Dr. Young Addresses The Big Question
- Chapter 1: Deductive and Inductive Logic
- Chapter 2: The Scientific Method
- Chapter 3: The Forensic Scientific Method and the Inferential Test
- Chapter 4: Application of the Forensic Scientific Method and the Inferential Test, Part 1
- Chapter 5: Application of the Forensic Scientific Method and the Inferential Test, Part 2
- Chapter 6: Inductive Arguments
- Chapter 7: Analysis of Counterarguments
My arguments in this treatise are summarized as follows:
- The acceptance of an ancient account of a six-day creation of the heavens and the earth and a creator God is not only logically sound but also rational. The evidence for the veracity of that account is overwhelming.
- Furthermore, the perpetuation of flawed and false theories for origins is due to the fallacy of affirming the consequent for complex past events. It is modern science’s greatest failure. Nothing new will be learned about the past as long as scientists and philosophers cling to this fallacy. Past event science will remain “junk science” until this fallacy is confronted rationally.
As a forensic pathologist, my greatest concern remains the false accusation and imprisonment of innocent people due to “junk science.” As I considered the topic of this treatise, I wondered if God had anything to say about the application of scientific method to past events.
Well, as it so happens, He does.
Witness accounts are important to God. The ninth commandment of the ten carved in stone by God’s finger states, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” 42,43. Furthermore, the Mosaic law — also given by God but handwritten by Moses 44 — required the testimony of two or three witnesses before putting someone to death and required that those witnesses would be the first to inflict the penalty 45. Any person testifying falsely would be subject to the same punishment as the person he or she accused 46.
What about the murder without witnesses? According to the same Mosaic law:
If anyone is found slain, lying in the field in the land which the LORD your God is giving you to possess, and it is not known who killed him, then your elders and your judges shall go out and measure the distance from the slain man to the surrounding cities. And it shall be that the elders of the city nearest to the slain man will take a heifer which has not been worked and which has not pulled with a yoke. The elders of that city shall bring the heifer down to a valley with flowing water, which is neither plowed nor sown, and they shall break the heifer’s neck there in the valley. Then the priests, the sons of Levi, shall come near, for the LORD your God has chosen them to minister to Him and to bless in the name of the LORD; by their word every controversy and every assault shall be settled. And all the elders of that city nearest to the slain man shall wash their hands over the heifer whose neck was broken in the valley. Then they shall answer and say, “Our hands have not shed this blood, nor have our eyes seen it. Provide atonement, O LORD, for Your people Israel, whom You have redeemed, and do not lay innocent blood to the charge of Your people Israel.” And atonement shall be provided on their behalf for the blood. So you shall put away the guilt of innocent blood from among you when you do what is right in the sight of the LORD 47.
No person was ever to be accused without witness accounts. Instead, the priests were called to make atonement to God on behalf of the nearest community for a crime that remained unsolved. It was the community that was held responsible for the crime, not a specific accused perpetrator. Perhaps there were some members of that community who knew what happened but refused to bear a witness account, or perhaps the community failed in their responsibility to safeguard its citizens; nevertheless, the community leaders and those who were appointed to settle controversies — the sons of Levi — were not permitted to accuse any individual without the required witness accounts. The ceremony was also an expression of faith in a God who would exact vengeance on the unknown perpetrator 48.
It is ironic that in these modern times, community leaders and those responsible for settling controversies now blame individuals for crimes not on the basis of witness accounts but on flawed science instead!
Without a witness account, we really do not know what happened in the vast majority of cases. Science is not a remedy for a lack of knowledge that can only be learned through witness accounts. Science does not take the place of absent witness accounts. Instead, forensic science and the other past event sciences are to be used to test witness accounts — even ancient witness accounts — for veracity. Anything beyond that is junk science.
Thank you for your time and consideration.