George:  “Okay, you’re pulling me out of the closet to do your dirty work.”

Me: “No, but I’m whisking you away from the top floor in my office in the mountains of PA (where you can see the dock) to give you a taste of Florida flatlands on a Starbucks patio as the morning sun rises…”

George: “Pul…ease…what are you up to? The only thing I can ‘see’ is somewhere inside your head and, quite frankly, the sight isn’t pretty.”

Me:  “Okay…

The Bible and science fit together very well.

…and I’d like to say a few general things to explain how.”

George:  “And blame it on me, I suppose.”

Me:  “Maybe, if I can get away with it…but…first I need a refill…”

George:  “Please don’t say…”

Me:  “For more use the…StarbucksDOOR.


George:  “Looks like you somehow got a copy of When God Goes to Starbucks by Paul Copan.”

Me:  “Yes, but I haven’t read it yet. Now don’t divert me!  You did well at the WHAT tab above, but now I’m going to use you to help me offer a few generalities to…”

George:  “‘Use’ me?”

Me:  “As I was saying, offer a few generalities without feeling forced to–here–write a big book on each one.”

George:  “So I’m supposed to trust you?”

Me:  “Yes, for the time being.”

George:  “Then proceed.”

Me:  “The last post, ‘Time Ends,” briefly summarized 6 ways how astronomers and astrophysicists think time will end. I want to make several observations about that and offer some suggestions. I’ll indulge my penchant for numbering, drop the quotation marks, and minimize the citations. Some comments will be developed more fully later.

1) Not mentioned in the list of “bigs” (concerning the end of time) in the last POST is The Big Bang. This view declares that the universe is very old, by latest estimates, about 13.7 billion years. This is nearly universally accepted by all modern scientists who have investigated the evidence for this.

2) Many Christians familiar with both science and the Bible–taking both very seriously–accept the idea of The Big Bang and see no conflict between the two. For a quick look that supports this, simply Google “List of Old-Earth Creationists.” Also check out “The Chicago Statement” (about accepting infallibility & inerrancy of the Bible that was produced by The International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI) signed by “old earth” as well as “young earth” creationists (discussed in our March 11, 2013  post).  5 provisos on this:

a) “Old Earth Creationism” is not identical to accepting The Big Bang. In fact, many OEC folks, such as C. I. Scofield (the Scofield Bible), accepted an “old earth” as “Biblical” before The Big Bang Theory was formulated.

b) Accepting an “old earth” interpretation is not the same thing as accepting Darwinism or “evolution” (which needs careful defining). “Old Earthers” do not have to accept “Darwinism,” but Darwinists do have to accept an “old earth.” This is important to recognize!

c) There are many, many other old earth creationists (I know many) who teach and have ministries. Unfortunately, there is a strong informal lobby that insists a person must believe in the earth being no older than 10,000 years to believe in the divine inspiration of the Bible. I disagree with that.

d) A great source for exploring old-earth creationism is Reason To Believe’s website,

e) Stating what may seem to be obvious: there are many, many Christians who share “a common theology” on most points–except for the age of the universe.

3)  Sadly, so often overlooked is that The Big Bang Theory is one of the most significant arguments that has brought modern scientifically trained atheists to consider the Bible and convert to Christianity

4)  And now “endings”: The very notion of having a “beginning” particularly at some “point” makes many scientists uncomfortable. Where did the “point” (of whatever) come from? And what was before that. Well, first of all, time itself and the 3 space dimensions are said (by science) to have come from that point. Time didn’t exist before that. Now…if there’s a “beginning,” that highly suggests an ending.

5)  The 6 possible endings? Remember first that nobody’s going to be easily “proven” wrong since all are–safely–millions of years away. Many scientists, however, believe that something–scientific–must, or ought, to be offered to suggest that naturalism has an answer, or response, to all “matters” of matter and energy.

6)  And dark energy, string theory, and a new (not mentioned here) “God particle“? How do they fit into this? First, they are efforts by scientists to take what we know, and make the case for naturalism more plausible without opening the door wider for God or something supernatural. No problem with that if we put to the test what is found. But let’s keep our eyes open to how the data measure up without climbing into ideas that are essentially unverifiable speculation.

George:  “Not bad advice for Christians also.”

Me: “I heard that! But, yes, I agree. Caution and humility are suitable garments to wear in the presence of more and more mind-blowing data.