Evidence for God from Science

Stoner begins with a very interesting observation. He points out that his copy of Young's General Astronomy, published in 1898, is full of errors. Yet, the Bible, written over 2,000 years ago is devoid of scientific error. For example, the shape of the earth is mentioned in Isaiah 40:22. Gravity can be found in Job 26:7. Ecclesiastes 1:6 mentions atmospheric circulation. A reference to ocean currents can be found in Psalm 8:8, and the hydraulic cycle is described in Ecclesiastes 1:7 and Isaiah 55:10. The second law of thermodynamics is outlined in Psalm 102:25-27 and Romans 8:21. And these are only a few examples of scientific truths written in the Scriptures long before they were "discovered" by scientists.

Stoner proceeds to present scientific evidence in behalf of special creation. For example, he points out that science had previously taught that special creation was impossible because matter could not be destroyed or created. He then points out that atomic physics had now proved that energy can be turned into matter and matter into energy.

He then considers the order of creation as presented in Genesis 1:1-13. He presents argument after argument from a scientific viewpoint to sustain the order which Genesis chronicles. He then asks, "What chance did Moses have when writing the first chapter [of Genesis] of getting thirteen items all accurate and in satisfactory order?" His calculations conclude it would be one chance in 31,135,104,000,000,000,000,000 (1 in 31 x 1021). He concludes, "Perhaps God wrote such an account in Genesis so that in these latter days, when science has greatly developed, we would be able to verify His account and know for a certainty that God created this planet and the life on it."

The only disappointing thing about Stoner's book is that he spiritualizes the reference to days in Genesis, concluding that they refer to periods of time of indefinite length. Accordingly, he concludes that the earth is approximately 4 billion years old. In his defense, keep in mind that he wrote this book before the foundation of the modern Creation Science Movement which was founded in the 1960's by Dr. Henry Morris. That movement has since produced many convincing scientific arguments in behalf of a young earth with an age of only 6,000 years.

St. Bonaventure of Bagnoregio (1221-1274 A.D.)
“But the common interpretation of the other Holy Fathers understood those Six Days as succeeding one another in the order of time; which sentence the Scholastics commonly judged to be more consonant with the words of Sacred Scripture and more secure. But concerning the sentence of St. Augustine, St. Thomas (loc. cit.) says: « This opinion pleases me more »; to which there consent Bl. (now St.) Albertus (Magnus) and Ulric (his disciple); but the others on account of the authority of St. Augustine judge that it is probable and very reasonable. — Therefore though it is certain by faith, that the world was created by God and that it is not eternal, yet about the manner and order of the distinction of things and about the interpretation of those chapters of Genesis there were always diverse sentences in the Church. But wisely does St. Thomas (de Potentia., q. 4, a. 1) admonish that one must beware, « lest anyone wish to so force Scripture to one sense, that the other senses, which contain in themselves the truth and can be, saving the circumstances of the text, adapted to the Scripture, be thoroughly excluded ».*”
“This warning seems to be of greater moment for this our age, because out of the very science of natural things there have arisen new and/or rather great systems on the part of conjecture about geogony [geogoniam], as they say, which conclude from the position and order of destroyed things, chiefly (those) organic, lying under the earth, that these things have been produced successive, through longs periods and in a certain order. Nor are there lacking in our age catholic authors, who prove egregiously (excellently), though in diverse ways, that those (systems) which are certain and explored according to natural science, in no manner contradict the words of Sacred Scripture, nay rather confirm the same.”
(COMMENTARIAN QUATUOR LIBROS SENTENTIARUM, St. Bonaventure's Commentaries on the Four Books of Sentences of Master Peter Lombard, bk. II, Distinction XII, Art. I, Ques. II, Scholium)

dayage wrote:Hey D&C,

I found the book online. Chapter one section 3 is where Stoner explains his view on the word "day." He seems to hold more of an Intermittent day theory (24-hour days separated by long periods). Although it seems to have the DayAge (Progressive creation) view mixed in.
http://sciencespeaks.dstoner.net/Change ... ce.html#c6

DayAge type views go back to at least the 1600's and possibly the 1200's.

St. Bonaventure of Bagnoregio (1221-1274 A.D.)
“But the common interpretation of the other Holy Fathers understood those Six Days as succeeding one another in the order of time; which sentence the Scholastics commonly judged to be more consonant with the words of Sacred Scripture and more secure. But concerning the sentence of St. Augustine, St. Thomas (loc. cit.) says: « This opinion pleases me more »; to which there consent Bl. (now St.) Albertus (Magnus) and Ulric (his disciple); but the others on account of the authority of St. Augustine judge that it is probable and very reasonable. — Therefore though it is certain by faith, that the world was created by God and that it is not eternal, yet about the manner and order of the distinction of things and about the interpretation of those chapters of Genesis there were always diverse sentences in the Church. But wisely does St. Thomas (de Potentia., q. 4, a. 1) admonish that one must beware, « lest anyone wish to so force Scripture to one sense, that the other senses, which contain in themselves the truth and can be, saving the circumstances of the text, adapted to the Scripture, be thoroughly excluded ».*”
“This warning seems to be of greater moment for this our age, because out of the very science of natural things there have arisen new and/or rather great systems on the part of conjecture about geogony [geogoniam], as they say, which conclude from the position and order of destroyed things, chiefly (those) organic, lying under the earth, that these things have been produced successive, through longs periods and in a certain order. Nor are there lacking in our age catholic authors, who prove egregiously (excellently), though in diverse ways, that those (systems) which are certain and explored according to natural science, in no manner contradict the words of Sacred Scripture, nay rather confirm the same.”
(COMMENTARIAN QUATUOR LIBROS SENTENTIARUM, St. Bonaventure's Commentaries on the Four Books of Sentences of Master Peter Lombard, bk. II, Distinction XII, Art. I, Ques. II, Scholium)

egregiously means excellently

Also, see: Rene Descartes (1596-1650 A.D.), Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason, and Seeking Truth in the Sciences, Part V, 1637; Thomas Burnet (1635-1715 A.D.), Archaeologiae Philosophicae, bk. I, ch. II, pg. 32, 35, ch. III, pg. 50 and ch. IV, pg. 82, 1681; Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727 A.D.), Letters, A. #244 Newton to Burnet; B. #246 Burnet to Newton; C. #247 Newton to Burnet, The Correspondence of Isaac Newton, vol. II, 1676-1687)

dayage wrote:Hey D&C,

I found the book online. Chapter one section 3 is where Stoner explains his view on the word "day." He seems to hold more of an Intermittent day theory (24-hour days separated by long periods). Although it seems to have the DayAge (Progressive creation) view mixed in.
http://sciencespeaks.dstoner.net/Change ... ce.html#c6

DayAge type views go back to at least the 1600's and possibly the 1200's.

The Hebrew word translated "days" in Genesis can just as well mean "period of time." The words translated "morning" and "evening" may also mean "beginning" and "ending." Thus, "And the evening and the morning were the first day" may also mean "And the beginning and ending of this work was the first period of God's time in creating.

This period of time, day, in Genesis may have been a twenty-four-hour period or it may have been any other period of time, even a fraction of a second or a geological age.

Furthermore, the periods of time in Genesis may have been separated by other and long periods of time. God is counting periods of time in which He was doing work on this earth. If after the first act of God, the first period of time of creation, a million years elapsed before He again acted, this second act would still occupy the second period of time in God's creation.

At least three different interpretations of the days of Genesis are in common use: (1) That the days are twenty-four-hour consecutive days. This is at once ruled out by geology. (2) That the days are geological ages (e.g., the Devonian period would be one day). I think that this agrees very well with the facts of science, but it would imply that the creative acts of God were slow directive influence, This does not sound like the passage cited from Psalm 33. (3) That the days are the great changes in the sequence of fossils. There is one of these great changes in the fossil sequence corresponding to every act of God recorded in Genesis. After one of these changes fish appear. after another birds appear. after another mammals, etc. If God made new forms of life at one of these and then made no new forms until the next great change and there again introduced new forms, the time involved in these changes would then be the days of creation. The evidence in the geological layers and fossils seems to decidedly favor the last interpretation.