Rediscovering The Truth About Creation

After having looked at various theories and ideas over these last twenty-two chapters, a few difficult questions arise. Namely, which of all of these theories or ideas is correct? Can all of them be correct? Can any of them be correct? Where are the real boundaries between rational acceptance and blind faith? Why are science and Christianity so far apart on so many issues, and why is it that there seems to be no clear middle ground between the two? After having discussed both versions of the truth, both the scientific and the Christian, which is really the truth, and how can one know for sure?

If one examines the evidence for the Big Bang theory, then it becomes apparent that many of the conclusions drawn by big bang theorists are not unreasonable. Observing galaxies which are moving away from each other would cause any normal person to rationalize that those moving bodies had, at some point in the past, been closer together. Cosmologists are not foolish or even illogical just because they translate or interpolate all those galaxies back in time to a single compact, highly dense mass. Similarly, they are not foolish or illogical because they hypothesize and speculate about the age of the universe, the existence of galaxy superclusters, the homogeneous nature of the early universe, or about the ratio among the chemical elements of hydrogen, deuterium, helium, and lithium. Scientists are within their bounds to make such predictions because their ideas are based on theoretical expectations. This is, after all, the very essence of scientific reasoning, so they are not foolish to proceed in such a manner. They also are not unintelligent. Certainly, they are not unintelligent! However, the question at this point is not about foolishness, the proper use of logic, or even about one's intelligence. It is about whether or not this theory is correct. Is the Big Bang theory correct, or is it wrong?

If one again considers the Theory of Evolution, then similar questions arise. The thought of being evolved from monkeys is repulsive to many, myself included, but once again, the question is not about being emotionally turned on or off to a particularly undesirable origin. The question is about whether or not the Theory of Evolution is correct. Is this theory true, or is it false? What does the evidence really say? Even among some evolution critics, the theory is not viewed as completely absurd. At some levels, there is actually evidence which seems to support a very broad form of this belief. According to Mr. Wickramasinghe, evolution at the micro level does seem to make some sense [1]. He writes that the more complicated and more sophisticated life forms demonstrate a genuine, progressive decline as one reviews them back in time. This decline, in his opinion, does not rule out a type of evolution, but it also does not totally endorse the theory, either. What does such an observation mean? Does it indicate that evolution is correct at the micro level, meaning that it is only true within a given species? Does it mean that the theory is correct at the macro level, which would indicate that the theory is true across species? Is the theory only true at the micro level and not the macro? Is it true for both, or is it true for neither? As the third part of this book comes to an end and a new part begins, the intent in going forward will not be to show any particular group right or wrong. This work is not entirely about putting down science and scientists or about lifting up the Lord and Christianity. This work is about presenting the facts and then letting those facts do the lifting up and putting down. Both the Big Bang theory and the Theory of Evolution have some points about them which appear to be correct. Both also have some points about them which appear to be very speculative, points which may or may not be correct.

In my opinion, because of the massive amounts of available evidence, plus the quality of that evidence, Christianity presents a much stronger case than science. For instance, a person can trust the historians, both secular and non-secular, who have diligently recorded the historical facts surrounding the Resurrection of Christ. Because of Christ, Himself, one can trust the Apostles who recorded the events of Jesus' life and also who wrote about the events of the early Church. Because of both Jesus and the Apostles, an individual can trust the other writers of Scriptures. When a conflict about authority has arisen, a person can then trust the secular historians who have effectively been able to break the impasse by recording the truth as they saw it. The testimony of archaeologists, copiers, analysts, secular and non-secular historians, and all the others who have been involved is, in my mind, just too great to ignore. Some who profess Christ might be, as the argument commonly goes, emotional misfits who have difficulty coping with reality, but not all are! In the next part of this book, we shall put together ALL of these dangling pieces of information and see once and for all what is really happening in our society and which side of this great debate over our creation is really correct.