Description
Historical vs. Operational Science: Why Knowing the Difference Between the Two Matters
When one considers the major accomplishments by scientists today, Historical science seems to play little if any role. What do medical researchers, rocket scientists, automobile engineers, nutritionists etc. need to know about radiometric dating, abiogenesis, macroevolution or the Big Bang when it comes to new breakthroughs in their fields? And only Operational science and not Historical science can make full use of the acclaimed scientific method
Description
Summary: We have seen that evolution is a lie, because it is contrary to Scripture. We have looked at the nature of evidence, and found that false things like evolution can have evidence. We have considered how science is sometimes wrong, and how evolution is one of the places where science is wrong. Next we surveyed several of the countless pieces of evidence for evolution, and the weaknesses of that evidence. Creationists see similar weakness in all evidence for evolution. Finally, we evaluated who defines science, and that the scientific community overwhelmingly accepts evolution as having evidence.
Evolution will never make any progress at reaching any truth, wherever it is attempting to explain the result of a miracle through natural means.
Description
I claim that, using current evolutionists’ methodology, many of their claims cannot be validated as true or false. This is because they claim that specific evidence validates the truth of evolution, but when contrary data appears they claim that is evidence as well. Cornelius Hunter explains the problem well: "There is nothing wrong with a theory that is comfortable with different outcomes, but there is something wrong when one of those outcomes is then claimed as supporting evidence. If a theory can predict both A and not-A, then neither A nor not-A can be used as evidence for the theory." Evolution, as it is promoted today, does exactly this as I show below.
Description
If the title sounds familiar, there is a reason. It was the official theme of the debate in February between Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis and Bill Nye, the “Science Guy.” Ham did a credible job in defending Genesis but was limited in the time he had available to cover all the bases. So, I have become brave enough to try to accomplish the task of answering in more detail the question the debate theme poses.
Description
Why Evolution is First and Foremost a Religious Belief By Jeffrey Stueber published in parts in 2013 and 2014. Part 1: Humanism. Part 2: The New Age Movement. Part 3: Evolution and Politics.
Description
Evolution's "Dirty Little Secret" is Satan's "Clever Little Trick"
This article is an editorial comment by LSI Journal Editor Warren Krug.
Science and religion are really not compatible, but for many scientists it is advantageous to claim that they are. Because liberal religious people have been such important allies in scienc's struggle against creationism, groups such as the National Academy of Sciences state that religion and science are not in conflict.
Ed. Comment - Watching Out for What Your Child Watches
Description
Can Science in the Bible be Used as a Witnessing Tool? by Dr. Donald Dwight Johnson
In my opinion, the following instances of science in the Bible may be helpful in witnessing to those who believe science has discredited the Bible. Witnessing Tool One: Biology and Medicine. Witnessing Tool Two: Ocean Springs and Ice Caps Witnessing Tool Three: Astronomy Witnessing Tool Four:Dead Sea Scrolls.
Description
Why Evolution is First and Foremost a Religious Belief By Jeffrey Stueber published in parts in 2013 and 2014. Part 1: Humanism. Part 2: The New Age Movement. Part 3: Evolution and Politics.
Description
Why Evolution is First and Foremost a Religious Belief By Jeffrey Stueber published in parts in 2013 and 2014. Part 1: Humanism. Part 2: The New Age Movement. Part 3: Evolution and Politics.
Ed. Comment - More Research; Humanity is Declining
Description
Critique of B.C. Johnson's Atheist Debater's Handbook. "While there will continue to be skeptical arguments against the possibility of divine design, this essay has shown that, despite the appeal to common sense, a large portion of skeptics' arguments simply have no logical appeal."
Description
Smart People Do Doubt Evolution by Jeffrey Stueber
Evolutionists proclaim only the ignorant have doubts about evolution. However, some very intelligent non-creationists like Richard Milton, David Stove, Norman Macbeth, David Berlinski, and Michael Denton have shown otherwise.
Description
Excerpt: "Albert Einstein's General and Special Theories of Relativity predicted time dilation and space curvature, both of which have actually been observed. Such confirmations are strong indications that the basic theory is actually true. Young earth creationists are particularly adept at shocking the materialistic scientific community with expectations which turn out to be verified."
Description
The Place of Reason in Defending the Christian Faith; with ministry ideas regarding creation/evolution 32 pages. Published in 4 parts during 2012 and 2013
Part 1 What the Bible Teaches about Reason
Part 2 Scriptural Examples of Arguments from Reason
Part 3 Skeptics Exposed to the Gospel
Part 4 Ministry Considerations Regarding Creation
Appendix:Examples of Creation Arguments by WELS Authors
What then, is the proper place of reason in defending the Christian faith? What are proper and improper ways to defend the faith? Is there benefit in telling a Christian about the scientific problems with evolution? Is there benefit in telling an unbeliever about the scientific problems with evolution? This treatise addresses these questions from Scripture (the sole source of all true doctrine), shows supporting quotations from confessional Lutheran authors, looks at biblical examples where Jesus and his apostles used arguments from reason, and considers various ministry applications.
Views expressed in LSI Journal articles are those of the author or editor and not necessarily the view of LSI. Articles published in the LSI Journal have been committee reviewed for accuracy since 2010.