The Big Bang and Other Just-So Stories

Where did the universe come from? The big bang is the most popular theory, with 70% of Americans being believers. But how did that happen? Where did the matter come from? How can we get evidence from 13.8 billion years ago, to test this theory? And if these conjectures cannot be truly tested, are they really science? Kevin and Bill discuss the limits of scientific inquiry, the testimony of Scripture, and how evolutionism actually destroys science.

Download the episode MP3 here:

https://www.buzzsprout.com/2520780/episodes/18949006-the-big-bang-and-other-just-so-stories.mp3

New kids and family podcast from Generations - TeachMeTheFaith.com 

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:06

Welcome to Generations Kevin Swanson here. And today, the Big Bang. But first, science changes over time. The Greek scientist Ptolemy suggested that the Sun and the planets revolved around the Earth. He was pretty sure of it, and his theory fooled the world for about 1,500 years. He worked out a complicated system for the movement of the planets, but it turned out to be all wrong. Telescopes, rockets, and more careful observations helped us to learn more about the universe. Nicholas Copernicus used better math and more thoughtful observations to reject Ptolemy's theory. Copernicus concluded that the Earth and the planets are actually rotating around the Sun. Galileo also confirmed Copernicus's theory by developing the telescope in 1609. Then Johannes Kepler developed his three laws of planetary motion, showing that the planets move in an elliptical fashion around the sun. The question of origins is also not so easily answered by science. Observational science tells us what is happening right here and right now. By staring through telescopes, we can tell what's happening on the moon right now, but it's impossible to determine by science what happened on the moon 4,000 years ago or 4 billion years ago. Scientists make guesses and dream up imaginary explanations for how the universe came about. The whole world might believe them for a while, just like everybody believed Ptolemy for 1,500 years, but as Christians, we must be more careful. We can only be certain about what God said about origins. Before we consider the popular theory of the day, let's begin with a certain truth. The Bible gives us a simple explanation for the beginning of the universe. Where did the universe come from? How did all the billions of galaxies and countless stars form? The Big Bang theory is the most popular theory today among secular scientists for the origin of the universe. Scientific theories require testing and evidence, at least if you are a rational person, I mean a Christian, geared up with a sound mind. Most Americans, that's 70% by Pew Research data, believe in the Big Bang in higher percentages of Europeans. 80 to 90 percent believe they're believers. Believers in big bangology. Let's talk about real science. What can we observe from just real science? Scientists have observed an expanding universe. Galaxies appear to be moving. Stars appear to be moving away from other stars. We can see stars moving away from where we live here on Earth. You might think of the universe as a balloon. Scientists used to be pretty sure that the universe was always the same size. They didn't think it was getting bigger or smaller. The balloon was neither blowing up or deflating. As a scientist, Albert Einstein thought about that. He concluded that the pull of gravity would actually cause the universe to deflate or contract. Why wasn't the universe contracting? He sat there and wondered. Einstein came up with the explanation that there must be something that's offsetting the effect of gravity. In 1912, an astronomer Vesto Slifer saw something strange about the light from distant galaxies. We call this redshift. When something in space moves away from us, the light waves get stretched out. When light stretches out, it appears more red to the viewer from Earth. Light operates like sound. They're both waves. When cars speed past you, you probably hear the sound of a whoosh. The sound changes, though. As the car approaches, the sound is higher in pitch, but as it moves away from you, the sound goes lower in pitch. This is called the Doppler effect. We see the same effect when waves are moving through the water. When a boat or a duck moves across the water, it produces small waves. The waves in front of the object are bunched together while the waves behind are spreading out. Interestingly, almost every galaxy shows some kind of red shift. That is, nearly all galaxies appear to be moving away from us. Many modern scientists don't believe in God. They don't believe God created the world or that his hand is still active over the world. They believe the natural world exists. They don't believe in the supernatural world. That's their firm conviction. Therefore, they feel a need for an anti-supernaturalist or purely naturalist explanation for the origins of the world. And so these evolutionary scientists have observed an expanding universe. And they tie this in to how the universe got started. Scientists now estimate that the universe began about 13.8 billion years ago. So there is a calculation as to the rate at which the stars are moving out outwards in an expanding universe presently, applying this rate and assuming and assuming and assuming a uniform rate or rates of expansion, and plugging all that into a series of complicated equations and then saying abracadabra and then passing their hands over the computer a few times, and voila, out pops 13.8 billion years. And the wizards, they peep and they mutter and they give their predictions, and 70% of Americans say amen to that. So now evolutionists assume that the universe with all its stars and galaxies were compressed at one time into a smaller and smaller space. All the matter in the universe was supposed to have fit into a space smaller than a tiny dot. The mass of the universe would have to be at maximum density, but taking up no space, whatever that means. They refer to the point as the moment of singularity. However, scientists have no explanation for this moment of singularity. There is no physical event or scientific law that could explain what happened during the moment of singularity. These scientists do not know if it was an explosion or what it was. None of this really makes sense. This is how evolutionary scientists gave up on real science. They imagined how the universe might have come into being this way. Somehow, this infinitely small volume of mass with infinite density or heaviness started expanding. Nobody knows what got that started. Space started expanding and matter expanded into the space. Nobody knows how the expansion began. They have no idea what was going on before that. So these atheists are sure there was no creator. All they are sure of is this made-up story of how all of it began. These scientists refuse to recognize the Creator. They refuse to give God the glory for this amazing creation. They say that the universe appeared by a material process that has never been observed nor completely explained. All the stars, the planets, the earth, the life on earth, the animals, the plants are a product of one big spontaneous explosion and processes that came out of it. Now, scientific theories require testing and evidence. So in summary, scientists claim the following as evidence for the Big Bang. One, redshift is everywhere in the universe. The universe appears to be expanding, and the more distant a galaxy, the more its light is redshifted. Okay, so number two, radiation has been detected throughout the universe. Now, where does cosmic radiation come from? The Big Bang, maybe. Correlation to a made-up theory implies causation, you know. Number three, the amount of various elements in the universe align with one theory as to how the Big Bang might have introduced the elements. Hydrogen and helium are the simplest atoms. There are quite a few of them in the universe, like 99.9%. Also, distant galaxies appear more disorganized, more clumpy. Nearby galaxies appear more organized, forming spirals. But now science can only observe what is happening in the present. As I said, science can make predictions for what will happen in the future, but that only works in some limited ways. These predictions are also never totally certain. There is a far less certainty when observing the present and then trying to guess what happened in the past. For example, you might observe a candle that looks like it's burned halfway down. You may conclude that the candle has been burning for two hours, but you're assuming the length of the candle when it started burning. You're also assuming that the candle was not blown out and relit up multiple times in the past. You're also assuming that the candle was burning at the same rate the whole time. Windy drafts and the room would cause the candle to burn faster. You can make mistakes by observing something occurring in the present and projecting what may have happened in the past. Much of astronomy is an imprecise science. We have to be aware of the differences between the things we observe, the things we're assuming, and the guesswork, the fairy tales. We need to sort out the things we know for sure from the things we don't know for sure. How do we know the distance of the stars for sure? For example, nobody's traveled towards a distant star outside of our solar system. For example, the spaceship Voyager 1 has traveled 24 billion kilometers from Earth. But that's only one quarter of 1% of a light year. The nearest star, proximity Centauri, is four light years from our Earth. That's like traveling one kilometer closer to a light source that's 1,600 kilometers away. We still have not confirmed the accuracy of our measurements for the nearest star. Redshift is only an indication that light from certain stars are different than others. Okay, so light is stretching, but does that imply longer distances? Maybe. Not necessarily. Is it possible that light is losing energy as it travels longer distances? Light's traveling at 186,000 miles per second. You would get tired out a bit after traveling that speed for a few thousand years, wouldn't you? Scientists try to calibrate their redshift measurements by parallax, another method of measuring distance, but parallax is notoriously inaccurate for longer distances. Astronomy is a science that's based heavily on assumptions that may or may not be true. And how can we be sure that expansion follows a certain pattern or continues at a certain rate over billions of years, always expanding at the same rate? We can't be sure of the starting conditions either. Did the universe start out as a tiny speck? Who knows? Nobody was there to observe it. Nobody knows the amount of radiation that might have been produced in a Big Bang either. And nobody knows how a Big Bang would have produced the first atoms or what ratios of hydrogen or helium would be. All this is just guesswork on the part of scientists. They create computer models that would produce the answer they want. As far as the first stars forming, there's no way to experiment with the formation of stars. Science is about experimentation, but how would you like to create a few stars in a laboratory? Now that would be a real challenge. If the early universe was homogenous, like a well-mixed batter, there wouldn't have been any lumpiness in the mix. There was also contradicting, there are also contradicting observations that don't fit well into a Big Bang theory of origins. For example, there should be fewer galaxies and younger galaxies in the far reaches of the space, as far as astronomers observe the universe today, but that's not always the case. There's a mix of galaxies out there, far and near. Here's one more issue. When energy is transformed into matter in the early universe, the matter formed should have been equally distributed. Matter and antimatter. Antimatter is particles with the opposite charge, like protons with a negative charge, electrons with a positive charge. If the entire energy matter content is exploding into a Big Bang, one would expect there to be equal amounts of matter and antimatter. However, scientists today observe there's only 0.0001% antimatter in the universe. Trying to reconstruct a one-time event that was never observed, especially a gigantic explosion like a Big Bang, it's a hopelessly futile effort. The assumption of a constant rate of expansion, questionable to begin with. But to introduce certain anomalies that might help the case is even more random. For example, evolutionists need to explain the clumping of matter. They need to explain how the universe is fairly flat, how the universe gets slapped down like a pancake on a grill. Also, if the density of matter in the universe is too high, gravity would cause the universe to contract and collapse. If the density is too low, there would not be enough gravity and the universe would expand too fast. The density has to be just right. Also, temperatures on either side of the universe are almost exactly the same. How did this happen without having contact one side with the other side? That's why scientists introduced the inflation theory, which allowed for a sudden expansion. But this also had to slow down just at the right time to spread the pancake on the grill. Now, all of this is supposed to happen by chance accident. So what's the moral of the story? The Big Bang theory, which 70% of Americans trust with a religious and trusting faith, falls far short of true science. What we observe in the heavens today cannot possibly give us the explanation of what happened a thousand years ago, ten thousand years ago, or ten billion years ago. These conjectures are not testable. They're not supported by evidence. They cannot possibly explain the origin of the universe. And so this fairy tale explanation is sort of helpful for people who don't want to believe in a creator. But the story goes further. It takes away meaning and purpose and reason for the universe and for your life and for my life. This theorizing also distracts men and women from the more obvious and logical explanation for the beauty, the mystery, and the immensity of the universe, and it robs the heavens of their story and the creator of his glory. Well, the Bible gives us the answer to the origination of the universe. God created it. He created the earth first, put the water on the earth, as well as plants and trees on the second and third days of creation, and then and only then he put the sun, the moon, the stars in place on the fourth day. Now that doesn't fit into any evolutionary model. This revelation is the only basis for any certainty concerning origins. Either we trust God's word, or we are left to imaginary conjectures and total uncertainty. The Bible also has much to say about the sheer expanse and the enormous numbers of stars and the gloriousness of the universe. Hey, the heavens declare the glory of God. Until the modern telescope was developed, the ancients could only observe and count about 5,000 stars. The number of stars are compared to the number of grains of sand on the earth in the Bible. This would be about 7.5 quintillion grains. So far, scientists have mapped 1.8 billion stars, but estimate that there may be as many as one septillion stars out there. Now let me quote from Genesis chapter 22. Then the Lord brought Abram outside and said, Look now toward heaven and count the stars if you are able to number them. And he said to his to him, So shall your descendants be. And then again, as the host of heaven cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured. That's Jeremiah 13, 22. Also, Psalm 147, verse 4, he counts the number of stars, he counts them all by name. Also, lift up your eyes on high and see who has created these things. Who brings out their host by number. He calls them by name, by the greatness of his might, and the strength of his power. Not one is missing. The promise to Abraham prophesies many descendants, certainly more than 5,000. The best estimates are at least 120 million Jews have lived through the centuries. Of course, there are far more descendants than that come through the spiritual offspring of Abraham and his seed, the Lord Jesus Christ. So Scripture also describes the universe as a stretched-out tent or a curtain in similar terms to what we observe today. Although this enormous tent has been stretched out by God, the Creator Himself, this speaks to the relative flatness of the universe. Have you not known? Have you not heard? Has it not been told to you from the beginning? Have you not understood from the foundation of the earth? It is he who sits upon the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, who stretches out the heavens like a curtain and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in. That's Isaiah chapter 40. Well, today, friends, the Big Bang. Did God get it right? And what about these evolutionists? Well, that's uh what we're gonna talk about with Bill Jack in studio today on generations. Bill, I think one of the most interesting things about this debate on evolution is that we've seen a massive increase in the number of people in this country who believe in evolution since the year 2000. In other words, all the way through American history, especially through the development of the Charles Darwin theory, up in up through the monkey trial of the 1920s, into the modern age, you still had a pretty significant number of Americans who held to the creation story of the creation of man. Um in 2000, in the year 2000, only 9% of Americans believed that man evolved from an ape in a godless world. Today that number is 24%. But up until the year 2000, it was right around 8, 9, 10%. It continued at that level, according to the uh Gallup poll that has been done for quite some time. Um, 9%, a steady 9% of Americans believed that man evolved from an ape. The other 91% believed that the hand of God was involved in it.

SPEAKER_01 16:29

So now that does not mean that they were six-day creatures.

SPEAKER_00 16:32

No, no, they were not. In fact, it was it was a 47% believed in the evolution of man. So you add the nine to about, I guess, a 38 or so, and you're up to 47 percent. So there was a 38 percent that were attached to theistic evolution, which was taught very much assiduously in American seminaries for a very long time.

SPEAKER_01 16:52

I would say that number is probably too low. I would think I would think the estimate would be much higher. Trevor Burrus, Jr.

SPEAKER_00 16:58

Well, it is today. That's grown from 47 percent to 58 percent. So we're 9 to 60 percent of Americans, according to the recent Gallup poll conducted in 2024-2025 timeframe. Um, now 58 percent, and others have said it's closer to 60-65 percent, of Americans believe in evolution and the evolution of man. And yet, the full-fledged atheistic, naturalistic explanation of the evolution of man, 9% in 2000, 24 percent in 2025. So a massive increase in the apostasy and atheism and the influence of scientism and evolutionism upon the mind of the average American just since the year 2000. What do you attribute that to?

SPEAKER_01 17:40

Trevor Burrus, Jr. Isn't that amazing that it took from you know, let's say the 1920s with the Scopes trial to 2000? That's eighty years. That's eighty years. Oh, in a belief in every person that they have that there is a God who is a creator. Yeah. Okay. Now, um we're not talking about those who hold to the Bible, but those who recognize that there is a God. It took that long, but the schools have won, okay, because they've they've promoted uh vigorously this pseudoscience called evolution. Now, a pseudo-Christian cult, for example, is a false Christian cult. Pseudoscience, the pseudoscience of evolution is that it's not science at all, as you pointed out very clearly, um, because what you do, you do science in the present. You do a science experiment now, you can test gravity now, you you make predictions about the future, you draw conclusions about the past. But you can only do science right right now. Science is limited to the present. But what we've done with this pseudoscience of evolution and with scientism is we have made science the end-all and be-all of knowledge. For example, um, can you prove I was here five minutes ago scientifically? I witnessed you. What was the key word? Scientifically.

SPEAKER_00 19:14

Right, scientifically.

SPEAKER_01 19:15

In other words, can you test, observe, repeat, measure, and study me? Which is how you do that's the scientific method.

SPEAKER_00 19:21

Right.

SPEAKER_01 19:22

Can you test, observe, repeat, measure, and study me five minutes ago right now? No, I can't. No, no, no. Because science is limited to the present. Now, you're correct. You can prove I was here five minutes ago because we have an eyewitness account. That's historical evidence. We have assumed that science is all inclusive as far as evidence. No, science is limited. We have various forms of evidence. Okay, one is historical evidence. You can't prove scientifically that Abraham Lincoln existed. Okay? So science is limited, but we have allowed the pseudoscience of evolution to dominate the education of uh the American populace. Um tell me tell me how old you think I am. Now be kind. 68. You know, I kind of like you. Let's try it one more time. Give me another figure. I still like you, okay? But uh that neither one of those is correct. How are you gonna know how old I am? Well, I could check out your birth certificate. Uh you had a birth birth certificate, or could you could have talked to uh your mama? My mama. In other words, unless you have an eyewitness account or an historical document, you can't tell how old anything is precisely. Now, imagine that you and I are on a jury and we are hearing uh a case where there has been a horrific accident. Okay? A lot of property damage, no life loss, but a lot of property damage. And it it's cost the county a lot of money to, you know, to send out emergency vehicles and to take care of downed light poles and and electrical boxes that have been yanked off houses. And so there's there's damage done. So there's got to be some guilt, you know. Somebody did it. Somebody did it. So you we're hearing the testimony. You and I are on the jury and we hear the testimony. And the prosecution brings in an expert accidentologist. Okay? He's got his PhD in accidentology. Okay. And he explains exactly how the accident happened. He says, I wasn't there. I didn't see it, but I'm going to tell you exactly as how it happened. And we listen intently to his testimony because he's got his PhD in accidentology. And then we hear the next witness, and the next witness is somebody who's who gives his background. He says, You know, he said, I kind of dropped out of high school. I didn't finish my degree. Um And I I don't have any advanced degrees. He said, but I'm gonna tell you exactly how it happened. Because I was there. I saw it. In fact, I confess I did it. Who are you gonna trust? Whom whom are you gonna trust? You're gonna trust the eyewitness account. Now, when it comes to the question of origins, we have a lot of highly intelligent, well-educated, articulate people who tell us, I wasn't there, I didn't see it, but I'm gonna tell you exactly how it happened. But do we have an eyewitness account who says I was there, I did see it, in fact, I did it.

SPEAKER_00 22:42

It would help if there was a second witness saying, and I saw that guy was there. And I saw him.

SPEAKER_01 22:45

And the answer is yes, we do.

SPEAKER_00 22:47

A double eyewitness that would help.

SPEAKER_01 22:48

We have a triple eyewitness. We have God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and they tell us we did it this way in Scripture. Now, what we've done is we have been we have been conditioned to take God's word and say, oh, you know, that that that was metaphorical, or oh, God's just trying to convey something too complex for our finite, puny little minds to comprehend. And so we come up with better stories. I saw an interview with uh with the the director of the Smithsonian, and he made an interesting statement. He said, creationists just have a better story. We've got to come up, as evolutionists, he said, with a better story. Well, it turns out that yes, we do have a story, but it happens to be true. It is not a just so story. You know the just so stories. Okay. Uh the just so stories are, for example, how did the elephant get his long nose? Well, the just so story was that the elephant had a short nose. He went to get a drink of water, but a crocodile grabbed hold of his nose and they pulled and they tugged and they pulled and they tugged and they yanked and the nose stretched. I don't buy that one. I just don't buy it. That's what was a problem with me. Is that a problem with me? It is not a problem with you because you're too reasonable, because you choose, you choose to trust God's word rather than man's so-called wisdom. You choose to re receive God's revelation, then rely on man's reason. And that's where the real issue is on this. I I I had f I fell prey to this concept that that science is true, God's word is true. How am I going to resolve this apparent conflict? So I mixed the two together when I was in college and I became a theistic evolutionist.

SPEAKER_00 24:57

Which was about 35% of the nation's population. So you would join the 35%.

SPEAKER_01 25:03

Yes, I think it's even higher than that. I think among Christians it's much higher than that. That somehow God used evolution to bring about his creation. And and I I built this nice little construct, you know, where I could do this. I could, I could, I could believe in so-called science, man's reason, and God's word. And I I didn't realize that it was a house of cards, that I had assumed over here rather than relying over here. And so there was a simple question that was asked me. It was by a guy for for whom I ended up working working. He was he was the uh president of the Caleb campaign that brought me out here. It brought me out here to Colorado. It was a creationist youth ministry designed to assist Christian students, teachers, parents who were in the public schools, who wanted to share their faith legally, effectively, and aggressively. It was a creationist youth ministry. And he asked me one simple question for which I instinctively knew the answer from all of my Sunday school training. But I the minute I answered the question, I knew I had a problem. And it took me months. It took me months to get my head around how important this question was. But it plagued me, it bugged me. The question was, when did death enter the world? I instinctively said, when Adam and Eve sinned. But you see, at that point, what I'd done is I'd said, okay, these days in Genesis could be millions of years. Because of 2 Peter 3:8. A day is as a thousand years, a thousand years is as a day unto the Lord. Maybe these days were thousands of years or millions of years. So each day could be an epoch of time. Seven epochs seven days. Yeah, I've solved the problem, I've bridged the gap.

SPEAKER_00 27:00

The crazy thing is, does it really help you to put the moon, the sun, the stars on the fourth day? I mean, that seems like it's out of whack. So somehow God didn't get it right. Yeah, somehow God must have metaphor. So then we're back to metaphor and poetic and all the rest, which is But here's the here's the problem. Uh a rejection of God's truth and God's history. This is God's.

SPEAKER_01 27:19

The real issue is the question of death. When did death come into the world? If each of these days is a thousand years or a million years, I had death prior to sin. And that that negates the work of Christ on the cross. Now, I didn't realize it at the time, but I was beginning to compromise. Genesis 1 14. I I couldn't I couldn't answer this one either. You know, Genesis 1 14 that he gave the sun, moon, and stars that they may be for signs, for days, for nights, for signs, and for seasons and for years. Now wait a minute. If if my model was correct, if a day is a thousand years, then what's a night? Well, maybe maybe he meant day and nights a thousand years. Okay, we'll solve that. But then what's what's a fourth year. Year. And if Adam was created on day six and he lived nine hundred and thirty years, did he live part of one day? Or did he live nine hundred and thirty times three hundred and sixty-five times a thousand? Plus we don't get a year till the fourth day. So what do you do with that? Exactly. You don't even get a year until the fourth day. It makes nonsense. You can it makes that one verse totally nonsensical. Who defined a day?

SPEAKER_00 29:19

Well, God does. God did.

SPEAKER_01 29:21

Day one. On day one, morning, morning, morning, day one. Everybody knows what that is, too. Yeah, and in Matthew 19, Jesus was asked, you know, do you allow for a divorce? Okay. Now it's interesting his answer. His answer was, have you not read that God created the male and female from the beginning? Now that little prepositional phrase from the beginning is very key.

SPEAKER_00 29:45

They were there from the beginning.

SPEAKER_01 29:47

It is not, it is not a stretch of the imagination to think that from the beginning is at the end of a six-day creation week. It is a stretch of the imagination to say that from the beginning is at the end of six thousand years or six million years or six billion years. Plus, Jesus had the opportunity to correct the Jews' bad theology. They had taught this as six days for eons, right?

SPEAKER_00 30:12

You're assuming Jesus was there at the creation. Yes. Partially because he was the creator. Because he was the creator. Yeah, he is the creator.

SPEAKER_01 30:18

If you're the creator, you're probably going to be there at the creation. He was the eyewitness accountant. He had the opportunity to correct their bad theology because they've been teaching it six days from their inception, right? As a nation. And and he comes along, he says, before I answer the question about divorce, let me correct some bad theology that you Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians, and Ramalama, ding-dongs have all been teaching. That you teach of the law, you've been telling us it's six days. Let me correct that bad theology and then we'll move on. No, he doubled down on it. He said from the beginning, what we've done is we've allowed man's so-called reason, so-called wisdom wisdom to trump, to dominate our thinking in the area of science. We need to refresh ourselves. We need to go back and look at God's word. In in Exodus 25 through 31, Jesus or God gives specific instructions about how the temple is to be constructed, right? I mean, down to the number of pretty specific to the number of of you know lampstands and the number of branches on each lampstand. And then in Exodus 31, he tells Moses you're to remember the Sabbath day. And he tells him either four to six times remember the Sabbath day, remember the Sabbath day, remember the Sabbath day. And he says, Because the Lord God made the earth in six days, he worked six days and rest on the seventh. That's the one that got me. Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 32:02

You can't equivocate in the word day there. No. Otherwise, I get to work for 5,000 years and take the 6,000 years off, or whatever it is. You know, it's interesting. What about Peter Enns, though? Peter Enns says that Jesus didn't know what he's talking about.

SPEAKER_01 32:14

Peter Enns is a heretic. You remember Peter Enns? He he is a heretic. I use his clip in my talks with my students at Worldview Academy. What do you think on a show? What do you say in the clip?

SPEAKER_00 32:24

They said Jesus didn't know what he was talking about, right?

SPEAKER_01 32:25

No, he said this. He said that that uh Paul was a first century man. I wouldn't expect Paul to have a discussion about uh the genetic code with uh because he does anonymous stuff, right? Because he's a first century manager stuff.

SPEAKER_00 32:43

But you say the same thing about Jesus, say the same thing about Jesus, so Jesus didn't know what he's talking about. That seems for somebody who's omniscient and who was there at the beginning, remember what he said before Abraham was, I am. That seems to me that he's got some intelligence probably beyond Peter Ens. But I'd I I'm guessing Peter Enns would not acknowledge that. And Peter's if anybody doesn't know what Peter Ens is, he's been impartial.

SPEAKER_01 33:08

Which Francis Collins, who was the head of the National Institutes of Health, he was Fauci's boss, he also is associated with biologos. They often, I have seen them, you have seen them at the curriculum fairs at homeschool conventions presenting their curriculum, which questions the six-day creation. It this is heresy. Peter Enns was kicked out of Westminster um seminary for his heresy. Yeah. But he says Paul was a first century man. In other words, he's talking about the guy who gave us much of the New Testament under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and he's saying he's an idiot. Okay. He doesn't know what he's talking about. You need to listen to me. What arrogance. What arrogance is that?

SPEAKER_00 33:57

Here's a quote from Peter Enns. Jesus reflects the tradition that he himself inherited as a first century Jew, and that is here is assumed to be the case. In other words, he's a product of his age. Right. And he doesn't know what he's talking about. Doesn't know what he's talking about. That's pretty sad. That's what you have to do if you're a theistic evolutionist. That that's the direction you need to do.

SPEAKER_01 34:18

If I were standing next to Peter Ans when he made that comment, I would certainly move away about 20 feet because I would expect of a lightning strike.

SPEAKER_00 34:25

I would expect that's about the radius of a lightning strike. Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 34:28

Is it 20 feet? I don't know.

SPEAKER_00 34:29

I want to dial that in. It's occasionally. Maybe a hundred feet. Yeah. Closer to a hundred feet. Yeah. Okay.

SPEAKER_01 34:34

Maybe the next county. Okay. Something like that. I don't want to be standing next to him.

SPEAKER_00 34:38

But but in other words, if you're a self-consistent theistic evolutionist, you're going to have to give up on Jesus. You're going to have to give up on Paul or at least the authority or infallibility of the statements made by Jesus or Paul.

SPEAKER_01 34:55

Yes. It comes down to really whom are you going to trust? Are you going to trust someone who wasn't there, who didn't see it, who has studied it, yes, but has reached the conclusion that is contrary to scripture? Are you going to trust the one who did it? Are you going to trust the creator of the universe to tell us that here's what I did, here's how I did it. Because if you say, well, he's just giving us a pattern, this is Hugh Ross from Reasons to Believe, who says he's just giving us a pattern to follow. He's trying to convey something that's too complex for our finite punitive minds to comprehend. That's a quote. I've heard him say it. And I'm going, what you're saying is that the God of the universe is lying to us. He's deceiving us.

SPEAKER_00 35:43

And incapable of communicating basic truth.

SPEAKER_01 35:46

Yes. But we have to rely on these enlightened men, these enlightened scientists, to really tell us. This this goes back to Plato. This goes back to the philosopher king. There's there's certain elites that will guide us. No, God's word guides us. May all men be found liars and God's word be found true. We've got to decide whom we're going to trust on this issue. Is it going to be man's so-called wisdom and so-called reason, or is it going to be God's word?

SPEAKER_00 36:21

And I think we give up on the rationality of the human mind. And you you say, you know, are we going to trust in human reason? But it's actually turns out to be an irrational human reason that bases its its entire structure of thought concerning origins on a fairy tale, not on evidence, uh, but on a an imaginary situation that is constructed in the minds of men who have really cool computer models working. Uh that, my friends, is the giving up on true science. So that is the destruction of science. Here's the concern. My concern is evolution and environmental science, modern environmental science, has destroyed science. It has undermined what science is supposed to be and supposed to do for us. And to that extent, I think people who send their kids off to these schools to be instructed in this pseudoscience of the day, they're not just giving up on biblical truth. They're giving up on science itself. They're apostatizing from the Word of God while at the same time uh destroying science and creating the wrong conception of science, science capabilities and science, the purposes of science in their own minds. They begin to become irrational in their understanding of the world, natural revelation, what we're supposed to be studying in the world in front of us. They come to the conclusion that the dropping a ball 99 times, including with 98% probability that uh gravity exists, is the same thing as grabbing a rock and saying, oh, the radioactive decay rate is this in the year 2026 and thus concluding the rock is four billion years old. They're equating those forms of science and in the process destroying science, undermining science, turning science into what they did in the Renaissance, turning into astrology and alchemy. And so the modern astrology and alchemy that comes out of the humanist renaissance is modern environmental science and evolutionary science that's coming out of the apostasy of the modern age. So, in other words, the Renaissance science, the humanist science of Italy in the 1400s, are doing, were doing precisely the same thing with their astrology and their stupid alchemy as what modern scientists are doing with their computer models for evolution and environmental science in the year 2026. And my point is that destroys science. Thank God for the Newtons, thank God for the Protestant Reformation, thank God that we were able to salvage something out of the 1500s and a decent science where hard sciences were actually formed over a period of about 150 years, and almost exclusively godly Christian scientists who understood the fear of God as the beginning of wisdom and knowledge and received the word of God actually as the authoritative word of God. And they didn't give way to these false forms of pseudoscience that has been so popular in the 21st centuries. I look at the 21st century as much like the 15th century, where the Renaissance was corrupting science, turning it into astrology and alchemy. Very same thing is happening today, as 70% of the population is embracing this fairy tale called the Big Bang Theory and this idea that some form of inanimate matter, the universe, turned into me, but we don't know the process. We have no idea how it happened. We can't replicate it in a classroom or in a chemistry room. Uh, and we've never observed it to happen. But still, it happened. We're sure, we're certain. And we're going to teach that in 99% of the museums and 99% of the universities today. So that everybody is convinced by the emperor's new clothes makers in the propaganda campaign. That's where we are today. Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 39:56

Here's what we used to call a fairy tale. You take a frog, you take a princess, the princess kisses the frog, turns the frog into Prince Charming. That's a fair tale to me. Here's what we call uh science today. We take the same frog, we had three billion years, and it turns him into Prince Charles of England. We call that science. Good friend of ours, Andrew Heaster, worked on his PhD in immunology. And he did a lab for these are postdocs, docs, doctoral students, and his his question was, why is science education dying? And he he came to the conclusion it's because we teach science as if everything is random, but we do science as if there is order in the universe. You see, we have created a disconnect between science education and actually how you do science. At best, at best, evolution is a philosophy of science. Creation is a philosophy of science. You can't go back and repeat them. You can't go back and test them. If they're if either one's true, they're beyond the scope of science, because as we've pointed out, science is limited to right now. So what you have to do is you have to go, okay, which model better fits the evidence? And I use the term model. I don't use theory because that implies that it's scientific. A model is an attempt to explain reality, like a model train represents, or a model home represents the homes you're going to find in the neighborhood. So both of these are models. They're beyond the scope of science, but they're attempts to explain reality. They are stories. Now, which story better fits the evidence?

SPEAKER_00 41:53

And the second thing is which model has an authoritative truth source behind it, to which we can attach a faith in a trust, in a certain truth. Right. And when it comes to origins, it is important.

SPEAKER_01 42:14

How you do the question of origins will determine how you make your money, how you spend your money, how you view your parents, how they view you, how you view those about purpose for life life, those about to leave this life. It determines what you're going to do with the person of Jesus Christ. Right. Okay. If Adam and Eve were never real people in real time and real space, then there was no such thing as an original sin. If there's no such thing as original sin, then there's no need for salvation. If there's no need of salvation, there's no need of a savior. And that puts the work of Christ on the cross as a mockery. We have a new Adam, Jesus. We have the cessation of death that was pronounced at the rebellion in the garden with the b the death of Christ on the cross. We now have new life. If Adam and Eve were not real people, then what happened with Jesus on the cross is fruitless.

SPEAKER_00 43:13

You can't get certainty out of science. That's number one. Number two, evolution is not science. It's guesswork. It's a model, as you say. Therefore, there is nothing you can say about origins if you come from an evolutionary, humanistic, naturalistic, scientific-based approach to knowledge. Therefore, uh we need to go somewhere else if we're going to answer the more basic questions of life, and that is to the Word of God itself, that uh maintains absolute authority and produces absolute certainty to those who will receive its truth. Who are you going to trust? Who are you going to trust? That's what it comes down to. Well, friends, that wraps up the Generations Broadcast. Our entire science program is based upon a biblical view of origins, a biblical view of science. And we incorporate hundreds of Bible verses into it because we believe the ultimate certain truth is found in God's revealed word. And therefore, we're going to use those as the eyeglasses by which to examine natural revelation, which is science. And so here it is. God made the world. This interacts a bit with the Big Bang for 10 year olds. Here's God made life, which interacts with uh evolutionary theories on biology for uh seventh graders, and of course, God made animals. So grab these books, and by the way, yours truly is the author of these because I really wanted to bring the awesomeness of God into science and a biblical truth as the basis for understanding the world around us. Even when it comes to science. Hey, Kevin, how do I know that you're the author of those? I wasn't there to see you writing. I'll just have to testify it to. I'll just have to testify it to on this program. So grab our science curriculum at generations.org. This is Kevin Swanson and Bill Jack inviting you back again next time as we continue to lay down a vision for the next generation. This has been a production of the Generations Media Network. For more information, go to generations.org/slash media.