Blog: Debunking Deconstruction – Is the Bible Actually Reliable? Part 2: The Science.

One of the things that is constantly used as damning evidence against Christianity is science. Things like the theory of evolution, the Big Bang theory, radiocarbon dating, etc. are all seen as evidence that God doesn’t exist by atheists, secularists, nihilists, and others. However, the problem with many of these things is that they 1). are theories that cannot be definitively proven because we weren’t there, 2). have been proven to be extremely flawed, 3). have been proven to be false or incredibly improbable, 4). actually leave room for or even inadvertently prove the Bible or 5). are a mix of these options. Thus, here are some ways that science has actually been found to prove the Bible time and time again.

#1: Big Bang Theory

I think most of us know what this theory is, but here’s a quick rundown. The idea around the Big Bang theory is that the universe started in the form of a primeval atom that exploded, heating up the universe creating the lightest elements on the periodic table, cooling to form neutral atoms, forming stars through nuclear fission, creating supernovae which continued creating heavy elements that were dispersed into space, eventually creating planets, moons, other cool space stuff, and (somehow) life, and the universe has been expanding ever since. This theory that has been confirmed by astronomers, physicists, and mathematicians, but something that a lot of people don’t realize is that the Big Bang theory was first developed by a Roman Catholic priest named Georges Lemaître, who was also a physicist and mathematician. This means that the Big Bang theory did not actually originate as a way to spit in the face of the creation story as told in Genisis, but was actually an explanation for how God could’ve created the universe. Some supports for this are:

1. The first words of the Bible are: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1). This lines up with the Big Bang theory since both suggest that the universe had a set beginning. The sequence of creation explained by the Big Bang theory also lines up fairly well (though not perfectly) with that of Genesis, starting with the creation of light (which could easily have been the original explosion), land and sky, the stars, moon, and sun, and finally, life such as vegetation, animals, and humans. In fact, the order of life being created is even confirmed by the fossil record, with plants coming first, then animals, then humans.
2. If you would like to ignore the more philosophical Kalam argument that everything must have a beginning and insist on only looking at science, look no further than the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics. The First Law of Thermodynamics clearly states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed. If there was no energy at the beginning of the universe, then how could the primordial atom appear much less have enough energy to explode. That energy would need to come from somewhere and in the Christian worldview, that somewhere was God. Furthermore, the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the universe is moving towards a state of entropy or disorder. This lines up with what Psalm 102 says about the universe wearing out over time (25 In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. 26 They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. Like clothing you will change them and they will be discarded).
3. Humans being created from dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7) lines up with the scientific understanding that humans are composed of elements found in the Earth.
4. Astronomy doesn’t just stop at proving the Big Bang Theory can support the Genesis story, but it also fits with the Biblical descriptions of how celestial bodies affect timekeeping and seasons.

#2: The Theory of Evolution

The Theory of Evolution is another theory that is commonly used against Christians and treated as fact by the majority of today’s scientific community even though much of it has been proven to be based on bad science or even fraud. So here are the big problems with evolution:

1. The fossil record doesn’t support evolution at all, despite what many scientists will tell you. If it did, there would be more transitory fossils showing the transition from one form to the next, but none of them have actually been found. In fact, one of the most damning pieces of evidence in the fossil record that discredit evolution is the Cambrian Explosion in which most major animal phyla rapidly appeared with their complexity increasing significantly. Many modern animal groups such as arthropods, mollusks, and chordates appeared, quickly developed hard body parts like shells and exoskeletons (which fossilize easily), and even their structure and behavior changed, so they were now burrowing into sediments, and the first reefs were formed. If Darwin was correct about life evolving very slowly, going through many different stages before reaching the ones we know today, then why do we have it on record that thousands of different species suddenly popped up as though out of nowhere.
2. “Missing links” that have been found have either been proven to be false or not missing links at all. Some examples of this are the Piltdown Man and the Archaeoraptor. The Piltdown Man was “found” in 1912 by amateur archaeologist Charles Dawson, who claimed that he had found the missing link between man and ape. However, in 1953, after 41 years of it being accepted by the scientific community as being real, it was found to be a forgery with the “fossils” actually being that of medieval human skull and the jawbone of an orangutan which had been altered to look ancient. Later, in 1999, National Geographic published an article about the Archaeoraptor (later dubbed the Piltdown chicken), being the missing link between birds and dinosaurs, but it was found to be a Frankenstein-style mishmash of real fossils from different species. The head and upper body were from a primitive bird called Yanornis and the tail was from a small, winged dromaesaur called the Microraptor.
3. The Theory of Evolution can’t explain how life managed to come from non-living matter.
4. Evolution almost entirely rests on the idea that genes are constantly changing and mutating, often in large ways to better help the animal suit their environment. While it’s true that animals such as Darwin’s Finches can adapt to suit their conditions, they are able to do that through their genetics, and do not slowly evolve over time. In fact, what usually happens when genes mutate is they cause more harm than good. For example, cancer is caused with the genes in a certain cell suddenly mutate during division due to family history that increases the risk of mutation or exposure to things like carcinogens, UV rays, or certain viruses. Another example of how mutated genes can cause more harm than good is Down syndrome, which is caused a part or a whole third copy of chromosome 21 is present.
5. Life is much too complex to have been able to evolve by itself. Going back to The Second Law of Thermodynamics, the universe naturally moves to a greater state of disorder over time. Left to itself, nature would not be able to create more complex organisms (like us thinking, moving humans who have 640 different muscles, 206 bones fused together from our original 270, not to mention all the different cells and tissues that do different, very important tasks) from something like bacteria. The only way to fix this is for there to be intelligent design from an intelligent designer (sounds an awful lot like God), to create life and in the Christian worldview, the only reason why we grow decrepit and die is because sin was brought into the world through Adam’s rebellion, bringing with it death, which fundamentally changed our world and our biology, making it unstable.

#3: Radiocarbon Dating

Radiocarbon dating has been used time and time again to try to show how God couldn’t possibly have created everything in seven days. However, radiocarbon dating, though it can give us a rough estimate of how old something may be (or may not be as there have been cases where it’s been way off), is not a great way to tell how old something is. Take for instance the Shroud of Turin, which I mentioned in my last post about this topic. In the 80s when the Shroud was first dated, three separate laboratories used radio-carbon dating to figure out how old it was, and they got three different answers, putting it within the range of 1260-1390. However, in more recent studies that have been done through Wide-Angle X-ray Scattering (WAXS), it has been dated back to around the time Jesus lived.

Another thing that can throw the dates given by radiocarbon dating way off are things like contamination, calibration, atmospheric variations, samples limitations, and statistical errors. Samples can be contaminated with carbon-containing materials such as dirt or animal-based glue; it’s only somewhat effective for dating organic materials and can’t be used for inorganic materials and even then, those samples may not contain enough carbon-14 for the date to be reliable; radiocarbon dating relies on the calibration to account for variations in the atmospheric concentration of carbon-14 over time and the data on this can be inaccurate, especially since we don’t know what it was like several million years ago; carbon-14 in the atmosphere can fluctuate due to things like solar activity and volcanic eruptions; and there are inherent statistical errors in the measurement process.

And lastly, does it even matter if the universe is several thousand or several million years old? God created Adam and Eve as two fully-grown adults. If he wanted to give the universe a age of several million years, he totally could’ve.

#4: Christ’s Crucifixion

Moving into some medical science here and skipping straight into the New Testament, let’s look at Jesus’ death. Researchers have done extensive studies into the effects of crucifixion on the human body. In 1986, a study examined the remains of a crucified man and found that the nails were driven through the wrists, aligning with historical accounts of Roman crucifixion practices, including the ones found in the Bible. Medical analysis has also detailed the physiological process involved in crucifixion, detailing the agony and eventual death from asphyxiation or shock from the pain and severe blood loss. On top of that, the description we get in John 19:34 talks about how blood and water flowed from Jesus’ side after he was stabbed by the Roman soldier with a spear. Not only did this fulfil the prophecy that not one of Jesus’ bones would be broken, but it also has been taken by those in the medical field to mean that the spear went into Jesus’ chest cavity (which is full of pleural fluid with lubricates the layers of tissue surrounding the lungs for easy inhalation and exhalation) meaning that it likely pierced His lung and heart (which caused the blood flow). This means that the fact that Jesus was dead when he was taken down from the cross is completely inarguable on that fact alone.

#5: The Psychology of the Converts

Recently, I read a counterargument posed by a lawyer questioning apologist Gary Habermas’s proof for Christianity. In this analysis, the lawyer ended by creating his own hare-brained theory that the apostles Peter and James were actually some super greedy dudes seeking to make a fortune off the gullible masses and that James, being the brother of Jesus, thus possibly bearing a passing resemblance to him, was pretending to be the risen Jesus. Here’s what the lawyer says:

“My theory, the Peter/James conspiracy, assumes that the apostles were men with varying degrees of greed, gullibility, and attraction to power—cui bono. Although similar to the ideas of H. S. Reimarus and the “minimal witnesses” argument of Paul Ens (“Paulogia“), I am, so far as I know, the first person to propose this exact theory.

Apologists agree that the disciples were surprised and devastated by their leader’s untimely demise. Peter had no normal life to which he could return, having long since sold his fishing boat. He saw an opportunity when graverobbers stole Jesus’ body—a common event at the time.[23]

James could pass for Jesus in the light of an oil lamp, so Peter recruited him to impersonate Jesus in a series of after-dark appearances to the disciples. The Gospels naturally omitted this detail about the lighting. Read the statement of H. H. Furness about a medium faking spirit manifestations if you doubt that James could impersonate his brother.

James also claimed that Jesus appeared to him. The other apostles believed James, and Peter welcomed him into the group of apostles. There is nothing unbelievable about this sequence of events. Consider David Miscavige seizing control of Scientology after the death of L. Ron Hubbard if you doubt that a subordinate might engineer a takeover under such circumstances.“

The lawyer also says of Paul…

“Paul became a Christian after he had some sort of vision. He proved to be a useful idiot because he collected money from his Gentile converts for the “poor” in Jerusalem.[26] Paul never reveals why the poor in Jerusalem are more needy than the Gentile poor, but money was the only thing that Peter and James wanted at the Jerusalem conference.[27]

Christians passed these differing versions of the stories from person to person.[28] Years later, the anonymous gospel authors—who knew nothing of Peter’s grift—wrote down four different versions of the story.”

However, this can be disproven by simply looking at what the Bible says and what psychology says. This lawyer seems to agree that Jesus was a real person who lived, gained a following, and died. That’s true. He says the disciples gave up everything to follow Jesus and apologists agree that they were rightfully devastated when he died. Also true.

However, where his theory starts going way downhill is when he says that Jesus was actually James doing an impersonation of his brother in questionable lighting. If he had read John 20, he would know that Jesus not only suddenly appeared to the disciples and ate with them (proving he was not a ghost), but John 20:27-29 says: “27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.” 28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” This is significant because Thomas had said in previous verses that he would not believe “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side” (John 20:25). If what the lawyer is saying is true and only Peter and James knew about the conspiracy, then it would seem awfully suspicious if James was unable to show any scars or wounds and the other disciples would soon catch onto their trick.

Not only that, but Jesus didn’t just appear to the apostles there. In the 40 days after His resurrection, He spoke to His disciples (which is a term also used to refer to any Joe-Shmoe who followed Him) at the same time, in the same place, very likely in full lighting. People absolutely cannot hallucinate the same thing, much less at the same time. It is psychologically impossible because each person’s mind works differently.

Even more condemning for this theory is that Paul was not the only witness to his vision. Acts 9:7 states that he had companions traveling with him and also heard Jesus speaking, though they didn’t see Him. Once again, people cannot hallucinate the same thing at the same time, visible or not. On top of that, Paul left his cozy lifestyle persecuting Christians to go preach the Gospel and spent much of his life in jail for it, eventually being beheaded by Nero or one of Nero’s cronies in 38 A.D. (according to the historian Eusebius). People usually don’t do that unless they have good reason to. And that’s not even mentioning the fact that Paul went temporarily blind after seeing Jesus, a physical condition further solidifying his testimony!

Finally, if the disciples had been lying and were just greedy and looking for power, they would have admitted it and renounced Christianity. Humans often look for the easy way out and unless they are totally convinced that something is undeniably true, they will not usually die for it.

Until next time,

M.J.