Our Lens for Viewing the World

Okay, so I had to read this book for my Old Testament class (though I'm not sure why) entitled The Creator and the Cosmos by Hugh Ross. In it, Ross, Ph.D in astronomy from the University of Toronto, argues for a divinely created Big Bang. Giving a cornucopia of data, which requires a doctorate in astrophysics to understand, he attempts to persuade his readers of the validity of an intelligent Creator who set creation in motion by a sudden burst of matter and energy which results in the continual expanse of the universe according to the laws of thermodynamics and the theory of general relativity. Furthermore, he suggests that this cosmology is consistent with Scripture, since it was God who 'stretched out the heavens' - Isaiah 42:5 (p. 23-29). Ross then defends his position against numerous alternate cosmologies and provides an abundance of information on both the impossibility of accidental life and the anthropic principle (a theory that argues that the entire universe must exist exactly as it is in order for life to be sustained here on earth).

The amount of data he provides is overwhelming, leaving simple-minded men such as myself with little to say. It appears to the average reader, that beyond a scientific doubt, the universe was created, through a Big Bang, which was orchestrated by an intelligent Creator. AND, because the Bible appears to support the claim, the God of the Bible must be this Creator.

On surface level this sounds great, but is this the way we should view the world? Is it okay for us to attempt to validate the truth claims of the Bible through the lens of science? My answer..."NO!" There are a couple of questions I would ask Ross. First, it is my understanding that the Big Bang theory requires three things: 1) dense matter, 2) very extreme heat, and 3) time. Ross argues that God created these three things ex nihilo (from nothing) and set the big bang on the course of expanding the universe according to thermodynamics and general relativity, making the universe some 15 billion years old. But, if God created these from nothing, is it impossible for him to create a universe with apparent age that continues to expand according to the rules of thermodynamics and general relativity?

The second question is this: Do you believe that Adam was a real person, created with apparent age? The Bible supports that Adam and the animals were created as functional adults. So, if they began with apparent age, again could the world not have been created with maturity as well? If Ross does not believe that Adam was real, he's undermining the very thing he is trying to validate: Scripture. Genesis, Joshua, 1 Chronicles, Hosea, Luke, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy, and Jude all portray Adam as a real, created human being (not to mention Eve). I don't think he would want to try to give an argument of how the Bible implicitly supports a Big Bang theory, but deny what Scripture explicitly affirms. How do you attempt to defend the Bible with science, only to turn and say that science proves that some of its claims are impossible? I ask these questions only to get at the point that when it comes to the way we view the world, science is no substitute for Scripture.

Now don't get me wrong. I appreciate science. I believe there are a great number of things we can learn about our world and we should seek to learn more about it. Ross' arguments for the intricacy and uniqueness of life are astonishing. We should rejoice at the idea of the anthropic principle. God fashioning the entire universe so that human life could exist on this small speck of a planet should cause us to stand in awe of the wisdom and love of God. But should we rely on human understanding to defend God and the claims of Scripture? Absolutely not! Are we really so arrogant?

You may have heard of the illustration of the watch and the watchmaker. If we found a watch on the beach, the order and intelligence of the design would be evident to us. By simple observation, we could tell implicitly that it was made and not a product of chance. Yet we do not stand outside the watch, we are a part of it. How can we then, as an insignificant piece of the watch, expect to be able to fully comprehend it, let alone the watchmaker? We are like a little gold link near the clasp of the watchband, resting outside the intricate mechanics of the watch itself. Yet in reality the distinction is far greater. We are a microscopic speck of the created, an infinitesimal speck of dust on a vast, gargantuan, and complex machine. It seems foolish for me to think that we can then stand as an authority over creation. And even if we could stand outside of the created in order to observe and discern the absolute workings of the mechanism, how would we know it is a watch and not a flashlight, or a microwave? The only way we would know that it is a watch is because somebody told us that it was. Apart from this revelation, we would have no idea what it was or why it is created. We would need an instruction manual for that. Furthermore, we certainly would not be able to deduce from it who the watchmaker was and what he was really like. Therefore, no matter how much we discover about our universe, it will never fully tell us why it is here and what its origins are. We cannot get to the Creator through the created. It is arrogance to try.

If we are to know how and why we came to be it MUST be told to us. The universe will never tell us more than "you were created." We can learn some things about the Creator, but we'll never find out who he is unless he tells us. We need revelation. We need to hear his Word. We need to believe what he tells us. He claims all authority by his Word without giving a single apologetic for it, because what piece of the created order could give irrefutable evidence for the One who is by nature irrefutable? He must speak if we are to know him. If he speaks, his word is authoritative truth and, as the Creator, all creation must obey it. Let us then not seek to make the Bible fit with science. Let's not shape Christianity according to the intellectual theory of the day. Rather, let's take him at his Word. One day we'll see that it all fits together. Until then, we should plumb the depths of knowledge with the understanding that to God belongs all wisdom, knowledge, and power. Let's be content to leave question marks where they remain. But let us never attempt to make the truth claims of Scripture fit our scientific worldview, for God alone "is perfect in knowledge" (Job 37:16).