For this Blog I decided to write about something that at times can be rather controversial. It can be wrapped up into two viewpoint or philosophies of scientific reasoning, and why I believe that one view of science is more coherent and trustworthy than the other… Now I want to point out from the beginning, I am not a Biologist, or an astrophysicist… or by profession any field of science, I am a pastor, scholar and theologian, who additionally dabbles in philosophy. That being said I believe two major philosophies of science exist today, and I believe through reason that one is superior to the other.

I want to continue to base my reasoning in a historical understanding of science. Humanistic Science, or science that bases itself in the materialistic (or that which is discoverable) has gained much traction since the mid 1800’s, however for more than a century and a half, Theistic Science, or Science that is attributed to those scientist who desired to know God and his creation…

“Most secular scientists today are driven by their sincere love of science and discovery. While this is a noble motivation, it pales when compared with the inspiration of early Christian Scientists who saw their work as an act of divine devotion and holy worship.”

Wallace “Person of Interest” pg. 187

This statement gives us an indication of scientific motivation, early Christian Scientists, based their theories in a genuine desire to understand God and his discoverable creation in a deeper sense… I am brought to this understanding of Paul’s writing to the church in Colossae

“See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.”

Colossians 2:8 ESV

Since the inception of Humanism, and Darwinian Evolution, some theists have tried to marry Christian Theology with Humanistic Philosophy to create something called “Theistic Evolution”.

I’ve listened to great intelligent discussions on both sides of the isle. Some philosophers and scientist’s who are Christian, hold to Theistic Evolution, but when inspected further these positions basically boil down to the agree’d discoveries of Modern Science. My main issue with this statement, it boils down to a philosophical question, if Modern Science is largely humanistic philosophically, and thus is based in only a limited human understanding… its efforts and opinions are largely centralized in promoting the seen and not the unseen as legitimate sources of evidence.

For instance, some, assert that geological discoveries prove the aging of the earth, not mentioning or giving credence to opposite discoveries that fall into the YE (young earth) category. Such as, in Montana fossil bed’s of dinosaurs found flesh still attached to the bones, suggesting or discrediting the biological decay that would agree with the aging of the Jurassic era, suggesting that Dinosaurs existed only thousands of years ago, and not millions or billions. Additionally, carbon dating outside of 6,000 years is largely suspect and unreliable. But I digress. Theistic Evolutionists, also support that the early history of the earth recorded by Moses on the mountain as Yahweh spoke to Moses as a burning bush, is mainly “Mytho-History” from chapters one through eleven, it’s mythohistory, however I don’t see sufficient inter-textual evidence that would support this claim, again I digress.
If Christians according to Paul in Colossians aren’t to be taken captive, by mindset or worldview, by philosophy, human tradition, based in deceit, or the elemental spirits of the world… and not according to Christ, this seems to set a precedence in Christian understanding, that only worldviews, traditions, and education, worldly principles, (the greek koine word for elementary and principles which is the world used in the NASB translation of the Bible, both are the word (stoicheion) Both in understanding were used as terms of education or learning…) In context with the “traditions of men” it seems that the Christian should be cautious or careful to not be captive to human teaching, philosophy and traditions… hence when we look at Modern Science, what is Modern Science largely based in?

Philosophical Atheism/Humanism

Led by, Hutton, Lyell, Darwin, and Freud and others much of modern scientific understanding, not to mention ancient greek philosophers, comes from the modus operandi that “God does not exist”, hence there “mustn’t be a metaphysical cause”. This causes Modern Science to abandon it’s empirical basis, modern science is supposed to be based in Empiricism (or in the sufficient collection of evidence or data) to arrive at a sufficient hypothesis, or theory… My main point:

If Paul cautioned Believers to not “be taken captive” by Philosophy, Tradition, and Learning that isn’t consistent with Christ, Then we should additionally watch out for the same in relation to humanistic/atheistic philosophy, tradition, and learning that rejects a created universe as described in the Genesis account.

Now I understand that some will try, feebly to show that the “mytho-theory” of recorded history in the Genesis, one through eleven account is a sufficient reason to believe that God spoke days, but meant millions of years, however rational empiricism would indicate that God would have used a different word to describe ‘day’ where he did no such thing, hence I find William Lane Craig lacking in sufficient data to agree with his premise, there is simply no recorded data, that suggests that Moses intended anything other than ‘yom’ or ‘yos’ when God told him that it was “day” and then described/defines what day is…

“And God said, let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. And God made the two great lights — the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night — and the stars. And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, to rule over the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was mourning, the fourth day.”
 Genesis 1:14 – 19 ESV

Rationally speaking, good exegesis of scripture would have us understand, if a constant understanding of day, exists to this day, from morning to evening, and thus a “day” hence “fourth day” as is the same in the three previous days aforementioned, that nothing is different between day one or day four. God created day and night, to separate days and years, and then defined that one period of day and night is one “day”

Mytho-History simply cannot sufficiently explain away a simple definition of ancient Aramaic language…

In fact this rather recent literary understanding of scripture wasn’t even held in high esteem by early church fathers, or Jewish Scholars, Craig only seemed to point to one source in his interview…

Theistic Evolution, looses further creditability as a legitimate argument, when it supposes that “God may have used something like ‘supernatural evolution’” when evolution is based more in blind faith, seeming no legitimate ‘link’ has been able to be provided to prove it’s premise…

Theistic Evolution’s premises seem to be based in the idea of trying to marry Humanistic Philosophy with Christian thinking, yet Paul’s point in Colossians 2:8 is that Christians shouldn’t be taken captive by Humanism or anything that isn’t consistent with Christ… Seeming philosophically Humanistic/Atheistic science at its core is a fundamental belief in Man as its core importance, it’s ideologically incompatible with Christocentric Philosophical thinking…

Additionally, as one further point of reference, from the atheistic/humanistic viewpoint, nothing can never produce something, hence the term ex-nihilio. Even modern science can only prove that life produces after same kind life… Cat’s produce cats, Dog’s produce dogs, chimps produce chimps… If Theistic Evolution is to be held as a legitimate theory of modern science, then I suggest like atheistic evolution, it provide one shred of legitimate empirical evidence of evolution. Which I contend that it will not be able to find even the simplest empirical data to support it’s claim

Now don’t go misunderstanding my premise, this is not to say that being a Christian is to be a science denier, as many misunderstand and misapply this title to Christians, however given the body of evidence that supports as YE view, through scientific discovery, I.e. one would have to simply notice the body of research and evidence collected by Christian Scientists and not simply immediately dismiss as hogwash, or rubbish, but stack the evidences against one another and let science do what science does…

In the end Paul’s warning or caution stands for us today, we should not allow humanist/atheistic philosophy to influence our minds.