Hasn't science disproved the
Creation vs. Evolution
There are basically two main questions here that, although similar, are not the same. Firstly, "Hasn't science disproved the Bible?" and secondly, "Doesn't the theory of evolution disprove the story of creation?". We shall deal with each separately, focussing in on particular areas of discussion but there is further discussion in the next section and an email address which you can write to if you have any queries, comments, criticisms or would like to talk to someone about something in more depth.
Hasn't science disproved the Bible?
For some people, the reason they ask this question is because they cannot believe that the Bible is historically accurate or they have difficulty believing all the stories of miraculous events. These are important questions, which unfortunately there is not enough space to deal with here (there is further discussion about miracles in the next section). But what a lot of people are really saying is, "Look, science proves that the Bible is false and inaccurate in many of the things it says, therefore it cannot be trusted - what it says isn't TRUE. So all this nonsense about there being a God who we have to follow is also untrustworthy. Anyone who believes all that, is believing stories invented by primitive people who didn't know any better."
As was said above, there is not enough space here to deal with
issues such as history and miracles so we shall focus in on the
idea that the Bible says things that we can know to be true and
for our example we will pick the idea that God exists.
Obviously, Christians believe that Jesus Christ existed at a specific period of time that was documented, so in the form of Jesus we know God exists.
But how can we know today?
If Christians believe that Jesus is still alive now and that as God He exists, where is the proof?
To start with, many people confuse scientific knowledge with other types of knowledge. For example, a person can "know" that 3 + 3 = 6; that when you heat water to a certain temperature, it evaporates. This is mathematical or scientific knowledge, gained from physical evidence using experimentation, measurement, analysis, observation, comparison, etc. Knowledge based on observing physical facts. But there are other things that can only be known by experience that do not fit into the category of scientific knowledge, for example, feelings. Science can tell us that sometimes a chemical unbalance causes depression, psychologists can tell us what started the feeling and what it might cause us to do, but neither fully describes what it is like to be depressed. You can only really know what sadness is when you experience it. There is no physical evidence for feelings and no way of measuring them. But we can know our feelings and we know they are true, even though we have no scientific evidence to present to anyone. It would make no sense to say to someone, "Show me your sadness!" . You could talk about your sadness, show me all the chocolate you ate, even burst into tears, but where is the part of you that you could present as hard physical evidence?
And a lot of our knowledge comes from things we experience - how we know we love and are loved, etc. So the knowledge gained from intimate and personal experience is as equally valid as that gained by scientific proof and observation with physical evidence. An obvious example is that of a kiss - scientifically a kiss is nothing more than two pairs of lips meeting for the mutual exchange of air, saliva and microbes. Does this adequately sum up your experience?!
Of course there is no physical evidence (or at least very
little) for the existence of God today i.e. we cannot see Him.
But the Bible says that God exists. Is it telling the truth or
not? And Christians will say that they KNOW God exists - how can
they say that?! There is no proof! But God is to be known
EXPERIENTIALLY. Like many other aspects of our lives (feelings,
thoughts, etc.), we know Him by personal experience, the same way
a person knows a friend. We meet Him and get to know Him as our
Friend (amongst other things). God is known by the RELATIONSHIP
we have with Him. Therefore, the proof for His existence is that
we know Him by experience, not by physical facts we present
(there are some reasons why we don't have physical evidences, but
again there isn't space to deal with them here).
The Bible says God exists. A person meets God and gets to know Him in their experience. Therefore, they can know, for sure that what the Bible says about God's existence is true, even if we cannot present any physical evidence as proof. Our experience supports the Bible; the Bible supports our experience. This is only one small area of discussion and there are other areas of debate that cannot be discussed here ( e.g. miracles, historicity - see the next section). But basically, science cannot disprove what the Bible says and what people know to be true about their experience; so it is possible that a lot of what we say is not true, is really just not experienced.
Hasn't the theory of evolution disproved the
story of creation?
Some might say, "Surely no intelligent person in this day and age can still believe that God created the earth in six days! In fact, once you remove the outdated idea that God had anything to do with it then you can remove the idea that there is a God at all, because there is no need to believe a ridiculous story about how we came to be here. That was just a story invented by our ancestors - we know better than that now! Well, it's not that simple.
The real question to ask is WHY
we choose one over another.
Contrary to popular opinion, there are not just two arguments (either you believe creation and God or evolution without God). In fact there are several ideas about how we came to be here. Many Christians actually believe in evolution. Many scientists believe in a literal six days of creation. Some people believe that the Biblical account of six days of creation are actually six time periods e.g. six periods of a thousand or a million years.
The theory of evolution is after all a
There is as much evidence for creation as there is for evolution. Both creation and evolution are based on BELIEF - there are scientific arguments to uphold them both but no sufficient facts to prove one over the other - they are therefore just two different belief systems.
It is not unusual to find Christians who believe in evolution just as it is not unusual to find many scientists who believe in six days of creation. HOWEVER, it would be very unusual to find a Christian who didn't believe that God was the creator behind whichever process occurred. Regardless of how the world came into being, virtually every Christian in the world accepts that God exists and it is Him behind the action - therefore He is still the Creator, no matter what METHOD He used to create. To say that God didn't create the earth in six days DOES NOT automatically prove that He doesn't exist. It is not sufficient grounds for disproving the existence of God. It is one thing to say you don't believe in a six day creation, but a totally different thing to say you don't believe in the Creator. This is perhaps the real reason why evolution has been so readily accepted in society - it appears at first sight to be the final bit of evidence to prove to everyone that there is no God! If there is no God, then we don't have to worry about following Him, obeying Him or submitting to Him as our Creator. There is further debate which you can read about in the next section, but before you do, please ask yourself the following question: If you believe in a process of evolution lasting millions of years in which God played no role, do you believe this based on the massive amount of scientific proof that you have read and thoroughly researched in your lifetime? Or do you believe it because you want to believe in something that proves that there is no God?
As has been said already, there is an email address which you can write to if you have any queries, comments, criticisms or would like to talk to someone about something in more depth.