The Value of Observing and the Importance of a World View

Observation is critical to what we believe. We observe things to make postulations and conclusions. It generally governs what actions we take and how we see ourselves. What about historical observation? What do we assume when we observe something long past (we are observing, in this case, events that are not repeatable and in the distant past). A world view assumption is the first part of the scientific method or most issues far beyond science. Why is it important? Because the world view that is assumed, especially for events that are in the past and are not repeatable, might affect how we observe and what we conclude.

Consider the earth. What do we observe, and compared to other planetary bodies? Earth is completely unique (like the dominant presence of water and the mixture of oxygen with other gases in the air). Exoplanets, while sometimes heralded to be like earth, have been shown to be radically different. Did earth develop on its own to yield a perfectly habitable sphere through billions of years when nothing else in the solar system or the known universe compares? Naturalism (and its sister, evolution) makes the world view assumption that all the planets developed the same way. Does it work? Is it correct?

We have water over 2/3 of the surface and a precious thin layer of atmosphere. How can that be? These should be gone after billions of years. Or is the naturalistic time scale and presumed process wrong that are commonly taught? Is this world view assumption flawed? Our magnetic field is dwindling rapidly. Back that process through time and we have conditions that could not sustain life after a few tens of thousands of years. Is something wrong in this world view assumption?

Consider the base characteristics (substances, surface conditions, magnetic fields, etc.) of the planets. They are different than earth and different with respect to each other. That means the popular nebular hypothesis, although still taught in most schools, has been disproven. None of the planets is habitable like earth and each planet has very unique characteristics. Yet, we continue to teach the same thing in most schools: it all came about by itself with some version of the nebular theory. What if the naturalistic world view assumption is wrong? The planets do not make sense, and the presence of earth’s specialness makes the least sense.

Consider our topography on earth. Mountains thrust up in ridges, and many are nearly vertical in some cases. Others are rounded with forests. Why the differences? Yet, both kinds of mountains are often covered in sedimentary rock. Things erode, and all mountains erode a small amount each year, yet they are still with us after billions of years? Perhaps the time scale is wrong. Perhaps the way in which we see these things has a wrong world view assumption, so the observations yield the wrong conclusions.

Look from an airplane and see fans of soil, debris, and rock coming out of mountain areas, then huge plains spread out that are relatively flat. Look at the canyons on the globe that are carved deep into layers of rock. All these are taught to have taken place on very long time scales (millions of years). So sheer cliffs of sedimentary rock last that long in a vertical state, and a little stream over a long time causes deep canyons? Really? What if a worldwide catastrophe caused all this on a short time scale? Where do you find that possible in a naturalistic world view? You cannot. The assumption, which is usually not considered debatable, is that all this happened over eons. Rapid worldwide catastrophe is not permitted; it sounds too much like a biblical world view and the Genesis Flood.

Consider the heavens. A bunch of energy caused all this to organize without direction that yielded 100 billion galaxies, including our own? With what mechanism? And energy self directs and concentrates to yield the first star? Have we seen a star born, because people keep assuming that postulation? No, none have been observed, but we do see star death. Then is the star sequence correct? Maybe not. Maybe there are different star types from the beginning. But, that sounds too much like the Bible, and not “natural.”

Consider ancient man. Were they morons? After all, we are told we are getting better, and we came from simple life. Is that true? Do you know that we are genetically degrading…slowly but surely? Do we behave better? Are we truly getting smarter, which is different than adding technology to technology? Now we have DNA and know quite a bit about Neandertals (allegedly our ancestors in common books), who supposedly are less than human, if you believe the books children have. It seems, in view of more recent evidence, that they were very much like us because they were human, too. No missing link to get to a modern human have been found, by the way, but there should be one or several in the naturalistic view. Where are they, or do they exist at all?

There is a real problem in these areas of historical consideration, which cannot be studied in a classic experimental science method because they are historical in nature. Nevertheless, they are only presented with respect to one world view assumption: naturalism. But if the world view assumption is wrong, then what assumption can be used?

The biblical world view, which is generally forbidden in institutions, begins with God, the Creator, who makes the earth and prepares it to be inhabited with people. He rearranges the light sources and sets up the solar system. He proceeds to creatures on earth and in the sea and finally comes to man, the crown of His creation. Man is special, and he has the imprint of God’s nature. Things go wrong, however, near the beginning because the first people think they have a better way than consulting the Creator. After generations of that man-centered behavior, the corruption is so complete that God orders a worldwide flood. It begins with His commands and actions; it ends with His commands and actions. This comprises several chapters in Genesis and is referenced in numerous other books in the Bible. Did you think this world view is a myth?

So what do we find on earth? Sedimentary rock is over most of the earth’s surface, which is, by definition, rock originally laid down by turbid water full of silicates, debris, etc. We find violence in the crust, like it has been moved around. So, the layers are sometimes flat but often wrinkled, folded, and often curved, which means they were pliable to some extent when they were laid down. Fossils found around the world show a hint of the violent time, but also show many of the same kinds (or families) of life that we see today. Note that in the biblical world view God set up kinds from the beginning with ability to speciate, but not the kind of change that causes microbes to doctors.

People pay attention to the big fossils (dinosaurs), which are popular in exhibits. However, hosts of other creatures are in the fossil record, and many look something like the families of creatures we see today. More recently, we have DNA studies of T-Rex and some other kinds of creatures that were not completely mineralized. Fossils of soft tissue things have also been found, which should not be possible in millions-of-years history that is an essential element of a naturalistic world view. Is any of this in children’s and young people’s textbooks? Nope. It sounds too much like the results of a worldwide flood and geologic event. The only world view that is permitted is naturalism. Any reference to a god is simply not permitted. But what if consideration of God is an essential element in understanding what we see?

If some of this sounds challenging, why not look at sources that use a biblical world view and check out some of the information. Try, or, or Look at how a world view changes the assumptions and reinterprets the picture painted by a naturalistic or evolutionary view. Why do we suggest this? Because the human race is not an accident. Evidence of the Flood on earth, evidence from the size and characteristics of the universe, evidence about our nature, and evidence of life around us all point to something entirely different and not possible in a self-creating universe, which is taught as fact in most institutions. The evidence is to the contrary. This means the reader, in a biblical world view, is not an undirected product of chance, but a result of something centered in God. This means God would be real — not some wimpy notion of a deity that cannot get His act together before billion years of chance filled with death and destruction until, finally, the first human being pops up. While God being real might be a threatening notion, what if the Bible is correct and He is meant to be life to your soul?

Why not check this out?

We have produced a high school level course to look at the Biblical world view and then compare it to the dominant naturalistic world view to deal with the subject. Go to COURSES and DOWNLOADABLE COURSES for information. If you cannot afford the book or the eBook, get the free cell phone APP for Android phones. All you need is a Bible to go with the course. Tenth graders can handle the material. If you have questions, please contact us.

Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Thanks Roland and Faylene! I believe the bible as the true word of God. As for all the “Scientific” explanations that have been forced down our throats – lies of the Devil.

    Keep up the good work!

    Love in Christ

    • Thanks for your comments. Realize, however, that the naturalistic view has been so dominant for so long that no other explanation is generally accepted. It takes patience to slowly train folks to consider that the Bible is true with respect to all things it touches. Like it or not, the fallen world and its peoples are generally not interested in a Living God who means what He says. That puts Him in charge, and puts our behavior in the limelight. For those with a desire to hear, however, He becomes life.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.