This was one response from an e-mail discussion thread that had perhaps 300+ posts. For some reason few interacted with this line of reasoning. Why was that? This seems to me to be the heart of the debate. Is this -- or is this not -- part of the discussion? Why did no one comment? Where did this participant go wrong?
Q. 1. When an atheist like Carl Sagan approaches science, can he -- is he able to -- seriously consider evidence that points to special creation (SP)?
The answer is NO. He truly CAN NOT consider creation as even possibly true. It is ruled out before he starts.
Consider the following parallel situation:
Q. 2. When you, as a serious Christian debate with an atheist, as the atheist builds his case against the existence of God, can you -- is it even possible for you -- to seriously consider that he might be right?
Again the answer is NO. You might listen politely. You may try in love to answer (refute) his line of reasoning. But you are not able to consider that he might possibly be right. Your presuppositions (i.e., faith commitments) disable you from even considering any evidence that might lead to the conclusion that there is no God. Why? Because you know otherwise.
Remember this when you are debating with an atheist. Now what about creation? Is it a natural process? No, it was a miracle. A special discontinuous event. As such, is SC subject to normal empirical evaluation? The scientific method? No!
Lets apply the scientific method to other miracles.
And He took the seven loaves and the fish and gave thanks, broke [them] and gave [them] to His disciples; and the disciples gave to the multitude. …So they all ate and were filled, and they took up seven large baskets full of the fragments that were left.
Q. 1. If a scientist, even a Christian presuppositionlist, were given a piece of this fish to study, what would he find?
At the very start he would know by simple observation, that the sample was, lets say, several years old. He would not have to resort to carbon dating.
Q. 2. Would he be correct according to the scientific method?
Yes! Whatever else was true about the sample, he could be sure that the fish had been spawned, hatched and grew to maturity, caught, cleaned, cooked and served.
Q. 3. Would he be correct?
No! The fish was only moments old. It was created there on the spot.
Q. 4. What else might he find?
Well, he may find several anomalies. Perhaps the levels of mercury would be far below the norm. Maybe there would be no cell damage or parasites as one might expect in a three year old fish. This might confuse him, but it would not shake his original presupposition as to the approximate age of the fish. He knows that it is at least several years old.
These are the kind of anomalies we find when we study creation.
Now consider the wine at the marriage of Cana of Galilee.
Now there were set there six waterpots of stone, according to the manner of purification of the Jews, containing twenty or thirty gallons apiece. Jesus said to them, "Fill the waterpots with water." ... When the master of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, etc."
There is just no such thing as instant wine. You gotta have grapes, wine presses, and most important to our discussion time -- many years in fact.
There is no scientific method -- not even a "Christian" one -- that could discover the true nature of the wine, bread and fish.
I won't belabor the point. These two examples may serve to illustrate what we are dealing with when we discuss Special Creation.
Q. What would it take to get this scientist to accept that the fish, and loaves and the wine were only moments old?
It would take a new source of authority. Something outside his own limited reference point. It would take a revelation by God to open his blind eyes and his closed mind.
Brothers, is this not what is at issue in this debate? On whose authority do we base what we know? Where do we turn to know what is and is not possible? If we limit ourselves to the things we can observe by the scientific method, we must rule out miracles.
Creation was a miracle. It is by "faith" that we believe what we believe. (Heb 11:3) Modern unbelieving scientists are blind fools. This is not at all meant as name calling. It is a clear statement of fact. Unbelieving science is literally unable, (and morally unwilling, but that's another subject) to evaluate the evidence. They will not -- they can not -- know the truth. Their presuppositions disqualify them before they start. Lets not be too impressed with people who are morally and intellectually unable to consider even the possibility of special creation. No matter how much "evidence" is plopped in front of their noses, they are unable to seriously consider it as even possible.
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.
"let God be true, but every man a liar"
Biblical Presuppositions and Historical Geology
by: Charles A. Clough
A Proposed Reformed Confession of Creation
by: Dr. Greg Bahnsen
Any thought? Mail comments to Ed Walsh. Owner CRTA Thanks.