• Science vs. Religion

This section will explore the following ...

• What is Science?
• Is real Science based on laws that cannot be broken?
• What is the difference between Microevolution and Macroevolution?
• Where can I learn more about real Science?
• What is Religion? What is a modern definition of Religion?
• Is evolution a Religion?
• Disproving evolutionary religion with science
• What is Creation Science?




• What is Science?
When someone mentions the word “science” in a discussion concerning “origins” we ought to quickly think (and ask)... 

“What do you mean by science?” Do you mean Observational Science or Historical Science?

There are two categories of Science. Observational (experimental) and Historical.  

Observational Science involves the science of the present - “here-and-now” science.  Observational Science is what’s used to understand gravity, atomic structure, and mathematical integers.  Observational Science results in medicines and technology and is observable, testable, and repeatable. 

Historical Science involves the science of the past. Historical Science is what’s used to determine the age of the earth or how animals have “supposedly” evolved over time.

Molecules-to-Man Evolution (and Creation by God’s Spoken Command) are not observable, testable, or repeatable. 

Historical Science is based in part on testimony -  it can be the testimony of God (Creation) or the testimony of men (Evolution). Who should we trust concerning Historical Science - God (who was there)  men (who were not)?

Professionally Unethical to Confuse Observational and Historical Science
Dr. Georgia Purdom
(Source: http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/georgia-purdom/2014/09/16/professionally-unethical-to-confuse-observational-and-historical-science)


(Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-HiHNhKuJM)
(Source: http://www.worshiphousemedia.com/mini-movies/22615/Check-This-Out-Science)
(Source: https://vimeopro.com/icr/thats-a-fact/video/34689424)



• Is Real Science based on laws that cannot be broken?


The Law of Cause and Effect
The Law of Cause and Effect states that every material effect must have a cause (antecedent). The Law of Cause and Effect, or Law/Principle of Causality, has been investigated and recognized for millennia - even written about by Plato (in his work Phaedo) 360 B.C. “Every student of logic knows that this is the ultimate canon of the sciences, the foundation of them all. If we did not believe the truth of causation, namely, everything which has a beginning has a cause, and that in the same circumstances the same things invariably happen, all the sciences would at once crumble to dust.”
(W.T. Stace, professor of philosophy at Princeton University, in A Critical History of Greek Philosophy)

The Law of Cause and Effect is not, and cannot rationally be, denied - except when necessary in order to prop up a deficient worldview (like Naturalism, Evolution, Darwinism, and Atheism).  

A house must have a cause - namely, a builder. It will not build itself.

Scientists and philosophers recognize that, logically, there must be an initial cause of the Universe. Those who attempt to argue the eternality of the Universe are in direct contradiction with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Law of Cause and Effect supports the creation model, not the atheistic evolutionary model. 
God and the Laws of Science
The Law of Causality, Apologetics Press, Jeff Miller, Ph.D
(Source: http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=3716)


The Second Law of Thermodynamics
One of the very strongest arguments against evolution has always been the tendency for every system, living or dead, individual or societal, moral or mundane, to wear out, deteriorate, or die. As is common to all experience, nothing, absolutely nothing, gets better on its own. This tendency for decay has been recognized as one of the basic laws of nature. First codified in science, and dubbed the second law of thermodynamics, it has now been recognized in every system of thought, including genetics. However, notice that evolution proposes a directly opposite tendency. Subatomic particles evolve into galaxies; molecules evolve into men, although spontaneous increase in order has never been observed.  
Are Things Getting Better or Are They Running Down?
ICR, John D. Morris, Ph.D
(Source: http://www.icr.org/article/1133/248)


Source: https://vimeo.com/36589114

The Law of Biogenesis
As scientists study nature, they observe that certain things happen with astounding regularity. One of the things that happens regularly is that living things always come from other living things. Scientists have known this for many years. In 1858, a German scientist by the name of Rudolph Virchow stated it like this: “Every cell arises from a preexisting cell.” In 1860, Louis Pasteur, a famous French scientist, said: “Every [biological] living thing arises from a preexisting living thing.” Two very famous experiments were done in the past that helped to disprove the false idea of spontaneous generation (that in nature life came from non-life). These experiments also helped scientists to identify the Law of Biogenesis.
The Law of Biogenesis, Apologetics Press
(Source: http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=2&issue=840&article=1970)



In a letter that Charles Darwin wrote to J.D. Hooker (February 1871), he makes the remarkable suggestion that life may have begun in a “     ... warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.”  

Of course, this assumption relies heavily upon faith. There has never been a scientific observation of life arising from non-living matter (abiogenesis).

Law of Biogenesis, Creation Wiki
(Source: http://creationwiki.org/Law_of_biogenesis)


(Source: https://vimeo.com/89607795)


Conclusion. Because Evolution-Darwinism-Naturalism violates these three laws (Cause and Effect, Thermodynamics, and Biogenesis) we should not consider it real science, but religion masquerading as science.


• What is the difference between Microevolution and Macroevolution?

Microevolution is an uncontroversial, well-documented, naturally occurring biological phenomenon. It happens every day. It is the process whereby preexisting genetic information is rearranged, corrupted, and/or lost through sexual reproduction and/or genetic mutation producing relatively small-scale (“micro”) changes within a population. Two long-haired dogs producing a short-haired puppy would be an example of microevolution.

Macroevolution is the theoretical extrapolation of microevolution that requires the introduction of new genetic information. It is believed to produce large-scale (“macro”) changes. An amphibian evolving into a reptile or a reptile evolving into a bird would be examples of macroevolution.

Summary - so called “Microevolution” (changes within a kind) has been observed - therefore it is science. Macroevolution (change from one kind to another) has not been observed and therefore is not science.
When Creationists say they don’t believe in evolution, they are not talking about microevolution. They are referring to macroevolution. 
(Source: http://www.gotquestions.org/microevolution-macroevolution.htm)






• Where can I learn more about Real Science?


(Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOhXJZ61y3g)
Prof. Stuart Burgess (1:13:59)

(Understanding Observable vs. Historical Science)
(Source: https://answersingenesis.org/store/product/what-science-pocket-guide/?sku=00-1-091)


(Source: https://answersingenesis.org/store/product/why-biblical-creation-good-science/?sku=30-9-492)




• What is Religion? What is a modern definition of Religion? 

There are two basic approaches to defining religion: a Substantive Model, which focuses on the content of belief; and a Functional Model, which focuses on what the belief system does for the individual or community. 

The Substantive Model generally defines religion to the range of traditional theism: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and so on.  

The Functional Model, in contrast, is more inclusive. By defining religion according to its social function, the functional model treats religion largely as synonymous with such terms as cultural system, belief system, meaning system, moral order, ideology, worldview and cosmology. In other words, a functional definition describes religion as “a set of beliefs, actions and emotions, both personal and corporate, organized around the concept of an ultimate reality.” This “reality may be understood as a unity or a plurality, personal or non-personal, divine or not, and so forth, differing from religion to religion.”  

Such a definition clearly encompasses the worldview of Evolution and Humanism. U.S. courts have moved from a generally substantive definition of religion (affirming a deity) to a functional definition of religion. [1]

Conclusion. Using the Functional Model of religion most people are religious (including Atheists, Darwinists, and Evolutionists because all of them have a worldview).

[1] Is the religion of Secular Humanism being taught in public school classrooms? (United States v. Kauten, Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, Torcaso v. Watkins)
(Source:http://www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/sum-g002.html)


(Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ahN9bCgkRM)
Randall Niles



• Is Evolution a Religion?
Michael Ruse (an Atheist) says yes. “Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion - a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit in this one complaint… the literalists [i.e., creationists] are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”
 
Michael Ruse, “Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians,” National Post (May 13, 2000), B3.
(Bio - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ruse)


(Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RLcfwAYCjQ&list=PLSfYBmiEHmePb7AisrNE3eMA4SvXwAe2E&index=2)
Truth in Genesis




• Disproving evolutionary religion with science (Dismantling Evolution’s Three-Legged Stool)

• Leg One - Something cannot come from nothing. If someone believes that something can come from nothing - have them explain using easy to understand science.

Video - Origin of the Coca Cola Can (1:58)
(Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGy7jRi2-uY)
 
Illustration - The Empty Piggy Bank
How can something come from nothing? (It can’t) Imagine an empty piggy bank - nothing in it. We tape it up and put it in a closet.
We come back later that day; will there be any money in it? (No) We come back in a week; will there be any money in it? (No)
We come back in a month; will there be any money in it? (No) We come back in a year; will there be any money in it? (No)

Let’s imagine that we were able to come back in a million years; would we expect to find any money in it? (No) The passage of time doesn’t change the fact that the piggy bank will be empty.

Now, let’s make that piggy bank a little bigger; about the size of the Universe. Once again it’s empty. If we came back in millions of years would we expect to find anything in it? (No) The passage of time doesn’t change the fact that the Universe will be empty. Some people believe that over time an empty Universe can all of a sudden (almost by “magic”) have something in it. That’s not very scientific - that’s like a fairy-tale for grownups.

 • Leg Two - Life cannot come from non-life
Louis Pasteur proved this and the Urey-Miller experiment failed.

 • Video - Louis Pasteur (1:53)
(Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qKtqEWEfEY)

 
Illustration - No Chance of Life by Chance
In the 1700’s many scientists believed that life spontaneously generated from non-living matter (such as raw meat or sewage). In the 1800’s, using careful experimentation, Louis Pasteur proved this concept wrong and verified that life only comes from previously existing life. Yet today most [Darwinist] scientists persist in their “belief” that life arose from non-life (in spite of the evidence clearly indicating that it could not happen). One experiment that is often used to support the belief that life “built itself”, is an experiment conducted by Stanley Miller in 1953. In this experiment sparks were discharged into an apparatus, which was circulating common gases. These gases reacted to form various organic products, which were collected and analyzed. The experiment succeeded in producing only a few of the 20 amino acids required by living cells. Yet the results have repeatedly been heralded as evidence that life could have arisen by itself. Furthermore, the dozens of major problems with this experiment as an explanation for the formation of life are seldom reported. For instance, our early atmosphere was assumed to have no oxygen because this would stop amino acid formation. However, with no oxygen, there would be no ozone shield. With no ozone shield, life would also be impossible. (Note: the oxidized rocks we find in the geologic record indicate that oxygen has always been present.) In addition the same gases that can react to form amino acids undergo reactions in the presence of sunlight, which removes them from the atmosphere. The required gases would not have been around long enough for life to develop.  In Miller’s experiment a cold “trap” was used to keep the reaction products from being destroyed as fast as they formed. Such a “trap” would not have existed in the early earth. Despite assertions by modern Darwinist scientists no experiment since Millers failed attempt has ever demonstrated that matter has the ability to come alive. The best explanation for life is still that “life only comes from pre-existing life.”

• Leg Three - No change in Kinds (Not species - the Bible doesn’t use that word)
No recorded example of fish giving birth to birds (or apes giving birth to man).
 
• Video - No Change in Kinds (5:18)
(Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dACY-bLd7Ck)

 • Video - Man’s Best Friend (1:48)
(Variation Is Limited within Kinds)
(Source: https://vimeo.com/84358279)

The Bible uses the word “Kind” not “Species”
Example - Genesis 1:25, “And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.” (NKJV)
The Hebrew word miyn [h4327] is used in this text

Variations in Stickleback fish. But no change in “kinds” - fish still remain fish.
Variations in Finch beaks. But no change in “kinds” - birds still remain birds.
Variations in Moths. But no change in “kinds” - Moths still remain Moths.

Note: The other things previously mentioned (entropy, thermodynamics etc.) could be used but the author of this blog found these three “legs” easy to understand and share.



• What is Creation Science?
Creation science is the systematic study of nature by scientists holding to the creationist worldview, which asserts that the cosmos and life on Earth are the result of a supernatural or intelligent causation. The term (also known as Scientific creationism) is most often used in connection with religious concepts of creation - specifically, the Judeo-Christian understanding of creation, based on the accounts of Genesis. It is also frequently applied to describe the defense of creationism on scientific grounds. Creation science is primarily concerned with two issues: 1. Understanding the discoveries of science within the interpretive framework of creationism; 2. Documenting and demonstrating how the findings of science are consistent with creationism and inconsistent with evolutionary theory.
[1] Creation Wiki, Creation science, (Source: http://creationwiki.org/Creation_science)

Faith need not exclude science. Yes, faith involves an emotional or heart-felt response to God, but it also involves an intellectual response. Creationists appeal to a supernatural cause to explain a unique event: the origin of the Universe, the Earth, and all life. Evolutionists have limited themselves to purely natural causes; Creationists have not. 

The principle of causality says that every effect must have a prior, sufficient, necessary cause. 

Yes, creation is science. There is nothing about science that prevents a Bible believer from practicing good science, or even investigating the existence of God. 

[2] Is Creation Science?, Apologetics Press, Trevor Major, (Source: http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=381&topic=93)


Most branches of modern science were founded by believers in creation. The list of creationist scientists is impressive. Here is just a sample...


Physics: Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin
Chemistry: Boyle, Dalton, Ramsay
Biology: Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Virchow, Agassiz
Geology: Steno, Woodward, Brewster, Buckland, Cuvier
Astronomy: Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Herschel, Maunder
Mathematics: Pascal, Leibnitz

[3] (Source: https://answersingenesis.org/creation-scientists/the-creationist-basis-for-modern-science)


(Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRbtradNmNI)
Dr. Jason Lisle, Presentation at Calvary Chapel, Sante, CA

(Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOhXJZ61y3g)
Prof. Stuart Burgess