The Bible and Science

by Richard on September 27, 2005

Do science and Christianity mix?

And the LORD God spoke unto Moses, “Write this: 16.3 billion years ago, I set the gravitational constant at 6.673 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2. Then I inserted an infinitely compressed drop of energy into a multidimensional time space continuum to make a Big Bang - Moses, why aren’t you writing this down?” And Moses spoke thusly unto the LORD God, “God, how many zeroes are there in 16.3 billion?” And the LORD God spoke unto Moses, “OK, just write this: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

(Doffing my cap to Signposts for putting me on to this)
It’s a very eloquent article, well-worth your time.

{ 39 comments… read them below or add one }


DH 09.27.05 at 2:17 pm

It does mix it is a matter of what type of science if you get my drift. Much of science is ridiculed by the very own scientific community just because a bunch of people believe a certain way because of predispositions. If you get my drift.


Wood 09.27.05 at 2:44 pm

Yeah. You’ve gotta watch those creationists. They get everywhere.


Malc 09.27.05 at 2:52 pm

What I like is the fact that out of all the possible questions asked (what is a “gravitational constant”; multidimensional time space continuum; Big Bang; etc….) it’s “how many zeros in a billion” (not even what is a billion).

This is an important question, as I’m sure everyone knows, a billion here is different from a billion in the states….. an answer to this question would show, once and for all that God really isn’t American!!!!


DH 09.27.05 at 4:22 pm

Wood, wow I didn’t realize that the Faith of Creationism is becoming so more widespread? This kind of proves my point maybe scientists are finding more facts to support the view? I do know there are more and more findings of support for Creationism.

Wood, thank you for the word of encouragement. :)

(I’m being sarcastic and was referring to the predisposition of non-Creationst’s in my original post) (I think you will find more predispostions from that side than the other. I know so many more scientists who were atheists and evolutionists who changed to Creationism than the other way around)


Wood 09.27.05 at 6:42 pm

You know that there isn’t such trhing as an “evolutionist”? It’s not an ideology, you know.

Bet I know more ex-Creationists that you know converts to Creationism.


DH 09.27.05 at 7:25 pm

Very funny. I know no scientist who says it is a fact. In fact it is a theory so to say it isn’t an ideology is illogical and also ambiguos.

To those “ex-Chreationist’s”. They probably have not looked at the concepts of Dr. Harris and Dr. Moore from the Mt. St. Helens fossils. or Dr. D. Russell Humphries of creation in a white hole, etc. Over the past decade much comfirmed research and science has been done that has made Evolutionist’s and old-earth scientists re-think their positions. Or maybe they weren’t Creationist’s in the first place and used that to promote additional preconceived ideas as well?


Wood 09.28.05 at 9:30 am

On this planet a theory is not an ideological position.

And: Bet they have.

And also: Bet I know more people who know how to use an aopostrophe.


DH 09.28.05 at 3:29 pm

To the first one: by the nature of how dogmatic Evloutionist’s and old-earth scientists are it is logical to call it ideological.

To the second one: How do you know? The only reason I brought this up is because so many Evolutionist’s and old earth scientist’s have changed to being Creationist’s and young earth scientist’s from the findings these particularly wonderful scientists have found. Maybe there scared that they will change? I know many non-Believers are scared to “loose their life for My sake”. Heck anyone before they are a Believer is that way so I don’t say this in a harsh way but from understanding.

To the last: I say who cares. Do you want a cookie for your understanding of English grammer. Here. Here is your cookie. I think in this case whether or not an apostrophe is in the right place didn’t change our understanding of what is said.

(I’ll be gracious enough to not bring up the spelling on “aopostrophe” instead of the correct spelling apostrophe)


Wood 09.28.05 at 4:58 pm

OK, you got me on the hilarious apostrophe typo.

But the rest is blind nonsense. Is the theory of gravity ideological?


Wood 09.28.05 at 5:00 pm

…and um, if you were gracious enough not to bring it up, why did you bring it up?





Note to self: stop prodding the American. It won’t help


Malc 09.28.05 at 5:20 pm

As a scientist (here we go….) evolution is a fact…. it does happen. The evolution of Superbugs in hospitals is an example (much better than the moth). However, the ‘Theory of Evolution’ is only a theory, because though The Facts suggest it, there is no way to actually prove the theory without time-travel.

Creationism is NOT a theory, it is a belief. You can tell the difference on the grounds that instead of taking the facts and coming up with a theory to fit them, you start off with the theory (Genisis) and try to fit facts to that theory.

Intelligent Design, again, is a belief. There are no facts supporting this belief. the only way to prove/disprove ID is to prove/disprove the existance of the Designer. Trust me, science can not prove God, nor can it disprove His existance……

Of course, I only have one science degree and working on my second, so take my comments as you wish…….


DH 09.28.05 at 5:39 pm

How then can you explain scientists who when presented with the scientific evidence change to be Creationist and even young earth believers? So in this case it isn’t the theory before the facts but the otherway around. Are you saying that Dr. Morris and Dr. D. Russell Humphries, ex evolutionists and old earth creationists, don’t believe facts? That is where I feel science doesn’t properly look at ALL of the facts. This to me proves the predisposition of evolutionist and old earth scientists.

(Sorry, for the confusion. My reference to evolution is the one between species. Which I do not adhere to.)


Wood 09.28.05 at 5:45 pm

Yes, we’re saying they don’t believe facts.


DH 09.28.05 at 7:05 pm

That sure is presumptious on your part. I could say the same thing to you as well. I think the majority in the scientific community who are Evolutionists and old earth go out with pedispositions to disprove rather than consider it. I feel that it is their own pride and not wanting to be faced with the responsibility. Many of whom (majority) are atheistic so the concept of a miraculous Creation is outside of their own possibilities even though there is evidence to show at some level otherwise.

I have a really hard time with people saying that the belief in Creationism and new earth is not based on facts. I recognize some facts within old earth but from past post (creation in a white hole and the like) can explain these apparent observations.

Your most recent response is what pushes away people from both ends from being objective. I think it proves the dogmatic belief in evolution and old earth that that side is so readily to say they don’t have. It shows the bias that Evolutionist have to not even consider as a possibility let alone as facts scientific findings from Creation research. For you to say or accuse them of having predispositions that they didn’t even have is very judgemental and presumptious on your part. I would rather people be honest and say we both have some facts but choose to believe otherwise. Like I have said all along I believe in some of the facts of old earth but I feel those can be easily explained and those explainations don’t change the appearance of an old earth that I feel in all actuality is not. I don’t want to give you the wrong idea, unlike the Evolutionists, that I deny the observations. It is the conclusions in light of additional facts that give a clearer explaination for this truly strong appearance of old earth. Does that make sense?

Have you read the Dr. Morris’s book on the Mt. St. Helens fossils or Dr. D. Russell Humphries books on (a lay persons term not a scientist phrase) “Creation in a white hole”?


Wood 09.28.05 at 7:55 pm

Fair enough, but…

Thing is, pal: I am being honest.


I’m sorry. I’m prodding you again.




Must… stop… temptation… too… great…


Malc 09.28.05 at 8:07 pm

I will admit that I’ve not read anything by either Dr’s Morris or Russell, however, in my dabblings with the Science of Creationism I have not come across anything that wasn’t either fundamentally flawed in it’s reasoning or was something that even I could see wrong.

I’ve had a quick look for Dr Russell’s book, but the only reference to it on Google is this blog(!!!) though I found him and some of his tracts….. in a word, dodgy comes to mind….. the sweeping generalisations, assumptions about how stuff had to be done in “a few hundreds of years” as it couldn’t have possibly have taken that much longer.

A favourite bit of mine is;
“According to evolutionists, stone age man existed for 100,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4000 to 5000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases. Why would he wait a thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The Biblical time scale is much more likely.”
where he does seem to be missing the point that perhaps these beautiful cave paintings were recorded history….. just because it isn’t written doesn’t mean it’s not recorded!!!

And while I haven’t found anything about Morris’ St Helens fossils, I have just been told that the Speed of Light has been slowing down, so dramatically that it’s affected the rate of decay of radioactive materials…….???? I’ve just been told that you could have a global flood if all the mountains of the earth were flattened out… then there would be enough water to flood everything….

Please, just take me out and shoot me now……..


Richard 09.28.05 at 8:45 pm

>> “I’ve had a quick look for Dr Russell’s book, but the only reference to it on Google is this blog(!!!”)
That’s the power of the blog! :)

>> “I have not come across anything that wasn’t either fundamentally flawed in it’s reasoning…”
As you’ve evidently realised, there’s a very good reason for that.


DH 09.28.05 at 9:32 pm

I like how you spoke on this last response. While we disagree your response was really good. I just want to point out that I have also seen some flaws with Evolutionism and old earth as well. I think it is also presumptious to say it is recorded.

I think you are poking fun at this :

You might want to read this book: “Footprints in the Ash”

To answer the final sentence of the last paragraph. Couldn’t the world wide flood exist? Who is to say it cannot? It seems reasonable in light of the fossils found at Mt. St. Helens that are in all actuality 20 years old but independently inaccurately stated as millions of years old that a world wide flood with its tons of water would be able to create the strata, fossils and the like and that that would give the false impression of an old earth. Not that it is wrong to observe something to appear to be old. Just like a human when who is cronically sick appears older than they actualy are.


DH 09.28.05 at 10:12 pm

That is your opinion Richard that it is fundamentaly flawed.


Richard 09.28.05 at 10:27 pm

This is turning into the Mony Python sketch:

Excuse me, is this the right room for an argument?


Wood 09.29.05 at 8:19 am

No, it isn’t.


Richard 09.29.05 at 9:49 am

I knew I’d regret the Python reference. I should know better. :)


Malc 09.29.05 at 3:32 pm

Flaws with comparing Mount St Helens with Genisis…… anyone??? Here’s a good one. In the case of the “Mount St Helens Fossils” all the fossils are found in the same band, cause by the expolsion.

If this was also the case with the Flood in Genisis (let’s not ask where all the water went) why is it that fossils found in what has been described in the Creatious period aren’t found in the Jurrasic period…. or the Triassic….?? If this was a terrible flood that occured over a fourty day period there should not be such separations found.

Now I’m not going to be talking about the big Dinos (like T-Rex) where there have been very few whole skellys found, but with the much smaller, more common fossils….. that are only found in certain layers.

“Footprints in the Ash” may make a case for quick fossilisation, but it doesn’t make a case for The Great Flood.

nb - is this the 10 minute argument, or the full 30 minute on….???


DH 09.29.05 at 4:16 pm

I think there would be the seperations by the sediment over the period of time from the flood till now. These periods I feel are shorter in span than you feel. Also, how about the compaction of pre-flood material under the weight of water? Also, the reason there are not whole skellys found is that the the time period after the flood water-errosion over time seperated the fossils the period after the flood till now. The book and video goes into that as well. The book and video go into how layers of periods of rock don’t have to take as long as what certain scientists believe.

This book goes into those issues of the different layers. If you watch the movie on this you will see that the fossils are not like you say and are reflected in different supposed periods of rock.

All I can say is read the book and watch the video of “Footprints in the Ash”. This isn’t an argument. The points you brought up can be explained and really don’t put to rest anything.


Malc 09.30.05 at 2:51 pm

Sorry, are you saying that the separations occured through rock…??? I mean, from the flood till now, the earth has been rock….. things don’t move too well through rock….

On the other hand, I do remember a really cool picture from one of these creationist magazines where they had Noah’s Ark, and all dramatic weather, with a T-Rex drowning, and a pterasaur flying past…..

Which raises the interesting question, that if Noah saved all the beasts;
“Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that [are] not clean by two, the male and his female. Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.” Gen 7:2-3
how come over 99.9% of all spiecies that have ever lived have died out…..??


Malc 09.30.05 at 3:33 pm

Hey Richard, in the belief that we’re not really going to sort out this argument out on this blog (though wouldn’t it be cool if we did!!!) would this really be a goodish sort of time to call it a day…… as we are only going to be going round in circles ever more……

more like a series of contradictions than an argument……


DH 09.30.05 at 4:16 pm

These aren’t contradictions. Come on. I feel that some of the layers were formed by pre-flood material compacted by the weight of all of that water. Some of the other layers occurred through errosian and comapaction but that those might not have occurred at such as long a period of time as what some scientist believe.

I also don’t think that the animals saved might not have been indivdual species but maybe families. We need to look at the original Hebrew where it says “kind”. Also, maybe it is correct that the two of every kind were actually Genus or someother category (I’m not a scientist) closest to specie but not quite specie? Or maybe they died off after the flood rather than during?


Malc 10.03.05 at 3:03 pm

But it really doesn’t work that easilly…… I think it was five or so years ago it was shown that there were snakes from different valleys were the same Genus, but, different species. They had been separated when the boundaries between the valleys became uncrossable for the snakes.

The differences in the snakes now found have taken 100-150 thousand years (worked out using genetic markers)….. There physically isn’t the time between The Flood and now for the genetic differences to have evolved.

Or take the finches that gave Darwin the insight into his theory. Finch is the genus, but all the finches, on the different islands were difference, each one adapted for it’s own niche in the island it inhabits.

If just an example of a finch is saved, is there time for not only the repopulation of all finches, but the formation of all the different species of finches.

Just a quick search of Google has brought up over sixty types of finches (not including the 14 species collectivally know as Darwin Finches)

Some help from Wiki gives an idea about the number of Genus that there are….

But in an attempt to clear up a bit about naming…..

Kingdom - a group of related phyla - Animalia
Phylum - a group of related classes - Chordata
Class - a group of related families - Aves
Order - a group of related genera - Passeriformes
Genus - a group of related species
Species - an individual type of organism


DH 10.03.05 at 4:42 pm

To make a clarification, I believe in evolution within species but not between species. Who says it isn’t enough time? That is the big question.

“They had been separated when the boundaries between the valleys became uncrossable for the snakes.” From the worldwide flood. These were probably snakes that could live under water. How about that?


Malc 10.03.05 at 5:52 pm

So, just so I’m straight, your ok with evolution between species (like the snakes, or the finches) but not between species…. like a common link that would have formed the great apes and man, or the common link that lead onto the great whales…?? right???

With the problem of time, well, take something like bacteria. We can see the evolution in bacteria, because there can be several generations in a single day. To spot evolutionary differences you need to be able to compare over a lot of generations.

With something like mice, you can have two, maybe three generations per year.

With people (or whales) you’re talking about over a decade, for a single generation. If you’re looking for evolutionary traits over many generations you have to seriously expand your timeframe. When you think of the number of generations you would need to separate out Orangatans and Gorillas you start talking about serious time. (of course, this would only be a problem if you think there is a common link, if not, then this doesn’t matter)

Over the last 150-200 years it has been noted that tusk length on African Elephants has decreased. It’s believed that this is because elephants who would carry the gene for big tusks (and who would normally have been the breeding male) have been killed off due to hunting, subsequently shorter tusk males have been able to breed more than what would be normal.

I didn’t quite get what you were meaning about the snakes that could live underwater (though there are sea-snakes, though they live round coral reefs where there’s food)…… are you suggesting that the snakes who were separated used to be sea-snakes before the Flood, or something else….??? (nb-realised I missed out saying that the area the snakes are in is the western flank of the Amazon, where it comes up into the Andies)


Richard 10.03.05 at 6:20 pm

I admire your tenacity, fellows. I can’t help thinking that Malc was right the other day, though: “would this really be a goodish sort of time to call it a day…… as we are only going to be going round in circles ever “

Up to you, of course.


Malc 10.04.05 at 2:51 pm

Hey Richard, what’s the record for the number of replies to one of your posts….. are we anywhere close???


Richard 10.04.05 at 3:34 pm

I don’t actually know the answer to that question Malc - but you must be close!


Malc 10.04.05 at 4:05 pm

Ahhhhh, that must be good…….. and we still have things like star light and all that jazz to come!!!!

Though thinking about it, may I ask what sort of timescale we’re talking about for creation, the flood, sorta thing….??? I mean, are we saying 4004BC for the setting of the beginging of Genisis or are we actually being much more open with our timings???


DH 10.05.05 at 3:59 pm

“So, just so I’m straight, your ok with evolution between species (like the snakes, or the finches) but not between species…. like a common link that would have formed the great apes and man, or the common link that lead onto the great whales…?? right???”

Just for clarification I’m saying that evolution (I wouldn’t it call it this) that I adhere to is within finches (black to a white). I do not believe in evolution between species from a finch to a snake, like the example we discussed.

With regard to the flood, when you analyze what a worldwide flood does to the earth, taken into account that all scientist’s say there was a water canopy at one time and that was what was destroyed by God to begin the flood, how this all could affect decay, timeframe, how post flood animals were before and after the flood as part of the adjustment to this catyclesmic event, etc.

I personally believe in the timeframe of 40 days and 40 nights like the Bible and creation “evening and morning” that are mentioned for each day referenced in the creation account of the Bible. Whether it was 4004BC or not? I don’t know.

“(of course, this would only be a problem if you think there is a common link, if not, then this doesn’t matter)”

Interesting you brought up “common link”.
Yeah, I don’t believe in the “common link” except the link that God created everything. :) Just being humorous and serious at the same time. So therefore it isn’t a problem with me as you say.


Malc 10.05.05 at 6:37 pm

“between species from a finch to a snake, ” no, sorry, my typo, what I meant would be something like you start off with one species of finch, put them in different environments and end up with two different species, like what you have with dogs and horses and the like.

The reason I asked about the timescale and stuff, is that most people who adhear to a Genisis Creation believe that the earth was created sometime round 4004BC (I believe….??? anyone???) and yet a lot of the methods that give us the age of various rocks and fossils and stuff would put the earth at a much greater age than that.

I also know that there are a great many people who would then stand up and shout out that Carbon Dating is highly inaccurate and all that, but remember, to date fossils and rock, you don’t use Carbon Dating….. you look at the decay of radioactive particles in the rocks, all of which have a standard decay curve, which makes it very easy to put an age (and this is the important bit) +/- a couple of million years. I always find it funny when as an argument against this someone sends a rock off to be dated (when they know it’s from an euruption 70 odd years ago) and then when it comes back dated as 1.5 million years old jump up and down saying the method is wrong. 1.5 million years old is inside the +/-,they could have handed it back and said it won’t be formed for another million years.

They are used to dating rocks in the hundreds of millions of years range. a +/-2 million years is then only 0.5-2% out…… it’s not like they’re able to say “it was formed on Tuesday 26th October, at 10.23am, 123,654,321 years ago”.

Another good example is star light. The speed of light is a constant. The nearest star is 4 lightyears away. The light has taken four years to get to us. Basically, we’re are getting pictures of these stars when the light left them. Hence the whole looking into the past the further into space you look. So when they look at stars that are millions and billions of lightyears away, we are actually seeing these stars as they were millions and billions of years ago. They may actually not be there anymore. We don’t know.

The only way that this can be explained, and sticking to a Genisis story, is that God purposely made it that way. But why would he purposely make the universe seem bigger than it really is??? And if that is the case, why even bother running the argument about this quick settling, fossil sorting sediment…. just say “that’s how God made it” which is much easier to defend (scientifically) than any other position.


DH 10.10.05 at 10:24 pm

I feel that God made Creation in a White Hole (I’m not a scientist but Cr. D. Russell Humphries explains this very well) so the universe appears older than it actually is. If creation were in a white hole than matter would be sent out faster than the speed of light (if I understand Cr. Humphries) and therefore would explain the age appearing older (not that it isn’t rational to not think it is old for it appears that way). Also, the age of the rocks and sediment can appear old by water, rain, errosion, compaction and explosion of water from the world wide flood.

Sorry Carbon Dating is wrong. If you send a rock that is 70 years old and it comes back 1.5 million years than how can you use it to date things. Also, who says it is plus or minus 2 million years? Couldn’t Carbon dating be just plain wrong?

So in conclusion, I feel it actually is big but the creation in a White Hole I feel explains how the universe is so vast. Also, how the world wide flood affected soil, sedimant and rocks I feel explains how the earth appears older than it is as well. Also, Carbon Dating is wrong and to say it is +/- 2 million years doesn’t explain it because I “consider the source” and predispostions when it comes to this type of dating.


Malc 10.12.05 at 2:50 pm

Carbon dating CAN NOT be used to date rocks. It can only be used to date organic matter. To date rocks you look at the radioactive decay of other elements, such as krypton and the like. These decay at a known rate. This is why you are able to date rocks with such accuracy.

Yes, the age rocks and sediment can appear to be older than they actually are. The important word in that sentance is “appear”. They may look older, but if you run test on them you will find out that they are not. This is why we run test and not on “how they look”.

Some important quotes about White Holes follow:-

“A white hole is a black hole running backwards in time. Just as black holes swallow things irretrievably, so also do white holes spit them out. White holes cannot exist, since they violate the second law of thermodynamics.”

“a white hole is something which probably cannot exist in the real universe. A white hole will turn up in your mathematics if you explore the space-time around a black hole without including the star which made the black hole (ie. there is absolutely no matter in the solution). Once you add any matter to the space-time, the part which included a white hole disappears.”

My supervisor is an Atheist, according to him, there’s nothing he believes, apart from the Laws of Thermodynamics. I mean, white Holes, all well and good, they exists everywhere but in the real world (including the world of Si-Fi!!!)

And I still can find no reference to this book you keep refering to anywhere….


d 10.12.05 at 7:39 pm

Maybe that’s the problem being atheist.

Here is a post from a non-scientist regarding Dr. D. Russell Humphries that explains even better what I’m trying to say.

I think a few books of Dr. Humphries are referenced that might help you understand as well my position. Thank you for your candor. I still think Carbon Dating is not accurate forthe reasons I mentioned. I’m sorry I used “rock” in the previous post I meant what your definition was. Sorry, I’m not a scientist but I kind of “get an idea” what the controvesies are and how they interact with each other.

Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>