Well, according to one evolutionist, theology has nothing to say about the earth’s history. Yesterday I wrote a blog on the recent summit hosted by CERN in Geneva, Switzerland. The conference brought together scientists, philosophers, and theologians to discuss the discovery of the Higgs boson—considered to be proof of the theoretical big bang by secularists—and whether science and religion could find “common ground” on the issue of the big bang.
Jerry Coyne, a professor in the department of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago, responded to the conference on his blog:
And in the case of this conference, that engagement is useless. What do theologians, or philosophers for that matter, have to say about the origin of the universe that’s of any value to scientists?
Of course, as I made clear in my other blog article, any attempt to find “common ground” between the Bible and evolutionary concepts will ultimately fail. You see, if we accept a view that contradicts the Bible, then we are relying on man’s authority over the Word of God—and we’re really saying the Bible isn’t trustworthy.
Coyne’s comment raises a couple of issues that are common with secularists, and I thought it would be good to address them. First, he confuses observational (or operational) science and historical (or origins) science. By claiming that only scientists can determine the origin of the universe, he is implying that it can be discovered through repeatable, testable methods—but it cannot.
Historical science is really just the process of trying to figure out what really happened in the past based on evidence existing in the present—or based on primary source of information. And you know, the best place to start is with an eyewitness account, or our assumptions may lead us in the wrong direction. Coyne’s assumptions are evolutionary, and he clearly does not see Genesis—the only record of an eyewitness account of our origin—as authoritative.
Second, Coyne completely dismisses the influence of worldviews in the discussion. It’s each person’s worldview that shapes how he or she interprets scientific evidence. For example, from the biblical worldview, the discovery of the Higgs boson does not eliminate the need for a Creator— Higgs boson is a great contribution to science, and I hope it will help us better understand the universe God created.
Sadly, though, Coyne—like many secularists—has no regard for anyone who dissents from evolutionary ideas. In his mind, there is no other worldview, or at least, no other worldview with value.
As believers, though, we can place our trust in what God tells us about the origin of the universe.
If you are unfamiliar with the differences between observational and historical science, I urge you to read this article on our website: Two Kinds of Science? That way, you’ll be equipped to tell the difference between evolutionary claims that rely on man’s guesses about the past vs. claims that are founded on testable, repeatable science. Because in the biblical worldview, all the evidence we gather from observational science confirms the Genesis account of history.
For more analysis of the news, I encourage you to read our weekly feature News to Note. The most recent edition (Nov. 24) is being posted as this blog is going live. Look for the item on what the media are saying about Florida Senator Marco Rubio’s comments about the age of the earth. And it just so happens that the main theme of the current issue of our award-winning Answers magazine is the earth’s age. We offer—in an easy-to-understand way—the ten best evidences from science that confirm that the earth is young.
Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Note: I thank Steve Golden of our staff for his assistance in writing this blog.