Resurrection A Scientific Question

Resurrection A Scientific Question

Resurrection A Scientific Question

After Nature published an editorial suggesting that religious
leaders should be consulted when dealing with ethical issues in
science, an irate atheist wrote a letter protesting against this
idea, which began: "I was horrified to read the recent Editorial
"Where theology matters" in the world's foremost science journal.
Not only did the Editorial appear to support the position that
science and religion deal with different aspects of reality
(which they do not: for example, either Jesus rose from the dead
or he didn't — clearly a scientific question)..."i

The Apostle Paul would agree with this sceptic – the
resurrection of Jesus is not a matter of personal faith, it is
matter of a fact. Paul wrote "If Christ is not risen from the
dead, then your faith is in vain" 1 Corinthians 15:17. As we
cannot directly investigate the past we must depend on the
observation records made by reliable witnesses who were there.
Thus, we believe in the resurrection of Christ because we have
the records left by those who saw Him before his death, those who
saw Him die and be buried, and who saw Him risen from the dead.
The same applies to the origin of the world and what has happened
to it since then.

Thus, the conflict between creation and evolution is not blind
faith versus fact based science, but faith based on facts
recorded by reliable witnesses who were there, versus faith in
the speculations of evolutionists who were not there.

The Philosophy of Evolution

NOTABLE QUOTABLES: on the foundations of modern geology by
CHARLES LYELL June 14, 1830 in a letter to fellow uniformitarian
and parliamentarian, George Poulett Scrope. "I am sure you may
get into QR (Quarterly Review) what will free the science from
Moses, for if treated seriously the (church) party are ready for
it..." "...Perhaps I should have been tenderer about the
Koran.

Don’t meddle much with that if at all. If we don’t
irritate, which I fear that we may (through mere history), we
shall carry all with us. If you don’t triumph over them,
but compliment the liberality and candour of the present age, the
bishops and the enlightened saints will join us in despising both
the ancient and modern physico-theologians. It is just the time
to strike..."

"I conceived the idea five or six years ago (1824-5) that if
ever the Mosaic geology could be set down without giving offence,
it would be in an historical sketch, and you must extract mine,
in order to say as little as possible yourself."ii

Charles Lyell is regarded as the founder of modern geology
because of his popularisation of the uniformitarian view that the
present is the key to the past. This concept is foundational to
all modern dating methods which invariably produce an age for the
earth much older than a literal reading of Genesis. So, did they
tell you in your university course on Historical Geology, you
were being taught anti-Christian Philosophy and not science? It's
easy to prove: Jesus said in John 5:46 "For had you believed
Moses,(Genesis, creation, fall, flood, etc) you would have
believed me: for he wrote of me." KJV

Used by permission www.creationresearch.net

i Nature 432, 657; 2004 - www.nature.com

ii (Katherine Lyell; Life, Letters and Journals of Sir Charles
Lyell, Bart., vol I: p. 268-271)