The heavens declare the glory of God, the dome of the sky spreads the work of his hands. Every day it utters speech, every night it reveals knowledge. Psalm 19 v1

Science and Christian Belief

Sir Isaac Newton - by Kneller in 1689

Sir Isaac Newton - by Kneller in 1689

It is generally perceived that Science has solved the mysteries of the universe and the answers are not in agreement with the Bible.  This threatens the new believer or would-be believer.

Some Christians attempt to embrace popular "Science", by saying that Creation was carried out by Evolution and that the "days" in Genesis were actually periods of millions of years, as proposed by Evolutionists. This position is not credible - Evolution is a direct, Humanist challenge to the God of Creation and His word.

"Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing!
(G. Richard Bozarth, "The Meaning of Evolution," American Atheist, Feb. 1978, pp.19,30

Happily, this gentleman is mistaken, except concerning our need to fight the doctrine of Evolution. The Christian must take heart and understand that the Genesis account is not only plausible, but also fits the observable facts far better than the opinions advanced by evolutionists. Charles Darwin was a theologian - not a scientist. He was a disciple of Charles Lyell who claimed it was his intention to "free the science from Moses."

Also, it is not true to say that  scientists  do not believe in God, and neither is it true that Christians and Jews must be ignorant of Science.  (Look up the life of Sir Isaac Newton)   Popular Pseudo-science, as a vehicle for denying God can be seen as coming under condemnation in Romans 1 v 18-23, 

"What is revealed is God's anger against all the godlessness and wickedness of people who in their wickedness keep suppressing the truth; because what is known about God is plain to them, since God has made it plain to them  . . . . "

Read Curt Sewell's book, "God at Ground Zero" to get the testimony of a man of science who started out believing secular science to be the explanation of everything but came to realise that he had been sold a lie and that Creationism (if one must call it that) is the honest scientific approach to the quest for the truth.   Sewell points out that we accept the marvels of modern technology as being the benefits of science, but that science and technology are not synonymous.  The benefits of technology do not prove the speculations of evolutionary science and its quest to provide an explanation for the universe which does not involve a God.  

"And too many Christians have too easily accepted these scientists, "long age of the earth" usually without realising that these are based on purely materialistic assumptions that completely rule out any intervention by a creator God."
If you want a real scientific discussion of all the issues from fossils to radio-carbon dating to the big bang, read this book.

This page examines how science really works, as opposed to how the popular media chooses to present it.  We will  look at the major issues of -  the Theory of Evolution, the age of the Universe, Cosmology ( the Big Bang Theory) and Palaeontology , Geology and the Genesis account.  We will also consider the nature and purpose of a scientific theory.

Popular presentation of  "historical" arguments against the Bible are also refutable.   People who have set out to disprove the Bible and the life and resurrection of Jesus have ended up convinced that it is true, and that it is better verified than many widely accepted facts of history.


Evolution, or as it should properly be called, the Theory of Evolution, was  proposed by Charles Darwin as a possible explanation of the way all the diverse species came to be.  The purpose and nature of a scientific theory is that it is an idea that scientists will then explore and seek to prove or disprove.  To accept Evolution as fact, as we are taught in the media and in school is to overlook the fact that Evolution has not progressed beyond being a non-proven theory.   

As John Makay, Director of Creation Research, points out you have to choose to see the evidence of fossil records through one set of spectacles or another.  One is belief in Evolution and the other is belief in the Bible.

If you consider opting for Evolution, you need to remember its father was  CHARLES LYELL, who wrote in  June 14 1830  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......."
Lyell's teachings formed the basis of  Charles Darwin's views.   Darwin, incidentally, was not a scientist but a theologian; although he never showed signs of a faith relationship with God.   Evolution is not a concept born out of Christianity, but a concept invented to exclude Bible belief from Science - hardly a scientific motive or method!    

*  uniformitarian belief is that the rate at which things happen now is the rate at which they have always happened.   This is why Lyell believed that "the present is the key to the past".   However, any catastrophic event, like the eruption of Mount St Helen, will disrupt uniformity of deposition etc profoundly.


The big appeal of a belief in Evolution, now as when it was first proposed, is that it avoids the need for belief in a God who created us and has moral requirements of us.

One Teletext News report  stated that,

"Each human carries about 300 gene mutations, affecting their health for the worst, like wonky teeth.  Each baby inherits mutations from its parents, plus 3 new abnormalities its mother and father do not have."

This suggests that, given the timescales suggested by evolutionists, the human species must have deteriorated rather than evolving upwards.

Evolutionary thinking produces some very dark ramifications - see the World


The ages of the layers of the earth are determined by the species of fossils found in them.  This assumes a steady rate of deposition of plant, animal and mineral matter.  Fossils are dated by reference to the layers in which they are found.  (This may be a simplification but it indicates the use of a circular argument.)  These layers are supposed to indicate or substantiate the sequence of evolution.

There are some problems with this steady deposition model.   If this rate has always been slow and steady, large animals or standing trees, such as some found in France, would have rotted away towards the top long before they got covered up and fossilised by the pressure.   The location of large groupings of complete fossils in certain strata suggests instant burial in a catastrophe like the flood in Genesis.   The Genesis model also provides the cause of this catastrophic flood, in the time of Noah.   Genesis 1 v6-10 says,

And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning--the second day. And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

The water above the expanse (sky) suggests that the earth was originally created enveloped in a canopy of water vapour.  This would have been a greenhouse with temperatures pretty constant all over the globe, explaining warm climate species fossils found towards the poles.   If God caused this canopy to collapse in the time of Noah, plants and animals would have been swept away and buried in mud and silt by the same process that can be observed today, but on a much greater scale.   The climate after this would be similar to what we know today, in which large cold blooded animals could not survive.

Radio Carbon Dating (Carbon 14)

It is often said that CARBON 14 dating proves things are too old for Genesis to be true. 

Does it really?

There are actually several fundamental problems with this dating method, as discussed by scientist John Mackay



Geology looks at observable rates of erosion, tectonic plate movement etc and, assuming steady uninterrupted rates, calculates a probable age for the earth.

Cosmology and "The Big Bang"

The distance from Earth to galaxies is measured by what is sometimes called the "headlamp method";  the further away they are the dimmer they will be.  Of course, not all galaxies will give out the same amount of light to start with.

By looking at the light spectra of galaxies and observing the Doppler Shift scientists calculate the velocity at which galaxies are moving away from us.  The galaxies appear to be diverging like the fragments of an exploding firework; those farthest away are moving fastest.   Hubble's Law  (Edwin Hubble  1889-1953)  suggests a similar model for the universe, in that it is all diverging from one point.  Assuming that to be true Hubble's Law can be used to calculate when all the galaxies started out from one point, in a "big bang".   That event is calculated to have happened between 10,000,000,000 and 20,000,000,000 years ago.

Bible Time and Science's estimates of the Age of the Universe.

Genesis tells us that God created the universe in six days, and rested on the seventh.  The Jewish calendar is calculated from all the available time information in the Bible records to produce a date for creation of less than 6000 years ago.  ( see also The Jewish Calendar and the Gregorian Calendar ).   There seems little point in trying to reconcile six days or even six thousand years with ten thousand million years.   Most believers in God's word are no match for scientists to be able to pick away at the fabric of their scientific arguments and beat them at their own game.  The important thing to remember is that the two sides are starting from totally different assumptions.

Scientists have assumed that observable trends have always continued at the same rate with no intervention from God. The believer makes the assumption of the existence of God and his creation of the universe.


Physics shows us that the universe consists of ... Genesis 1 v1 says, 
Time "In the beginning God created 
Space the heavens 
Matter  and the earth." 

To rephrase Genesis 1 v1, " God created Time (the beginning), Space ( the heavens) and Matter ( the earth ) "

Since Time did not exist before God created it, why should it be a problem that the universe appears to be older than it actually is.   If we can believe in the miracles of Jesus what is difficult about believing that God created a fully formed universe rather than waiting millions of years for it to mature.   Jesus turned water into wine at the wedding feast at Cana in Galilee.   Plenty of people accept this miracle, but wine can only be produced by fermenting the fruit over a period of time, and since the wine was pronounced to be the best wine it must have been a well matured vintage.   Jesus was able to produce wine with the appearance of age!   The same could also be said for miracles of healing, where body tissue is restored as if it had grown naturally, at normal rates of growth.

Ken Ham broadcasts for Answers in Genesis and his series can often be found on the God channels on Sky Digital satellite TV broadcasts.  He pointed out some fascinating facts to counter the popular pseudo-science assertions about timescales.

It takes thousands of years to deposit layers of earth The Mount St Helens eruption deposited 30 feet in a matter of hours
The Great Barrier Reef took millions of years to grow from tiny coral creatures Regrowth after the Crown of Thorns starfish predation indicates the entire reef could have grown in 3,700 years.
Stalagtites are built up over many thousands of years by slow dripping of water through limestone Mid 20th century man-made structures like lighting fittings in caves with a high rate of water dripping have accumulated stalagtites which should (in popular theory) have taken thousands of years to grow
Oil and diamonds are formed by pressure and heat deep in the earth over millions of years Oil and diamonds can be produced in the laboratory quite quickly
Likewise opals It is possible to grow your own opal
The Colorado River must have taken many thousands of years to carve the Grand Canyon more than a mile deep We are told that a much deeper canyon on Mars was formed by a flood of "Biblical" proportions.  Why is it OK to believe in a biblical flood on Mars but not on Earth?

There is no need to fear that non-believers can confound our faith with science as long as we do not accept their assumptions along with their "facts".

The following web sites are strongly recommended. 

Answers in Genesis uses scientific reasoning to refute the popularly communicated views that science has disproved the Bible.  Proving that the believer can trust his Bible.  The Genesis account will stand up for itself.
Creation Research exists to seek evidence for the Biblical account of Creation, Noah's Flood, Tower of Babel and related subjects.   They investigate and promote such evidence in order to glorify Christ and build His church.
Creation Today is a Bible-based ministry dedicated to impacting the world to KNOW the Creator.
Evidence Web is an offshoot from Creation Research and provides many resources in defence of the word of God against "scientific" arguments.

If you get the chance to hear John Mackay, of Creation Research, speak, make every effort to be there. He makes the arguments so clear that even children can see the truth of the Bible and the deviousness of popular science.

Global Warming

Please note - When people discuss "Global Warming" or "Climate Change" they are generally talking about anthropogenic climate change. (Climate change caused by the activities of man) It would be foolish to deny that the climate changes (warms and cools) as this has been recorded through history. The BIG ASSUMPTION is that man is causing it and man can control it.

One Video about Global Warming is very well known and widely believed, whilst another by more credible scientists is rejected out of hand and hardly known about.

"An Inconvenient Truth", fronted by Al Gore is considered to be essential viewing for school and college students, but is fronted by a politician, not a scientist! It should not be shown as education unless a balancing viewpoint is also shown.

"The Great Global Warming Swindle" produced by Channel 4 TV in UK is fronted by ex-green activists and environmental scientists, but you have probably never heard of it. One scientist showed that Al Gore's graphs proving that the graphs of CO2 and Temperature are the same shape, neglected to mention that the temperature graph leads the CO2 graph and not vice versa! Another scientist pointed out the immoral way in which research sponsorship is channelled to scientists following the current political bandwagon. If you can get hold of a copy, view it alongside the "Inconvenient Truth" video, and make up your own mind.

"A Really Inconvenient Truth" by John Mackay is an excellent DVD that neatly sorts out the truth from the politics and spin. This is essential viewing alongside Al Gore's movie. Show this to your children, young people and anyone else who is willing! - -

Global warming is a stablemate of Evolutionary theory and Humanism.

Television treatment of Global warming

Popular media coverage of global warming always assumes Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) to be a fact and teaches it as such without producing the evidence. In a TV review of 2011 they presented temperature data showing that temperatures had increased but then followed with, "and we know that we are causing it." The facts may well be reliable, but the leap to asserting that the changes are manmade is an assumption for which they offered no proof.

There are plenty of reputable scientists who agree that temperatures have risen but cite causes such as Solar activity cycles rather than the actions of man; and with much better evidence.


According to articles in MSNBC 21 April 2012 and The Guardian 15 June 2012. James Lovelock, the promoter of the Gaia theory, has admitted that his predictions about global warming were wrong.

In 2006 Lovelock had predicted “before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable”. (Independent 16 Jan 2006). This year, in an interview with MSNBC he said, “The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened”. He went on to say: “The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now”.

He also admitted: “The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that”. In an interview with The Guardian he commented about environmental science in general: “One thing being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope you get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don't know it. It's just the way the humans go that if there's a cause of some sort, a religion starts forming around it. It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion. I don't think people have noticed that, but it's got all the sort of terms that religions use”.

Polar Icecaps are shrinking - really?

The recent record decrease in sea ice in Arctic Ocean has received widespread publicity, but NASA reports: “Two weeks after a new record was set in the Arctic Ocean for the least amount of sea ice coverage in the satellite record, the ice surrounding Antarctica reached its annual winter maximum—and set a record for a new high.

Sea ice extended over 19.44 million square kilometers (7.51 million square miles) in 2012, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). The previous record of 19.39 million kilometers (7.49 million square miles) was set in 2006”. The article is accompanied by a map of the ice surrounding the Antarctic continent September 26, 2012, “when ice covered more of the Southern Ocean than at any other time in the satellite record”. Satellite images of the Arctic and Antarctic regions have been used since 1979 to monitor the amount of sea ice and over that period there has been a downward trend in Arctic ice, but an upward trend in Antarctic ice. The increase is not evenly distributed around Antarctica with some areas gaining ice and others losing it.

Sea ice scientists Claire Parkinson and Donald Cavalieri of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center commented in an article in The Cryosphere, 6, 871-880, 2012: “The strong pattern of decreasing ice coverage in the Bellingshausen/Amundsen Seas region and increasing ice coverage in the Ross Sea region is suggestive of changes in atmospheric circulation”.

NASA Earth Observatory, 11 October 2012.



Official UK Met Bureau graphs prove it. (Hadcrut4 graphs)  According to an article in Daily Mail 13 October 2012, new figures released by the UK Met Office show that the increase in global temperatures in the late 20th century stopped in 1997 and has plateaued since then.  This means the plateau is almost as long as the period of warming that occurred from 1980 to 1996.  The data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, a name derived from the words ‘Hadley Centre’ (run by the Met Office’s) mixed with ‘Climatic Research Unit’ based at the University of East Anglia. The CRU is headed by Phil Jones and is better known for the “climategate” e-mail leak that occurred in 2009. (see our previous report here )

 In one of the leaked e-mails Jones wrote: ‘Bottom line: the “no upward trend” has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’ The 15 years are now up, but Jones is sticking to the climate models that predict continued warming. He said: ‘I still think that the current decade which began in 2010 will be warmer by about 0.17 degrees than the previous one, which was warmer than the Nineties.’ 

However, Professor Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at America’s Georgia Tech university, is not so certain about climate models. She commented: ‘Climate models are very complex, but they are imperfect and incomplete. Natural variability has been shown over the past two decades to have a magnitude that dominates the greenhouse warming effect. It is becoming increasingly apparent that our attribution of warming since 1980 and future projections of climate change needs to consider natural internal variability as a factor of fundamental importance.” Natural variability includes factors such as long-term temperature cycles in the oceans and the output of the sun. In spite of his commitment to models Phil Jones also admitted past climate models were imperfect. He commented: “We don’t fully understand how to input things like changes in the oceans, and because we don’t fully understand it you could say that natural variability is now working to suppress the warming. We don’t know what natural variability is doing.” David Rose, who wrote the Daily Mail article commented: “The most depressing feature of this debate is that anyone who questions the alarmist, doomsday scenario will automatically be labelled a climate change ‘denier’, and accused of jeopardising the future of humanity.”

Creation Research comment-

NO, you didn’t hear it from the ABC, the BBC, Julia Gillard, and most major newspapers have ignored it as have the greens who want you taxed out of existence for something that isn’t happening. AND YES the climate gurus are finally reluctantly confirming  what we have been saying for years, i.e. the sun and the oceans influence the climate more than the amount of carbon dioxide in the air, and we need to be studying them if want to understand climate variations. This is bad news for politicians and bureaucrats who think they can change the climate with taxes and regulations on industry and transport, as these don’t make any difference to the sun and oceans. Check out our Climate Change File here.

Provided by Creation Research - www.askjohnmackay

Updated 15/11/12

Click the banner below to go to the site map and choose another page