Some Thoughts on Creation and Science

The Bible is a supernatural book.  It begins with a "bang" (if you'll pardon the "origins of the universe" pun).  Right out of the gate, we are confronted with what many deem "the preposterous".... a Triune God, speaking the universe into existence.

Originally (there I go with the puns again), "science" meant "knowledge".  Traditional science and faith are largely incompatible.  Here's why:
Observational Science operates on the premise that, if something can't be proven (tested and repeated), it can't be fact.  Usually, scientific proof is derived through the "scientific method" (on the face of things not a bad way of doing things), which depends heavily on observation via use of the five human senses and other observational tools.  "Preconceived notions" or "prior knowledge" are not allowed unless that information has been similarly proven.  Specifically, because some "god" declared truth - - that information is irrelevant to most traditional scientists.  Faith is considered to these people a liability because it works against "objectivity".

Another kind of science is Historical Science, that is, science which deals with the past and so can't today be directly tested or observed.  Historical Science must be "discovered" or "interpreted" according to a person's worldview, because it extrapolates current rates and processes, back into the past.  Christians who are also historical scientists begin differently than do traditional scientists.

Christian scientists (not the denomination) begin with the declarations of God, found in Scripture.  They then interpret natural phenomena in light of God's written revelation.  They have found a remarkable amount of congruence, as technology has progressed, as additional discoveries have been made, etc.  Obviously, this method of deciphering our physical world is diametrically opposed to the traditional method in many ways.  However, Christian scientists also apply the scientific method, using their five senses, where applicable.  They believe that, properly applied, the scientific method supports the biblical account.

Creationism, or Creation Science, is the belief system, founded on the Bible, which asserts that God created all, living and non-living.  One of the most contentious aspects of science is when and how life originated.  Answers in Genesis, a historical scientific organization promoting Creation Science, calls origin of life the "holy grail" of traditional scientists seeking to explain how life "randomly emerged out of nothing". The theories and models of Creation Science are based on beliefs and suppositions which stand in opposition to evolutionary assumptions.  (Note:  assumptions, not "facts" because we are talking about historical science here).  Creationists deem the Bible as the basic, irreplaceable source of information, adopting that information as the key to understanding our natural world.

When interpreting the Bible, it is best to interpret it literally.  The Jewish rabbis have a methodology called PRDS (pronounced "par-des").

• P stands for P'shat, the plain, clear meaning of God's Word, the literal meaning.  
• R stands for Remez, which takes into account the phenomenon of "precedent".  In other words, where was the concept or truth first mentioned?  What was the context?
• D stands for Drash - - the application level.  "How do I apply this in my life?"
• S stands for Sod, the more obscure level, sometimes even the hidden level, where symbolism is present; the deepest level of meaning

Notice in all the above that "literal" interpretation is first.  When a literal meaning is present, it should be respected and embraced.  

There is nothing in the biblical account of creation that argues against a literal interpretation.  Some would argue that it is just too incredible to be taken literally - - that the infinite, triune God could somehow not create all that is in six, 24-hour days.  Others would argue that "it really doesn't matter".  The following quote is quite relevant to this point:

"The same scientific majority that denies all of Genesis 1-11 also insists that science shows that virgins don't and can't have babies, and dead men don't and can't rise from the dead.  All those biblical accounts rise or fall together."  - - Mortensen

Some Christians think that the biblical account can be reconciled with evolutionary theory if the "six days" are viewed figuratively, instead of literally.  However, when followed through in detail, the order of events in Genesis 1 do not line up with the order of events put forth by evolutionists.  It is not just a matter of how much time passed during creation; the order of events are divergent between the two belief systems.

Therefore, I will choose God's Word over all others.  In this ongoing exposition of Genesis, the literal, six days of creation account will be embraced as utter, complete Truth.

Ok, next post . . . B'reishit (really!)  ;)


Source:

https://answersingenesis.org/creation/