WHO'S RIGHT? WHO'S WRONG?

GUIDELINES OF CHRISTIAN SCHOLARSHIP

By Hugh Ross, Ph.D.

How can a person know what to believe? Repeatedly I have heard this
question through the years but
never more often than in recent weeks. The same radio and
television stations that broadcast my
messages also have been featuring individuals with doctorates (and
others) who flatly, often adamantly,
contradict me. These scholarly individuals assert, for example,
that the Big Bang has been disproven, that
new discoveries indicate dinosaurs and human beings co-existed,
that geological and paleontological
data prove that the entire fossil record and all oil and coal
reserves were formed during the Genesis
Flood, that science establishes the age of both the universe and
Earth as younger than ten thousand
years, and that the only valid interpretation of Genesis places
creation of the Sun, Moon, and stars after
creation of the plants and that all life on Earth was created
within the six twenty-four hour days of one
week. Their words sound as authoritative and convincing as mine,
and the hosts interviewing them
obviously are persuaded. Short of picking up advanced degrees in
astronomy, geophysics, geology,
paleontology, and theology -- or receiving a telegram directly from
heaven -- how can we tell who is
credible and who is not? Sincerity is not the issue. 

TEST EVERYTHING 
First, I am encouraged that so many have taken the trouble to ask
either in person or in writing. The easy
thing to do would be to forget about science apologetics altogether
or to decide what to believe on a
superficial or subjective basis. Scripture exhorts us to do neither
but to "test everything. "Christianity
must not promote or exalt "blind" faith. As Scripture records, God
Himself offered substantiating
evidence when His servants and spokesmen needed reassurance of His
word's trustworthiness. God
showed people He had the power to fulfill His promises. Those who
needed a "reality check" received it.
We see examples stretching from Genesis to Revelation, including
Moses' "multipurpose" rod and Jesus'
raising of the dead. We must not seek tests yielding absolute
proof. Such proof is neither possible nor
essential. God always leaves room for faith's exercise. But we are
called to test matters that are testable,
and the certainty of the results should determine the certainty of
our assertions and of our decisions
based on them. 

Determining what kind of tests to apply may not be easy. Sometimes
we can see a clearly relevant biblical
test case, and sometimes we cannot. In matters that involve both
biblical data and scientific or historical
facts, the academic community, Christian and nonChristian alike,
has developed over the past few
centuries demonstrably effective and widely accepted truth-guards. 

PEER REVIEW 
The primary approach is best summed up in the phrase "peer review."
Peers are fellow scholars and
practitioners in the discipline to which a particular claim (or
test) belongs. Peers must include those who
share some of the perspectives and presuppositions of a claimant
and those who do not. For example, in
testing the claim that the entire fossil record was deposited
during a global deluge a few thousand years
ago, a good question to ask would be how many paleontologists, both
Christians and nonChristians,
conclude based on research data that Noah's Flood is responsible
for all prehistoric fossils. Are there
some from both theological perspectives who accept this conclusion,
or is there a noticeable unanimity in
one direction or the other? 

Another key question is this: How often have the claimants
delivered their message to professional
paleontologists (regardless of their theology), and what has been
the response of the paleontologists to
the message? The answers to these questions will be telling. They
will indicate what level, if any, of
scientific support exists for a claimant's assertions. 

If the support from a cross section of scientists is either weak,
one-sided, or nonexistent, the reason may
be that a claimant's conclusions are rooted more solidly in
ideology than in evidence. Some might say the
lack of scientific support may just as strongly suggest that
scientists are rooted in ideology more than in
evidence. However, the false assumption behind this generalization
is that scientists "all think alike" or
share the same worldview or ideology. 

For practicality's sake, we cannot conduct a survey of all the
world's scientists for each question or claim
that arises. However, a phone call to the relevant department(s) of
a local university, to NASA's public
information office, or to some other large government research
facility, usually suffices. If these sources
cannot help, they can usually direct us to other researchers or
sources who can. Through today's
communications technology, a scientist can make contact with
virtually every other scientist in the world
working in his or her specific discipline. 

The situation is a little more difficult when the response from
scientists is mixed. On some issues, such as
whether the value of the Hubble constant (a measure of how fast the
universe is expanding) is 50
kilometers per second per megaparsec, 80, or some value between 50
and 80, researchers are divided fairly
evenly. This kind of split suggests much more study is needed
before conclusions can be drawn with
certainty. In other cases, where the split is extremely lopsided,
the split may suggest something else. 

For example, if we ask scientists about evidence for the big bang,
about a tenth of a percent of
researchers in nonsectarian institutions may respond negatively. A
little further digging reveals that
ideology sometimes interferes on the science side, too. The handful
of astronomers who resist the big
bang willingly tip their hand both in interviews and in writing
that they have an aversion to any theory
that demands a Creator and that makes the universe too young (only
a dozen or so billions of years old)
to support any hope of a non-theistic interpretation for life's
origin. In other words, astronomers
opposing the big bang reject it for ideological reasons. One also
discovers that the most recent scientific
paper opposing the big bang was published with a black border
surrounding it and the word
"hypothesis" printed all along that border. 

DEMEANOR AND CONTENT 
Demeanor of a claimant and the content of the message may give
additional credibility clues. Oratorical
skill and emotional fervor prove nothing. However, a person whose
message is based more solidly on
evidence than on ideology tends to express less emotion and to
present more information in his or her
talk. Emotionally expressive or not, this individual will typically
present -with some respect- an overview
of differing interpretations of the data and the basis for each of
these differing views. This individual can
be expected to make reference to the familiar scientific journals.
If the talk or paper offers more opinion
and rhetorical devices than information, we have reason to beware. 

Another way to test a person's science-related claims is to look up
at least some of the sources to which
he or she refers. Those who misrepresent the truth either
accidentally or deliberately often misunderstand
or distort the source materials they quote. Testers with limited
time and access may wish to enlist the
help of a student, teacher, or librarian friend to do some
checking. 

A claimant's response to mistakes, his or her own and others', may
give additional hints about credibility.
Every speaker or writer makes at least an occasional mistake,
misstatement, or misinterpretation. An
individual to whom discernment of truth has higher value than being
right or protecting an ideology is
more likely to respond with some equanimity when an error comes to
his or her attention. Heated
emotion, either in defending or accusing, tends to suggest the
opposite priority. 

Because science has become so complex and technical, explaining
various findings to a lay audience
severely tests a speaker's or writer's grasp of the information. A
claimant who cannot make clear how he
or she arrived at certain conclusions may not have sound basis for
those conclusions. Anyone whose
goal is to impress and to persuade with technical jargon rather
than to clarify should raise our suspicions.
So should anyone who quotes only secondary material,
interpretations of sources we are unlikely to
examine for ourselves. 

THE BEREAN ADVANTAGE 
According to Luke in the book of Acts, "The Bereans were of more
noble character than the
Thessalonians, for they received the mes-sage with great eagerness
and examined the Scriptures every
day to see if what Paul said was true." Checking and asking
questions are commendable, not
condemnable. The church will be strengthened as the num-ber of
Berean-type believers grows. For one,
benefit by their challenges -- your challenges. No one but God
stands above the need for review.
Christians have everything to gain and nothing to lose in being
reminded, as I often am, that our
communication of data and of reasoning from data needs
clarification. Think how many people have been
turned away from Christ by churches and leaders who disallow
testing and how many people may be
turned back to Him when we demonstrate a willingness, even an
appreciation of, challenges to our claims.


[Dr. Ross earned a B.Sc. in physics from the University of British Columbia
and an M.Sc. and Ph.D. in astronomy from the University of
Toronto. After several years doing research for the California Institute of
Technology he served eleven years as minister of evagelism at the
Sierra Madre Congregational Church. He now directs the efforts of Reasons To
Believe, an institute founded to research and proclaim the
factual basis for faith in God and His Word, the bible. He hosts a weekly
television program on TBN, daily radio spots and is the author of the
bestselling books The Fingerprint of God, The Creator and the Cosmos, Creation
and Time, Beyond the Cosmos and The Genesis Question.]

Oryginal:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/4264/schol.html

POWRÓT