Finding healing from confusion, narcissism and trauma in Christ the Healer

Why is it bringing us closer than ever to proving God is real?

Understanding the dangers of behavioural science and manipulative psychology

Episodes in the battle for truth.

Derek Bownds and Paul Luckraft review ‘The New Creationism’ by Paul Garner (Evangelical Press, 2009).

Topics like Creationism can often be daunting to many, including those with a strong desire to understand but who lack a scientific education. Here is an accessible book on the topic - although, by the author’s own admission, it is still challenging in places. However, on the whole Garner has succeeded in laying out an oft-confusing topic in a digestible way for lay readers, providing a sufficient summation without overplaying the detail.

Dual Approach

His general approach is to start with the scientific evidence and ask which worldview it best fits: Creationism or evolutionism. For instance, he tackles the Big Bang by outlining the three main pieces of evidence that support this generally accepted theory (weak radiation, red shift expansion, the light elements) and then explaining deficiencies – often overlooked - which cast doubt on it. He follows this up by proposing a Creationist theory of cosmology (pp23-31).

His secondary approach is to start with statements proposed by evolutionists and test them - scientifically, critically and objectively. Together these two strategies provide a very satisfactory methodology which every reader should be able to appreciate.

Topics of Interest

As part of his overall argument in support of a Creationist worldview, Garner provides several smaller sections on specific topics. There is a useful summary of the uniqueness of the earth (the ‘Goldilocks planet’ – with conditions ‘just right’ for life) and its atmosphere relative to other planets in the solar system.

There is also a helpful mention of the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) project – perhaps unfamiliar to many, but undoubtedly of great importance in shedding new light on the problems with radiometric dating techniques. In Garner’s words, RATE is “one of the most ambitious creationist research initiatives ever undertaken” (p98).

Garner has succeeded in laying out an oft-confusing topic in a digestible way for lay readers.

The chapter entitled ‘A Youthful Creation’ is particularly helpful, easy to understand and convincing. In this section the author argues that an average population growth rate of just 0.5% (half of what it is today) “is sufficient to generate the present world population from just two people in a mere 4000 years” (p116).

Two chapters are devoted to the Flood as a global catastrophe, with a robust defence of the biblical record. The Ice Age is also examined in detail - it is fascinating to be taken through the argument for just one Ice Age, post-Flood (as opposed to the common view of multiple ice ages). Garner concludes that the pattern of extinctions in the scientific record is more consistent with a single ice age, casting doubt on the idea that these creatures survived up to 50 earlier ice ages before becoming extinct in the last one.

Regarding the origin of life, the author includes some interesting observations from those engaged in such research but who discount the biblical position. For some, the search for the origin of life is ‘a kind of religion’ in itself, albeit an immensely frustrating one, since it remains one of the great unsolved riddles of science. Every step forward simply creates another alternative theory instead of a solution. All that is gained is a greater sense of the magnitude of the problem of explaining the origin of life without reference to God.

The book ends with a short epilogue reminding us that there are over 200 New Testament quotations from, or references to, Genesis, many from Jesus himself, with 63 being concerned with its first three chapters. There follows an extensive glossary (to help with scientific terms), good endnotes, a substantial bibliography including websites, and an index.

What Garner does so well is to make it legitimate to query some of the fundamental claims of evolution, while positioning Creationism as a truly viable alternative.

A Welcome Addition

Overall, what this book does so well is to make it legitimate to query some of the fundamental claims of evolution, while positioning Creationism as a truly viable alternative. Although mostly concerned with scientific arguments, Garner ventures a little into the field of biblical interpretation, though his use of the King James Version for Scripture quotes may not help in communicating to a more modern generation.

Garner is humble and gracious when it comes to big, divisive issues, recognising that “there are fellow believers who see these matters differently” (p74). He is also realistic about the nature of scientific enquiry, acknowledging that there are often scientific arguments and observations that support a different view from the one he is proposing, and that in many areas “there are bound to be large gaps in our understanding” (p87).

The New Creationism is a welcome addition to the ongoing debate and should help put the topic back on the agenda for the whole Church community.

‘The New Creationism’ (300pp, RRP £10.99) is available here for £7.79 – also on Amazon in paperback and Kindle.

Reflections following the death of Stephen Hawking.

Following the death, last week, of Professor Stephen Hawking, many tributes have been flowing across the scientific world and surfacing in the media. One example comes from the University of Cambridge, where he spent most of his academic career (see here).

When I was at the University of Cambridge in the early 1970s, I would often see him being helped out of his disability vehicle at the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics. There was already an aura surrounding him - perhaps a combination of respect and wonder at the perseverance of such a crippled young man and an acknowledgement of his sharp mind.

So, whilst agreeing with much that has been said following his death, I would like to add a word of caution concerning the exciting scientific theories of our day.

Taking Hypothesis as Fact

Despite all the hype, there is much speculation that requires us to have discernment in these days of growing deception. Are there really black holes? Is there really such a thing as Hawking Radiation? The popular press frequently takes as fact what the scientific world presents as hypothesis.

Furthermore, when we follow the trail of a theory through to its consequences, we often discover that a scientist is really trying to advance an agenda – perhaps trying to explain the origin of the universe or the nature of life. These experts are trying to find answers as much as the average citizen. The next step is to claim that their theories cancel out a need for a Creator God. This was the case with Hawking – which should be a prompt for us to suspect his entire hypotheses.

The popular press frequently takes as fact what the scientific world presents as hypothesis.

There is so much of this sort of thing rising to the surface today that we must see science as a potential tool for the powers of evil. When a humanistic media reports on scientific theories that feed a humanistic, atheistic mentality, we have to be careful that we are not drawn in to accept what is simply speculation, thinking it fact.

Popular Science

If I were to speak even more strongly, I would say that more and more, public presentations of science are far from good science. One reason for this has been a drive in recent years to popularise science. Richard Dawkins had this remit for some years and this resulted in an out-and-out attack on those of us whose faith is founded on biblical truth. With little opportunity for Christians to respond within a media biased towards his point of view, Christians have talked more among themselves than on a public platform.

Then there is David Attenborough, who for many years has brought to the television spectacular programmes on wildlife and pictures of our planet. With modern-day camera facilities what has been presented has been truly spectacular. Yet, there is a difference between spectacular photography and the validity of a scientific commentary that is more founded on unproven evolutionary theories than on hard science. And so, the truth about Creation is hidden from public view.

Now, another popular presenter, Professor Brian Cox, with his colleagues, has come centre-stage, feeding the public beguiling arguments about the origin of the universe as he presents spectacular images of outer space. Indeed, views about the so-called ‘Big Bang’ origin of the universe and Darwinian evolution are not so much argued as assumed, these days. For many scientists, it is not worth risking their career to argue otherwise.

Scientific Proof…or Faith?

Yet, science can never take us beyond conjecture when the instruments used to investigate theories of the origin of the universe are themselves part of Creation. Thus, all science must start with hypotheses and all proofs must be based on assumptions. Therefore, scientists who claim to have ‘proved’ theories such as the ‘Big Bang’ and evolution (and I might add to this the Theory of Relativity) must have based their ‘proofs’ on assumptions.

All science starts with hypotheses and all proofs are based on assumptions.

Any scientist knows this, but it is a fact that passes the general public by in popular presentations. It is when the assumptions become a sort of faith that we must be even more concerned, and that is where science is taking people today.

Among the basic assumptions of more and more scientists these days is that there is no need to believe in a Creator God. This is the strange ‘faith’ behind much science today, but it is as insecure as the sand on which Jesus warned his hearers that we should not build.

Writing God Out

Just as scientists must have a sort of ‘faith’ in order to claim proof of their theories, so have Christians - though in quite a different way. Secular science’s faith is that there is no God. Our faith is founded on the Rock that is Jesus, who was with the Father at the creation of the universe.

The tool for recognising error in the beguiling scientific atmosphere today is the gift of discernment. We must test all things and the beginning of our testing is to recognise the foundations on which ideas presented to us are built – foundations not of truth, but of belief.

Stephen Hawking was a remarkable man, but he was a man who did not believe in the God of Creation. With all due respect to his amazing life, his humour, his ability to communicate despite severe bodily limitations, he was, nevertheless, a man. We serve the God whom he chose to write out of his scientific theories.