Russell I saw you mention Gods other book. Wondering what your thoughts are on this article. Its an old one but I thought you would know if his problems have been solved. GODS DOUBLE REVELATION IN SCRIPTURE AND SCIENCE ? Biblical Inerrancy and the DoubleRevelation Theory (with special reference to the Origin of the Solar System) JOHN C. WHITCOMB* In this paper it is our purpose to examine a theory that has gained wide acceptance but which tends to undermine the Biblical doctrine of verbal inspiration. This is the Double Revelation Theory which maintains that God has given man two revelations of truth, each of which is fully authoritative in its own realm: the revelation of God in Scripture and the revelation of God in Nature. Although these two revelations differ greatly in their character and scope, they cannot contradict each other, since they are given by the same self-consistent God of Truth. The theologian is the God-appointed interpreter of Scripture, and the scientist is the God-appointed interpreter of Nature, and each has specialised tools for determining the true meaning of the particular book of revelation which he is called upon to study. Whenever there is apparent conflict between the conclusions of the scientist and the conclusions of the theologian, especially with regard to such problems as the origin of the universe, the solar system, the earth, animal life, and man, the effects of the Edenic curse, and the magnitude and effects of the Noahic Deluge, it is the theologian who must rethink his interpretation of the Scriptures at these points, in such a way as to bring the Bible into harmony with the general consensus of scientific opinion. But this theory fails to give due recognition to the tremendous limitations which inhibit scientific method when applied to the study of origins. In the very nature of the case, scientific method (which analyses the laws of nature in repeatable events) is incapable of processing the miraculous and the supernatural, the once-for-all and the utterly unique, the spiritual and the unseen. Scientific method assumes, without proof, the universal and eternal validity of uniformity as a law of nature, by extrapolating present processes for ever into the past and future; and it ignores the possible antitheistic bias of the scientist himself as he handles the facts of nature in arriving at a cosmology (i.e. a theory concerning the basic structure and character of the universe) and a cosmogny (a theory concerning the origin of the universe and its parts). Many Bible students are familiar with the scientific obstacles which the theory of total organic evolution must surmount, such as the transition from non-life to life, the debilitating and even lethal effects of the vast majority of mutations, the large and as yet unbridged gaps between animal forms in the fossil record, and the clear evidence of global catastrophes, rather than gradual uniform processes, in the formation of the fossil strata. Not so familiar, perhaps, are the insuperable difficulties which continue to beset cosmogonists who insist upon explaining the origin of the solar system in terms of naturalistic processes. Gamow, Hoyle, and others have attempted to avoid the difficulties of the planetesimal theory of the early part of this century by returning to a form of nebular hypothesis like that of the 18th century, whereby the Sun and its planets, it is supposed, condensed out of swirling eddies of cold, dark, interstellar clouds of gas and dust. How well this currently popular theory succeeds in explaining the solar system in terms of physical, chemical, and mathematical principles alone, may be judged by the reader for himself after considering carefully some of the problems which continue to harass the cosmologist. 1. The Problem of the Condensation of the Sun and its Planets from a Cold Nebula of Gas and Dust. Gerald P. Kuiper seeks to explain the evolution of the solar system as due to a chance eddy that brought together enough atoms so that their total gravity overcame the momentum of the individual movements, and held them together in a single collapsing cloud. Very slowly the matter of the cloud began to fall inwards on eddies when the gas was densest. This theory is difficult to accept in view of nebula diffusing into outer space before condensation could occur. Also, before gravitational attraction would become significant the particles would have to be the size of the moon. Further, it might be asked what stopped the process continuing so that the entire mass of material did not form one large body? And other suns do not seem to be forming planetary systems. 2. The Problem of the Suns Small Angular Momentum. Professor David Layzer of Harvard states that the present rates of rotation of galaxies can be either measured or inferred from the observed shapes with fair accuracy. That for the sun should be 1,000 million times its present angular momentum, and no satisfactory solution for this difficulty is known. 3. The Problem of the Angular Momentum of the Planets. The sun with 99% of the systems matter in its possession, has only 2% of the systems angular momentum. The lightweight planets possessing under 1% of the systems matter possess 98% of its angular momentum. A theory of evolution that fails to account for these peculiar facts is ruled out before it starts. 4. The Problem of Eccentric Inclined Orbits. Nine planets exhibit the three regularities of rotation round the sun in the same direc- tion, in nearly circular orbits and in almost the same plane. But Mercury and Pluto have inclinations of 7 degrees and 17 degrees respectively, and eccentricities of 24% and 20% while asteroids are even more irregular. Comets and meteors show no trace whatever of the three regularities. Such variations are not explicable as due to accidents and are hardly in keeping with the theory that the system began as a huge rotating flattened disc of gas and dust. 5. The Problem of the Retrograde Rotation of Uranus. While five planets rotate in the same direction as their orbital rotation of the Sun, Uranus rotates in the opposite direction. Also its axis is at 98 degrees, the other plan- ets varying between 3 and 29 degrees. Such phenomena are arguments against the com- mon origin of the planetary system. 6. The Problem of Retrograde Satellites. Six of the nine planets have their own satellites. The outer four of Jupiters twelve, the outermost of Saturns nine, all five of Uranus and the inner of Neptunes two have retrograde orbits. These eleven out of thirty- one moons possessing such motion cannot be brushed aside as minor exceptions. 7. The Problem of the Distribution of Angular Momentum in the Satellite Systems. As stated above, nine of the planets carry 98% of the angular momentum of the solar system. But in the satellite systems, except in the case of the Earth with the Moon, the primary carries the bulk of the momentum, instead of the satellite. In addition the plan- ets rotate more rapidly Tor their densities than the sun. This aggravates the theoretical difficulty presented by the slow rotation of the Sun. If the latter has somehow lost the angular momentum it would be expected to have according to the nebular hypothesis, why have the planets not done likewise? 8. The Problem of the Origin of the Moon. That the Moon took shape as a near twin from the same cosmic raw material and was captured later by the Earth, is unlikely, as its density is only a third that of the Earth. The other theory, that the satellite was pulled out of the Pacific Basin, was shown by H. Jeffreys to have been physically impossible. 9. The Problem of the Heavier Elements in the Smaller Satellites. Apart from hydrogen and helium all the other elements are extremely rare all over the universe. Yet in the Earth and other planets hydrogen and helium are present in about the same amount as iron, calcium, silicon, magnesium and aluminium. Gamows Big Bang theory faces the great difficulty of how elements heavier than helium, that very stable atom, could be built up. Hoyle, opposing Gamow, requires the continuous creation of hydrogen—from nowhere. But have not the currently popular cos- mological and cosmogonical theories been solidly established upon extremely intricate and impressive mathematical foundations? Yes, but equally brilliant mathematicians are demonstrating mutually exclusive cos- mologies. Bernard Jaffe writes: The theoretician supplements Einsteins principles by func- tions of his own, adding a new symbol here, removing another there, changing co- efficients or exponents, rearranging the formulae when new difficulties appear or new interpretations occur to him. Every line represents the creation of a new universe; every sheet of paper that is crumpled and tossed into the wastepaper basket signifies a universe destroyed. In the morning he constructs and in the evening he tears down —god and demon at once. Kirtley Mather, of Harvard University, reviewing the intricately-developed cosmogonical theory of Hoyle, warned that only the alert reader will be aware that, concealed behind the apparently conservative mathematics, there is a previous inverted pyramid of speculation, interlarded with slippery assumptions. Paul A. Zimmerman, too, points out that no theory is better or stronger than its assumptions. Without good grounds for accepting them, the whole structure hangs suspended in the sky by the thread of imagination . . . From all this a Christian pastor may draw the conclusion that he may with truth tell his people that current materialist propaganda regarding cosmological theories is just that—propaganda, unsupported by fact! The Biblical account of creation by Almighty God has not been disproved by science. It remains today, even from the viewpoint of reason, I believe, the most logical, believable account of the beginning of the earth and the rest of the universe (Our italics).
Posted on: Sat, 24 Jan 2015 21:42:57 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015