Will We Start With God’s Word Or Human Wisdom?
Creation Basics: Two Kinds of Science
When many people think about the creation/evolution issue, they think of a battle over evidence. But that’s the wrong way to think about it. Really, the battle is over the exact same evidence but two different interpretations because of two different starting points (foundations for one’s worldview).
You see, it’s not “science vs. the Bible” or “science vs. faith.” It’s man’s word (the foundation for evolution and millions of years) vs. God’s Word (the eyewitness account of history). That’s the battle that’s been raging since the garden of Eden! Will we start with God’s Word or human wisdom?
But what about science? Well, most people have a wrong perception about science, lumping technology, medical advancements, origin of life studies, evolution, and more under the same label of “science.” But really, there are two different kinds of science.
Observational Science
First there’s observational science. This is science that’s directly testable, observable, and repeatable. It’s this kind of science that builds our technology and results in advancements in medical fields. This is the kind of science that deals with the present and involves the scientific method, experimentation, and observation.
Historical Science
Then there’s historical science.
This kind of science deals with the past and therefore is not directly testable, observable, or repeatable because we can’t directly observe, test, or repeat the past—it’s gone! So the evidence in the present (rock layers, fossils, etc.) must be interpreted. And the starting beliefs and assumptions (presuppositions) about the past/history that you bring to the evidence will determine how you interpret the evidence in the present.
When it comes to interpreting the evidence in the present, you either start with the eyewitness account of history God has given us (creation in six days a few thousand years ago, a “very good” world marred by sin, life created according to their kinds, mankind made distinct in God’s image, a global flood, and the division of humanity at Babel) and interpret the evidence through that lens or you ignore that history and start with the present and try to figure out what must have happened in the past. This relies on man’s word (man’s wisdom) and assumes billions of years of history as well as cosmological, geological, and biological evolution.
The battle isn’t over the evidence—it’s over the foundation for your worldview: God’s Word vs. man’s word. It’s a battle between two religions as ultimately there are only two—God’s Word or man’s word.
by Ken Ham on April 26, 2024
Featured in Ken Ham Blog
True science of God vs. pseudo science of man.
When many people think about the creation/evolution issue, they think of a battle over evidence. But that’s the wrong way to think about it. Really, the battle is over the exact same evidence but two different interpretations because of two different starting points (foundations for one’s worldview).
You see, it’s not “science vs. the Bible” or “science vs. faith.” It’s man’s word (the foundation for evolution and millions of years) vs. God’s Word (the eyewitness account of history). That’s the battle that’s been raging since the garden of Eden! Will we start with God’s Word or human wisdom?
But what about science? Well, most people have a wrong perception about science, lumping technology, medical advancements, origin of life studies, evolution, and more under the same label of “science.” But really, there are two different kinds of science.
Observational Science
First there’s observational science. This is science that’s directly testable, observable, and repeatable. It’s this kind of science that builds our technology and results in advancements in medical fields. This is the kind of science that deals with the present and involves the scientific method, experimentation, and observation.
Historical Science
Then there’s historical science.
This kind of science deals with the past and therefore is not directly testable, observable, or repeatable because we can’t directly observe, test, or repeat the past—it’s gone! So the evidence in the present (rock layers, fossils, etc.) must be interpreted. And the starting beliefs and assumptions (presuppositions) about the past/history that you bring to the evidence will determine how you interpret the evidence in the present.
When it comes to interpreting the evidence in the present, you either start with the eyewitness account of history God has given us (creation in six days a few thousand years ago, a “very good” world marred by sin, life created according to their kinds, mankind made distinct in God’s image, a global flood, and the division of humanity at Babel) and interpret the evidence through that lens or you ignore that history and start with the present and try to figure out what must have happened in the past. This relies on man’s word (man’s wisdom) and assumes billions of years of history as well as cosmological, geological, and biological evolution.
The battle isn’t over the evidence—it’s over the foundation for your worldview: God’s Word vs. man’s word. It’s a battle between two religions as ultimately there are only two—God’s Word or man’s word.
by Ken Ham on April 26, 2024
Featured in Ken Ham Blog
True science of God vs. pseudo science of man.
61-69, M
