Lord Kelvin Extolled as
Giant of Science and Creationist
Peter Crutchley, writing
for the BBC’s Religion and Ethics page, asked “Kelvin’s conundrum: Is it
possible to believe in God and science?” His answer is a resounding
yes, because, as Crutchley describes, William Thomson (better known as Lord
Kelvin) never wavered as a creationist through his long, productive scientific
life. Furthermore, as Crutchley goes on to say, a number of living
scientists maintain that legacy.
Lord Kelvin is a giant of 19th Century
science. He was also a devout Christian who found a way of reconciling his science and his
faith, but not without finding himself in conflict with his contemporaries
including Darwin.
Kelvin was no slouch:
“Kelvin himself became a professor at the University of Glasgow in 1846 and in
a 53 year career his scientific achievements were many and diverse.”
Some biographers focus on his mistakes (as if no scientist today is faultless),
but Crutchley rightly emphasizes the successes of this highly-respected
scientist who was knighted for his contributions. Kelvin also combated
Darwinian thinking by calculating an upper limit on the age of the earth.
Crutchley claims this put him at odds with Biblical creationists who found his
calculation too long, but Kelvin intended it as an upper limit, not an actual
age – a limit far too young for the time Darwin needed.
At the end of the
article, Crutchley discusses whether science and religion are in
conflict. He gives first mention to the views of atheists like Dawkins
and Hawking, but then gives substantial attention to a Christian and supporter
of intelligent design:
Professor John Lennox, professor of
Mathematics at Oxford University, countered Hawking’s argument in an article
published in 2010.
“Much of the rationale behind
Hawking’s argument lies in the idea that there is a deep-seated conflict
between science and religion. But this is not a discord I recognise,”
Lennox said.
Lennox, who has engaged in a number
of debates with Richard Dawkins, believes that far from being at odds with
science, the Christian faith actually makes perfect scientific sense.
“For me, as a Christian believer, the
beauty of the scientific laws only reinforces my faith in an intelligent,
divine creative force at work. One of the fundamental themes of Christianity
is that the universe was built according to a rational, intelligent design.”
Lennox also referred to
Joseph Needham, who wondered why China fell so far behind Europe in scientific
achievement. Needham “reluctantly came to the conclusion” that “European
science had been spurred on by the widespread belief in a rational creative
force, known as God, which made all scientific laws comprehensible.”
Crutchley ended by
celebrating Kelvin’s secure scientific legacy, mentioning his crypt in the
“scientists’ corner” of Westminster Abbey alongside that of Isaac Newton
(incidentally, another creationist).
It was refreshing to see this article,
despite a few disagreements we might have (see our biography of Lord Kelvin on
this site). One is Crutchley’s use of Francis Collins to argue against
the old “warfare of science and religion” hypothesis, since Collins is a
theistic Darwin-loving evolutionist who opposes supporters of intelligent
design. Another is this statement about Kelvin’s age-of-the-earth
calculation, “His estimation for the age of the earth was far too young to
satisfy geologists and Darwinists, but too old to satisfy creationists, leaving
him caught between religion and science in this instance.” This suggestion
that creationists were not satisfied (where is his evidence?) overlooks the
strategic ploy Kelvin was using. He was not asserting that the earth was
tens of millions of years old, but that it could not be older than
that. It was an upper limit. Kelvin was not “caught between
religion and science” at all. He was a good debater! Crutchley’s
quote from Dr. Andrew Holmes that the calculation “can easily be dismissed”
today is a half-truth. While radioactivity was discovered later,
complicating the picture, Kelvin’s reasoning from thermodynamics was
sound. The untruth part of the statement ignores the great deal of
evidence accumulated by modern creation scientists (physicists and geologists
with doctorates) who support an upper limit of thousands, not millions of
years. Now, 106 years after Kelvin’s death, the evidence for creation is
much more substantial. The Bible-Science Association of southern
California, for instance, routinely fills some two dozen tables with books and
videos of creation evidences at all levels from children’s books to technical
treatises, across all scientific fields. There are at least four
peer-reviewed creation journals, and many organizations answering evolution and
showing the evidence for creation from all directions, from physics to human
history, from astronomy to genetics, from philosophy to entomology, covering
all the bases.
Other than that, Crutchley did a fair
job. Now read our more extended biography of Kelvin that tells the story
of his battle with Darwin over the age of the earth, and how it vexed
Charlie and his frat boys to the point of desperation. Evolutionists
assume Kelvin’s arguments have been dismissed, but what do they do with the
even more powerful evidence creationists offer today? They ignore
it! They can afford to, because the moyboys now have a century of
storytelling, assumption, and momentum, aided by their co-conspirators in the
media, to enshrine their old-earth beliefs with the imprimatur of science,
leaving the contradictory evidence outside the gate of their walled castle that
says “No creationists allowed!” Inside, they wave “millions of years,
billions of years” around like a magic wand that can make all their demons
disappear and pull rabbits out of naturalistic hats. Given enough time, stuff
happens.
The evidence remains strong not just
for some undefined designer, however, but for the God of the Bible who made the
Earth and its life in six days. The Creator revealed Himself to man and
walked among us in the person of His Son, Jesus Christ, who affirmed the
literal Adam and Eve and the Flood of Noah. He proved His authority by
rising from the dead. This Savior has been trusted personally by Kelvin,
Maxwell, Boyle and many other outstanding scientists cataloged in our scientist
biography section. Science and religion are not in conflict. What’s
in conflict is naturalism and the evidence.
No comments:
Post a Comment