yo#r hands have made (3ob *6D*7).

6)

The Environment and 7or8

This respect and care for created life is also the foundation for a Bhristian view of caring for the environ ent. So eti es referred to as the +Breation #andate&, God co issioned <da and :ve and their descendants in Genesis *D(G04)D God !lessed them and said to them, (Ae fr#itf#l and increase in n#m!erC fill the earth and s#!d#e it. %#le over the fish of the seas and the !irds of the air and over every living creat#re that moves on the gro#nd..

God ade us co0ad inistrators of his creation& eaning a care and co it ent to aintain it. :very Bhristian should be intuitively environ entally conscious. Scientis has associated environ entalis with a non0theistic worldview& aking + other earth, a substitute& naturalistic God. o Fther groups have engaged in creation worship and associated occultic ystical spiritualities with creation care. o Cantheis & underlining eastern religious worldviews& asserts that God is in reality the +life essence, of nature& depersonali$ing >i and +turning the painter into the painting., o -n spite of these non0theistic errors& however& true theis calls us to retake the cause of environ entalis in a way that stewards God,s creation but is not detri ental to hu an beings (which would be outside of Biblical ethics).

The creation andate is also the theological basis for +work., Mork is not the result of the fall& but i plicit to the Lth day of creation itselfEGenesis (D*7D The 8ord God took the man and p#t him in the Garden of 3den to wor) it and ta)e care of it.

This is why #artin Iuther once saidD .The aid who sweeps her kitchen is doing the will of God Hust as uch as the onk who praysEnot because she ay sing a Bhristian hy n as she sweeps& but because God loves clean floors./

2oral A,sol4tes or +elativism?

The Biblical fra ework also has significant i plications for the source of oral authority in the world. Theis would aintain that oral absolutes and accountability to our Breator are universal. Scientis provides no reference fra e for unifor

6*

orality. -n its place oral relativis has beco e the predo inant ethic in the seculari$ed& increasingly non0theistic Mestern world.

This is not to be confused with :instein,s theory of relativity& which has to do with the fi!ed relationship between space and ti e. 'ro Physics for the %est of @s by physicist @oger 3onesD .@ather than suggesting that everything is relative& :instein,s theory de onstrates a deep and unchanging order that underlies natural pheno ena. :arly isconceptions about relativity pro pted :instein to suggest a new na eEinvariance theoryEto describe the deep per anence beneath the appearance of change. But +relativity, had caught on both the scientific and popular i agination& and it was too late& even for :instein& to change the na e of his theory./

3ust as in the physical universe& however& Biblical theis aintains that there is a +deep and unchanging order, in the oral universe as well. #oral relativis aintains that there is no absolute truth. -n other words& what is true for e ay not be true for you. Me beco e our own gods with a designer orality that fits our personal preferences or society,s preHudices. o In the theistic 0orldvie0B it is o4r faith that informs o4r val4es5

-f oral relativis is true (as contradictory as that state ent is)& it raises two difficult 1uestions for non0theistsD o 7hy is it not consistently applied? -n his book The %eason for God, pastor& author& and scholar Ti Peller recounts his 1uestion and answer sessions following his Sunday servicesD .Fne of the ost fre1uent state ents - heard was that +:very person has to define right and wrong for hi 0 or herself. - always responded to the speakers by asking& +-s there anyone in the world right now doing things you believe they should stop doing no atter what they personally believe about the correctness of their behavior2/ They would invariably say& +Yes& of course., Then - would ask& +Noesn,t that ean that your do believe there is so e kind of oral reality that is +there, that is not defined by us& that ust be abided by regardless of what a person feels or thinks2, <l ost always& the response to that 1uestion was a silence& either a thoughtful or a gru py one. o Ho0 do 0e protect h4man ri;hts? <ccording to anthropologist Barolyn 'luehr Iobban (.Bultural @elativis and =niversal >u an @ights&/ The Bhronicle of >igher :ducation& 3une O& *OO7)D

6(

.<nthropologists continue to e!press strong support for cultural relativis ./ Carado!ically& she also goes on to assertD .Mhen there is a choice between defending hu an rights and defending cultural relativis & anthropologists should choose to protect and pro ote hu an rights./ The issue of hu an rights is the <chilles >eel of relativis association with secular scientis . and its

You really can,t have it both ways& but Iobban rationali$es her position by saying that& in order to prevent the e!ploitation of wo en& the 3udeo0Bhristian values are better. .Me cannot Hust be bystanders./ The 1uestion is& .who says that the e!ploitation of wo en is wrong2/ @elativis leaves the answer up to individual cultures (or frustrated husbands5). Ti Peller responds further in The %eason for GodD

.-f you believe hu an rights are a reality& then it akes uch ore sense that God e!ists than that >e does not. This leads us to a crucial 1uestion. -f a pre ise (+There is no God,) leads to a conclusion you know isn,t true (+;apal ing babies is culturally relative,) then why not change the premise</

7elcome to Tr4th
...for this reason ) *5es#s+ was !orn, and for this ) came into the world, to testify to the tr"th. 3veryone on the side of tr"th listens to me. (5ohn 1L:0/!) ) *5es#s+ am . . . the !r"th (5ohn 1G:Ja) )n the !eginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. (5ohn 1:1)

-n the Greek language of the ;ew Testa ent& +word, is + logos,N eaning at its root +logic, or +reason., The divine logic that is the ordering principle of the universe is e bodied in 3esus& the ulti ate truth. Truth is not a principle& a proposition or an abstraction. -t is a person. End the word *logos+ !ecame flesh. (5ohn 1:1Ga)

64

This truth both defines us and frees us& defining ethical co pleting our own hu anity for the glory of our Breator.

oral authority and

Concl4sion

Theologian and scholar M. Bingha

>unter (Ch.N. =niversity of <berdeen)D

.'aith is a rational response to the evidence of God,s self0revelation in nature& hu an history& the Scriptures and his resurrected Son./

Ti

Peller& The %eason for God:

.Bhristians do not clai that their faith gives the o niscience or absolute knowledge of reality. Fnly God has that. But they believe that the Bhristian account of thingsEcreation& fall& rede ption& and restorationE akes the ost sense of the world. - ask you to put on Bhristianity like a pair of spectacles and look at the world with it. See what power it has to e!plain what we know and see./

66