Dragons don’t exist, this we know. They definitely never existed at any time… this we assume to know or have greatly accepted as fact, relegating their status to myth and legend. But why? Why don’t they exist, or why haven't they "ever existed" in the ancient past? How do we know this for sure, and how was this ‘fact’ established? And so, let’s calmly question what we’ve been told, and what we’ve assumed, to prod the foundations of our knowledge, kick the tires of history, let out some of the puffed up contemporary fantastical air, and see if the vehicle of our Dragon lore is roadworthy, testing to see how far we can take it. A good practice is to be willing to entertain an idea to test its integrity. So lets entertain away. How we phrase the question is important though: Was there a time when Dragon’s existed? Or more precisely, could a Dragon-like creature have existed? I think to the latter question, the answer is a resounding YES. One need only look to the creatures on earth right now to surmise that history could well have seen something akin to what we’ve conceptualized the archetype dragon to be, and that it was perhaps these kind of creatures that inspired the early tales. And that’s the issue here. The main doubt about this animal is in people’s idea of it as this great fire spewing, scaled and winged monster rising from the depths of hell, perhaps the product of some wild imaginative liberty. From an objective view, it certainly seems to be the collective imaginative galvanization of our greatest fears. Let’s just say off the bat, or firmly assume, that Dragons are a thing of myth and legend - what we understand those two words to mean, and… They DEFINITELY NEVER EXISTED, at least not in the way fantasy and media portray it. – Let this be our starting point. And so, the arguments against its existence follows:
The Greek origin – ‘the one that watches’ Where does our knowledge of Dragons come from and what influenced or inspired the vivid modern day image? What other so-called mythological creatures are there that were also a result of ancient cultures – but that are shared as vividly throughout the ancient world as widely as the dragon? Pegasus, mermaids, centaurs, … unicorns* – (*likely inspired by the rare Indian rhino... uni-single horn). Are these creatures exclusive to one ancient culture, or do they feature in a few? Mostly, one finds they are isolated to specific cultures or myths. But of all these creatures though, the dragon seems the likeliest to have potentially existed, based on what we know. Refuting the claims against the existence of Dragons. No Dragon fossils – Well, let’s remind ourselves that fossils are very rare and assume that if Dragons did exist, there weren’t that many of them around. Due to the media, we’ve taken fossils for granted. They are hard to come by, and the few we have are largely fragmented – that is to say we only have some remains of certain animals, in most cases only a small fraction of the animal’s remains, like a femur bone, some ribs, or the pelvic bones – whichever bones are the largest and usually take the most time to decay. I think it’s fair to say that there are more animals extinct than those we have currently living on earth. Put a different way: there is a large amount of animal species that DID exist, that we know nothing about, I mean, if it weren’t for the fossils, we wouldn’t have known that such creatures ever walked the earth (apart from potential ancient literature and historical accounts attesting to such unfamiliar creatures). Now, consider the fossils we DO have and the ones that resemble the Dragon in appearance; the T-Rex, the Dracorex, Velosiraptor etc… And ask yourself, ‘how accurate are our replicas or fleshed out renderings of these animals?’ With only a skeleton to work with, there is a decent margin of error, call it an 'error factor'. Now, I’m not saying the artists and paleontologists are incorrect, but after the re-imagining of sinew and muscle tissue around the skeleton, the cartilage and skin/fur - it does leave the window ajar as to the amount of estimation that must go into these museum displays. (One display in a museum in America, is based on only 10% of the animal’s remains! In these instances, as well as the Chimera fossils, the error factor is compounded). Added to that is the varying interpretations of data found. Flight – Could a creature, let’s (conservatively) say 10m high, actually fly? Applying physics, is it possible for a scaly serpent with wings to take flight? Let’s also clarify something here; not all Dragon representations have wings. The Biblical description (Job) did NOT include wings, however, later in Revelation when Satan is referenced as a Dragon, that’s a different story, because we know Lucifer was an Archangel, like Michael and Gabriel, and in other descriptions of Lucifer (before he was cast out of heaven), he did have wings… so the concept of the Dragon emerged from the amalgamation of the two images. However, the symbolic imagery from the John's controversial vision in the Book of Revelation (often confusing and difficult to interpret literal from figurative) also states that the woman the Dragon pursues, was given wings of an eagle to evade him, implying that the dragon (Lucifer) could NOT fly. But that aside, for many considering this debate, removing the wings from the equation makes the Dragon's potential existence not so much a debate, as a probability – big dinosaur-type lizard creatures did exist, that much we know is true… it’s the fire and wings that people have always found to be a bridge too far. But let's realistically consider the permutations of wings:
Interesting facts (loosely related) - We must also remind ourselves, as mentioned, serpents’ bodies do expand when they eat (including unhinging their jaws to devour their prey and an expandable spine). Also fully grown Nile Crocodiles can reach a top speed of around 35km/h, which is roughly 2min per kilometer, about on par with Olympic athletes (800m – 1min45sec) and this for an animal weighing in at about 500kg. This is only to lend some context to a would-be Dragon’s agility and maneuverability, Still on the possibility of flight – continuing on from flexible and ‘expanding’ skeletons, we turn to bone density, although now we are stretching our hypothesis a tad… so let’s return to the land of the living and remind ourselves that there are snakes that glide too, much like the Draco Lizard some breeds can leap from tree-to-tree, flattening their bodies, and then there’s the water snake, which (as its name indicates) can glide on the surface of water. So the ergonomics for a dragon to realistically attain flight (or at least gliding), is very much achievable. ‘Breathing’ Fire Why would such an animal have this ‘feature’? Presumably it would be a defense mechanism, but against what exactly? Are there any living animals that display this feature, or features similar to, or shall we say as 'extravagant' as this? In the film ‘Reign of Fire (2002)’ it featured dragons that had two glandular chambers in opposing sides of its mouth, each chamber containing a chemical that when ejected they'd combined to form a combustible mixture. This ‘mechanism’ was inspired by the Bombardier beetle. Furthermore, in the animal kingdom we have electric Eels (another kind of serpent), and then there's Fireflies – the ‘glowing’ feature is for attracting mates or prey. I’ll leave the fire-breathing summation up to you, but the above is a just a logical idea of how the ‘fire-breathing’ element/mechanism can be explained. There are historical sources which claim the dragon's main 'killing' weapon was its tail - as a whip, or coiling around its victim, and that it was without poison. So it must also be added that the fire element was more of a 'deterrent' and intimidating factor... Why would they have died out? If historical accounts surrounding dragons are to be believed (and we have no evidence on why they should not), then human intervention played a huge role. Men striving to tame the fearsome animal and what happens when an animal is hunted; you find that the size of the animal diminishes over time as they’re prevented from growing to maturity - killed before they reach full strength. Look at the early fossils of so-called prehistoric crocodile’s, or the large extinct Dire wolf losing out to the more nimble Grey wolf (although external factors played a role too). Historical accounts are consistent with this ‘shrinking’. The ancient accounts paint a picture of a large fearsome creature, whilst later accounts such as those of Herodotus (the Greek historian, ca. 460 B.C.) and Josephus (the Roman historian writing in the 1st century AD - 2:10:2:245-246), speak of ‘flying serpents’ - the latter's case 'the Ibis bird was used to repel the flying serpents. Another theory claims that the latter two historians were likely referring to surviving Pterosaurs. Either way the biggest influencing factor, as is the trend with rare species of animals, was mankind. Are Dragon's Dinosaurs... but then are we saying man encountered dinosaurs? The first point, about fossils resembling dragon's - meaning great Lizard - seems to backup up the final point, that ancient civilizations were inspired by such finds... But can we make this blanket assertion for all ancient cultures? That they all independently conceptualized this similar terror? In this writer's opinion, we cannot. Especially not in light of bona fide historical accounts... the reason why this fossil theory is so relied upon, is because the prevailing scientific hypothesis states that dinosaurs died out some 70 million years ago, but early human history seems to contradict this. Never mind that they've discovered soft tissue in Dinosaur bones (that scientists have failed to explain adequately - as to how could soft tissue can withstand millions of years of decay), and there are cases of rock art (Peru) that suggest man walked with dinosaurs (in addition to Hebrew literature, which is what the Bible is. Whilst archeologists investigating in Denmark have found that Beowulf, Europe's earliest literature, is based on fact, real clans, places and people... the difficult part to digest is Dragons and giants... or if the tale is real, did Beowulf then perhaps fight one of the last remaining dinosaurs of that region?) This issue is simply about reconciling whether or not dinosaurs lived in the same time as man, and there are big enough cracks in the geologic/prehistoric timetable theory to peer into, throwing ample reasonable doubt into the equation. This though is another exciting rabbit hole. But back on track; dragons are simply a form of ancient lizard/serpent , and there are plenty of those species still in existence. As mentioned, the alligator/crocodile, the monitor lizard, Komodo Dragon etc. are recognized for being ancient creatures. And then we arrive at the one which bears the most striking resemblance to contemporary dragon renderings: The Smaug Giganteus, aka ‘Sungazer’ – endemic to South Africa. “Sungazers are heavily armoured lizards hence one of their common names, the Girdled Lizard. This is derived from the bony scales along their body. Another name for them ‘Ouvolk’ is from Afrikaans and roughly translates into “Old Folk”, supposedly referring to its tendency of sitting at the entrance of the burrow facing the sun for many hours on end. Universally, the most commonly used name, Sungazer is also derived from this posturing. “These colonial, ovoviviparous lizards reproduce every two to three years, and only produce one or two offspring per breeding cycle.” (Bill Branch. 1998. Field Guide to Snakes and other reptiles of Southern Africa, p. 189) I highlighted the line above because it’s consistent with the earliest meanings of the word dragon and also how they're portrayed; Word: Dragon - Middle English < Old French < Latin dracōn- (stem of dracō) < Greek drákōn kind of serpent, probably orig. epithet, the (sharp-) sighted one, akin to dérkesthai to look … and more remotely “to watch” and “to flash.” Name: Drakon (Δράκων)) - Greek name meaning "dragon." In Greek mythology - Drakon Ismenios was a gigantic serpent which guarded the sacred spring of Ismenos near Thebes; the Drakon Kholkikos was the guardian of the golden fleece… “St. Roma’nus delivered the city of Rouen from a dragon, named Gargouille (waterspout), which lived in the river Seine.” (bartleby.com) – gargouille… inspiration for “gargoyle”. “In reality snakes do not shut their eyes because they do not have eyelids, giving the impression they are awake all the time, and watching with a menacing unblinking stare.” – (constellationofwords.com - © Anne Wright 2008.) History On a larger worldwide scale though, in practically all ancient cultures that have some form of recorded history, there are references to dragons, or a dragon-like creatures. As noted sources of dragon's are cited in parts of Africa, the Middle East and Europe (Greek and Hebrew text). Farther east in India (via Alexander the Great and Marco Polo), as well as historian accounts of Geisner, Gould, Aldrovandus, Strabo and Megasthenes... there's Mexico (Acambaro art) then there's the ubiquitous and expansive Chinese Dragon lore, with many more accounts littering the Old world. Yes, in some of the later accounts the Dragons may differ in description, but the explanation that all these cultures and historians simply saw dinosaur fossils and interpreted them as "dragon", doesn't sync. I'm sure there are instances of this occurring, but even Marco Polo wrote of actual terrifying nocturnal serpents with wings and two legs. So, based on the evidence at hand, and knowing for a certainty that I DO NOT know everything... I will say that outside my Biblical background, the case or likelihood for the Dragon's existence, even close to the modern fantasy renditions, is actually quite good. There is of course doubt, but we cannot simply stick dogmatically to the "dragons are simply mythical creatures, of legend and nothing more". The evidence before us strongly suggests that it may be a simple case of personal preference, to look at the data with a positive or negative mindset, for or against. You decide. “There is a place in Arabia, situated very near the city of Buto, to which I went, on hearing of some winged serpents; and when I arrived there, I saw bones and spines of serpents, in such quantities as it would be impossible to describe. The form of the serpent is like that of the water-snake; but he has wings without feathers, and as like as possible to the wings of a bat” (Herodotus, 1850, pp. 75-56) Connecting some not-so-distant dots: It's interesting that the flying serpents were said to originate from Arabia – Buto is an ancient city in the Nile Delta that now lays in ruin… why is this interesting? Well if you travel a bit south on the opposite side of the Red Sea you’ll find Yemen, still advancing south, just off the horn of Africa there’s the Yemeni Island of Socotra, an alien-looking place known for its ‘Dragon Trees’ – which bleed red. "That the Egyptians were building large, sea-going ships as early as 2000 B.C. is well known. In them they traded with Crete and Phoenicia … and with western Mediterranean ports. They sailed up and down the Red Sea, exploring Sinai and Yemen; visited Socotra, where grew the dragon-blood tree; went far south along the African shore; searched the Arabian coast, gathering frankincense (said to be guarded in its growth by small winged serpents); and made voyages back and forth between the Red Sea and the ports of Babylonia and Elam on the Persian Gulf” And then the sober writings of St. John of Damascus... ‘I am not telling you, after all, that there are no dragons; dragons exist but they are serpents [reptiles] borne of other serpents. When just born and young, they are small; but when they grow up and mature, they become big and fat so that they exceed the other serpents in length and size. It is said they grow up more than thirty cubits [14 metres, 45 feet]; as for their thickness, they become as thick as a huge log.’ There are claims by skeptics that the Roman Regulus was simply making this dragon story up, to lend an alibi for his failure at Carthage (it is said that dragons were not an uncommon scapegoat for Roman generals' who suffered defeats in battle,though I've yet to discover an actual account outside of Regulus), this despite Roman Historian Livy supporting the Cassius Dio account - so whatever doubts there are, the fact is the story became and is a part of official recorded Roman history. If the story was developed as a ruse, then another explanation needs to be sought for what they used as the dragon hide which was sent to the Senate and reportedly displayed in Rome for a hundred years. Alternative explanations theorize the likelihood that Regulus and co. encountered a giant Python. the problem with that theory is that the only snake on the continent fitting that description resides in Sub-Saharan Africa, the African Rock Python, making it improbable. ... Some more thought provoking images: A Final word: Dracorex A fossilized skull of a dinosaur that’s officially called “Dracorex Hogwartsia”. Again, the official word is that the fossil probably does NOT belong to the serpentine genus/family. Here’s what the paleontologists say: “probably a new genus or subfamily of Pachycephalosaurus. Most pachycephalosaurs are known for their dome-shaped skulls; however, our dinosaur had a flat skull covered in small bony warts. It is the first of its kind found in North America.” Since there’s only a skull, its hard to make conclusive summations on the species, already designated by the experts as probably a new genus... and one of a kind. The fossil was donated to a children’s Museum in America. And as Dr. Paul Saulsbury (one of the paleontologists credited with the find) noted at the Dracorex skull’s museum unveiling - ‘One boy who was just beaming came up to Brian, Steve, and me. "I just knew there were dragons!" he said.’ * [Image and extract sources: http://veterinarymedicine.dvm360.com/discovering-new-dinosaur-species-dracorex-hogwartsia, jpm-thnktnk.blogspot.com, flickr.com, http://www.sacred-texts.com/etc/ddl/ddl04.htm, earth66.com. Additional sources: http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/historical/dragons/, http://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/b/beowulf/character-analysis/beowulf, http://livingdinos.com/2011/07/dragons-animals-%E2%80%A6-not-apparitions/]
0 Comments
Have we outgrown religion, or god (the idea of a god/God, or any deity of some sort)? Has science successfully rendered such views baseless? And by that token, has Creationism or Creation Science (the anti-evolutionist view if you will, or those who believe in the Biblical account of Creation) provided any worthwhile rebuttal? Or has Creation Science, described in a recent article I read as a ‘pseudo science’, become the so called ‘laughing stock of the Science world'? The short answer is of course: no… Simply put, the above questions and implications is another form of propaganda – promoted by the secular mindset, which is essentially an atheistic one. The scientific community is rife with it, as many respected scientists (who are also Christians, or religious in some way) quietly go about their work whilst retaining their creationist views without broadcasting it, because to do so would bring about prejudice against them for their beliefs. Ben Stein, a high school science educator, in his DVD “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” highlights the discrimination in the (American) education institutions if you do not believe in the naturalistic evolutionary world view. Is there any merit to the claim that truly intelligent (scientific) people cannot believe in God? The idea that any person with an education, an advanced degree, doesn’t believe in the Bible (or have any religious beliefs) because (specifically) the Bible is unscientific? Bill Nye (famous as ‘Bill Nye the Science Guy’) in a Youtube video for theBigThink.com said “And I say to the grown-ups: If you want to deny evolution and live in your, in your, uh, world that’s completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the Universe, that’s fine. But don’t make your kids do it… Because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and tax payers for the future” [taken from the article "Bill Nye: the (Pseudo-)Science Guy" by Dr. Jeff Miller] – more than implying or stopping short of saying that to believe in God and/or the Biblical account of creation (or any religion) will hamper your progress in science. In other words, creation scientists or those who share those beliefs cannot offer anything worthwhile/credible because their beliefs taint their findings. Also that anyone with these beliefs are living in a dream world. Of course his statement and what it implies is false. Agnostic Niel Degrasse Tyson stated that nearly half of the practicing scientists in America are religious and believe in/pray to, a god, yet it does not adversely affect their work. If we were to apply this view to history (bearing in mind that the Big Bang Theory has only been around for 35 years) we’d have to fudge out many contributions by so-called ‘creation-scientists’ who, based on Nye's intimation, seem to lack credibility. Men like
I could add a lot more names that are less famous. (I must add that this does not mean I agree with all of their personal views; for one, Newton did not believe Jesus was God, while it’s reported that Einstein – born a Jew – believed in a pantheistic god) but it can be said that they all accepted the Biblical account of creation as Truth. Now you might claim that modern science has unearthed the universe's true origins (minus God), but in fact, everything they have (against the Bible) is actually speculation. Pseudo Science An "old-earth ministries" article I read, labeled Creationism as a Pseudo Science since it cannot be empirically proven, and based on their definition, in this writers opinion, Creation Science can then rightly be described as Pseudo Science as it does not abide by the clinical definition of Science (it cannot be tested and proven in a lab via observational experiments… this being observational or practical and physical science). One can only observe the universe/nature to see if there are indications that are consistent with the Biblical explanation. That is to say, does anything we observe in nature or the universe scientifically contradict the Bible’s account or not? Conversely, Cosmology, with its presiding model of evolution and the Big Bang Theory, also cannot be proven… in fact its for this reason that it remains a theory and nothing more. Scientists have failed to provide any empirical proof, nor can they. What we can do is speculate and simulate, but even if (by way of an example) they do locate the much vaunted “god-particle”, it does not disprove God, nor does it prove the evolutionary theory, nor does it disprove creationists. (FYI, they’re not sure whether or not they’ve found the Higgs-Boson particle but they think that they have. One Scientist described it as recognizing a familiar face in a crowd as it passed by. It could be what they think it is, but it also may not be. So they think they’ve found it but it’s hard to tell because the process occurs so quickly in the Hadron Collider, so the ‘Find’ is yet to be verified). The reason they cannot prove the theory, is because they're speculating about something that happened in history (with no human witnesses), so all the experiments in Cern are speculative simulations of what scientists think happened in or near the beginning, but no one can say for sure. (FYI, In my email response to that article, I highlighted that according to their definition of 'Pseudo Science', they may as well add Cosmology into the mix as well since it fits the their bill... they have yet to respond.) "Concerning the term “pseudo-science,” we’d use that term differently than you’re suggesting. We’d use it to mean, basically, “false science.” Science based, for example, on faulty assumptions. With regard to science that involves unobserved events, we’d probably use the term “historical science” (as opposed to observational science), rather than pseudo-science, to describe those events. Much of geology, biology (notice that evolutionary biology is historical science, since no one has seen one type of creature give rise to a completely different type of creature, crossing a phylogenic boundary; we’d also call it a pseudo-science though, since it hinges on the flawed assumption that naturalism is correct), and cosmology are based on unobserved events, but would still be deemed science. Forensic science is another good example of science using indirect, rather than direct evidence—the scientists didn’t directly witness the event, but instead, are assessing what happened based on indirect evidence." But as I’ve said, what does this prove? If in fact the particle is verified (and I for one think that even if they haven’t found it yet, the particle probably does exist) what does it say about the origins of the universe. Practically, the particle can be ‘used’ by both evolutionists and creationists, but of course it doesn’t explain much. What do I mean? - Well, how did the particle come about in the first place? If it is the catalyzing particle to create all the others, then how was it created, or what catalyzed its formation? What or who created the Higgs-Boson particle? Additionally, this particle does not validate anything in the Big Bang Theory or the evolutionary model. It’s a link in a chain. Unfortunately for evolutionists, that chain is very incomplete. In fact the evolutionary chain has no beginning. As one scientist put it; Evolution and The Big Bang Theory have not made it to the starting line yet to compete with Creationism, because they cannot account for the origin of life/ the veritable “In the beginning” moment. Currently, this model has no beginning, apart from “Spontaneous generation and Abiogenesis” which contradict Scientific law. Where does the Higgs-Boson particle “fit” in the timeline of creation/development of the universe? One could say it was merely a tool God created to make the universe. Its like an artists tool - used not to shape the clay, but rather to make the clay required for the sculpture. If one were to apply it to the evolutionary model, then it would be integral to what came before the Big Bang… In other words it doesn’t explain what occurred to incite the implosion/explosion/expansion of the original mass to create the big bang. This of course is another bone of contention, with evolutionary scientists divided as to the origin of the theorized big bang, because some say that it must have had a center, while others disagree (ie. there is no center of the universe). The most preposterous notion though is that the entire universe comes from a “cosmic egg”, or cosmic dot (no bigger than a full-stop on this page) – a “single point” from which everything – you and I, earth, The Milky Way etc… evolved. This by the way, violates scientific law, echoed by Agnostic Scientist and former (he passed away in 2006) NASA astronomer: “But the creation of matter out of nothing would violate a cherished concept in science—the principle of the conservation of matter and energy—which states that matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Matter can be converted into energy, and vice versa, but the total amount of all matter and energy in the Universe must remain unchanged forever. It is difficult to accept a theory that violates such a firmly established scientific fact” --- Robert Jastrow (1977, p. 32). Dating [and the Geologic timetable] A major issue of course is dating methods. There are quite a few methods out there, the most famous being Carbon Dating (which is based on several major assumptions, and can only be used for previously living matter with a limit of measuring only up to 40 000 years – meaning any fossil found and measurable using this method is by default, younger than 40 000 years old… thus it cannot be applied to the Prehistoric timescale for Dinosaurs which measures in the millions of years. For this, they instead rely on rocks around the fossil to date the specimen). Hence the need for other methods to suit and somehow aid the evolutionary theory and geologic timescale --- some of which are the Potassium-Argon, Uranium 238 and Fision-Track methods, all of which render vastly different dates for the same geological samples. Here’s a link detailing 20 different dating methods and the assumptions that are needed for ALL of them (they list 7 basic general assumptions and then further outline specified flaws of each individual dating method.) – Science vs evolution – Why non-historical dating techniques are not reliable To give you an idea of how dating works: an archaeologist will take a fossil he’s found, and before testing it, the scientists will ask him for an assumed/estimated date based on his expert opinion (i.e. how old does he think it is, based on his research and experience?) he’ll offer an estimate, and then they’ll search for a date that suits his theory. "Why do the radioactive ages of lava beds, laid down within a few weeks of each other, differ by millions of years?"—*Glen R. Morton, Electromagnetics and the Appearance of Age. Another article I read recently, on LiveScience.com, outlined the history of the feud between Evolutionists and Creationists, written by a (supposedly) unbiased author. One of the points she highlighted was the Creationist belief that the world came into being in 6 days and the earth is younger than 10 000 years old… She then stated “when in fact it is 4.5 Billion years old” – this of course is an outright lie. It’s odd that a learned scientist, or science writer would make such specious statement. What is a fact is that based on a flawed dating system, the earth appears to be billions of years old, or "according to some scientists, the earth is believed to be...". Why are so many scientists so afraid of accepting that “Earth changes can happen in catastrophic leaps” as we’ve witnessed with floods, earthquakes, tsunami’s etc. "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." "Both religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations… To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view." Some general questions I have:
Summing up – This is an article that can spawn volumes of work, and has for many an individual investigating these sorts of topics in earnest or tackling the philosophical dynamism which starts where science ends. Labeling Creation Science as a 'laughing stock' merely demonstrates the accusers ignorance and brand of bias. It strikes me as odd though that many people in the field do not earnestly want answers, but have rather settled on their own preconceived conclusions. Many (non-Christian) scientists dismiss outright the creation model of the Universe (and God/the Bible etc), before even considering it or investigating it. This in my opinion is unscientific (though scientists have covered themselves in this regard… according the University of California, Berkeley, “the scientific process only applies to the natural world. Hence, anything considered supernatural does not fit into the definition of science”). One can claim that you’ve considered something and found it to be a joke, but in reference to Christianity you’re only expressing your ignorance. The fact is that many people evade the Biblical explanation because it means facing some serious personal issues. Because once you’ve decided to investigate the Bible and its claims seriously, it then means you have to open yourself up to the possibility of being accountable to God... in other words it means confronting the truth of God, and that means realistically facing our rebellious nature. Most people in the world don’t want to do this. What it also means is wrestling with the notion of the supernatural, and this plays on one of mankind's most primal fears... the fear of the unknown. "Astronomers try not to be influenced by philosophical considerations. However, the idea of a universe that has both a beginning and an end is distasteful to the scientific mind. In a desperate effort to avoid it, some astronomers have searched for another interpretation of the measurements that indicate the retreating motion of the galaxies, an interpretation that would not require the universe to expand. If the evidence for the expanding Universe could be explained away, the need for a moment of creation would be eliminated,and the concept of time without end would return to science. But these attempts have not succeeded, and most astronomers have come to the conclusion that they live in an expanding world" --- Robert Jastrow - Until the Sun dies (1977, p.31) "We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way..." --- Isaiah 53:6 [Image credits: youtube.com, cern.ch, iconqal.com, quoteinsta.com]
|
[Banner illustration by Joel Kanar]
WRITING
|