Yet it is science that attempts to explain and rationalize ideas like the Big Bang and the Theory of Evolution, ideas that are just that - ideas, not facts. They have required creative imagination and great "faith" in light of their alarmingly conspicuous absence of conclusive, quantifiable scientific evidence.
Yet proponents of these ideas - these pipe dreams, really - appeal to "science" in order to support their existence.
Call me naive, but when I was a science student in public school and in university, I recall that one's hypothesis in a science experiment had to be backed up by quantifiable, visual evidence resulting from the conducting of the experimental procedure in order for it to be considered "scientific" evidence. How is such evidence possible when one is trying to scientifically explain or rationalize the Big Bang, the Theory of Evolution, or even the Bible and the existence (or non-existence) of God?
In an article entitled "Can We Still Believe in Demons Today?" by Clinton E. Arnold (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature, Talbot School of Theology, California), the argument is made that science "is inherently incapable of answering" the question of whether demons exist. He further argues:
"Some critics grant science authority to make judgments on issues it is incapable of judging. Just as science is incompetent to adjudicate on morality, so it is also beyond its jurisdiction in trying to decide the question of demonic existence. Science seeks to describe and explain natural phenomena. There is no reason to assume it has the power to answer questions regarding the supernatural, such as whether these beings exist."This argument can be extended to include the fallacy of using the guise of science to try to explain and rationalize the things I've mentioned above, things like the Big Bang, the Theory of Evolution, and the Bible and the existence (or non-existence) of God. Science has it limitations, yet its disciples persist in thinking that it is the be-all and end-all of standards by which we can judge something as being true or real.
Scientists and their disciples mock and reject any notion of God or the writings of the Bible because they require non-tangible concepts like faith and belief. They think that ideas like the empty tomb suggest that Jesus didn't actually exist or that his body was stolen and buried elsewhere. In their minds, it would be too fanciful to take the Biblical account at face value, to actually accept its claim that Jesus rose physically from the dead and ascended to Heaven forty days later and after being witnessed by over 500 people and even physically touched by a few of them. They ignore the historical, archaeological, and legal evidences of this and all other Biblical accounts because they can't put them in a test tube or analyze them under a microscope. Or even if they can, in the case of archaeological evidences, they ignore them and move on to try to poke more holes instead of accepting that they might have been wrong in their assumptions.
In any case, such people are quick to embrace accounts of the Jewish Holocaust of World War II because there are several witnesses to this atrocity who are still alive, who we can still see and touch. But years after these survivors are gone, you can bet that the detractors, those who deny the Holocaust - who existed even during WW II - will gain followers simply due to the lack of witnesses to stand up against them.
In any case, such people are quick to embrace accounts of the Jewish Holocaust of World War II because there are several witnesses to this atrocity who are still alive, who we can still see and touch. But years after these survivors are gone, you can bet that the detractors, those who deny the Holocaust - who existed even during WW II - will gain followers simply due to the lack of witnesses to stand up against them.
Funny thing, there were still several witnesses to the life and miracles of Jesus - believing and non - while every one of the New Testament letters were being penned, yet somehow none of the skeptics decided to write things contrary to the claims they presented, such as the deity of Jesus Christ. It has been suggested that there were simply too many witnesses that would have made them appear as fools and thus, knowing they didn't have a case, therefore didn't make one.
So why do skeptics in this day and age think they have a legitimate case against the claims of the Bible? Why do they think the historical, archaeological, and legal evidences that have always supported its claims are somehow null and void just because two millenia have passed? It's sure easy to try to discredit something once the living witnesses have all died off, and so the non-believers and mockers of this generation follow in vain the footsteps of those before them, often dredging up old arguments that were put to rest in generations past.
However, their greatest fallacy is the claim that there is no "scientific evidence" for the Bible and therefore the credibility of its God and its claims. They tend to overlook the scientific evidence that abounds with respect to archaeology, and the historical and legal evidences that many have undertaken through history and found to overwhelmingly support the credibility of the Bible.
But as believers let's face it: Jesus could appear to each and every skeptic on this planet and perform miracle after miracle and claim after each one that they are the result of being the one and only Son of God - the ultimate display of evidence - but there would still be skeptics not because of lack of evidence, but because of a lack of desire born out of pride and ego that would prevent them from believing.
Oh, but wait a minute, Jesus did appear to believers and skeptics alike during his first time here on earth, and guess what: some of those who saw him and his miracles and heard his claims were also skeptical despite this ultimate display of evidence! Why? How could this possibly be the case in light of the overwhelming evidence? Because - ta da! - they lacked a desire to believe that was born out of pride and ego, not because of a lack of evidence. Or to put this another way, it's not that they couldn't believe, it's that they wouldn't.
Some of these people had a lot of worldly status, prestige, and possibly wealth to lose - or so they thought - if they believed that Jesus is the Messiah and the one true Son of God, and so they simply chose not to believe in order to try to protect themselves. Not to mention their fear of ridicule and the possibility of losing the respect of family and so-called friends. The exact same is true in this day and age when people are presented with the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Some of these people had a lot of worldly status, prestige, and possibly wealth to lose - or so they thought - if they believed that Jesus is the Messiah and the one true Son of God, and so they simply chose not to believe in order to try to protect themselves. Not to mention their fear of ridicule and the possibility of losing the respect of family and so-called friends. The exact same is true in this day and age when people are presented with the gospel of Jesus Christ.
So what of science and its supposed lack of ability to give credibility to the Bible and thus God and Jesus? Well, it ultimately doesn't matter. What matters is individual men and women getting over themselves and making a decision in their heart to accept or reject the claims of the Bible regarding Jesus Christ. Science can't make this decision for them, but only their desire to believe or not believe can. And no amount of scientific thought or reasoning will be able to rescue them from their fate should they ultimately choose not to believe.
