How can a Ph.D. honestly believe that
the Bible is not a myth?
Background: During a casual conversation June 21, 2001, I
brought up an anecdote taken from the Bible. I
was asked, “Is the Bible a good novel?” My
reply was that it is much more than that, and in fact, true. The question followed, “How can a Ph.D.
honestly believe that the Bible is not a myth?”
After a short dialog on the subject of the parting of the Red Sea, I was asked to
present a one-page scientifically sound proof that the Bible is true (sorry, it’s
more than one page).
To believe the Bible, one must believe in God. The converse may not be true to everyone. Since I believe the bible to be the inspired Word of the true God, I find it difficult to present evidence for one without application to the other as well. Therefore, the approach of this short article is to prove both the validity of the Bible and the existence of God at the same time, as they cannot be separated.
The body (sea of evidence) of this reply lists some of the many objective evidences of the existence of God and the Bible’s validity. First, I feel it is important to touch on a few surrounding issues to establish some perspective. Note that reference [1] contains much of this material.
Our origin is crucial to our meaning and purpose. If we were put here by a Greater Power, then we should seek the Greater Power for our answer. If we are simply a product of millions of years of selective processes, i.e. organic evolution, then we are free to define our own meaning and purpose according to our own will.
The Theory of Organic Evolution (often taught as proven fact) is one of the great obstacles of our time inhibiting belief. This widespread teaching, as both fact and in harmony with the scientific method, is portrayed as the knowledge of the intelligent. At the same time, it discounts belief in God and special creation (the most extraordinary of all biblical accounts, found in Genesis) as a belief of those who choose to remain ignorant, as in the dark ages, and refuses to look at the “facts.” Arguments to support this assertion usually refer to times when our fathers of science endured persecution when confronting the false teachings of the church. I.e. the Earth is round and revolves around the Sun. However, these teachings are not found in the Bible (as commonly thought). The lack of such scientific blunders (quite unlike other ancient writings) presents itself as evidence for the Bible’s validity.
This discourse turns the tables. Here, I present objective evidence towards the Bible’s validity, and of course, God.
There have been many theories of origins, many mythical with few people believing in them anymore. By far, the most popular in the educated world today are Creation, Organic Evolution, and (don’t laugh) Alien habitation.
Many attempts have been made to unite the first two. This results in many quandaries. For example, the Genesis account clearly states that Adam and Eve were the first humans to walk on earth, having been made by the hand of God. This forces one to pick and choose. To choose the literal biblical account sounds remarkable and mythical. The evidence in the body of this discourse is equally remarkable and certainly not mythical, therefore making this Bible-recorded event quite consistent with other observations and thus believable.
I suppose many readers will have laughed at my inclusion of alien habitation as a serious theory of origin. However, it is inevitable that science will prove, and there will be widespread acceptance that, the theory of organic evolution is nothing more than another of science’s blunders (as it is already doing). As it is virtually impossible to believe in nothing, and many refuse to believe in God regardless of the evidence, the next best escape is that aliens put us here. This is already under investigation as we have huge radio telescopes looking for extraterrestrial intelligence and we examine many meteorites for evidence of extraterrestrial life forms. Such proof is just the avenue needed to migrate from one scientific blunder to another, avoiding the fact of God and the Bible.
Note that I haven’t said that there is no organic life other than on Earth. God’s creativity and design are evident from the infinitely small to the infinitely large. The more we dig into subatomic particles, the more we find. The deeper we go into the ocean depths, the more we find. The further we look with more powerful telescopes into the universe, the more we find. I’m not going to postulate a limit to what else God has done without His Word as my guide.
The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world. (Taken from http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html.) It has four basic steps: 1) Observe and describe phenomena, 2) Formulate hypothesis, 3) Develop predictive model, and 4) Test model by several independent experimenters.
We can observe the results of our origins (many years later), but not the actual events themselves. We can, and do, formulate numerous hypotheses. Predictive models tend to be quite obscure, yet quite intellectually satisfying. However, the essential step can never be done for origins. To say that the theory of evolution follows the scientific method (usually implying that special creation does not) is simply wrong.
I want to avoid games of semantics. Evolution is change. Things change. I can prove that things change through the scientific method. Therefore, evolution is fact. It is so proven that we can ascribe it to law. This is the semantic game played on the less-informed public. Statements such as these are made boldly over and over again until they are believed – believed in excess. While the word “evolution” simply means change, it’s more common perception is that of organic evolution, the gradual change from one species to another, generally from simpler life forms to more complex. When educators are pressed on their intent when they claim evolution to be fact, they revert to the former use of the word evolution. But the context in which they present evolution as fact is most often the later usage of the word. This constant semantic-switch works to obscure the beliefs (in the name of science) from the proven facts (pardon my redundancy), which are relatively few and support only a very limited evolution – never from simple life forms to complex, and never with added abilities such as flight, sight, hearing, walking, etc.
Bias is virtually unavoidable, particularly with theories of origins because they tie so deeply with religious faith. I am biased. I search more for evidence proving God and the Bible than not. One cannot say the same is not true for the other side. Even the agnostic is not free from bias. They often believe that origins cannot be proven and therefore don’t give either view much consideration. However, bias can change with one’s knowledge and will.
Just because religious leaders of the past have opposed famous scientist and their findings and claimed their “truth” to come from the Bible, doesn’t make it so. In fact, the Bible doesn’t support those medieval notions. Somehow these notions, i.e. the world is flat and all heavenly bodies revolve around the Earth, have stuck to the Bible. Some still believe the Bible says these things. It doesn’t. I’ll save the contrary to the Body.
No. I say “no” because confrontation with facts in this way rarely produces good results. This is written for two purposes: for the unbeliever so they may know that a scientific mind and faith in God and the Bible are not mutually exclusive; and for the believer so that they know that their faith is not based on feeling alone. For unbelievers that read this, I hope that enough is retained so that when that time of search for meaning comes, they will know there are real answers. For everyone, I present proof by the preponderance of the evidence.
Since we cannot use the scientific method to prove any theory of origins, we must look at evidence. For some, just a fragment of evidence is enough. For a scientific mind, as with a court of law, much more is required. Evidence to one side must far outweigh any other. Furthermore, we must leave no other reasonable explanation even if no supporting evidence exists to support that explanation. The following satisfies both in abundance, with examples from most fields of science and other objective fields.
Here I present several cases which I believe present clear evidence that the existence of the Universe, Earth, and ourselves is not the result of a random, chance event, but rather the work of an intelligent creator. Furthermore, evidence showing the Bible to be true and His Word to us is presented.
I start with biology. Much of the information presented is common knowledge, presented as both a reminder and a self-testimony against the evolutionary dogma of most experts in the field. (Again it is dogma because rather than using concrete evidence to support evolutionary claims, proponents make statements such as, “Any intelligent biologist today accepts evolution as fact.”)
From there I move to geology–another field that excludes the creationist viewpoint with dogma rather than facts. Here several very crucial points are made that are suspiciously omitted from the classroom.
Biology is certainly at the heart of any theory of origins. Modern science has unlocked the secrets of the energy of the stars, but has yet to produce a life form of any kind from non-living matter. Creationists see life as the crowning glory of all creation as the shear complexity of the simplest of life forms is staggering. Evolutionists refuse to fathom the magnitude of this complexity (yet they do a great job in studying it). If they did, they would have to admit that there is no way life could come from non-living matter without the hand of a master designer. Here, I’ll simply point out some of the blatant quandaries with evolutionary thinking. i.e. accepting for the moment that life somehow does evolve from one species to another, we still have some major problems:
For evolution to have occurred, the separation of many types of life (such as warm-blooded, and cold-blooded) had to occur before development of many remarkable senses and abilities. Even though their methods are different, their results are similar. Here are some examples:
Sight:
We still don’t know what light is (we can only express it mathematically and observe its effects). If not for our own sight, it seems quite unlikely that we would have stumbled upon its detection and made so many modern uses from cutting to communications. Yet, it is proclaimed that evolution has done it several times–independently. There are insects with aperture optics (please explain to me how a mosquito sees), we have single-lens optics, trilobites had an inorganic (calcite) double lens with 100 to 15,000 lenses in each eye. Considering our own eye, our scientific advancements still cannot match the specifications of the human eye. The peripheral vision, dynamic range, resolution, depth of focus cannot be matched. This complex optical device develops quite repeatably without precision instruments for precisely forming all the critical dimensions. They just grow that way from a precise blueprint encoded within our DNA. And who could draw such a blueprint?
Flight:
It took mankind (with his ingenuity and concentrated design) many centuries to figure this out, even with so many working examples! Yet there are mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, invertebrates and vertebrates, warm-blooded or cold-blooded, all have achieved this remarkable ability…by chance?…Independently?…In so many ways? Is flying really that easy that it just happens so many times?
Hearing:
Again, a very complicated process, achieved with many interdependent parts, has been achieved in such a multitude of designs and abilities. Our own hearing is in no way less complex than our sight. It is truly remarkable that tens-of-thousands of bats can use sound alone to navigate in pitch darkness without colliding with each other in flight or the walls. Did sonar develop twice? Once in water and again in air?
Smell:
How did evolution know to develop complex chemical sensory mechanisms to detect molecules floating in the air or water? Again, vertebrate or invertebrate, warm-blooded or cold-blooded, all benefited by smell have it; not halfway, but each designed according to their requirements. Consider that the sense of smell in many animals such as dogs far surpass our very best intelligently designed instruments.
Navigation:
Birds and other migratory animals somehow navigate over long distances. Somehow their directions are programmed in their brains. Now we know that it’s even programmed in microscopic strands of DNA. Not only birds have achieved this incredible feat. Insects do it. So do mammals. How could we get along without a semi-circular canal? Somehow many creatures have an essential instrument necessary for balance–and not just balance, but also highly sophisticated biological control circuitry that perfectly coordinates a broad range of motor activity with the senses. Could this highly sophisticated process have evolved so many times in various ways? Is there yet a man-made device with the coordination of a mouse, or a fly, or even a flea? – No.
Mimicry: How can chance-evolution make an organism look
like its surroundings?
Many species mimic their surroundings or another creature. Some are masters of camouflage. The last page shows some examples. We’ve all seen walking sticks, but how about a moving leaf (see pictures). I’ll avoid asking the question, “Did the leaf evolve from the insect, or the insect evolve from the leaf?” Oops, I couldn’t resist. How about the devilfish? Would you have spotted that one while swimming by?
The decoy fish (Decoy scorpionfish Iracundus signifier) and many species of anglerfish bait their prey by mimicking worms, fish, shrimp, etc. They mimic the movements as well as the looks. Many moths scare away would-be predators with large “eyes” on their wings. To fool six-legged ants, the eight-legged spider can hold up his front two legs, pretending they’re antenna.
Symbiotic
Relationships: How can two species that
require each other evolve together?
There are many symbiotic relationships: i.e. when vital needs of one species can only be met by the other and visa versa. Here’s a quote from http://waynesword.palomar.edu/ww0902a.htm about the yucca plant:
What truly sets this genus apart from other flowering plants is their unique method of pollination: A specific moth that is genetically programmed for stuffing a little ball of pollen into the cup-shaped stigma of each flower. Like fig wasps and acacia ants, the relationship is mutually beneficial to both partners, and is vital for the survival of both plant and insect. In fact, yuccas cultivated in the Old World, where yucca moths are absent, will not produce seeds unless they are hand pollinated.
Other symbiotic relationships exist among fish and cleaner fish, the ants of the acacia tree (as mentioned above).
That’s
incredible: This list could be long list of
interesting things, but I’ll keep it short.
· There’s even one case where an animal has traits that are quite a collage of the above, but with no close relatives: the duck-billed platypus. Evolutionist like to point this interesting creature out as the missing link, but to what is it linked?
· On the picture page, you’ll find the African bombardier beetle. It can aim it’s potent spray in virtually any direction and hit the target with extreme accuracy. The spray comes out at 100°C (boiling hot) and consists of toxic, explosive fluid that lets off a loud bang on detonation. The chemicals are mixed inside the bug with an inhibitor. On release with the anti-inhibitor… BANG! Without all the pieces to this artillery mechanism, it would just blow itself up–not particularly beneficial for evolution.
· Warm blooded and cold blooded animals have a lot of the same functional features, yet their biological systems are too different for one to have come from the other. Birds, which were supposed to have come from fish or reptiles have lungs of tubes while reptiles have lungs of sacs.
· Eyes can detect single photons.
· The dynamic range of human ears is an astounding 120dB (loudest sound 6 million times the pressure of the softest audible sound).
· The sense of smell is so keen in many species so that a single molecule can be detected.
· A cheetah can run 70mph.
· Some insects can sleep 17 years.
· Waddell seals can dive 1500 feet, holding their breath 45 minutes. Elephant seal: 5000 feet.
· Ink-shooting octopuses can eat their own arms and grow new ones. Anglerfish grow new bait within days.
· Archerfish can shoot water 15 feet into the air hitting a bug.
· Iron-eating bacteria can live 10,000 feet below the earth’s surface, enduring pressures of 7000psi and scalding temperatures of 185°F.
· Some bats can find their own young in a dark cave of millions of other bats. Not by sight, or sound, but by smell.
I’m not talking about a few marvels. Practically every living specie presents its own unique marvels and perfection in design. The list is so huge that there simply is no reasonable explanation, but by intelligent design by a creator. Reference 2, written by a biochemist (not a creationist), shows many examples of design in biochemistry and argues against Darwinism. I expect many scientists in the coming decades to leave the evolutionary beliefs in favor of design simply because the scientific evidence is overwhelming. The real question is, will they admit it was God, or embrace aliens. Already much study is underway at NASA looking for alien life (anything but God).
Perhaps the most fundamental tool of geology is the geologic column and timetable. Here rock strata are stacked upon each other according to presumed age. The time periods have been divided up and named, each designating a time period measured in millions of years. Each time period, and thus layer of strata would contain fossils of life present during the respective period of time. Many people today are led to believe the following:
• The model was formed from real observations (it is not).
• The age of the layers was determined with a reliable radiometric measurement (not).
The first misconception is only partially true. If one is allowed to take strata from different parts of the world, they can (and have) come up with such an arrangement. But real observations are full of gaps and reversals. The Grand Canyon has less than half of the systems. No place on Earth can be found that even closely resembles such a model. Here’s a difficulty: there is a block of strata 350 miles by 35 miles by 6 miles thick located on top of “newer” strata. Why is it newer? Not by radiometric dating, but by the species of fossils it contains. Since we “know” that those species only lived during predefined periods of time, we know the age of the strata. How do we know when they lived? By radiometric dating? No again. By the complexity of the life forms. Evolution teaches us that simpler life forms came first. So strata containing only simple life forms are older. This circular logic (assume evolution to define geology, then use geology to prove evolution) is insulting to the meaning of science.
The second misconception is only partially true again. First, much of the geologic column was determined in the 19th century, before radiometric dating was even imagined. With the invention of radiometric dating, if its results confirmed the model, they were heralded, and if they didn’t they were dismissed. Is that dogma or what? Granted, radiometric dating is based on more “exact” science. But not without the following assumptions:
• The rock contained no daughter product atoms in the beginning
• There have been no migrations of either parent or daughter atoms changing their ratios
• The rate of radioactive decay remains constant.
The first assumption is perhaps the most dangerous, but conditions can be made that even the second and third can be questioned. Furthermore, since we need to calibrate our measurement with known samples, we’re forced to use an enormous extrapolation from hundreds to billions of years.
As Geology has a fundamental tool (the geologic column) it also has and underlying assumption: uniformitarianism. i.e. the processes that shape our world today are the same as those thousands, even billions of years ago. This leaves little room for the fundamental creationist (and Biblical) answer: the flood of Noah (a world-wide flood about 2500 BC). As the continents, erosion, and sediment deposits are slow processes today, the assumption of uniformity provides the geologic answer necessary to describe the Earth and its inhabitants as ancient (millions of years). One difficulty with uniformitarianism is the presence of fossils at all, particularly in vast density and quantities. There is virtually no fossils being made naturally today as even bone rots before it can be covered up.
The Biblical
answer to Geology:
A great flood would (and did) greatly speed up erosion (the carving of canyons), redeposition of many layers of sediment, and perhaps even influenced continental drift. Virtually all creatures we find in fossils were separated not by epochs, but were all present during the days of the flood. They were separated physiologically and ecologically as some would be found in different parts of the world and they have differing mobile abilities (more “advanced” life forms would tend to seek shelter and high places while less mobile creatures would be more subject to the cataclysm).
Geology has clearly failed to prove an ancient Earth. Yet, there are certain aspects also noted in the Bible that gives an appearance of age. For example, the Bible says,
When I consider your heavens,
the work of your fingers,
the moon and stars,
which you have set in place, … Psalm 8:3
This and many other scriptures (particularly Genesis 1) indicate a quick creation. Change from there on (true evolution) is slow. Comparatively, there is no movement. Even the speed of galaxies estimated at 1.1 million mph, cannot compare with the speed by which God set everything in place (or motion depending on you’re perspective). As He set them into place, it’s as if they had always been there. The Earth was never a ball of molten rock. If it were, it would have had less character than the moon. It was made ready to be inhabited with a whole array of interdependent life forms. 1656 years later, the Earth was full of life, all but destroyed by a great cataclysm: the flood of Noah. The result: The outer layers of the Earth’s crust are greatly changed with many new layers containing the life from before, some become fossil fuels, others strata of rock laden with fossils. As the waters rose, animals congregated in the high places and caves. Their tissues were covered quickly before they could rot and be scattered. The process was so quick that in some cases we even find prey in the mouths of predators. We find men’s footprints coincident with prehistoric life forms. After that, the non-marine animals that survived are those that have their ancestry rooted in the inhabitants of that large boat. Not all marine life could survive such an event. Many perished in the currents of sediment and left to fossilize from the mountains to the ocean depths. These sediments, clearly deposited by water were left over ¾ of Earth’s surface.
The picture (model) I just gave is most consistent with observation. I didn’t make it up. Most of it is found in a book written before the knowledge of fossil fuels. If the story had been made up (as many others are), it would certainly have made mistakes that can be proven false by science; such as, the world is flat. In fact, the Bible says otherwise, even in a very figurative language:
Do you not know?
Have you not heard?
Has it not been told you from the beginning?
Have you not understood since the earth was founded?
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
And its people are like grasshoppers. Isaiah 40:21
Other
Difficulties of an Ancient Earth:
• The decay of the Earth’s magnetic field indicate that it is less than 10,000 years old. (If science can use the uniformitarianism principle why can’t we?)
• The Mississippi River delta volume indicates a 4000 year process.
• We’ve been taught that fossil fuels take millions of years to create (because evolution is assumed), yet we can do this in hours in the lab.
• The slowing of the Earth’s rotation, recession of the moon, atmospheric helium content, and decay of comets (and lack of generation of new ones) indicate a young solar system.
• Lack of evidence of meteor strikes in geological deposits indicates that the deposits were made over a short period of time.
• Our population should be greater, even when allowing for famine, disease, etc.
Difficulties with the Fossil Record:
• There is no evidense for gradual organic evolution. The theory requires the intermediates to be very numerous (something like depicted in the Star Wars movie). Yet we find each true to its kind. (When I use the word “kind” I’m not referring to the term as used in the Linnaean taxonomic system, but rather those with the ability to interbreed, producing non-sterile offspring.) To rectify this quandary, the evolutionists have come up with the “punctuated equilibrium” concept where many changes occur simultaneously. WOW! Please refer to the statistics section for help with how unlikely this is.
• Except for those that are clearly extinct, the fossils are very close matches to current species, even after centuries of variations due to breeding and the variations (genes) left behind at the flood.
• Polystratic trees have been found. i.e. they span multiple layers of sediment. Not only was the sediment put there quickly, but the next layer followed close behind.
• Making of fossils requires quick coverage and pressure before the victim has a chance to rot.
Before Leaving Geology, Consider
Uniqueness of the Earth:
• Distance from the Sun just right.
• Rotation speed is just right
• Near circular orbit keeps temperature variations under control
• Temperature extremes further moderated by the greenhouse effect.
• Moon’s distance (if 1/5 the distance, the continents would be submerged twice per day)
• Axis tilted 23 ½ degrees for seasons
• Has a protective ozone layer
• Atmosphere protects us from 20 million meteors per day
• Bountiful supply of water
• Many more examples could be listed
Is it possible that the Bible contains insight into modern physics? Consider these scriptures:
With my great power and outstretched arm I made the earth and its people and the animals that are on it, and I give it to anyone I please. Jeremiah 27:5
Ah, Sovereign Lord, you have made the heavens and the earth by your great power and outstretched arm. Nothing is too hard for you. Jeremiah 32:17
Let all the earth fear the Lord;
Let all the people of the world revere Him.
For He spoke, and it came to be;
He commanded, and it stood firm. Psalm 33:8-9
It wasn’t until less than a century ago that we came to realize through the brilliance of Einstein, that energy and mass are intimately connected and can be changed from one to another. These verses (and others) state that it all came to be from his spoken word (or desire) and power. Nothing more. Power is simply energy over time. I propose (as the literal interpretation of Genesis) that the heavens and earth were created over an extremely short period of time. Just as the following verse and many others state, God has the power necessary to do the job:
Great is our Lord and mighty in power;
His understanding has no limit. Psalm 147:5
Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen. Ephesians 3:20
I don’t believe that the writers of the Bible knew the full implications of what they were writing about (nor do we). However, I believe God, who inspired the scriptures did. I find it an interesting piece of evidence that God who holds the universe in his hand found it fitting to whisper in our ear a key piece of puzzle of the universe that would only be discovered many centuries later.
A laymen’s understanding of statistics is the “slam dunk” of all proofs for intelligent design. Again, either it came together itself by random processes, or it was designed. There simply are no other choices. Even the alien theory would have to answer, “who made the aliens, or how did they evolve.”
For our statistics demonstration, we use the following information:
• Number of electrons in the universe: 1080
• Time span allowed for production of one simple life form: 30 billion years
• Rate by which the selection process can run: 109 trials per second
• The number of basic building blocks in the simplest possible life form: 201 (NASA claims it would take 400 for the most basic of life forms.)
• Number of types of building blocks: 4
• Number of chemical constituents to choose from (including the 4 above): 24
For our demonstration, we want to generate just one polynucleotide (one of two strands of DNA) with 200 amino acid residues. We’ll disregard numerous other requirements and assume that all we need to do is put 200 together in a chain in any order and we’ll have our first life form. Let’s help the process even more: we’re going to assume that our “primordial soup” is extremely concentrated with just the right 4 amino acids. In fact, 4 of 24 molecules are the one’s we need for our chain. So we have a 1:6 chance for each link in the chain. Also, we’ll let the primordial soup pot be extremely large, i.e. larger than the size of the known universe because each time we stir the pot 1 billion times per second for 30 billion years, we’ll give each electron in the universe one chance to see if a chain can be made. So what are the chances? 1 in 4.5*1048. NO CHANCE! This number would be written out as
1 chance in 4,500,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000
This is a smaller chance than being able to pick out a single atom of all the atoms that make up the earth on the first try.
Anyone familiar with biology knows I’ve absurdly given evolution every chance. Most matter is found in stars and other bodies in which organic life has no chance. The pot was well suited with favorable chemical reactions guaranteed at extremely high frequency for a very long time. If I had used reasonable numbers our chances would be so remote as to make this demonstration look good. Consider the chances of the following that we already took for granted:
• All required constituents are present at the same location and time.
• The conditions required for reaction is good.
• There is nothing to inhibit the reactions.
I wouldn’t be too surprised if we are someday able to make self-replicating organic structures, although we’re a long way off right now. Just keep in mind how much easier it is to put a deck of cards in order using intelligent decisions than to blindly shuffle them into order. For reference, the human genome has approximately 1,660,078,000 bases.
Now, I turn more towards pointing out how Bible is consistent with archaeological findings (unlike what you would expect from a myth). Biblical accounts were under much skepticism in the 18th and 19th centuries. Since then many of the critical claims (typically of cities presumed to be mythical) have been answered with new archaeological discoveries. Here are a few interesting examples that were formerly claimed to be mythical:
• Philistine temples have been excavated and found to have two central pillars about six feet apart that supported the roof. This matches the scenario in Judges 16 where Sampson killed thousands by breaking down two such supporting columns.
• The city of Jericho has been found and verified that the walls fell and the city burned about 1500 BC, coinciding with the Bible. Furthermore, the outer wall fell outward. Only a small portion of the city walls did not fall, just as in the Biblical account.
• Sodom and Gomorrah were found to be destroyed at the same time (about 2000 BC). The region is rich in sulfur, salt, and tar. The very elements of destruction as in the Biblical account. Many salt pillars are there as well.
• There are many more interesting archaeological discoveries that support the biblical account. Reference 3 is a good source for many of them.
The Bible is full of prophecy. This could be interpreted as teaching or future-telling. The later is extremely important because by the fulfillment of prophecy, we not only conclude that the bible is true (as many other historical documents), but also from God, for who else knows the future? Here are just a few of the many examples that are proven to be fulfilled:
· Genesis 6:3 puts a limit to man’s age of 120 years. Previously men commonly lived much longer. Soon after the curse, no one was recorded to live longer until recently when one woman lived to 121. Accepting that this age is not mistaken, I’d consider a 1 in 10 billion chance of passing the limit a very good limit. For such an old manuscript to still remain valid for so many years even with great improvements in environment, nutrition, sanitation, and medicine is remarkable.
· Daniel predicted all the world empires from his time until now. He named the two in which he lived (Babylonian, and Persian), named the next that came after he died (Grecian), and described the next and final world kingdom as one of iron. We now know it to be the Roman Empire. Since then there have been no more world empires. Napoleon tried it, but failed. So did Hitler. The Bible’s prophecy still stands.
· In Genesis, a serpent was given a curse to crawl on its belly. Could it have had legs? Could the writer have known that snakes would later be shown to have remnants of legs? Check out recent fossils: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/haasiophis000316.html
· Jesus fulfilled 332 distinct prophesies in His life4. Given a ½ chance for each, still the probability of any one man fulfilling all these is more remote than that strand of DNA we tried to construct earlier.
And now for the answer to the original question. It’s the same as I replied then: “God did it.” The reply may still be the same: “But that’s not a scientific answer.” However, I’d say it is, as science is about finding truth. I can’t show it by the scientific method, but other evidence shows it to be true. Sometimes God works in ways we can explain away with natural phenomena. Others, such as creation of the universe, the earth, life, and man, we cannot. If we could, then the atheists would have their point. The proof of God is simply that there is no other explanation. Even the assumption of aliens implies that they came from somewhere. If that were so, I (and others) have showed that It couldn’t happen without intelligence in the beginning. Therefore, there must be a God. The Bible said the same thing, only better, long ago:
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. Romans 1:20
1) Because there are too many references, I want to suggest one in which most of this information is found, particularly evolution, which is complete with further references: Huse, Scott M. The Collapse of Evolution, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1997.
2. Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, The Free Press, NY, NY, 1996.
3. Henry H. Halley, Halley’s Bible Handbook, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1965.
4. Max Lucado, He Chose the Nails, Word Publishing, 2000, 96.