Welcome to Science, Scripture, and Salvation, a radio ministry of the Institute for Creation Research. In this program, we want to encourage you in your Christian faith by showing how scientific evidence supports the Bible, particularly the Genesis account. The book of Genesis lays the foundation for all matters addressed in the rest of the Bible. The nature of God, His sovereignty in creation, man's purpose, sin, marriage, family, and why we need a Savior are all introduced and explained in Genesis. When we see that the first and most foundational book of the Bible can be trusted in all matters, including science, it builds confidence in the rest of the inspired word all the way to Revelation.
On today's show, we'll hear from Dr. Jason Lyle, astrophysicist and director of physical sciences with the Institute for Creation Research. Here's Dr. Lyle. Here at the Institute for Creation Research, we specialize in the science of origins, continually discovering how the evidence confirms biblical creation.
We study things like fossils and genetics, astronomy and geology. And we find that the evidence just always confirms Genesis. But people have said, but is there an ultimate proof of creation? I mean, they'd say, Dr. Lyle, I don't have time to memorize all these different lines of evidence for creation.
And there are certainly a lot. Is there one sort of bulletproof argument that will demonstrate that creation is true? And I believe that there actually is, though it's quite different from most proofs that people like to offer. You see, most lines of evidence that are offered in support of creation or evolution are of a scientific nature. And the problem with that is, as reliable as science is, it rarely achieves certainty.
And part of the reason is because the person holding the opposite view can always invoke a different interpretation of the evidence.
So for example, I might point out, well, there's information in DNA instructions on how to make organisms. And as far as we know, information never comes about by random chance processes. It always comes from a mind. And so that's consistent with biblical creation, God creating the first organisms. And people might say, you know, an evolutionist might respond: well, yes, but there could be some undiscovered process that produces the information in DNA, we just haven't discovered it yet.
And that's plausible.
Now, he can't produce that, but he can have faith that it might be found in the future. I could point out that carbon-14 and soft tissue have been found in dinosaur fossils, and neither of those things can last anywhere near millions and millions of years. And so that certainly suggests the biblical time scale that these things lived when the Bible says they did and not millions and millions of years ago. But my secular colleague could say, oh, but there's some preserving mechanism to preserve the soft tissue, and there's some sort of contamination that's introduced to the C14.
Now he can't again demonstrate that, but I can't prove that it's false either. I could point out that comets can't last millions of years based on the rate at which they deteriorate.
Now nobody would dispute that, but the secularists would say, oh, but there must be some sort of comet generator that makes new comets, since we know the solar system is billions of years old and there's still comets there.
Now again, I can't disprove that even though there's no evidence for it. You see, these rescuing devices, by their very nature, are unprovable and yet unfalsifiable. You can't prove them to be true, and you can't prove them to be false. And that leaves the debate undecided. But here's the interesting thing, both parties, both creationists and evolutionists, agree that science is a good tool for discovering truth.
Both creationists and evolutionists believe that we should be logical in our reasoning. Both agree that we should be moral and that we should, for example, not lie. But here's the thing, which view of origins can make sense of what both parties take for granted? Which way of thinking, creation or evolution, will justify our expectation that science is a reliable tool? And the answer is Creation, and only creation.
You see, if you think about it, there are certain prerequisites for knowledge. For us to know anything about the universe, the universe would have to be at least a certain way. There would have to be a certain amount of order in the universe. If everything really were just random, and we could never know anything. Our minds would have to be capable of rational thought for us to understand anything about the universe, obviously.
And rationality means that we have the freedom to consider various options and choose the best.
Now, these things make sense in a creation worldview. God has imposed order on the universe because he is logical. God made us in His image. He's logical, and so we have the capability of being rational as well, since we're made in His image. God has unlimited freedom, and we being made in God's image, we have some degree of freedom to consider options and choose the best.
And so we'd expect to have rationality. We'd expect science to be possible. That our senses are basically reliable is a prerequisite for science. I mean, science is based on observation and experimentation, but if we couldn't trust our eyes, then that means we can't trust any observations that we make about the universe.
So clearly, that's a prerequisite for knowledge. And in the creation worldview, that makes sense. Of course, my senses would be basically reliable. My eyes and my ears have been designed by God. And so I would expect that they would work properly, although perhaps because of sin, not always perfectly.
But you see, my point is, none of these things would make sense in an evolutionary universe. Especially an atheistic one where there's no God. Why would the universe have any degree of orderliness to it if there's no mind controlling it? Why would we expect that our brains, if our brains are simply the result of mutations over billions of years, why would they be capable of rationality? I mean, if human beings are nothing but chemical accidents, why assume that we have the freedom to consider options and choose the best, which is a requirement for rationality?
Chemistry can't do that. Chemistry has no choice. It simply follows the prescribed laws of nature. And so if evolution were true, to trust our own thinking would be no different than trusting a magic eight ball when you turn it over and it gives you some random answer. Let's take a short break.
Stay with us. Dinosaurs are fascinating creatures. Seeing their fossils inspires a sense of awe and wonder that sparks the imagination. We're learning more about them all the time, but many questions still remain: Are dinosaurs really millions of years old? Did they live at the same time as humans?
How do they fit with the Bible? And why are they extinct today? The Institute for Creation Research addresses these questions and more in their full color and easy-to-read book, Guide to Dinosaurs. Guide to Dinosaurs delves into the history of dinosaurs, fossil discoveries, dinosaur kinds, and what the Bible has to say about these mysterious creatures. It serves as a helpful resource for parents and kids alike.
Order your copy of Guide to Dinosaurs from the Institute for Creation Research by calling 800-628-7640 or visiting icr.org. That's 800-628-7640 or visiting icr.org. Mm-hmm. Welcome back to Science, Scripture, and Salvation, a radio ministry of the Institute for Creation Research. Here's Dr.
Lyle. Well we've been discussing the prerequisites for knowledge about the universe. What worldview can account for the success of science? Science requires certain things in order to work, and one of those things is orderliness and uniformity in nature.
Now, uniformity doesn't mean that everything is exactly the same, of course, but what it means is that there are certain patterns that exist. For example, if you do an experiment. at a certain point in time and you have certain conditions, you'll get a certain result. Uniformity says if you do that same experiment under the same conditions, you're going to get the same result, basically.
Now, we all assume uniformity. We all assume that the future will be like the past in terms of basic cycles of nature.
So, for example, you know that gravity pulls you down today. You will assume that gravity will pull you down tomorrow.
Now, in a Christian worldview, that makes sense because God upholds things. He upholds the entire universe, the Bible says, by the word of his power. And he does that in a consistent way so that we can function. But you see, in a chance universe, there's no reason to expect that gravity will pull things down tomorrow just because it did today. I mean, it's a chance universe.
For all you know, perhaps tomorrow, gravity will repel everything and push you up toward the ceiling. I mean, how could you really know that? Suppose you get up in the middle of the night to get a drink of water and you stub your toe on something. Oh, well that just hurts. You know, 'cause it's dark and you can't see anything.
You stub your toe. The next night when you get up to get a drink of water, you're very careful not to stub your toe again. Because you assume that if you stub your toe again, it will hurt again.
Now, that makes perfect sense in a creationist worldview because God upholds things in a consistent fashion, such that what you sow is what you will reap. But you see, in a chance universe, Who's to say what happens the next time you stub your toe? Maybe you'll turn into a butterfly. Maybe it'll be the most pleasurable experience of a lifetime. Who can say?
It's a chance universe. And so you see this orderliness that we all expect only makes sense in a creation based world view. Why on a secular worldview would there be any uniformity at all? Why expect it?
Now, some people have said, well, there's been uniformity in the past, and so I expect there will be uniformity in the future. But you see, that simply begs the question. Because anytime we rely on past experience as a basis of what is likely to happen in the future, we're assuming uniformity. We're assuming the future is like the past. And so you can't use that very principle as its own basis.
You can't say, well, because in the past there's been uniformity, therefore in the future there'll be uniformity because, hey, the future's like the past.
Well, that is uniformity. And so that simply begs the question. As far as I can tell, only the biblical worldview gives us an objective reason why we can trust that the future will be like the past, because God has promised us that it will be, and God's beyond time.
So he's in a position to know what the future will be like. Morality is another example.
Now, creationists and evolutionists agree that certain things are objectively wrong, things like murder or lying, even in a debate. In a chance universe, why would anything be wrong? In fact, what does wrong even mean? In an atheistic universe, what happens simply happens. There's no right or wrong about it.
Who gets to decide the way people should behave?
Now, in a Christian worldview, it's not a problem because morality is what God has decreed. And it's objective because God's sovereign over all of us. And so we can turn to the Bible to see what is objectively right and what is objectively wrong. But in an atheistic universe, it doesn't even make sense to talk about right and wrong. Those concepts are meaningless in a chance universe.
And so you see, a debate over biblical creation is a lot like a debate over the existence of air. Can you imagine two people arguing whether or not air exists? What would the critic of air say? He's up there making all these elaborate arguments that there's no such thing as air, but meanwhile he's breathing air. In fact, in order to make his argument, air would have to exist.
And so the very fact that he can make his argument proves that his argument is wrong. And yet it's the same way with creation and evolution. The evolutionist can spout all sort of scientific facts that he thinks disprove creation, but the fact he's able to state any scientific fact demonstrates that creation is true. Because apart from biblical creation there would be no basis for trusting in the methods of science.
Now, my point is not that evolutionists don't believe in things like rationality of the mind. Order and uniformity in nature are moral absolutes. My point is, they do. And yet such things would make no sense if evolution were true. The evolutionist is just a walking bundle of inconsistencies.
He professes that the universe is merely chance, but he behaves as if he knows the universe is designed and upheld by God. And so he does his science with the expectation that there are patterns out there to be discovered, with the expectation, the assumption that his senses are basically reliable, as if designed by God, that his mind is capable of discerning truth as if made in God's image. And yet that's contrary to what he professes. You see, this inconsistent behavior is exactly what the Bible addresses in Romans 1, 18 through 20. it tells us that God has revealed Himself to everyone such that there is no excuse for denying Him.
God has hardwired us to know when we see His creation that He is the Creator. The problem is, not that men don't know better, the problem is men suppress that truth and unrighteousness. Instead of showing gratitude to God, they harden their hearts and come up with ridiculous naturalistic explanations for all things. Ironically, in their rebellion against God's Word, they demonstrate the truth of God's Word. You see, the solution to our sin, our rebellion against God, is not suppression, but confession.
If we confess our sin, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sin and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Thank you for joining us on Science, Scripture, and Salvation, a radio ministry of the Institute for Creation Research. That's all the time we have for our program today, but we would love to connect with you through our website at icr.org. For over 45 years, ICR has equipped believers with evidence of the Bible's accuracy and authority by showing how science supports the Genesis creation account. Our scientists research the evidence for creation and communicate their findings through books, articles, DVD series, and conferences.
Please visit our website at icr.org for more information about the latest scientific discoveries, to subscribe to our free magazine and devotional, and to locate our next creation conference at a venue near you. All of this and more at icr.org. Yeah. If you've enjoyed this podcast, subscribe to Science, Scripture, and Salvation on iTunes. Also, do us a favor and rate and review the show so that more listeners can find us.
Thanks for listening and God bless.
