| |
Have you ever been asked a question about apparent contradictions between science and the Bible and didn’t know how to answer? Have you ever had a science teacher say something that you didn’t agree with, but you didn’t know how to answer him? In the last ten years there has been an
explosion of written and web-based resources on issues related to science and the Bible. In fact, science is becoming our strongest apologetics tool.
When I visit and speak at campus ministries I get many questions on these topics. That gave me the idea to start a regular feature for the purpose of answering your questions. Send me your questions by e-mail
, and I will post your questions and my answers in the next edition of the Campus CrossWalk. I will
send you answers by email as well.
Question
From Washington D.C.
“The time frame of the Bible seems to conflict with fossil records and
scientific dating systems. How is this discrepancy justified in the study of Christian evidences?”
Answer
This is a great question and very hotly debated among apologists. At the center of this debate is the question of the age of the earth. How one approaches this question depends on the philosophy of revelation one takes. There are two main theologies:
- Single Revelation Theology: This philosophy states that the Bible is the only authoritative source for truth with regards to the history of time. Thus, if there is a contradiction between science and one’s interpretation of the Bible then only a “literal” interpretation of the Bible is acceptable. In those cases science must be wrong even if it cannot be proven. This theology is held most clearly by the Creation Research Society and the Institute of Creation Research.
- Dual Revelation Theology states that God is responsible for both the biblical revelation and the natural world. The words of God and the facts of nature are both true. Any apparent contradiction between science and the Bible is the result of either a misinterpretation of the Bible or a misinterpretation of the science. This theology is held by progressive creationists like Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe.
Well, back to the question! So, what about the fossil record and scientific dating? If one takes a single revelation approach the answer is that the fossil record is wrong, scientific dating is wrong and scientist are fallible. Only a literal interpretation of “days” of the creation “week” as 24 hour periods is acceptable. Any other approach is heresy and plays into the hand of evolutionary naturalism. If one takes a dual revelation approach the answer is that scientific evidence is clear that the earth is old and, thus, limiting the creation “days” to a 24-hour period is not consistent with godly revelation of nature or good biblical exegesis. In addition, this approach would contend that belief in an old earth does not play into the hand of evolutionary naturalism but, in fact, clearly show the fingerprint of God in creation.
Those of you who want me to answer this question for you . . . I am not going to. You must study and come to your own conclusions as I have come to mine.
Dr. Tom Mundie has a Ph.D. in pathophysiology and is a Professor of Life Science at the United States Military Academy at West Point. In addition, he has led the campus ministry at West Point for 11 years.
|
|
