We will start with a few basics.

Point 1: When trying to reach people with a message, we ought to use methods that those people will accept / will understand / will relate to.

Paul wrote to the church in Corinth (I Cor. 14:23-24) that they ought to speak (publicly) in a known tongue, rather than an unknown tongue (without interpretation). Why avoid speaking in unknown tongues? Apparently this was not because this was a sinful practice, or even wrong; talking in unknown tongues was talking to God, affirms Paul. But he does not encourage it (publicly), unless the meaning can be given (i.e., it can be interpreted).

Why? The answer is simple – the unbelievers present would not accept it.

Point 2: Discredited arguments will work if one allows ad-hoc miracles.

Example: Moon dust.

The claim of this argument was that moon dust would be much deeper than it is, given the known rate of dust accumulation, if the moon was really millions or billions of years old. Since the dust is not so deep, according to this theory, the moon then must be young.

This argument is on a list of arguments for creation that are not recommended to use (discredited). The reason given for putting this argument on the "do not use" list was that the rate of dust accumulation has been updated, and a more accurate value shows that the argument with the new accumulation rate is no longer valid. 1

The miracle that can fix this supposed insurmountable problem for the moon dust, or any argument for creation, is simple: simply invoke a miracle, such that what we measure today as the rate of dust accumulation was not the case, oh, a hundred years ago – or before we began measuring it. Before then, the rate was what the original version of the argument claimed. The rate changed just when man began to detect it – miraculously – and by just the right amount!

The reason for putting arguments on a discredited list is that the argument claims something that is contrary to known science. We just need to say, whenever the known laws of science conflict with our argument, that a miracle was the reason the law was violated. (This is pretty much the definition of a miracle, anyway: something contrary to the known laws of science.)

Point 3: Miracles are not the way to go for much of the audience of creation science.

Large numbers of college-bound youth from Christian homes, supposedly from strong Christian families, have been reported to have left their faith.

Many of them have been confronted with evolutionist teachers, who have claimed that science has disproven much of the Bible – whether this claim is directly stated or implied, or true or not, the effect was largely the same; people left thir faith.

These students who left their faith needed something. What?

One thing they already had was claims of miracles – remember, they came from Christian homes, and doubtless already knew of miracles described in the Bible, having heard of them many times. But they still left their faith. So they apparently didn't need claims of miracles, claims without supporting evidence.

What did the “other side” offer? (The other side here being evolution.) The other side offered science, scientific evidence.

What did these students accept - claims of miracles, or claims of science?

Did these students accept the claims of science (that seemed to be, or were claimed to be, supported by evidence), or the claims of miracles?

The answer concerning those who left their faith is obvious; they listened to the claims of science, not to the claims of miracles. And the professors teaching evolution would be even less likely to accept the claims of miracles than their students. (Note: science claims to have evidence for evolution, whether true or not; while many Christians explicitly deny having evidence for miracles, and even promote belief in miracles without evidence as being a virtue. To see a discussion on how faith can be based on evidence, see Bias 2, and the excerpts from that article in the footnote below 3 .)

But the thing these students DID chose to believe in was the claims of science.

So, does it make sense to arm these students with claims of miracles? Or with the best science available?

One pastor lamented that his son was lost – spiritually – when going to college, because the creation science he offered his son was not good enough scientifically to answer the questions the son had.

The book Already Gone 4 describes how former Christians say a big reason for their leaving the faith is their thinking that science had disproven their faith.

The audience of creation science – these professors, students from Christian homes, and others – do not accept claims of miracles, but they do accept the verdict of science. This audience will be used throughout the rest of this article as the audience with which we are concerned.

We ought to apply the point above and use what these people actually can relate to and what they do accept, instead of what they already are not accepting. In other words, "talk their language."

Point 4: The purpose of creation science is ...

to use science to support the miracle of creation

not

to use miracles to support scientific theories

To expand on this,

to use scientific evidence to give people reason to believe in the miracle of creation

not

to use arbitrary miracles to support some scientific model

To expand on the last alternative:

not

to use claimed, arbitrary, ad-hoc, not-mentioned-in-the-Bible, non-proven, miracles to support some scientific model

Why this purpose? To provide information to those who would not accept the claims of miracles found in the Bible, and heard in churches. We already have the Bible, and we already have churches. These people, the intended audience of at least part of creation science, is not relating to them. They do relate, however, to science; therefore, we have creation science.

To use miracles in a model or argument presented to this audience – including students from Christian homes – is not effective. By definition, this is so: this audience rejects claims of miracles. Thus use of miracle claims is by definition not effective. This audience will, however, accept scientific evidence (without ad-hoc claims of miracles to prop up the science), so by definition this audience will accept scientific evidence (without ad-hoc claims of miracles to prop up the science). We want to show them the reason to accept the miracle of creation, but we can do so only by giving them what they do accept, and what they do relate to – science, not claims of miracles.

If you are thinking, “but miracles are real” – then you are missing the point. For the reasons given, Paul in the Bible advised against something that was real – something that he himself was doing (though for a different audience – his personal audience was God in prayer, not unbelievers in a public meeting).

The point is, to consider the audience. This is not about what is true or is not true. This is about communication that will be understood.

Some may still reject truth, so this method doesn't work – right?

Also, the argument that some may still reject the truth even if the scientific evidence is given, is now considered; perhaps some unbelievers would still continue to reject God, even after Paul's suggestions to the church at Corinth were implemented, but... did this invalidate what Paul said?

Well, what Paul wrote is still in the Bible, and it still makes sense. So we can say, what Paul wrote to Corinth was not invalidated by some people not believing even after hearing something they could understood and relate to. Some people can reject even truth that is obvious.

Evangelism might reach some people who still reject the gospel. Does this prove evangelism should be stopped?

Likewise, with similar reasoning, we can say that this argument (that some may still reject the truth, even if the scientific evidence is given) will not invalidate the soundness of the creation science practice of using what people do relate to (scientific evidence) rather than claims of, and appeals to, assumed, arbitrary, unproven, ad-hoc miracles.

The point is that we know they will reject, indeed already reject, claims of miracles; and we know what they do accept - science. The point is simply to do what is so obviously not futile. The chance of their relating to what we say is greater when we don't start out with things we know they will reject. Greater probability of their relating to what we say is the case when we talk to them in terms that they do understand, using science which they do accept.

• 1. This still is a valid argument according to some, but that is not relevant to our purposes here. See https://kgov.com/nasa-feared-deep-moon-dust
• 2. https://tasc-creationscience.org/article/bias
• 3.

  Science and Religion: Common Ground?

  Can science and religion co-exist? Can science possibly share a common ground with religion? This discussion is limited to the Christian religion, as taught in the Bible.

  In the Christian religion, the basis for believing something, even belief in God, is evidence. I realize this may seem strange to those who thought that faith was based on not having any evidence, or believing without evidence, and that the presence of evidence did away with the "faith" aspect of believing things. However, in this case, rather than going by what people believe about this issue, perhaps even very strongly believe, let us ignore the strength of a feeling, or the strength of a belief, as constituting evidence for the feeling or belief. Instead, we will look at what the Bible of Christianity says, to determine what that same Bible teaches.

  We read in this book of a doubting Thomas. He was not denied the evidence he asked for, nor was it suggested that he should believe in Jesus without evidence. You might disagree with that statement, claiming that Thomas was supposed to believe without evidence. He had said he would not believe unless he saw evidence of the resurrection. (The other disciples therefore said unto him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said unto them, “Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.” - John 20:25) So, you may say doubting Thomas wanted to see evidence of the resurrection and should have believed without that evidence. But look at the evidence that Thomas already had before he asked for even more evidence:

  Assuming the Bible to be true, for the purpose of this analysis, we see that:

  • Thomas had worked with Jesus
  • Thomas had probably seen many miracles, if not performed some himself, such as
    • Jesus walking on water
    • Feeding of thousands miraculously
    • Numerous healings
    • Casting out of demons
    • Raising of the dead

  We know that many people knew of these events. In the case of the feeding of thousands, thousands were directly participating, receiving the food, and obviously would have been cognizant of the miraculous meal they had actually participated in consuming. It would be perplexing and surprising and highly improbable that Thomas, one of the twelve disciples, would be ignorant of these events.

  So the story of doubting Thomas is no proof that faith must be without evidence, for Thomas already had evidence, "in spades." The more accurate interpretation is that one who has abundance of evidence already, ought to believe what that evidence indicates rather than denying the indication of the evidence, while demanding more evidence.

  The example for Christians concerning having (and not having) faith was the lack of faith which Israel demonstrated when they had the opportunity to go into the promised land (Numbers 14). What God said in Numbers 14 and in the book of Hebrews on this event is very enlightening. He said they had not believed God for all the evidence he had shown them. And this, my friends, is the prototypical example from the Bible, for the church, about faith. And this classic example of faith was believing, or faith, based on evidence.

  Numbers 14:11 And the LORD said unto Moses, “How long will this people despise me? And how long will they not believe in me, in spite of all the signs that I have done among them?”

  So, Christian faith is based on evidence. Paul, in the book of Romans (Romans 1:20), says God has shown evidence to people, so they are without excuse. In other words, they have evidence.

  Enough on the theology. Suffice it that faith, or at least the faith of the Bible, is based on evidence. Science is supposedly based on evidence. There we have the common ground. But what about the disconnect between science and religion? Where does that lie?

  There is no disconnect between true science and true religion if both are considered to involve honest seeking for truth.

  You don’t have to throw your intelligence away to become a Christian; quite the contrary. We have just seen examples of faith from the Bible that base faith on evidence.

• 4. https://answersingenesis.org/answers/books/already-gone/