Re: Taking Back Astronomy [Introduction] by: Dr. Jason Lisle

You list two world views:

• Naturalism
• Scripturally inerrant

What about others? Surely you are not suggesting that these are the only two options available? Are you saying that Christian scientists that operate in a naturalistic world view (For all practical purposes, therefore, they are operating within a naturalistic framework, a belief system that rejects God) are rejecting God? It seems to me that what they are rejecting is scriptural inerrancy. One can do that.

Finally, if the Bible is a sure foundation for a worldview that is . . . consistent with the evidence, why is it necessary to devise convoluted theories about the speed of light or the rates of radioactive decay? Occams Razor says: Re-examine your premise.

—L.W., U.S.

---

Re: Taking Back Astronomy [Introduction] by: Dr. Jason Lisle

You list two world views:

• Naturalism
• Scripturally inerrant

What about others? Surely you are not suggesting that these are the only two options available?

No, that was not stated—nor implied. It is significant, however, that the most common view by far in the scientific community is methodological naturalism. It wouldn’t make sense in a relatively short introduction to address the innumerable minority views that exist. All of these have the same deficit as naturalism anyway. They are irrational: being either internally inconsistent or arbitrary in their foundational assumptions.

Are you saying that Christian scientists that operate in a naturalistic world view (For all practical purposes, therefore, they are operating within a naturalistic framework, a belief system that rejects God) are rejecting God?

Christians who operate within a naturalistic framework are professing God with their mouths, but rejecting God in terms of their actions. Imagine that you knew a bridge was out, but you decided to act as if that were not so by trying to walk across it anyway. Would that make sense? Likewise, those Christians who acknowledge with their lips that God exists but act as if He doesn’t are being irrational.

It seems to me that what they are rejecting is scriptural inerrancy. One can do that.

One can reject scriptural inerrancy, but not without losing the epistemological warrant for science. Without the (inerrant) Bible, why would we expect to have any uniformity in nature upon which science depends? See Evolution: The Anti-science.

Finally, if the Bible is a sure foundation for a worldview that is . . . consistent with the evidence, why is it necessary to devise convoluted theories about the speed of light or the rates of radioactive decay?

Upon greater reflection we see that it is the secular notions of radioactive decay and speed of light that are convoluted and arbitrary. Did you know that the big bang (the most-accepted secular explanation of the origin of the universe) has a light travel-time problem? See Light Travel-Time: A Problem for the Big Bang. Secular explanations for light travel are rather ad hoc, involving untested physics (inflation, etc.), whereas a number of the creation-based solutions to distant starlight are based on the well-tested physics of General Relativity.

For that matter, C-14 found in diamonds, coal, and wood in allegedly “ancient” rock layers surely suggests that these layers are not millions of years old since C-14 has a half-life of only 5700 years. Furthermore, since the RATE research has amply demonstrated that radioactive decay for the heavier elements has not always been constant, secular explanations (of helium in zircons, or orphan radiohalos) are rather arbitrary and unfounded. Chapters 3 and 4 in Taking Back Astronomy explore a number of issues in astronomy which make sense in light of the Bible but require convoluted and unlikely explanations in order to fit into the secular view.

Occams Razor says: Re-examine your premise.

Apart from the Bible, what would be the rational basis for Occam’s razor? Since God upholds the universe (Hebrews 1:3) for our benefit and since God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33), we might expect that the simplest (2 Corinthians 11:3) explanation in many cases is most likely to be the right one. So, Occam’s razor makes sense if you start with the Bible. But in a non-biblical worldview, why should Occam’s razor be true? Why should this complicated universe have an underlying simplicity apart from the biblical God?

The biblical worldview makes sense of science; secular worldviews do not.

Dr. Jason Lisle