05 Aug Science versus the Supernatural
August 5, 2016
By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.
Naturalists claim that any theory of the origin of life can include only what we can see, observe, and measure. But is it good science to limit a theory to what can be observed and measured? Imagine that back in the 1700s a scientist said, “I believe the reason we’re having all of these worldwide plagues is because of invisible organisms that spread from human to human.” Why, the naturalist of the 1700s would say that’s absurd. We can only use that which we can see and measure. Of course you know what happened. In the 1800s, a French chemist, Louis Pasteur, said that illness is the result of these invisible-to-the-naked-eye organisms called “bacteria” that spread from human to human. And because of his work, millions of lives have been saved. Fortunately, Louis Pasteur did not allow the limitations of naturalism to keep him from discovering the truth.
In the same way, it’s true that God can’t be seen or measured, even though His work is all around us. But does that mean we ought to rule out the fact that there is a supernatural possibility for the origin of life? Supernatural means that which is beyond nature, that which cannot be seen or measured at the present time. Is it unscientific to allow for the possibility that there is something we can’t yet see and measure? How long have bacteria, molecules, and atoms existed? Did they only come into being when we developed a microscope and could see them? No, they have been around since the beginning of creation. It’s just recently that we have developed the apparatus to view them. But naturalists say anything that cannot be seen or measured must not be real.
If we are honestly searching for the origin and diversity of life, should we say, “We will discuss this on this condition: you cannot mention the possibility of something supernatural being responsible for the origin of life”? Is that good science?
Evolutionists claim that those of us who believe in creation or intelligent design are uneducated rubes who are incapable of being objective because we assume there is a God who created all things. Well, it may be true that we have a certain set of assumptions. But the evolutionist has the assumption that there is no God. I don’t know of a serious creationist who thinks evolution should not be presented in the classroom. We are just saying to allow for the possibility of another explanation. But I don’t know any evolutionist who is willing to allow creationism or intelligent design to be taught in the classroom. Why is that? Because the evolutionist knows that if students really knew what science says and doesn’t say about evolution, students would look for another explanation for the origin of life—the only explanation that makes sense: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).
Today’s devotion is excerpted from “Evolution Is a Myth” by Dr. Robert Jeffress, 2008.
Scripture taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE®, Copyright © 1960,1962,1963,1968,1971,1972,1973,1975,1977,1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.