Has Science Disproved the Bible? - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Has Science Disproved the Bible? PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 650b02-MGVkM



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Has Science Disproved the Bible?

Description:

Title: Life s BIG Questions Author: User Last modified by: Lawrence Created Date: 4/29/2009 8:18:59 PM Document presentation format: On-screen Show – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:91
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 43
Provided by: lifesbigq8
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Has Science Disproved the Bible?


1
Has Science Disproved the Bible?
  • Part 1

2
Simple Answer
  • No !

3
Trust in the Bible
  • For many, trust in the Bible has been diminished
    because-
  • Theologians have undermined its authority
  • It is believed that science has
  • disproved its teachings

4
Scientists of the Past
  • Important to recognise that most great scientists
    of the past were believers
  • Some of them accomplished Bible students
  • e.g. Sir Isaac Newton

5
Scientific Believers
  • Many eminent scientists are believers
  • These include
  • Current past fellows of the Royal Society
  • Nobel Prize winners
  • 1997 Survey in Nature
  • 40 of all scientists in America believe in God

6
Scientific Believers
  • To postulate that the development and survival
    of the fittest is entirely a consequence of
    chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based
    on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts
  • Sir Ernest Chain, 1945 Nobel Prize
  • I just cannot believe that everything developed
    by random mutations
  • Dennis Gabor, 1971 Nobel Prize
  • The burden of proof is on those who don't believe
    that "Genesis" was right, and there was a
    creation, and that Creator is still involved.
  • Richard Smalley 1996 Nobel Prize

7
Scientific Believers
  • Unless at least half my colleagues are dunces,
    there can be on the most raw and empirical
    grounds no conflict between science and
    religion.

  • Stephen Jay Gould

The Bible is not a science text book it deals
with the why and not the how
8
Common Beliefs . . .
  • Scientists have proved that
  • Universe started with a big bang
  • Life developed by evolution

If true, the Bible must be wrong talking about
creation
These are some of the things we shall look at
9
Overview
  • Important to distinguish between facts and
    theories
  • We will find that
  • Both Bible Science suggest the universe had a
    beginning
  • Both Bible Science indicate that life appeared
    in a complete form

There is no conflict between scientific facts and
what the Bible says
10
Overview
  • We shall look at
  • Facts and theories
  • The origin of the universe
  • The fossil record

11
Facts and Theories in Science
  • Facts
  • Science works with them
  • A far-away nebula
  • A rock formation
  • A fossil in that rock formation

12
Observable Facts
  • Something that can be proved beyond doubt
  • Tangible
  • Measurable
  • Repeatable

Can be felt through our senses experienced
first hand
13
Gravity
  • We all experience gravity
  • Drop something it always falls
  • Scientific experiments
  • Gravity well understood
  • Rockets launched into space
  • Satellites put into orbit
  • Gravity is real
  • Can be experienced measured

Gravity is an observable fact
14
Fact and Theories
  • Developing a Scientific theory
  • Scientist makes observations
  • Assumptions made
  • Assumptions tested
  • Proven assumption becomes a theory
  • Confidence gained by testing

A theory is developed from extensive testing to
gain confidence
15
Fact and Theories
  • Developing a Scientific theory
  • Theory only trusted when confidence gained
  • Engineers can only use tested theories

We only trust theories that have been tested
16
Theories
  • Sometimes no way of knowing assumptions used in a
    theory are right
  • Often the case for the distant past
  • We cant use experiments to prove it

Important to know what can be proved what is a
theory that cant be proved
17
Trusting Unproven Theories
  • Mid 19th Century
  • Miasma theory
  • Disease caused by a
  • poisonous vapour
  • -miasma
  • Dyscrasia theory
  • Disease caused by imbalance in bodys
    temperament

What were the consequences?
18
Trusting Unproven Theories
  • Mid 19th Century
  • No problem in drinking water contaminated with
    sewage
  • Thousands died in 4 cholera epidemics between
    1831 1854
  • No problem in doctor or nurse moving from a dead
    body to a living one without washing
  • 1 in 3 women died in hospital giving birth to
    children

All the facts needed to form correct theory Some
facts may be unknown
19
Big Bang Observable Facts
  • Light from distant galaxies is red shifted
  • Cosmic microwave background radiation
  • Universe contains mainly light weight elements
  • Hydrogen helium are most common elements
  • Galaxies seem evenly spread through space

20
Big Bang Theory
  • Red shift suggests galaxies are moving away
  • Universe expanding
  • Background radiation
  • Remains of Big Bangexplosion
  • Light elements
  • Big Bang predicts the lightest elements
    produced first
  • Galaxies evenly spread
  • Will be the case if universe is expanding in all
    directions following a Big Bang

21
Big Bang Assumptions
  1. Physical laws that we know today are unchanged
  2. The laws are constant throughout universe
  3. Red shift is caused by light source moving away
    from us

If universe is expanding we roll back time,
everything goes back to a point in space time
from which it all started - The Big Bang
22
Big Bang Assumptions
  • What information would modern telescopes have
    given millions of years ago?
  • Cant do experiments to prove laws remain
    unchanged
  • Facts we have support the theory if we accept the
    assumptions that we cannot prove

Big Bang must remain an interesting theory, and
should not be regarded as a fact
23
Theory of Evolution
  • Gradual change over many millions of years
  • Fossil record should show
  • Continuous progression
  • All sorts of stages of development
  • E.g. wings in different stages

Trilobite fossil
The theory of evolution should fit the observed
facts in the fossil record
24
The Fossil Record
  1. According to Darwins theory the number of animal
    phyla gradually increase over time
  2. Fossil record shows that almost all animal phyla
    appear at same geological time

A
B
Theory does not fit the observed facts in fossil
record
25
The Fossil Record
  • Testing the theory of evolution
  • All fossils are well defined
  • No intermediate fossils

But what about Archaeopteryx?
26
Archaeopteryx
  • Fully formed features
  • Toothed jaw like a reptile
  • Feathers like a modern bird
  • Braincase similar to modern bird
  • Everything needed for flight is present

Not a missing link for origin of birds
27
Lack of Transitional Forms
As by this theory, innumerable transitional
forms must have existed. Why do we not find them
embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is all
nature not in confusion instead of being as we
see them, well-defined species? The explanation
lies, however, in the extreme imperfection of the
geological record
Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species
28
The fossil record
There is no need to apologize any longer for the
poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has
become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is
outpacing integration The fossil record
nevertheless continues to be composed mostly of
gaps G. T. Neville in Science
Progress
29
The fossil record
  • The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the
    fossil record (is) the trade secret of
    palaeontology
  • Steven Jay Gould

The fossil material is now so complete that the
lack of transitional series cannot be explained
by the scarcity of the material. The deficiencies
are real, they will never be filled Prof N.
Heribert-Nilsson Lund, Sweden
30
Lack of Transitional Forms
  • The fossil record - in defiance of Darwin's
    whole idea of gradual change - often makes great
    leaps from one form to the next. Far from the
    display of intermediates to be expected from slow
    advance through natural selection many species
    appear without warning, persist in fixed form and
    disappear, leaving no descendants. Geology
    assuredly does not reveal any finely graduated
    organic chain, and this is the most obvious and
    gravest objection which can be urged against the
    theory of evolution.
  • Steve Jones preface to Darwins Origin of
    Species 1999

31
The Fossil Record
  • Fossils give an important fact
  • Fossil record does not contain partly developed
    animals that theory of evolution predicts

32
Classification of animals
Another argument used to support evolution
  • Comparative studies of animals
  • Cladistics
  • Animals that look alike are classified as similar
  • Similarities used as evidence to say they are
    related by evolution

33
Classification
  • Horses, donkeys, zebras
  • All look alike
  • Evolutionist say they had common ancestor
  • Cant so any experiments to prove this

Classification of animals tells us nothing about
how they came into existence
34
Variations within species
  • Small variations seen within species
  • Over relatively short timescale different breeds
    of dogs produced
  • Given enough time, these variations can produce
    new species
  • But dogs are still dogs not new species

Different breeds are as a result of human
interference not natural selection
35
Variations within species
  • Small variations seen within species
  • Big assumption that same mechanisms caused
    appearance of
  • The heart
  • Bone
  • Feathers
  • Warm-blooded creatures
  • A backbone

36
Variations within species
  • Big changes never been observed
  • Not good to extrapolate beyond what has been seen

Not sensible to use very minor changes as
evidence to support the great changes required by
the theory of evolution
37
Summary
  • Fossil record contains only fully formed animals
  • Classification of animals tells us nothing about
    how they came into existence
  • Minor changes are not scientific evidence of
    large changes

38
Has science disproved the Bible?
  • Scientists suggest evidence points to beginning
    of the universe
  • Big Bang

About 3,500 years ago the Bible stated that the
universe had a beginning
39
Has science disproved the Bible?
  • In the beginning God created the heavens and the
    earth
  • Genesis 11

Science and the Bible are in agreement
40
Has science disproved the Bible?
  • Fossils are facts
  • Progression of life is opinion
  • Fossils provide no evidence to suggest
    progression
  • Creation also explains the facts
  • The fossil record furnishes irrefutable proof
    that life on earth has changed through the ages
    Fossils prove not only that life has changed but
    also that it has progressed from simplicity to
    complexity with the passage of time. These are
    the facts. To those who take an unbiased view of
    the matter, there is only one conclusion that
    all past and present life has descended from
    simple beings
  • William Strokes and William Lee in the book
    Essentials of Earth History

41
Does science support the Bible?
  • No Bible comment on how our world and life began
  • There was a Creator
  • Organisation of living things
  • Points to a Creator
  • Here science supports the Bible

In the beginning God created the heavens and the
earth. Genesis 1 v 1
42
Summary
  • Important to distinguish between facts and
    theories
  • We have seen that
  • Both Bible Science suggest the universe had a
    beginning
  • The scientific facts used to support evolution
    could also be used to support creation

There is no conflict between scientific facts and
what the Bible says
About PowerShow.com