Bretanark Blog Books Contact

<

Why I believe the Bible is true
Science vs. academia

Science is the unbiased arbitrator of the truth.  Reproducible experimentation develops theories into laws of nature to reliably predict outcomes in other cases.  Science demands the unbiased consideration of all possible theories until these can be eliminated as infeasible.

Academia pushes one to focus with all one’s strength on a specific theory and to defend this vigorously.  Academics become so invested in their theory, that they by consequence reject all others.

Deuteronomy 6:5 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.

Academia’s focus often displaces God as the one to whom devotion is due.

The academic peer review process brings collaboration to reduce error from one individual.  However, it’s too often a peer pressure process, limiting the exploration of alternative ideas.  Creation scientists struggle with mainstream journals for this reason as the fundamental rule is violated: “thou shalt not even allude to the possibility that there could be a God”.  Any, who mention God, are shunned from mainstream academia, denied academic recognition and funding, and shamelessly ridiculed for their naive antiquated beliefs.

Science has not proven for or against God.  Evolutionary “science” merely presents a well-collaborated story of how everything could have come about spontaneously, yet flexible enough to keep revising their theory as contradictions arise.

I believe it impossible to prove God’s existence by natural means.  It’s like trying to measure time with a ruler.  Time and space are complementary, yet mutually exclusive dimensions.  Matter, as the third dimension of the physical universe, can’t be measured with a ruler or a stopwatch.  One can measure the effect of the passing of time with a ruler.  In a similar manner, God is perceived by his effects on the natural world or by direct interaction spirit-to-spirit.

Graduation cap

So, as long as science cannot disprove God’s existence, it is dishonest to reject this possibility, in fact, we must continue to investigate this possibility until a contradiction is reached as its disproof.  The same applies to evolution, which fails this test miserably.

 

>