Lesson Study #6 - The Bible and SCIENCE

It's time to begin another week's study, this time Lesson Study #6 under the title, The Bible and Science, the material of which can be accessed here:

http://www.ssnet.org/qrtrly/eng/07b/less06.html

Let the discussion begin.

From the Sabbath afternoon section:

Memory Text: "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline" (Proverbs 1:7, NIV).

Key Thought: Though often viewed as in opposition to the Bible, science can help strengthen our faith in the Word of God.

The following quote shows that in the earliest years of the scientific revolution (the seventeenth century), science was viewed as a way to understand God:


It goes to show how far scientists have fallen, though I am happy to say that we still have Christian scientists who have discovered things that proves the trustworthiness of the Bible.

I was happy to read the interesting information in Sunday's section:


If this is what science is now saying, then I can't see how anybody can still call themselves an aetheist.

Today I read Monday's section on astronomy.


Can you imagine all that happening by accident? I can't, as it is obvious that it couldn't and didn't happen by accident to the degree that there is even life on this planet that is warmed just right by our closest star, our sun.

It was recently explained to my by someone who isn't a creationist, that if I understood what they were saying was that basically every thing is made from hydrogen.

I am not that versed in science to know if this is so.

I am giving credit to the basic content of this post to a person who refers to himself/herself as vilis from the Adventism Prophecy Email List Group.

The following article confirms a young solar system, of an age of thousands, and not billions of years.

Just like the recent discovery of a lack of radioactive heating source in the earth's core revealed a young earth, the same is confirmed of the tiny planet Mercury, which should have cooled much sooner than even earth, which should be cold to the core.

The recent photos of volcanic eruptions on one of Jupiter's or Saturn's moons was yet another nail in the coffin of this theory of an evolutionary "development" of our solar system.

All this evidence proves a recent creation of our solar system.

-----beginning of article

Mercury's spin reveals molten core
POSTED: 1457 GMT (2257 HKT), May 7, 2007
Story Highlights
• Scientists: Mercury's core may be partially molten like Earth's
• It had long been thought Mercury's core was made of solid iron
• Planet wobbles too much to have a solid core
• Mercury is the innermost planet in our solar system

Using radar and telescopes, Margot's team measured the spin rate of Mercury and discovered that it wobbles too much to have a solid core.

"That is a surprise in the sense that Mercury is so small that most researchers had expected it to have cooled off and solidified by now. The molten core indicates otherwise," Margot said in a telephone interview.

-----end of article-----

I will see if I can find out more about this via the Internet.

Psalm 139:14 I will praise You; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are marvelous and my soul knows it very well.

Fearfully and Wonderfully Made is the title of Tuesday's section.


When I read stuff like this, it takes more faith to believe in the Big Bang Theory than it does in a literal creation by our Creator God.

I also found the following quote from Tuesday's section interesting:

Again, it takes more faith to believe in a mere chance creation of human life, etc. than it does in the existence of a Greater Power, namely Jehovah God, who created human life, etc.

But, then again, there are people like Francis Crick who do not want to admit that we have been created.

Then there's the quote involving Charles Darwin and Michael Behe:

With the technology and discoveries of today, I wonder what Charles Darwin would say now, if he were alive today?

Many of the great scientists believed in God. Whether they were godly or not is quite another story. But they were not atheists.

Actually, anthropic coincidences are not nearly enough to convince the atheist. The logical response is: If one of these coincidences did not exist, then we would not be around to marvel at the coincidence; but it so happened that it did, and we are.

But for the true scientist, coincidence is not a good answer. The challenge now is to explain why these things are the way they are. Various theories abound, but the hardened atheist will always exclude supernatural explanations.

Stars use hydrogen as fuel, and the products of these stellar processes are heavier elements (helium, oxygen, iron...). The theory is that the earliest stars produced these heavy elements, spread them out through nova and supernova explosions, and they eventually coalesced into planets revolving around a new star. So, the carbon in our cells, and the oxygen we breath originated in stars long dead. That's the theory anyway.

What do you guys think about the theory that God made stars long before the 4th day? That the account in Genesis is earth-centric, and does not really have much to say about what God had created before that? Is it possible that the earth is ~6000 years old, while other parts of the universe are ~15 billion years old, as modern astronomy asserts?

What are the theological implications of this line of thought?

One thing for certain in the realm of creation is that God didn't create everything, angels, stars, planets, etc. all at once, therefore, it would make sense that He may have created angels, stars, and other inhabited planets much earlier than He created this planet upon which we presently live.

It is quite evident that the angels were there before the creation of our earth, because Lucifer was jealous because he was not called by God to take part.

And Psalm 14:1 tells us it is a fool who does not believe there is a God.

Is that fool stupid or does he lack wisdom?

Is there such a thing as a smart fool?

How do I avoid being one?

On what grounds did the Darwinians win the "Intelligent Design" court case in Pennsylvania a couple of years ago?

Who is a scientist?

Science and math were some of my best subjects in my early teens. When I saw what one of my sons was learning in math and science as he studied for engineering, I discovered I was but a dwarf in my knowledge.

How do I dare teach a lesson on Creation and Science?

I would be interested in hearing more about this.

Here you find an answer:

I also receive Bruce Cameron's weekly Sabbath School material, however, I haven't been reading and using it lately. I guess I had better pay more attention to it.

Thursday's section is on Science and the Flood.

If you read Genesis 7:11-24 (which I will not quote here) you will discover that not only water came down from above, but that it also came up out of the earth itself. If you compare this to the fire that will consume the wicked and cleanse the earth for recreation, you will also notice that fire also came down from above (Revelation 20:9) and came up out of the earth (GC 1888 Edition, page 672, paragraph 2).


As water was literal water, so fire must have also been literal fire, but that's another issue that is being discussed in another topic.

What were the scientific implications of this great flood?

Experiencing my first volcanic eruption of Mt. Hekla in Iceland starting March 29, 1947, was a great awakening to me of the power of nature, the power of creation, and the power of God. If such things were possible in nature today, why not a flood, and the final events?

As a teenager I walked on the hard surface of liquid stone below, flowing down the mountainside. I see that majestic mountain today from our home, and I am reminded daily of the mighty divine power.

Also in the stars and in the Northern Light, as well as in the growth and beauty of spring and the buds on the trees.

Johann, were you away from Iceland when the Island of Surtsey was being formed in November 8, 1963 through June 5, 1967? Have you had the opportunity to visit the island?

This site has pictures of the eruption, plants, birds, and even fossils of the Surtsey Island. Check it out.

To me, a scientist is one who uses the scientific method. That includes those who believe in God. But, there are also biologists, chemists, and physicists who don't use the scientific method when coming to conclusions about how life came about and developed. IMO, they are not true scientists. Their beliefs are based on faith.

I came across this a couple of days ago. I find it very enlightening.



I believe that personal experience in the things of God is the only way to really settle the veracity of the Bible.

That's a good quote that covers both a true scientist and a true Christian.

Yes, I visited Iceland a few times during that period. On one occasion the pilot of the passenger plane I was on flew a circle around the new island to give us an added view of the volcanic activity. At one time I preached on the Westmann Islands then, and after church a youg man drove me and my wife to a point there from where we could get a good view of the volcano.

I read your post late Friday evening, and Sabbath morning - yesterday - the same man and his wife were visiting our local church, and I mentioned your post during the lesson study. Then he remarked that scientist had claimed that palgonite develops through millions of years, but there on Surtsey it developed within a few weeks.

Our Conference office called me a few days ago and asked me if I could preach on the Westmann islands on June 2. This is where my wife came from, so we will see her childhood home, and our ferry will take us right past Surtsey.

Another volcanic eruption destroyed much of her home town back in 1973, but she was not there then. The lava flow stopped a few meters from their house.

Wasn't it around 1980 tha Mt. St. Helens was in eruption? We saw that from the air too, as we flew from Seattle to Portland where my brother-in-law lived then.

So the earth is in motion. . .

Somebody told us in Sabbath School in a church where we were visiting yesterday that the earth is expanding at the rate of 1 cm. each year.

Johann, thanks for sharing your experience with Surtsey Island. The formation of the island, then the coming of plant life and birds to the island over the past 40 plus years is pretty amazing. Seems like scientist would need to rethink some of their theories.

Yes, Mt. St. Helens erupted in 1980. My cousin was the coordinator for the watershed restoration. She had to make about 18 trips to Washington D. C. to obtain funding for it. There is a Mount St. Helens VolcanoCam that shows in five minute updates the mountains current activity.

About 130 km south of Mt. St. Helens, in Oregon is another area of interest, the Three Sisters volcanic center of the central Oregon Cascade Range, part of the Pacific "Ring of Fire". The last eruption was about 1,700 years ago. Between August 1996 and October 2002 the region experienced 3 cm./yr. aseismic uplift, centered 5 km west of South Sister volcano. The area is currently being monitored.

Cascade Volcano Locations and 4,000 year Eruption Summary

Speaking of the veracity of scripture based on one's personal experience with God... I was thinking of a certain well known singer/actor who is of the Morman faith who had a vision while in the temple. This experience locked in his belief in the writings of Joseph Smith. I'm currently investigating scriptures that indeed do counterdict one another in the 4 gospels accounts of Christ's resurrection, but I am of the growing opinion that scripture is often deeper in symbolism making literal details perhaps less of an issue.

to Maritime SDA OnLine!

First of all, and, as you already probably know, we need to test all visions to the Bible and not to the writings of Joseph Smith, or even to the writings of Ellen White.

If the writings of Joseph Smith contradict the Scriptures, then we are to distance ourselves from those writings. The same holds true to the writings of Ellen White.

As far as comparing Scripture with Scripture goes, as long as the details do not contradict one another, then there shouldn't be any problem. I will check out the four gospels in relation to your post and respond to that specifically in a separate post.

I hope others reading this will also do this and also respond here.

msmango,

To make it easier for any of us to respond, just how do the four gospels seem to contradict each other in relation to the resurrection of Christ?

Welcome msmango, I have a relation that had what he interpreted as a supernatural intervention and a sign that the LDS teachings were true. Apparently when he had started to eat his plate moved. My mother told him the if there was some water under the plate it could have move. He didn't eat that meal as he considered the meat to have gone bad. That is his "moment in time, his proof. I understated that LDS rely on feelings.

I was once told by a person who was into the metaphysical that LDS were the kindergarden of the metaphysical

"Metaphysics" as used more loosely to refer to "subjects that are beyond the physical world"