History Of Faith And Science (part 3)

The Pre-Copernican Controversies and the Rise of Modern Science

So we are in lesson three the present debates if you remember lesson one we talked about the pre Copernican controversies those were the ones before Copernicus. For those who don't know Copernicus was a 16th century astronomer really marks the watershed.

The beginning of modern science in the world. In the Western world certainly and. And we we talked about. Some controversies first of all is the universe eternal or is it finite. Did it have a beginning that make that matters, right?

It's theologically really important, so if you don't have a beginning. It's questionable whether you have a beginner right you have a creator you have a creation. It's cause and effect the the universe is not self-created or self-existent.

That's pretty important theologically. Second one we talked about was the shape of the earth. Okay, if you guys will ever seen those ionic those new I talked to John about this ionic commercials with Jason Bateman.

And he goes on our journey. We've come a long way. And he gets to he goes through these historical little few second vignettes of you know. Our first language wasn't really a language this guy sees a caveman guys and the guy grunts, and he goes well done.

Thank you. That's why I want that's why I want my meat cooked right. And he gets to. Our first maps really weren't that accurate. And he goes a group of guys, and they're dressed in medieval costumes, and he goes guys.

You know the earth is actually. Do you have a ball you know he's just trying to teach them? Conceptually how we've moved along so that was the second one we talked about right the shape of the earth. Is the earth flat or is the earth spherical and.

The descriptions from the empirical study of nature and a study of scripture on the face. Value level seem to conflict, so how do we put those together? And third one we talked about was the antipodes.

Does anybody remember what the antipodes are? Just in brief general idea. Kind of a word I hadn't heard before the antipodes. Yeah, yeah, it means in Greek it means opposite feet or anti feet. It means there's people standing on the upside down on part of the earth right and that was that was kind of a Speculative discussion.

Well we talked about eventually how that was through exploration. We discovered people did live on the others there were lands that was dry land and there were people on the other side. So we're going to talk about today, and then we last week of course we talked about the solar system Galileo Copernicus Kepler and how the church kind of dealt with the rise of modern science with biblical interpretation.

The Pressing Faith-and-Science Questions Today

So the first thing I want to go over is what are the pressing faith and science questions today? Certainly not non-controversial special creation versus Darwinian evolution. Secondly and your handouts will come into play here shortly.

Mostly toward the middle in the end so you can just bear with me with this PowerPoint the first one special creation versus Darwinian evolution. The second debate is the historicity of Genesis 1 to 11 and of Adam and Eve.

And third is the age of the earth and cosmos features of historical science, so let's talk about. Things that we can't repeat. We can't do experiments to test. These are one-time events, and we're doing kind of a CSI.

What happened. So the first is examined historical science examines present effects and draws inferences back. To suspected causes in the past that's the number one feature of historical science. Number two is circle science uses a combination of testimony and physical evidence to make a case.

Okay, it's not what we got. Somebody said something. They gave us their testimony that settles it or. Because we're dealing with science in the past it leaves traces all right you go somewhere. Especially nowadays you're gonna leave DNA.

You throw your straw in the basket your DNA is on their fingerprinting right video cameras okay. People there are crimes committed and their video cameras everywhere nowadays right so you leave a trace if you've done something.

You have witnesses also the whole New Testament. Gospels are based in acts are based on eyewitness accounts of real events live and in person. That's called direct evidence. That's a very powerful powerful thing.

And our faith is actually based on eyewitness testimony all right. That's part of historical science. Thirdly a circle science employs what's called abductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is mathematically perfect like two plus two equals four or.

The classic Greek syllogism. Socrates is a man. Sorry all men are mortal. Socrates is a man therefore Socrates is mortal. That's called deductive reasoning. Okay. It's it's factually true if your premises are true.

Inductive reasoning says okay, I'm observing the world. So I think this is how it works, so you're making observations, and you're kind of making a leap of logic a Step saying I'm going to infer I'm going to say this is where it leads to next that's called an inference or inductive reasoning.

Abductive reasoning is actually its inference to the best explanation that accounts for all of the evidence. I'm going to illustrate that here in a second. Historical science always answers what likely happened rather than what happens habitually or what will happen predictably, okay.

They study plane crashes to figure out what happened to say that well when these conditions are there. We don't want to fly in those because what will happen is a plane will crash right? That's an application of inductive reasoning what usually happens, and what will likely happen if we do this okay?

You're kind of inferring What will usually happen or might happen. Weather prediction is? An example of What will happen based on conditions computer modeling and things like that circle science doesn't work that way and as a result?

The second bullet down there the conclusions from historical science are necessarily more tentative or Less certain than those from operation or experimental science, and that's important when we talk about this debate models.

We're going to talk about in the origins debate. We have to kind of hold them a little more tentatively. Because we're trying to explain. What's the best explanation for all the data for the text? Why is it written that way?

Why does it tell us that why did that person say that and why does the What is nature look the way it does that's what we're looking for. Next the uniformity of the laws of natural processes is assumed now you say I can hear and some people say well.

You're making uniformity me you know uniformitarian assumptions. Every model makes some assumptions of uniform uniform charity. That's the world we live in. The interesting thing is if Healthy live people usually stay alive and suddenly they're dead you say that's unusual.

How did that happen and we're going to talk about it how to think through that from like a CSI model? For example if you have you ever have it like an all chocolate ice cream. You ever have a death by chocolate like chocolate ice cream chocolate sauce chocolate whipped cream anybody ever eat that.

It's actually kind of overwhelming isn't it by about the third spoon you're like man my taste buds can't handle all this chocolate, right? But when you have vanilla with a little bit of hot fudge men a hot fudge tastes good right stands out.

And I view kind of the uniformity of Natural phenomena over time to be kind of like that. Miracles and intelligent agency stand out, and that's why we're talking about the flow of natural history. That's really important because if there's a creative event it should be detectable and so we'll talk about that.

Examples of historical science applied our medicine. You come in with symptoms the doctor says well. What did you do? How do you feel and he uses reasoning to say well? What caused that present feeling?

Did you get something did you go to a Paul McCartney concert and get exposed to a whole bunch of people? So maybe that's why you're sick. Okay things like that law. Every day right you present a case the best explanation for what we think is a crime or a civil matter CSI you get a crime scene.

We're going to talk about a second. Paleontology. Paleontology is you've discovered stuff on the ground that looks like certain things. How do we explain it? Okay, fossils are one good example of that then archaeology.

Do we have you know we're excavating all the time new things and. That's actually pretty important biblically because they are subject to verification archaeologically, and I think. There's very few examples where you know there are questions biblically it tends to back up the biblical text almost all the time.

The more we discover the better it is. So I'm gonna give you a CSI example unattended death scenario. This is how historical science works. We've got a human body discovered in a room. Recent story guys comedian Bob Saget, right?

There's an example. Nobody was there. There's no eyewitness no note. We examine the physical evidence to develop a theory about what happened. It's four possible causal explanations for that. The first explanation is could be natural could have died of natural causes.

Processes a normal operation. It could be accidental which involves unexpected external events. Flower pot falls off the mantle or higher probably unless you're really short. And it knocks you out, and there should be evidence of that because an accident.

Suicidal involves causation and intent by self agency. Okay, so we talked early about is the universe self-created. Well. That's kind of an example of self agency. I have the power and did something to myself with intent.

Homicidal involves causation and intent by an outside agency. Somebody else came in and did something to me. There should be evidence of that. And the best theory accounts for all the physical evidence.

Now if you walk in a room. There's just a body with no other evidence. You got to examine the body to find out or things around the body to find out is there anything. And in the case of? Bob Saget they found out there was something.

His head was injured. He died likely of a head injury went to sleep thought nothing of it. Perhaps he died of a heart attack his left hand was around here right lying flat on his back of the bed. No signs of foul play no signs of forced entry all those kind of things so.

That's kind of how Historical science works we reason from effects observe or phenomena observable in the present. Back to past causes, and that's what we're really dealing with it with origins. We're really dealing with that kind of process.

Species Fixity and the Question of Biological Change

So the first issue we're at issue number five out of eight. Species fixity. I know if you ever heard this term before. But in the rise of modern science the idea was that God created every species. We know on the world as.

Is today it never changed? Well as we started to get explore the earth and. And see other countries were realized. Oh, there's things that kind of look what we knew like what we knew about but there's things that look a little different and so.

Secondly the biblical data. Really doesn't mention much biological change, so it's like kind of like the antipodes doesn't mention if there are other people. The scriptures don't mention biological change, so there's not a whole lot of data from scripture.

We look around and my cat still my cat dogs tend to be dogs right. Species and animals tend to stay they look the same. Maybe they have spots. Maybe they're big maybe they're small, but they tend to stay within a certain range of variation.

The fossil record once we hit 1600 and beyond the evidence there was evidence of extent. Extinctions and unknown species we hadn't seen before. That kind of led to a theory of biological change. You folks all know the to the Latin two-word system for everything that exists every biological.

And you know plant animal has two names Latin names. That came from a guy named Carolinas Linnaeus and Linnaeus came up with that system, and he was a species fixity guy. He didn't think that these things changed which because he thought hey we could they're in categories they're gonna stay in those categories, let's name them and let's put them in boxes and let's classify them and.

The church didn't have a problem with that again because there's no clear biblical text that prohibits it and our experience matches with it as well. So earth age here's here's a real interesting one so the scripture text of Genesis 1 Gives us a six-day creation historical narrative, okay, that's that's our basic testimony of creation divinely inspired given to us to work with.

We have a historical interpretive tradition of 17 centuries of church history the church until 1700 or so. Never varied from their interpretation that that referred to a literal six days. In eight around 1650 our Archbishop James Usher a in Irish Pastor Actually did a chronology a very detailed chronology.

Just added up all the genealogies with some outside kind of cross-checking. Plus the six days and he came up with a date of creation of 4004 BC now that was done around around 1650 published his work and it appeared up until I want to say the late 1800s and a lot of Bibles is like this is it you King James.

It's like this is it here we go. It wasn't until again some subsurface exploration revealed layers of strata strata with fossils and evidence of extinctions and new body plans. So it appeared that some of the species who were created Weren't around anymore and some of the ones We have now may have changed.

Geology there was an estimate by Lord Kelvin where we get the Kelvin temperature scale British scientists he estimated based on if the earth were molten to start the rate of cooling he assumed Uniformitarian rates of cooling and he came from the estimate 20 million years.

This was in the late 1800s. Radiochemistry didn't exist until the 20th century and then they came up with a date of six. Up to 4 .6 billion years for the age of the earth and then astronomy 13 .8 billion years.

So from this brief kind of overview, you can see how you've got, you know, a very short time on one side. And this couldn't be more different. You've got millions and billions of years on the other side.

So, how do you put those two things together which seems so far apart? I'm not going to give the answer necessarily. I'm going to give you On your handouts here in a minute the models that are that are given to kind of reconcile the two.

The Three Questions in the Creation Debate

So what are the key questions in creation debates? I'm going to suggest to you There are three key questions who or what created did God create or did natural processes create? For any given phenomena that we see in the historical record.

Secondly, how were things created? Was it through special transcendent divine acts? Or providential natural processes. And thirdly when things were created is the third question either recently or Anciently, by the way, if you look at a geology textbook, you know what the definition of recent is.

It's less than 8 ,000 years ago in the Holocene period so kids. If your mom asked you what was the last time you cleaned your room say mom, I cleaned it recently. Don't do that, but you can make a joke and you can all laugh about it, but that's a deaf my colleague I work in a science field and one of my colleagues is a geology textbook glossary of Geology and he's the one who brought that up.

So Dino if you're listening. Thank you for that. Yeah, 8 ,000 years considered geologically recent. So let's start dealing with the question of biological change a little bit more in historical science.

William Paley and the Watchmaker Argument

This is William Paley. William Paley was the what we I guess you could say the popularizer not necessarily the founder because this was a Doctrine that goes all the way back to Augustine. But really the modern popularizer of a of what we call natural theology.

The idea is basically see. It's a practical outworking of the doctrine of general revelation. So if if the scriptures say that God can be known Through His divine attributes and his existence can be known through a study of nature the natural world around us.

Due to the order and the majesty of creation. Then we should be able to know at least that there is a God and we see evidence of him in creation. That's what natural theology is. And he wrote a book called natural theology of the existence and attributes of the deity.

Collected from the appearances of nature. The thing I love about old books is they always had this long run on titles and that was the full title but with Paley. He came up with a famous watchmaker maker analogy or watchmaker argument.

It's an argument for divine design in nature also known as the teleological argument teleology is goal directedness or end. Of Thomas Aquinas and all the way back to Augustine as well. It's a theism proof now.

Why was he doing this? Why was he writing this? Paley was addressing the growing heresy of deism and what is what is deism? What is the the heresy? Why is that a heresy? What is that deism? Where does it come from?

What is deism? In general if you don't know I can say yes exactly. So God set the world in motion and he kind of leaves it alone. And that's where the watchmaker analogy comes in right you set a watch you make a watch.

It wind it up and let it go. Okay, that's what deism said. That's not Christian theology. That's not biblical theism. And so what what Paley did was he kind of said? No, that doesn't match with the evidence.

We look at the room. We look at the undetected death scenario. We look at past history and we say it doesn't present that way. That's not how the universe looks. It looks like it has a purpose. It looks like it was divinely created.

It can't be explained by what we know of natural processes or pure accident its purpose there's design and it's all right there. Richard Dawkins you probably heard him famous atheist Richard Dawkins Mocked Paley's analogy in his book the blind watchmaker and argued that nature is not good or designed.

Paley said it's as if the watchmaker put on a blindfold and made a watch. It's terrible. Okay, that's an atheistic argument. That's not a theistic argument be aware of that. So when you hear that that's what he's referring to that's what that title refers to.

Intelligent design movement of today. How many have heard of the intelligent design movement? It's out there a lot of people, right? It's it's an attempt to explore the world scientifically. Searching for is their purpose and design in nature in the natural world.

Can we see evidences of it and A Discovery Institute is probably the modern Gold standard for advancing this natural theology and Paley's original argument Watchmaker analogy for the universe looks designed because it is okay.

Yes, I think that was. I think he had borrowed that from somebody but he was the first one who really popularized it. No, he was he was a Christian theist. In fact, he wrote other books About the history of the Gospels and other things Really Intense theological works.

This is more of a popular work to to combat the growing Trend of deism in England and America at that time. No, it was exactly the opposite. Yes, so he would say things so he would say things like Yeah, so Jonathan's comment in case you couldn't hear it is Jonathan always heard that the watchmaker God wound up a watch and just let it go Was an argument for deism instead of against it.

That's that's actually what the deist used but What Paley argued is well the watch is just if you're walking in a park and you find a watch you conclude That the watch was made by an intelligent agent.

So it's a very restrictive kind of art. It's a restricted argument. But he went on in his book to explain why the eye the human eye is Intricately designed and those those arguments that it couldn't have been by chance.

It couldn't have been by by whatever means Necessary without an active causal agent an intelligent designer. It couldn't have happened. That was his whole argument. So good question though. Yeah, but but the whole watch thing, you know is an analogy that can be used either way God just wound it up and left it or the watch itself Forget the so that focus on the running of the watch after it's made.

Paley said well the watch is made by somebody who knows what he's doing and has a purpose to tell time. That's why the watch is there. So that's why the teleological all this has a and time is running.

So I apologize Steve. Did you have a comment or question? You got it. Okay good. So the next guy Charles Darwin Chaz Chuck The origin of species he wrote that book in 1859 by means of natural selection of the Preservations of featured races in the struggle for life.

That's the full title Charles Darwin. Charles Darwin lived from 1809 to 1882. So he he was born just after I believe Paley. Sorry if this messes up the 1805 so he was born four years after Paley died.

Paley's textbook on the one using the watchmaker analogy was required reading in Cambridge when Darwin went there. Darwin was very familiar with that argument. Darwin however had a daughter that died young and That radically affected him.

He originally trained in theology Changed the science from there and gradually became depending on who you read an agnostic or an atheist over time very sad story, but He was the one who's generally credited or blamed depending on your position with these concepts.

As I said, he was trained in Cambridge in Cambridge in the UK and he read Paley's work and was familiar with the watchmaker analogy. He looked from mechanism apart from appeals to theistic causes that could account for the history of biological development Called natural selection with survival of the fittest.

Now keep in mind that Darwin did not have any Idea of genetics that was still Yet to come so he didn't know how it happened. He just Theorized that it did happen. They saw evidence of change. But again, he explicitly said when we saw four of causal possible causal things accidental natural right suicidal or self-inflicted or Intelligent agency outside agency he said well, I'm gonna exclude the last one.

Okay, it had to happen somehow naturally or something within nature itself that would produce so he went with it with a purpose and that purpose was to basically take the opposite position from theism essentially.

He published the origin of species in 1859 and then he applied those principles to the origins of man in a book called the descent of man in 1871 the latter book again applied these evolutionary principles to mankind and again, they're naturalistic or accidental.

Depending on how you look at it Charles Darwin this whole theory the theory comports or agreed with the modernists. So these are the ones who were more skeptical of biblical religion more skeptical of theism and more skeptical of supernatural causation.

They were known as the modernist and theological liberals who again critique the biblical text and look for reasons why it was not supernatural and was not authoritative and Theorized there lots of errors in it.

So again this kind of fit the times this fit. It was kind of an idea who society as it was going down this deistic road was waiting for okay. So it's why I took off when it came about even with a lot of theological liberals like yeah evolution.

Right less supernatural not more right. Thomas Jefferson famously cut out all the supernatural stuff out of his Bible. That's a Jefferson Bible. That's kind of what we're looking for looking at here. So we have his Charles.

No, it's not really there's a cartoon of Charles on the left. Kind of evolving as we go and I apologize. I don't know exactly where I got that. I just thought it was funny. The middle one is a tree drawn by Ernst heckle.

Does anybody know what Ernst heckle that name ring a bell with anybody? H a e ke L. He was one of Darwin's lieutenants and he came up with the idea that as we develop biologically I heard this in the eighth grade for the first time.

I'm not gonna give you the Latin version of it, but the idea is as we develop we go through our whole evolutionary history. So at some point as we develop in the womb, we kind of have gills we breathe water like fish.

I'm I kid you not this is real and this is what this tree we look like a chicken something. We have like a beak feature something right? We had a tail. It's now gone. It's like the tailbone now, right?

So it's it's an idea that our whole developmental history in the womb Reflects this evolutionary history, right? It's since been debunked it does not believed anymore, but Ernst heckle is the guy that came up with this tree of life the very bottom is your single-celled organisms and from that everything explodes into existence.

So I've seen you've probably seen some diagrams of more of an it's called a Instead of the tree of life sort of the orchard of life if he has ever seen this. It's instead of this one tree where everything comes from.

This is called universal common descent by the way that everything started one organism developed in another organism. Which morphed into another one to another one to another one and everything eventually man's up here.

We ended up somehow at the end of the chain. So that's the idea of the tree of life the orchard idea is that every kind if you will biblical kind has sort of a Point where it's initially created and then it branches off like this.

If you want to turn it upside down instead of one tree that were all descended from an original germ. All men are descended from an original pair all Cats are descended from an original cat, right? So you have these discrete creative events a bunch of trees in an orchard rather than this concept, but this was extremely influential.

People saw that tree we talked about. Mike talked about Aryanism, right? How did they get people to be Aryans back in the day areas with a song? Right like schoolhouse rock. How do you people to remember the Constitution preamble schoolhouse?

It's very memorable. How do you get people to remember your concept of evolution build them a tree grow them a tree? There it is. Gregor Mendel on the right hand side is Was a monk in Germany and he actually through breeding peas Kind of founded the science of genetics.

How do we? Pass on traits how to plants pass on traits to their offspring. His work was kind of buried for a little while and a rediscovered in the early 20th century. That's going to become important later.

Biological Theories from Creation to Neo-Darwinism

So we're getting to the handouts here in a second so biological theories or key developments initial theories affirmed special creation in the biological realm. Common design rather than universal common descent was seen as the cause behind the observed phenomenon of biological change.

Secondly for many the creation and the fixity of species was replaced with constant biological development. Then a change over time by a strictly natural means so this the ideas itself evolved. Until at the end product was God's totally out of the picture.

That's kind of how the thing changed. At first the church was okay with it because it didn't have those implications the the atheistic or deistic implications. But when it morphed obviously, it's going to depart from orthodox theism.

Darwin's model and ideas were incorporated into the mainstream of biological sciences eventually into politics ethics and economics. Somebody called it the universal acid which erodes everything right roads theism in every area of life.

So it's no surprise that society. You know we have a very non Christian non theistic society. Gregor Mendel in 19th century in science of genetics in the 20th produced what's called quote the neo-darwinian Synthesis, which is used for the modern paradigm so a bunch of centuries went went by.

After Darwin, and they said oh there. It is there's how it happens genetics passed on DNA there. It is and they found the structure of DNA in the 50s Crick and Watson. And they married it with this idea of somehow species change by natural means they put it all together.

That's called a neo-darwinian synthesis. Darwin had three unknowns is very very important through Darwin had three unknowns in the late 1800s upon which is theory of biological origins and change dependent number one at That time the universe was considered still to be eternal.

By many except those in the church, so there was an unlimited time frame within which these changes could take place. So if you're doing a calculation on how likely are these changes to to help an organism and You have an unlimited time frame there are no constraints on your math right the math lets you go on forever.

So you could eventually see how maybe something could happen and organize. But now even when the Big Bang cosmology happened we talked about that. That put a time frame an endpoint now you can do your calculations and figure out just how improbable This theory might be.

Secondly a second assumption he made the known there were known gaps in a fossil record. Indicating great stops and starts in the process and leaps actually of biological change. And he assumed they would be filled in the future with more exploration the missing links would be found confirming gradual transitions.

So Darwin said yes, we can't see in the fossil record the links between Mammals and whales for example land mammals and whales or or dinosaurs and birds. We don't see those in the fossil record. They're just not there.

But if we wait enough time They will appear. Let's do more exploration. Well 163 years later. No missing links still. That's that's a big blow to the theory. And thirdly the stuff of the cell was undifferentiated blob of material That somehow determined how organisms developed.

They hadn't developed a micro microscopy or other technologies. So what you had is Darwin just thought it was this blob of jello and somehow it could morph and change like clay into other things. But we know now that the cell has information in it and not only information.

But specific information and very complex coded information that only comes from an intelligent mind. That's the only source for that known source for that kind of thing very damaging to the theory all right.

Theological Reactions to Evolution and the Age of the Earth

So let's look at the handouts. I got for you. Oh, sorry one more slide before we get to the handouts. How did what were the theological reactions. First of all we have the Princeton divines the Seventh-day Adventist Church and the Genesis flood book.

Conservative Bible scholars in the late 19th century were the Princeton divines Hodge Warfield etc. They were the descendants of Calvin Luther. They were the most conservative theologians and Bible Expositors and systematic theologians at the time.

At that time they developed an old earth what I'll call OE stands for old earth. SC is special creation View as did most conservative believers for about a hundred years so When some of the early 19th centuries the fundamentalist modernist controversy the book the fundamentals came out.

They held to an old earth creationist view they kind of put the two together. The famous scopes monkey trial in Dayton, Tennessee in 1925 inherit the wind was a movie made off of that largely fictional but That brought to light the theory of evolution, and how do we deal with this?

Theory and The public school debate over evolution that was scopes monkey trial in 1925 Clarence Darrow Defended a high school biology teacher and William Jennings Bryan prosecuted him for violating the statute against evolution teaching and Bryan actually won the argument he held to sort of a day age older theory.

He was put on the spot. He said well if I had to pick one, that's what I'm going to go with so. That's that's kind of where the church was at the time more conservative believers. The Seventh-day Adventist Church was the main holdout for what's called a why II I call it why a young earth special creations view.

We'll look at the handout in a minute. Due to their fidelity to the supposed divine visions or time travel by Ellen G White and I say either or because it's unclear Whether God showed her a vision of the creation days and the flood and other things or whether she claimed to time-travel.

But they believe that she personally witnessed all this stuff so for them. They didn't have a choice doctrinally for them. It's a it's a doctrine of the church that they have to believe what Ellen G white taught.

That's why they believe you have to worship on Saturday because Ellen G white saw the creation on a Saturday when she was back there in time. We shouldn't eat animals. Seventh-day Adventists are generally favor vegetarianism.

Because they have certain teachings about the flood and you know Causation and animal death and and whether that's right or wrong so again. That's kind of grows out of Seventh-day Adventist movement.

And thirdly Whitcomb Morris wrote a book called the Genesis flood in 1961. This renewed interest in the young earth special creation model among conservatives. So that's kind of your timeline after kind of Darwin where the church go with all of this.

But I will tell you all of these uniformly down this list. We're all anti evolution anti Darwinian evolution. So it was generally your your Roman Catholic Church hedged a bit and also your liberal churches.

Obviously kind of took it in fully. And I'll skip this one basically there's a warfare thesis for sake of time late 19th century Dixon and white said that faith and science are ultimately at war one must defeat the other and for us to progress and for science to to succeed religion has to be suppressed and Science has to be the victor.

You'll find this in some debates today most most popular Atheists will pose this kind of line of reasoning in this line of argumentation largely been debunked today I think completely debunked today science and faith really fit together much better than that thesis would have us believe so if you flip your handouts over on the back side of these handouts, there's a.

There's a very busy graph here. I just wanted to find a few things. Like I said special creationist asserts that God acted supernaturally in the biological realm. Design is evident and it rejects Darwinism.

That's called a special creationist. Excuse me an old earth creationist asserts that the earth is less than 10 ,000 years old old earth. Young earth is less than 10 old earth more than 10 ,000. I have an asterisk there on your handout.

You can see the areas where all special creationists agree or where they differ from Evolutionary creationists or EC's you'll see them. So let me tell you how this let me let me go down the bottom group there.

Evolutionary creationist asserts that God did not act supernaturally in the biological realm. Design is not evident and accepts Darwinism. Evolutionary creation by the way, it used to be known as theistic evolutionists.

They've changed their name to sort of make kind of jump in with the creationist kind of field. Because when you call somebody a theistic evolutionist, well, you're an evolutionist. No, I'm a creationist.

I'm an evolutionary creationist. But they believe that God used evolution to produce all the change still so it's the same thing just kind of a name change. Deistic of Darwinian evolution. It's kind of what we talked about.

It's just God wound it up and let it go, but he's largely uninvolved if there's any development. It's providential instead of Special creation. Does that make sense? It's like the rules the natural laws just ran their course and that's what it is.