Antiquarian Anabaptist

Apologetics from an Anabaptist perspective

Theory, hypothesis, fallacy

People despise Christian faith.  They hate it and are afraid that it may be true.
-Blaise Pascal

Pascal wrote these words at the beginning of the scientific era.  All attempts made during succeeding years to disprove Christianity by scientific means have been motivated by this fear.  For, if Christianity is true, if there really is a God who created everything according to a divine plan, we are in trouble.  How can we reconcile our egocentric life with His plan for our life?

The public has been conditioned to have faith in science, to the point of accepting without question any statement purporting to be scientific, while scoffing at any statement purporting to be Christian or Biblical truth.  It must be admitted that much nonsense has been spoken in the name of Christianity, giving the public some foundation for scepticism.  Discernment needs to be exercised in both domains.  This article deals with statements which purport to be scientific fact.

The first step in scientific thinking  is to observe a group of facts or events and devise a possible explanation that can be tested by further observation or experimentation.  This possible explanation is called a hypothesis.  If further observation and experimentation support the hypothesis, it then becomes a theory.  If the theory then can be shown to hold true in every possible circumstance, it is considered to be a proven scientific fact.

Unfortunately, the public wants so much to put their faith in science that there is no distinction made between, theory, hypothesis, fact and fallacy.
The big bang is a theory that can never be proven scientifically, because there were no human observers at the time the universe burst into existence.  It is generally accepted as a valid explanation of facts that are observable today.  This theory is basically in accord with Genesis 1:1.  However, the time frames that are generally associated with the big bang theory are only hypotheses.  The estimates of the time involved vary widely, with no evidence for any of the estimates.

Evolution, after all these years, is no more than an unproven hypothesis.  Wishful thinking might be a more accurate term.  There has never been a shred of evidence produced of one species evolving into another.  It is not difficult to accept that a Chihuahua and a Newfoundland are both dogs and probably had a common ancestor, but there is zero evidence that a dog ever became a cow or any other type of creature.  It is inconceivable that a fish could become a dry land creature by means of the small incremental mutations essential to evolution.  A fish that developed legs would be asphyxiated out of water.  A fish that developed lungs would drown in the water.

The DNA found in every cell of the body contains more information than the Encyclopaedia Britannica.  Why is it that no one believes that the Encyclopaedia Britannica could appear as a result of a series of unconnected, random events, but so many intelligent people believe that DNA developed that way?  It must be that these people are afraid of the consequences of admitting there was some intelligent force at work in creating the universe and the beings that populate the universe.

In recent years, many highly skilled scientists have taken an honest look at the information provided by science and felt compelled to admit that the evidence shows that there must have been a designer.  These scientists, who have become known as the Intelligent Design movement, did not start with certain religious prejudices and try to make the evidence before them fit these prejudices. They have simply expressed the only conclusion that seemed to fit the accumulated evidence.

Their opponents are found among those who are so fully committed to materialistic hypotheses that they feel compelled to twist and select evidence to make it fit their pre-established belief system.  Such an attitude does not merit the label of “scientific.”  It is really a humanistic religion based on the supremacy of man rather than upon science.  Unfortunately, our public education system, at all levels, is founded upon and infused with this religion.
To put it simply, truth never contradicts truth.  The Bible and science are not in conflict.  Neither are there parallel truths, so that we could accept materialistic explanations of our origins and biblical explanations of our destiny.

The evidence of science shows that all that exists is of a level of complexity that can only be explained by the action of a Designer with intelligence far beyond our own.  The Bible tells me who that Designer is.  With the recognition of an Intelligent Designer there comes inescapably the realization that this Designer must have a plan that includes me.  The Bible tells me what that plan is.


One response to “Theory, hypothesis, fallacy

  1. Pingback: Théorie, hypothèse ou erreur? | Missionnaire anabaptiste

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: