They are not because, what it boils down to is the old science vs religion debate. The fact is that science is "discovering" what was in the Bible all along.
When it comes to the theory of evolution, it is only that, to this day: a theory.... even to science.
I agree with what this article exposes (it is actually a lot longer.....
) :
"The definition of science and religionScience, broadly defined, means knowledge. Specifically we refer to science as knowledge ascertained by observation and experiment, critically tested, systemised and brought under general principles.
The term “scientific speculation” is actually a terminological incongruity since no speculation can be called knowledge in the strict sense of the word. At best, scientific speculation can only describe theories inferred from certain known facts and applied in the realm of the unknown.
Religion means a belief in something. Ours is belief in the divine nature of the Bible, divine in source and is the word of God. Being so, it is divine wisdom, and since God is true so is his word. It reveals the truth.
From these two definitions we see that science formulates and deals with theories and hypotheses while Bible deals with absolute truths.
These are two different disciplines and “reconciliation” is entirely out of place. The Bible is the realm of truth of the absolute. It is true not because it has been scientifically proven to be true, rather it is true because the truth was revealed by God. Science does not deal with absolutes, rather it deals with the realm of observable phenomena and produces principles based on its observations.
The problem with the science v religion debate is as previously mentioned – that most people accepted scientific discovery as absolute, which precluded and excluded religious belief.
Even today, some eighty years after the theory of relativity was published, although scientists accept the theory in their professional capacities, they ignore it in the context of philosophical debate, preferring to support old-fashioned ideas of absolutism.
They continue to be governed by ideological preconceptions, even when these preconceptions contradict professional knowledge.
The above is not meant to belittle science or the scientific method, rather there must be a differentiation between ephemeral science and theories drawn from scientific speculation.
This is in contrast to the Bible, which is eternal and immutable. When the word is modified or altered by compromise, to whatever extent, it ceases to be the truth. And the truth remains the same for all people and for all times.
If one accepts the eternity of the Bible, then it would be absurd to say that, while it is true that Bible was given by God, times have changed, as if the Creator and Governor of the universe could not have foreseen that there would be a 21st Century when certain groups of people, such as scientists or “modernists”, would be inclined to accept only a compromised Bible, not the Bible of truth.
Let us note at once that all speculation regarding the origin and age of the world comes within a weak method. The weakness becomes more apparent if we bear in mind that a generalisation inferred from a known consequent to an unknown antecedent is more speculative than an inference from an antecedent to consequent.
Add to this another difficulty which is prevalent in all methods of deduction: Conclusions based on certain known data, when extended to unknown areas, can only have validity on the assumption of “everything else being equal”, that is to say, on an identity of prevailing conditions and their action and counter-action upon each other.
If we cannot be sure that the variations or changes would bear at least a close relationship to the existing variables in degree, if we cannot be sure that the changes would bear any resemblance in kind, if, furthermore, we cannot be sure that there were not other factors involved – such conclusions of inferences are absolutely valueless!
In short, all of the weak “scientific” theories, those which deal with the origin of the cosmos and with its dating, are, by the scientists’ own admission, the weakest of the weak.
It is small wonder (and this, incidentally, is one of the obvious refutations of these theories) that the various “scientific” theories concerning the age of the universe not only contradict each other but, in some cases, are quite incompatible and mutually exclusive since the maximum date of one theory is less than the minimum date of another.
If anyone accepts such a theory uncritically it can only lead him into fallacious and inconsequential reasoning.
Consider, for example, the so-called evolutionary theory of the origin of the world, which is based on the assumption that the universe evolved out of existing atomic and sub-atomic particles which, by an evolutionary process, combined to form the physical universe and our planet on which organic life somehow developed, also by an evolutionary process, until homo-sapiens emerged.
It is hard to understand why one should really accept the creation of atomic and sub-atomic particles in a state – which is admittedly unknowable, and inconceivable – yet be reluctant to accept the creation of planets, or organisms, or a human being, as we know these to exist.
What scientific basis is there for limiting the creative process to an evolutionary process only, starting with atomic and subatomic particles – a theory full of unexplained gaps and complications – while excluding the possibility of creation as given by the Biblical account? For, if the latter possibility be admitted, everything falls neatly into a pattern and all speculation regarding the origin and age of the world becomes unnecessary and irrelevant.
EvolutionFirst and foremost let it be stated that the theory of evolution has no bearing on the Bible account of creation. Even if the theory was substantiated and the mutation of species were proven in lab tests this would still not contradict the possibility of the world having been created as stated in the Bible rather than through the evolutionary process.
How much more so since the whole theory is highly speculative and, although, during the years of research and investigation since the theory was first advanced, it has been possible to observe certain species of animal and plant life of a short life span over thousands of generations, yet it has never been possible to establish a transmutation from one species to another, much less to turn a plant into an animal. Such a theory can have no place in the arsenal of empirical science.
The theory of evolution is a typical example of how a highly speculative and scientifically unsound theory captured the imagination of the masses and has allowed them to dismiss the Biblical account despite the fact that the theory has not been substantiated scientifically and is devoid of any real scientific basis.
It is almost as if the sceptics were searching for a reason to disbelieve. Their misguided axiom was that the Bible is wrong and they needed some replacement theory. Evolution was perfect.
It provided a Godless theory of creation and fuelled the atheistic bent. In truth, that is highly unscientific; pure science must be based on ephemeral data.
Human nature has also affected the debate. Although the various theories attempting to explain the origin and age of the world are weak, they are advanced because it is a matter of human nature to seek an explanation for everything in the environment, and any theory, however far-fetched, is better than none, at least until a more feasible explanation can be devised.
One may well ask why, in the absence of a sounder theory, the Biblical account isn’t accepted by the scientists? The answer is again to be found in human nature. It is a natural human ambition to be inventive and original. To accept the Biblical account deprives one of the opportunity to show analytic and inductive ingenuity.
Hence, disregarding the Biblical account, the scientists must devise reasons to justify doing so and take refuge in classifying it with ancient and primitive mythology and the like, since it cannot be argued against on scientific grounds.
Converging not divergingAs time proceeds science will actually discover the truths of the Bible. Rather than being seen as diverging, science and religion are converging.
ConclusionThe intent of the above is not to cast aspersions on science or to discredit the scientific method. Science cannot operate except by accepting certain working theories or hypotheses, even if they cannot be verified, though some theories die hard even when they are scientifically refuted or discredited. No technical progress would be possible unless certain physical laws are accepted, even though there is no guarantee that the law will repeat itself. However, science can only deal with theories, not with certainties. All scientific conclusions or generalisations can only be probable in a greater or lesser degree according to the precautions taken in the use of the available evidence, and the degree of probability necessarily decreases with the distance from the empirical facts or with the increase of the unknown variables etc. Bearing this in mind one will realise that there can be no real conflict between any scientific theory and the Bible. On the contrary, a careful analysis of the findings of modern science and their philosophical meaning shows a convergence and harmony of science with Bible.
Many today have become alienated because of the tremendous, almost hypnotic, effect of a seemingly omnipotent science. Thousands justify their secularism by the “fact” that they are “more enlightened“ than past generations. Many in the religious camp choose either to ignore (or ban) the discussion of the development of science and technology, or to adjust Bible to modern thought. In truth, neither approach is credible.
The correct approach is that there is no reason for the Bible believer to be frightened by the science and technology explosion, or to take an apologetic position.
The Bible is the blueprint of creation, and the finished product (the universe) cannot contradict the blueprint by which it was designed.
By definition, the Bible is Divine wisdom. The Bible is therefore the only ultimate source of true, complete and definitive knowledge about everything, including the objects and phenomena which science examines.
Bible knowledge stems from a perspective “from Above”, whereas scientific knowledge, obtained by the rational processing of empirical information, stems “from below”.
Ultimately, these fountains will converge.
Accepting Darwinian evolution requires a leap of faith that may be more radical and less substantiated than to believe that God created the world in six days and on the seventh day He rested."
) :
understanding and perspective regarding this issue. So I defintely don't want to miss any updates...