Blind But Now I See
by Dave & Mary Jo Nutting

Eyesight is a precious gift from God! Clear eyesight gives us the ability to walk confidently, to read, to perform any number of detailed tasks, as well as to enjoy the colorful beauty of the world He has created. What a blessing — yet how often we take it for granted. (See Steve Elsmore’s article on page 3 for some “WOW” points on the wonders of sight.)

Amazing as our eyesight is, we still have limitations on what we can see. Our vision is limited to a narrow range of wavelengths. Outside of that range, we are “blind.” We are also limited to certain ranges of sight — both far and near. Beyond those limits, we rely on telescopes and microscopes to increase our vision, yet those too have limits. Many of us need corrective lenses just to drive safely or read clearly — and we all have a “blindspot” where we cannot see what is really there. (See page 3 for a demonstration of that.)

These principles can be applied to the whole issue of the study of origins. Scripture tells us that “through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” (Heb. 11:3) It also tells us we “walk by faith, not by sight.” (II Cor. 5:7) None of us were present at the beginning of the world to see how it came into being — and as we study the evidences that we “see” in the world today, we must remember that our “vision” is always limited to some extent and often distorted by “astigmatism” or “blindspots.” — limited by what we still don’t know and clouded by bias and preconceived ideas. Furthermore, we all still see “through a dark glass dimly” because we don’t have all the facts. Frequently one little “fact” sheds light on a subject and changes the whole way of looking at things. These “facts” may have been there all along, but they were “hidden” in a “blindspot” — much as a passing car can be hidden from the view of the driver because of the physical blindspot. The driver must look carefully, and rely on his special mirrors (or maybe the words of a “back seat driver”) to avoid a terrible crash.

In the same way, we all can be “deceived” by our senses and our minds. To avoid a “crash,” we need to sharpen our vision. First, we must realize our limits. There are simply some things we can never see or prove directly (like how the world came into being). (See Dr. Dan Korow’s article on page 2 which relates to that.) Next, we need to develop our critical thinking skills so we won’t be misled in areas where we can investigate. Finally, and most importantly, we must learn to “drive safely,” using the res God has given us to see clearly. We must use His Word as a “corrective lense” to sharpen our vision, as a “lamp” to light our way, and as a “mirror” to help us “see” into our blindspots. We must also rely on His Holy Spirit to be our “back seat driver,” guiding and directing us on the way, pointing out the safe path, and warning us of dangers we can’t see.

We have had many people tell us that discovering the evidence of creation is something akin to having “scales fall from their eyes” or removing blindspots and having a whole new world open up to them. As the “lights came on” they began to see the “facts” in a different light, and everything began to fit together and make sense. They now see the wonderful power and glory of God reflected in what He has made, and marvel at His awesome wisdom and power. Some see further aspects of God’s love for them and their worth and dignity as human beings, created in the image of God. Some have even come into His full light for salvation in Jesus Christ. PTL!!

Two Kinds of Science
by Dr. Dan Korow

As a veterinarian, I’ve performed a number of autopsies. This postmortem practice illustrates two very different categories of “science,” relying on either conclusive, or circumstantial evidence. It also addresses squarely the myth that “Creation is religion, whereas evolution is science.”

Here is a hypothetical case. Mrs. Smith lived in rural Colorado. Her best friend was her dog, Muffy: a 5 year old, male, neutered, Lsaha apso.

One day, Mrs. Smith left home to buy groceries. She returned two hours later to find Muffy dead in her fenced backyard. She rushed to our office, angry and convinced that her neighbor, Mr. Jones, had poisoned him. After all, Mr. Jones hated barking dogs. Mrs. Smith left the veterinary office, and went home to wait for my phone call. In essence, my job was to view the present, and try to prove the past.
Was there conclusive, legal evidence to prove this theory of poisoning? I first approached this case according to the scientific method of empirical science. This involves: observing the present world, gathering information, developing a hypothesis, performing experiments, and collecting data. The final analysis is based on the observable, physical evidence found. The motto for empirical science is “seeing is believing.”

A thorough physical exam of Muffy’s rigid body was performed. Areas of trauma were examined, documented, and shaved. This uncovered numerous puncture wounds, abrasions, and a broken bone. One predominant abnormal finding was massive internal bleeding. Evaluation of the stomach and intestinal contents revealed some mysterious dark, green pellets, along with some paper wrappers. The approach qualified as true, empirical science, because it followed the scientific method.

At this point, I called Mrs. Smith. She identified the green pellets as rabbit kibble, not poison. Based on the autopsy findings and her testimony, the empirical process had determined conclusively that death was due to trauma, not poisoning. However, empirical science was incapable of answering her follow-up questions: “Who killed my Muffy, and how did it happen?”

This moved us from empirical science to historical “science.” It is called historical because it is tied to the unobserved past, not the testable present. The motto for historical “science” is “believing is seeing.” Thus it falls outside the experimental standards of the scientific method. For example, no one had witnessed the “crime” nor had we seen the suspect(s). Speculation and imagination were required to piece the puzzle
together.
The circumstantial clues matched an attack scenario. The measured distances between puncture sites were compatible with the canine teeth of a semi-large carnivore, as were the powerful jaws needed to crush, and break Muffy’s leg bone.

Several plausible scenarios emerged. Could some stray dog or a coyote be the killer? What about a small cougar or a bear? Numerous wildlife sightings had been reported. How did they enter the back yard? Was the fence scaled, jumped, or tunneled under? Could someone have left the gate open? Were there any tracks, tufts of the killer’s fur, or other clues overlooked? The more I pondered, the more questions surfaced, and the more these scenarios took on a life of their own.

In realty, one couldn’t know with 100 percent confidence the truth about the unobserved past. The problem wasn’t with the data. The difficulty played out in interpreting the incomplete data historically.
Historical “science” can sometimes involve monumental feats of imagination even in present-day examples. This is despite the benefit of a current knowledge of living creatures, the environmental conditions, and physical laws. One must wonder about the validity and accuracy of historical reconstructions spanning millions to billions of years. “Pre-historic” conditions were both extraordinary and totally outside our realm of experience. There were different conditions on the earth, strange and perplexing dinosaurs, and
a myriad of unknown variables.

Evolution attempts to explain the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of man, etc. These one time events are beyond direct observation, experimentation, retesting, and refutation. Evolution therefore, is plainly not true empirical science.

Both evolution and Creation fall into the category of historical science. Neither model of belief can be proven, or disproven. Both are statements of faith, and are inherently religious in nature. Hence the frequently made statement, “evolution is science whereas creation is religion,” is a myth.

WOW: Wonder of Wonders
by Steve Elsmore