What is the Big Picture?
29/02/08
During a lecture yesterday, the justification for our
use of the evolution theory as a primary anchor for
historical studies was given as follows:
"The biggest picture today is the evolutionary one."
The lecturer went on to explain that the evolution theory is unique in that it encompasses the vastness of the universe in its perspective, rather than a small geographic area or people group as the "other" theories do. This is a huge cultural assumption made based on what the educational community clearly doesn't know about the Bible. Evolutionary theory takes into account a very large physical space - the Universe - however the Biblical theory, although mostly based in one small physical area, explains at great length not only the entire physical universe but also includes the planes of mental existence, and an infinitely vast spiritual existence which is not contained by the physical laws of time or space.
When it comes to reliability, a third of the Bible is prophesy, and all so far have come true. However, as people like to argue over the validity of the Bible there is already plenty of literature on this, and I have no intention of entering into that debate today. My point is; who is to say that a scientific theory has more credibility that a spiritual one? This is a western ideology, and constantly thrown in the face of what I argue as personal experience is, "that is not scientifically possible, and therefore it is not true." Since when has a so-called scientific "fact" been necessarily true? On the contrary, science is continually evolving, theories change, and what was considered to be fact 100 or 1000 years ago is now considered foolish compared to what we "know" today. So if we base our knowledge on what is historically consistent, science is not a reliable argument for what constitutes as a universal truth. The Bible, however, is consistently true and argues that although human beliefs change God does not. So although some things become socially, scientifically or ethically acceptable, this does not alter a truth established at the Beginning of time by God. Science changes, God doesn't. He is the only perfect universal constant. For example, gravity is a law imposed by God to create order, but as it is a creation and not the Creator it has exceptions, and is subject to change as the Creator wishes. This is true of all natural law. So to argue that a scientific theory with limited scope overrides a spiritual theory with infinite scope is, well, illogical!
I'm not trying to convince everyone to believe the Bible. What I am trying to do is get people to question why they don't believe the Bible, and why natural reasonings should have any weight in discrediting One who is a supernatural God. Make up your own mind instead of simply believing what Western culture says about the validity of beliefs.
"The biggest picture today is the evolutionary one."
The lecturer went on to explain that the evolution theory is unique in that it encompasses the vastness of the universe in its perspective, rather than a small geographic area or people group as the "other" theories do. This is a huge cultural assumption made based on what the educational community clearly doesn't know about the Bible. Evolutionary theory takes into account a very large physical space - the Universe - however the Biblical theory, although mostly based in one small physical area, explains at great length not only the entire physical universe but also includes the planes of mental existence, and an infinitely vast spiritual existence which is not contained by the physical laws of time or space.
When it comes to reliability, a third of the Bible is prophesy, and all so far have come true. However, as people like to argue over the validity of the Bible there is already plenty of literature on this, and I have no intention of entering into that debate today. My point is; who is to say that a scientific theory has more credibility that a spiritual one? This is a western ideology, and constantly thrown in the face of what I argue as personal experience is, "that is not scientifically possible, and therefore it is not true." Since when has a so-called scientific "fact" been necessarily true? On the contrary, science is continually evolving, theories change, and what was considered to be fact 100 or 1000 years ago is now considered foolish compared to what we "know" today. So if we base our knowledge on what is historically consistent, science is not a reliable argument for what constitutes as a universal truth. The Bible, however, is consistently true and argues that although human beliefs change God does not. So although some things become socially, scientifically or ethically acceptable, this does not alter a truth established at the Beginning of time by God. Science changes, God doesn't. He is the only perfect universal constant. For example, gravity is a law imposed by God to create order, but as it is a creation and not the Creator it has exceptions, and is subject to change as the Creator wishes. This is true of all natural law. So to argue that a scientific theory with limited scope overrides a spiritual theory with infinite scope is, well, illogical!
I'm not trying to convince everyone to believe the Bible. What I am trying to do is get people to question why they don't believe the Bible, and why natural reasonings should have any weight in discrediting One who is a supernatural God. Make up your own mind instead of simply believing what Western culture says about the validity of beliefs.
|
