Religion and Science—Are They Incompatible?

I read recently about a new discovery by science, an archaeological dig in the UK that has changed the timeline of when humans first made fire. They discovered that the earliest human-created fire took place on the east coast of England 400,000 years ago.

That's not a typo. And England wasn't even at the center of civilization.

The new discovery pushes the origin of human fire-making back by more than 350,000 years, far earlier than previously thought. The ability to create fire is so important because it turns us from animals into humans. With the ability to create fire, we were “able to advance to the species we are today.”

How do they know that? They found a flint that was bashed against a rock called pyrite (also known as fool's gold) to create a spark.

Science is asking you to believe something that happened 400,000 years ago. The Bible is asking you to believe something that happened 2,000 years ago. Yet some people talk like Jesus is a myth, like they can't believe in something they haven't seen Him with their own eyes.

Now, Jesus is a historical figure, and it's well-documented. Use the same logic—do you believe in Alexander the Great? You haven't seen him. Well, he's a historical figure, and it's reasonably documented.

The issue with Christmas and its message, however, is not just that Jesus is a historical figure. The scriptures in Galatians, written by the apostle Paul, say that in the fullness of time, God sent His Son. Jesus is recorded in history with Caesars, Judean kings, occupations, taxes—it's all documented.

But the issue is this: God sent His Son. That's the incarnation.

Do you believe?

Would you rather believe something that happened 400,000 years ago, or read the historical record of Jesus, Emmanuel, God with us?