Search

Science & The Bible
Appendix 2.1
​Does Science Disprove the Bible?

Introduction: Is Science Always Changing? 
"Whenever you hear the complaint, “Creation is not science,” a subtle philosophical sleight of hand is in play. It capitalizes on an ambiguity between two completely different definitions of science. The first definition is the most well known. Science is a methodology—observation, experimentation, testing—that allows researchers to discover facts about the world. Any view that does not follow the right methodology is not science. Presumably, this is why evolution succeeds and intelligent design fails. The second definition of science involves the philosophy of naturalistic materialism. All phenomena must be explained in terms of matter and energy governed by natural law. Any view that does not conform to this second definition is also not science.”

Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Gregory Koukl
Discussion Questions​
  1. Is there a conflict between science and Christianity? How would you answer this question?
  2. Consider the following quotes and discuss: What is Turek's point?
    1. "Science is a method of inquiry that human beings use to discover cause and effect relationships in the  universe.  And there are two types of causes: intelligent causes and natural causes."
    2. "Atheistic scientists rule out intelligent causes before  they look at the evidence, particularly when looking at the questions of the origin of universe, the origin of the first life, and subsequent life forms."
    3. "Science doesn't say anything; scientists do."
    4. "Science and Christianity are not at odds; God is a being necessary to create and sustain the very natural laws that allow us to do science."
  3. Dr. John Lennox asks about a Ford Model T: what caused it? The laws of internal combustion? Or Henry Ford?  What is his point?
"As introduced in chapter 1, the most basic law of all is that creation is impossible. The First Law of Thermodynamics insists that matter/ energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Its form may change, but the total amount must remain the same. Obviously, the physical universe of matter/ energy exists; therefore, it must have been created by processes different from those acting now."

The Global Flood: Unlocking Earth's Geologic History by John D. Morris
Discussion Questions​
  1. What is one thing that stood out to you from this video?
  2. Discuss the following quotes: What is the point of each in your own words?
    1. "I only believe what can be proven." (What is the problem with this for the Historian?)
    2. "Why is there something rather than nothing?"
    3. "The laws of physics themselves demand an explanation. Nature itself requires an explanation."
    4. "Science is not equipped to answer some questions."
‘Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared—the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.’ 

-C.S. Lewis
Discussion Questions​
  1. What is one thing that stood out to you from this video?​
It might be going too far to say that the modern scientific movement was tainted from its birth; but I think it would be true to say that it was born in an unhealthy neighborhood and at an inauspicious hour. Its triumphs may have been too rapid and purchased at too high a price: reconsideration, and something like repentance, may be required. 

- C.S. Lewis
And the more scientific a man is, the more (I believe) he would agree with me that this is the job of science--and a very useful and necessary job it is too. But why anything comes to be there at all, and whether there is anything behind the things science observes--something of a different kind--this is not a scientific question. If there is 'Something Behind,' then either it will have to remain altogether unknown to men or else make itself known in some different way. The statement that there is any such thing, and the statement that there is no such thing, are neither of them statements that science can make. And real scientists do not usually make them. It is usually the journalists and popular novelists who have picked up a few odds and ends of half-baked science from textbooks who go in for them. After all, it is really a matter of common sense. Supposing science ever became complete so that it knew every single thing in the whole universe. Is it not plain that the questions, 'Why is there a universe?' 'Why does it go on as it does?' 'Has it any meaning?' would remain just as they were?” 

-C.S. Lewis
Discussion Questions​
  1. What is one thing that stood out to you from this video?
  2. Closing thoughts/comments/questions from this session?​