That is a really important question. For those
of you who weren't in Sunday School this past year, this question stemmed from
apologetics series that we did with the Young's last year. In fact, Mr. Young
did not say we should deny science. He explicitly said the opposite. If you
want to hear his full argument, it comes early in his curriculum on the origins
of matter, and the recording is on the Harvest website. You can find the audio here. It's the August 19
talk.
In that class he noted that it is fashionable for militant atheists like Richard Dawkins to assert that “religion is at war with science.” Mr. Young warned us not to take sides in that argument because the choice between religion and science is a false choice (It's setting up things as mutually exclusive when they are not.). Instead, he said the real choice or tension is between "good science and good theology" – both of which strive to understand the truth – and "bad science and bad theology" – which both work to protect a prejudice. Unfortunately, what your friend said is not true. Evolution, as we understand it (bacteria to apes to people), is incompatible with the Bible. However the major theme across the three weeks that Mr. Young spent on origins is that if you look at the three theories on the origin of matter (Big Bang, Biochemical Predestination, and Evolution) from a purely natural framework/viewpoint/paradigm then evolution is also incompatible with proven science.
When he talked about good and bad science and theology Mr. Young said bad theology opposes good science when it asserts something God never said in order to try to support some other point. Basically bad theology puts words in God's mouth. He cited the example of the medieval Catholic claiming that the Earth was the center of the solar system in order to show man was special. That was bad science built on an assertion that is not found in the Bible. On the other side, Mr. Young said bad science usually contradicts good theology when it refuses to acknowledge something God did–assuming away the supernatural explanation, even when no purely natural alternative makes sense.
Because truth is truth, Mr. Young noted that when bad science contradicts good theology it will also contradict good science. That was the point of this section: that a purely natural or secular account of creation is bad science because the three base theories each contradict at least one known scientific law. Since a purely secular account of creation claims to be science and it disagrees with proven science then it is self-contradictory. So the choice is not between scriptural teaching and science, but rather between bad science and good science. Because truth is truth, good science will be consistent with our theology.
He noted several specific examples of the "good science–bad science" tension. Regarding the creation of matter he noted, for example, that the Big Bang Theory holds that the entire universe was once compressed in a single sub-atomic particle. If the estimated 200 million billion stars and solar systems were compressed in a particle that was smaller than an atom that particle would have had infinite mass and infinite gravity. General Relativity tells us that time does not pass in an infinite gravitational field. Stephen Hawking took this law and applied it to the Big Bang Theory. If time is not passing for the particle, and the particle encompasses the universe, then time in general could not pass (Time is bounded by the universe. By definition, where the universe ends, time ends.). Hawking puts it this way: Time did not exist at that point. In his classic book, The Short History of Time, he demonstrated that time was created by the Big Bang.
If the Big Bang happened the way that scientists now claim – and Mr. Young did not take a position on that– the fact that time was not passing until it happened could only be logical if the Big Bang was triggered by a creator who is outside of time, and who controls time. But the secular view says that there is no supernatural being outside of time. The secular view says the Big Bang – the event that science proves created time - was a natural event. It is an axiom of all physical science that no event can occur when no time passes. So an event occurring to create time is, by definition, impossible. So a purely secular view contradicts proven science.
Mr. Young noted that Dr. Hawking, an avowed atheist, tried to solve that problem his discovery created by coining the term “singularity” - an event that could not happen more than a single time because it is impossible, and so to occur even once it had to violate the laws of nature. Mr. Young noted that a “singularity” – an event that violates the laws of nature – has the same characteristics as a “miracle”, with one exception. That exception is that good theology can explain the cause of a miracle, by recognizing a God who is outside of time and nature and is in control of both. In contrast, a purely secular view cannot explain what causes a singularity, nor how the laws of nature can be broken from inside the laws of nature.
Ultimately, the purely secular view of the origins of matter asserts that four things must have happened, none of which can be explained, and two of which violate laws of nature. Mr. Young concluded that a belief in un-caused causes that violate natural laws may be superstition – but it is certainly not good science. He ended the lecture by reviewing the things that we know to be scientifically true about origins of matter and noting that, while none of them can be explained rationally through a purely natural view, all of them are easily explained when we acknowledge a creator who is outside of time and nature and sovereign over both. In other words, he demonstrated that good science and good theology said the same thing.
In that class he noted that it is fashionable for militant atheists like Richard Dawkins to assert that “religion is at war with science.” Mr. Young warned us not to take sides in that argument because the choice between religion and science is a false choice (It's setting up things as mutually exclusive when they are not.). Instead, he said the real choice or tension is between "good science and good theology" – both of which strive to understand the truth – and "bad science and bad theology" – which both work to protect a prejudice. Unfortunately, what your friend said is not true. Evolution, as we understand it (bacteria to apes to people), is incompatible with the Bible. However the major theme across the three weeks that Mr. Young spent on origins is that if you look at the three theories on the origin of matter (Big Bang, Biochemical Predestination, and Evolution) from a purely natural framework/viewpoint/paradigm then evolution is also incompatible with proven science.
When he talked about good and bad science and theology Mr. Young said bad theology opposes good science when it asserts something God never said in order to try to support some other point. Basically bad theology puts words in God's mouth. He cited the example of the medieval Catholic claiming that the Earth was the center of the solar system in order to show man was special. That was bad science built on an assertion that is not found in the Bible. On the other side, Mr. Young said bad science usually contradicts good theology when it refuses to acknowledge something God did–assuming away the supernatural explanation, even when no purely natural alternative makes sense.
Because truth is truth, Mr. Young noted that when bad science contradicts good theology it will also contradict good science. That was the point of this section: that a purely natural or secular account of creation is bad science because the three base theories each contradict at least one known scientific law. Since a purely secular account of creation claims to be science and it disagrees with proven science then it is self-contradictory. So the choice is not between scriptural teaching and science, but rather between bad science and good science. Because truth is truth, good science will be consistent with our theology.
He noted several specific examples of the "good science–bad science" tension. Regarding the creation of matter he noted, for example, that the Big Bang Theory holds that the entire universe was once compressed in a single sub-atomic particle. If the estimated 200 million billion stars and solar systems were compressed in a particle that was smaller than an atom that particle would have had infinite mass and infinite gravity. General Relativity tells us that time does not pass in an infinite gravitational field. Stephen Hawking took this law and applied it to the Big Bang Theory. If time is not passing for the particle, and the particle encompasses the universe, then time in general could not pass (Time is bounded by the universe. By definition, where the universe ends, time ends.). Hawking puts it this way: Time did not exist at that point. In his classic book, The Short History of Time, he demonstrated that time was created by the Big Bang.
If the Big Bang happened the way that scientists now claim – and Mr. Young did not take a position on that– the fact that time was not passing until it happened could only be logical if the Big Bang was triggered by a creator who is outside of time, and who controls time. But the secular view says that there is no supernatural being outside of time. The secular view says the Big Bang – the event that science proves created time - was a natural event. It is an axiom of all physical science that no event can occur when no time passes. So an event occurring to create time is, by definition, impossible. So a purely secular view contradicts proven science.
Mr. Young noted that Dr. Hawking, an avowed atheist, tried to solve that problem his discovery created by coining the term “singularity” - an event that could not happen more than a single time because it is impossible, and so to occur even once it had to violate the laws of nature. Mr. Young noted that a “singularity” – an event that violates the laws of nature – has the same characteristics as a “miracle”, with one exception. That exception is that good theology can explain the cause of a miracle, by recognizing a God who is outside of time and nature and is in control of both. In contrast, a purely secular view cannot explain what causes a singularity, nor how the laws of nature can be broken from inside the laws of nature.
Ultimately, the purely secular view of the origins of matter asserts that four things must have happened, none of which can be explained, and two of which violate laws of nature. Mr. Young concluded that a belief in un-caused causes that violate natural laws may be superstition – but it is certainly not good science. He ended the lecture by reviewing the things that we know to be scientifically true about origins of matter and noting that, while none of them can be explained rationally through a purely natural view, all of them are easily explained when we acknowledge a creator who is outside of time and nature and sovereign over both. In other words, he demonstrated that good science and good theology said the same thing.
Thanks for the question!! Come talk to me or
drop me another question if you want to talk more. Love you in God's way!
blessings,
~Frank
blessings,
~Frank
