The Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism (2018)

personal being, and hence there was no conviction that rational personal beings would be able to spell out in their lesser earthly languages the divine code of laws which he had decreed aforetime. The Taoists, indeed, would have scorned such an idea as being too naïve for the subtlety and complexity of the universe as they intuited it (p. 581). Coupled with a belief in a rational universe is an understanding of the finiteness and fallibility of mankind. The curse of sin did not wipe out man’s ability to study the universe, but it did hamper it in a number of ways. The physical universe was fundamentally changed so that man’s achievements would be through difficult labor, the sweat of the brow (Genesis 3:17-19). Weeds, thistles and death gave a different perception of a good creation. Man’s finite lifespan, although initially quite long compared to current standards, cut off pursuits of inquiry through failing health and degraded ability to comprehend. Selfish ambition and destructive exploitation misdirected man’s efforts away from glorifying God through the study of the beauty of God’s creation. Had man not fallen, he could have spent eternity exploring the richness of God’s creation without coming to the end of knowledge. Man’s finiteness keeps him from full understanding and makes him impotent to achieve what that knowledge implies is possible. Since science studies the lawfulness of God’s creation, productive results can be achieved by the most unrepentant individual. Through God’s common grace, “he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matthew 5:45). But Christians, being redeemed from the curse of the law and provided a comforter (the Holy Spirit), are able to commune with God and are enlightened by God’s Word (I Corinthians 2:14-16). Walking in the light restores relationship with God and removes one of the hindrances to studying God’s creation for the right reason. One cannot go so far as to claim infallibility in his pursuit of science. If Christians fail to agree on interpretations of biblical passages, which are part of the infallible, revealed Word of God, how much more will disagreement arise when studying the creation, which does not “speak” as clearly (I Corinthians 13:12). This lack of clarity is more than a basis of disagreement, but can lead to false conclusions, although the person conducts his research with the purest of motives. One example comes from nineteenth century England. Paley’s book Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity published in 1802 was influential in higher education and in the early life of Charles Darwin. In 1829, the Earl of Bridgewater bequeathed ~$900,000 in today’s dollars for additional works to be written and published related to natural theology. Within a decade The Bridgewater Treatises On the Power, Wisdom, and Goodness of God, as manifested in the Creation consisted of eight volumes covering topics ranging from biology, astronomy, geology and anatomy to chemistry. An unofficial ninth volume was written by Babbage (1838) in which he discusses a number of subjects. One of particular value is his critique of Hume’s view of miracles by alluding to possibilities presented by a calculating engine. Although the Bridgewater Treatises present wonderful examples of God’s design described by experts of the day, a theology of God developed that arose from observations of the creation apart from scripture. Using arguments hailing back to natural theology, the Intelligent Design movement of today avoids making theological conclusions by disconnecting the argument for the existence of a Creator from the nature of the Creator, which must be inferred from scripture. One may discard the cautionary nature of this example stating that these scholars were not young-earth creationists, but this would be unwise. Each one comes to his study of science with assumptions about the nature of the physical world and how science interfaces with scripture and faith. Although we have an infallible revealed scripture and using a grammatical-historical approach to interpretation provides a solid basis for using scripture to inform our science, we must exercise humility in developing our physical models of creation. Our information is limited, our conceptualization of the problem is finite, our methods of exploration are constrained and, therefore, our conclusions need to be held tentatively. These limitations to science are well delineated and explained in Barrow’s book Impossibility: The Limits of Science and the Science of Limits and in Ratzsch’s book Science and its Limits: The Natural Sciences in Christian Perspective . As the amount of available data explodes and computational power expands at an unwaning pace, we may be lured into believing that our models of creation are superior to those of bygone eras. Although the limitations seem more distant, they are there nonetheless. We are tempted to place more validity on numerical results than on a well-grounded conceptual framework that provides context for those results. As creation scientists, we need to make sure our presuppositions are clear, our methods are sound and our conclusions are consistent. For the remainder of the paper this idea will be explored. First a short summary of creation science will be provided with an emphasis on the increasing use of numerical results to support conclusions. Second, our perception of acceptable science will be explored in the context of presuppositions, paradigms and metaphors. Finally, the unique role that the Christian plays in the pursuit of creation science is illustrated through our use of methods and tools. CREATION SCIENCE In a mundane way all science is creation science because it drives mankind to ask the ultimate questions of “Why is the universe the way it is?”, “How did it get here?” and “What is my role in the universe?” Since all that exists was created and is sustained by Jesus Christ (Colossians 1:15-17), the answers to these questions are found in Him. However, in a more restricted sense creation science is an act of worship by Christians desiring to see the glory of the Creator proclaimed to all of mankind. It is used as a polemic to demonstrate that we have a reasonable faith and it uses the presumption that the scriptures, although not a comprehensive source of scientific knowledge, provide facts and a framework from which to build our models. We tend to separate science from philosophy, but that artificial barrier prevents us from thinking beyond our observations and immediate conclusions to a consistent worldview of reality. Many individuals known historically as philosophers based their views on physical observations of the world, such as Aristotle, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and Descartes. Famous scientists such as Gollmer ◀ Man, machine and creation science ▶ 2018 ICC 104