Skip to main content

BJU Scientists Speak Out

Creation | BJU Scientists Speak

It is the goal of the Science Division to equip our graduates to function effectively as salt and light in the secular world. We aim to thoroughly educate our students. To this end, our students are helped to understand the claims of secular scientists which are at odds with the Bible. While claims which contradict scripture cannot be true, it is our aim to help our students understand the worldview and the flawed logic behind these truth claims and to articulate a thoroughly biblical response.

The Christian is given perception by the Holy Spirit of God to discern truth from error. The Holy Spirit works in conjunction with the written Word of God to teach believers to "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment." (John 7:24)

Many issues of philosophy, morals, and ethics confronting and shaping our society have scientific underpinnings. It is the purpose of this page to allow you to get a snapshot of some of our faculty in action. Most of the propositions on this page are objections that have been raised by evolutionists as devastating to a biblical view. Follow the links to a response by a BJU science faculty member. These responses were excerpted from the final session of a distance learning course, Sc 179, which is intended for the layman.

Propositions

  1. The Bible story of creation is but one of perhaps thousands of creation stories. To treat the Bible account as the only one that is significant shows an arrogance which stands in opposition to the humility of Jesus, the founder of Christianity. | Dr. Joe Henson's Response
  2. From a review by Gordy Slack of The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism by Niles Eldredge:
    "Creationists like to point at disagreement about exactly how evolution works, and they often cite the debate over punk eek [punctuated equilibrium, the view that evolutionary change occurs rapidly during brief episodes] as an example. Eldredge answers that debate is a key part of any healthy science and hardly a sign that a theory is in trouble. Furthermore, in this case, the debate is not over whether evolution occurred—that fact is made abundantly clear by the fossil record, by the study of genetics, by the taxonomic relationships between living groups, and by biogeography—but only over exactly which forces drive it and how they do so." | Dr. Mike Gray's Response
  3. Science and religion are both human inventions. Some people are very concerned about knowing God's will, but even for them it is hard to know the mind of God. Even very pious people are frequently confused about the will of God. Scientists know that scientific understanding of natural processes is attained by successive approximation. Scientific understanding is not always correct, but it is usually close to correct. Religion is based on heartfelt beliefs, but science is based upon facts. As humans we endeavor to construct the will of God and we also try to construct scientific laws which apply to nature. Our constructions in both of these realms reveal our fallibility. | Dr. Joe Henson's Response
  4. The evolution/creation debate is not about religion. Rather, it demonstrates that most of the public has a poor understanding of how science operates. | Dr. Brian Vogt's Response
  5. Physical processes and organization are fueled from the outside, mainly by the energy of the sun. Until the sun cools completely, it is sending out enormous quantities of energy that supply physical processes and organization on the earth. It does require large amounts of energy to drive organization, but obviously it happens. Crystal growth is one example of such an organizational process since crystals are more organized than separate molecules floating in solution. Entropy is a reality, but chemical and biological evolution occur whenever we have an open system with an outside source of energy. | Dr. George Matzko's Response
  6. One of our students asked a question about the Jovian planets and their satellites. "Are the scored moons of the Jovian planets and the tilted axis of Uranus evidences of catastrophic changes within our solar system following the creation?" | Dr. Ron Samec's Response
  7. In the 1880's there were three hypotheses about the age of the earth. The view from biblical genealogies was that the earth was a few thousand years old. Kelvin's hypothesis, based on cooling rates, was something in the range of 20-100 million years. Geologists argued from rates of erosion that the earth was several hundred million years old.
    To distinguish between these hypotheses, an alternative test not based on any of the hypotheses was needed. Radioactive dating of rocks emerged as a fair alternative test. Radioactive dating might have supported any of the hypotheses. However, radioactive dating shows that the oldest rocks are four billion years old. There are many additional physical tests which support an age of billions of years. The combined force of all these tests is compelling. The earth is assuredly billions of years old. | Dr. Gene Chaffin's Response
  8. Don't evolutionists have several "missing links" from the fossil record that they claim demonstrate evolution in action? | Dr. Bill Lovegrove's Response
  9. A professor assigns a term paper of 50,000 words to his students and finds that he receives among the completed papers ten that appear to be identical. He will rightly conclude that the papers were not written independently. In carefully reading the papers, he finds they are not quite identical. Student number two has a paper just like student one except for a misspelling in word #330. This same misspelled word appears in papers written by student numbers three to ten. In addition to this error, student three has a misspelling in word #7567 and this same misspelling is found in papers written by student numbers four to ten. If this pattern continues with one additional error contributed by each student, there is only one reasonable explanation and that is that student two copied from student one and made one copying error. Student three copied from student two and made one additional copying error and so forth through the remaining students. The chance that student ten made, by chance, the same eight errors as student nine is essentially zero.
    This pattern of not completely accurate copying is what we see when we compare the genetic codes for the various forms of cytochrome c in the electron transport system of various organisms from bacteria to humans. Such a pattern is nearly ubiquitous when making comparisons of any two genes that different organisms share. The inescapable conclusion is that each organism has arisen by copying the genes of a previous organism, but introducing in the process a few mistakes, which ultimately cause the organisms to be different from one another. This shows that all life shares a common ancestor from which the other life forms have descended with modification. | Dr. Mike Gray's Response
  10. Michael Behe says we need intelligent design to deal with holes in our ability to explain the pathways and structures in living things. | Dr. Bill Lovegrove's Response
  11. I have read that computer programs have been developed which demonstrate that the random process of natural selection can be creative. | Dr. Tom Coss' Response
  12. In your presentation you did not mention human fossils. How do you as a creationist explain human fossils? | Dr. Tom Coss' Response