84 Sermon Illustrations on Creationism

Professor Stephen Hawking is a remarkable human being. His courage and tenacity are an inspiration to all. His work on the theory of gravity has changed the way the field of physics is taught. But, when he crosses that border from science to theology, his worldview leads him into abject disaster.

________

By any measure, Stephen Hawking is one of the most famous and influential figures in modern science. For thirty years, he served as Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge, and his career before and after his decades in that post is the stuff of scientific legend. He is also probably the longest-living person ever to be diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis [ALS], and the very fact that he has been productive since that diagnosis at age 21 is a testimony to his sense of personal mission and sheer determination.

Professor Hawking is out with a new book, and in THE GRAND DESIGN, he, along with co-author Leonard Mlodinow, now presses his case against God — or at least against any role for God in the origin of the universe or the beginning of time.

Asking the most basic questions of the universe’s existence, Hawking and Mlodinow assert: “Some would claim the answer to these questions is that there is a God who chose to create the universe that way. It is reasonable to ask who or what created the universe, but if the answer is God, then the question has merely been deflected to that of who created God. In this view it is accepted that some entity exists that needs no creator, and that entity is called God. This is known as the first-cause argument for the existence of God. We claim, however, that it is possible to answer these questions purely within the realm of science, and without invoking any divine beings.”

In the pages of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL last week, Hawking and Mlodinow summarized their case against God. After presenting a case for the incredible fine-tuning that was required for conscious life on earth, they argued that the incredible “coincidences” involved in this fine-tuning are not evidence of the work of God. To the contrary, they conclude that science can provide all the necessary answers: “As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.” The headline of their article, “Why God Did Not Create the Universe,” pulled no punches.

Major newspapers and media outlets across the globe announced that Stephen Hawking had now come out against belief in God. Yet, a closer look at the evidence suggests that this is actually nothing new for Professor Hawking. All of the major arguments presented in THE GRAND DESIGN have appeared earlier in Hawking’s previous books or in interviews.

As has been argued before by others, Professor Hawking tends to deploy arguments about God when he wants to sell books. Nevertheless, given his stature and influence, his ideas are worth careful attention.

The major thrusts of THE GRAND DESIGN are the magnificence of the universe and the glory of theoretical physics. Hawking is committed to what he calls “M-Theory,” a “super-string theory” that encompasses a host of theories and predictions about the nature of matter and time. Most importantly, this theory allows Hawking and Mlodinow to advance Hawking’s theory that space and time have no boundary. If such a boundary did exist, Hawking allows that God might be a necessary or allowable theory of how all this began. But, if there is no boundary, there is no reason for God at all — the universe is self-explanatory.

Hawking actually believes that there are countless universes, and that the laws of physics on each might be radically different from all the rest. What we do know is our own universe and its operational laws, and these, he insists, do not require any notion of a divine Creator. “Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing,” Hawking and Mlodinow explain.

But is this really new? In his 1988 best-seller, A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME, Hawking made very similar arguments and received strikingly similar press coverage. “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator,” he explained. But, Hawking rejected the very idea of a beginning as such, and so he actually dispensed with the need for any Creator. Furthermore, he was certain that his theories rendered any belief in a traditional deity to be groundless.

In his infamous introduction to the first edition of A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME, the late astronomer Professor Carl Sagan asserted, “This is a book about God ... or perhaps about the absence of God.” Even more famously, Sagan argued that Hawking’s theories meant that there is now “nothing for a Creator to do.” Oddly, when A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME was reissued for a tenth anniversary edition, Sagan’s introduction was deleted.

Hawking has acknowledged that his work “is on the borderline between science and religion, but I have tried to stay on the scientific side of the border.” That seems a strange comment, given the fact that he so routinely crosses that border.

On the other hand, that statement does betray another straightforward dimension of Hawking’s thought. He seems to imagine God only in terms of a deistic deity and a “God of the gaps” who serves as a causal explanation only when all naturalistic theories run out of steam. If nothing else, Hawking’s writings should warn Christians from taking refuge in any “God of the gaps” form of theological argument. If we invoke God only when we run out of other explanations, we will find God disappearing into a cloud of theory and endless theological surrender.

The God of the Bible is not merely a First Cause — He is the sovereign Creator and Sustainer of all that is, who rules the universe by His Word. Christians must recognize the “God of the gaps” as a false idol of theological surrender. Furthermore, Christians must also understand that any scientific admission of God as a possible First Cause without continuing rule over creation is no cause for celebration. The triune God cannot be reduced to a First Cause among other causes.

Stephen Hawking’s worldview is based in positivistic scientism. He really believes that science holds all the answers. “Philosophy is dead,” he asserts in this newest book. Why? “Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics.”

In his 1980 inaugural address, given as he was installed as Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge, Hawking proposed that the great project of theoretical physics might be concluded by the end of the twentieth century. “By this I mean that we might have a complete, consistent, and unified theory of the physical interactions which would describe all possible observations.”

That statement speaks profoundly to Professor Hawking’s intellectual ambition — to explain the universe and all of its “possible observations.” That is nothing less than titanic in scale of ambition. Indeed, it is the quintessential audacity of a brilliant secular mind.

Professor Stephen Hawking is a remarkable human being. His courage and tenacity are an inspiration to all. His work on the theory of gravity has changed the way the field of physics is taught. But, when he crosses that border from science to theology, his worldview leads him into abject disaster. THE GRAND DESIGN is yet another attempt to celebrate the universe’s breathtaking design, while denying the existence of a Designer. It will not be the last.

________

Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, THE GRAND DESIGN [London and New York: Bantam Books, 2010].

Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, “Why God Did Not Create The Universe,” THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, Friday, September 3, 2010.

*

[Original illustration at this number was deleted for being obsolete]

Study on interpretation of Genesis 1 & 2, and correlation with science.

====================

THE DAYS OF CREATION

====================

I. Three views on Science and the Bible.

A. Science always takes precedence over the Bible. [Liberalism]

1) Any science in the Bible reflects ancient myths.

2) At best, the Bible gives a spiritual meaning for the

creation of the world.

B. The Bible always takes precedence over Science. [Creation Science]

1) God's Revelation (Bible) is superior to human reasoning

(Science).

2) Whenever Science appears to contradict the Bible, the Bible

is to be preferred.

a) If Bible points to young universe, then observations

of age are incorrect, or created to look old.

b) Discrepancies in scientific theories invalidate them.

C. Both the Bible and Science are true, when properly understood.

1) The Bible is not a science book, but is true in everything

it affirms.

2) Science can also reveal the truth about God's creation.

a) God's qualities can be seen in nature. Romans 1:20

b) It would be unlike God to let nature deceive us.

A contrived appearance of age would be false.

3) Both the Bible and Science can be misinterpreted.

a) Even deeply cherished beliefs can be wrong.

b) Properly understood, they will complement each other.

II. The days of Genesis 1 and 2.

A. Literal and consecutive 24 hour days.

1) "Day" in Bible typically means a 24 hour period.

2) God's six days of creation and one day of rest is a pattern

for human work and Sabbath. Exodus 20:10f

B. "Day-age" theory.

1) "Day" can have symbolic meaning for a long period.

a) Can be a thousand years. Psalm 90:4; 2 Peter 3:8

b) Even Genesis 2:4 lumps all seven days into one "day."

Literally: "the generations of the heavens ... when

they were created in the day of their making."

c) Either each "day" is very long, or were short periods of

creation followed by long gaps of time.

2) Note stylized sequencing in Genesis 1.

a) "Day and night" occurs on the first day, yet the Sun

does not mark day length until the fourth day.

b) Vegetation is produced on the third day (Gen 1:11-13)

but requires water and time to grow (Gen 2:5).

c) The events of the sixth day take longer than 24 hours.

2:4-25

1> God plants a garden, which grows.

2> Adam works and cares for the garden.

3> Adam names all the animals.

4> He discovers that none of them is a suitable helper.

5> He goes to sleep, and God creates Eve.

6> Adam sees Eve and exclaims, "Now at last!"

d) The seventh day is not closed out. God's day of rest

continues into the future. (Psalm 95 and Hebrews 4)

1> God continues to create. John 5:17

2> Each human is a creation of God, yet there is a

long process.

C. The general sequence of Genesis follows scientific understanding:

1) Creation of the physical universe.

2) Earth's atmosphere turns from opaque (dark) to

translucent (light comes through).

3) Formation of stable water cycle.

4) Establishment of continent(s) and ocean(s).

5) Production of plants on the continent(s).

6) Transformation of the atmosphere from translucent

to transparent (Sun, Moon, and stars became

visible for the first time.)

7) Production of small sea animals.

8) Creation of sea mammals (nephesh).

9) Creation of birds (maybe the same as "8").

10) Creation of land mammals (more nephesh).

11) Creation of mankind (adam).

III. A young or old earth?

A. Both new and ancient. (old Scofield Reference Bible)

1) A minority view is that the earth was created a long time

ago, but was destroyed when Satan was cast from heaven.

2) God's re-creation is recent.

B. Recent creation.

1) A straight-forward understanding of "day" implies a rapid

Creation.

2) Genealogies in Genesis point to no more than 6,000 years of

history to Adam.

3) Geological strata is due to catastrophe of Noah's flood.

4) Some results of science point to a recent creation.

a) Shrinking of the sun.

b) Principle of atrophy. (Second Law of Thermodynamics)

C. Ancient creation.

1) Several results of science indicate a great age.

a) Radiation decay.

b) Gravitational relaxation.

c) Geological strata and fossils.

2) The Bible teaches the ancientness of the universe.

a) God's plans are ancient. Psalm 90:2-6, Proverbs 8:22-31,

Ecclesiastes 1:3-11, Micah 6:2

b) The mountains are ancient and age-old. Habakkuk 3:6

c) The heavens existed "long ago." 2 Peter 3:5

3) Genesis 1:1 is not necessarily part of the first "day."

4) Many genealogies in the Bible are proven to have gaps.

a) Compare 1 Chronicles 3:11-12 and Matthew 1:9.

b) Matthew deletes three kings (Joash, Amaziah, Azariah).

IV. Alternate view: Genesis 1&2 has a literary motive, not scientific.

A. Genesis is not focusing on the "how," but the "why."

1) There are four differences with its approach, and science's.

B. The order of events seems to be rearranged to make a theological

point.

1) Same thing may happen in Gospels.

2) Note that light and darkness are separated on first day,

but the luminaries that do this separation are created

on the fourth day. [see above]

3) Also, evenings and mornings exist three days before God

created the heavenly lights to mark off days.

C. God's actions are presented in highly figurative and

anthropomorphic language.

1) More a cosmogony than a "myth," which has negative

connotations.

(Much material from Hugh Ross, "The Fingerprint of God")

#2934

*

Naturalism has become the civil religion of our universities. The article presents a game plan for Christian response.

When Phillip Johnson was in college, a professor told a story about a boy from a backwoods family who was being interviewed by a visiting anthropologist. Asked about his siblings, the boy proudly declared that his brother was at Harvard. The astonished anthropologist asked what the brother was studying. "It's not that way," replied the boy. "They're studying him."

Likewise, the academic world regards Christian theism as an object for study rather than as a participant in academic discourse, as Notre Dame history professor George Marsden has shown (see his new book The Soul of the American University, Oxford). The standards of academia discourage a professor who is teaching, say, the history of Christianity from taking the position that Christianity may be true. Such restrictions do not apply to advocates of other viewpoints. Socialists teach socialism, and feminists teach women's studies. As Marsden wrote in the "Wall Street Journal" (Dec. 22, 1993), "Many contemporary academics insist that the only respectable place for religion in the academy is on the syllabus-as an object of study-where it may be subordinated to Western scientific methods of analysis."

Sometimes this double standard requires that a thinker or group be split into two parts, to separate the politically correct from the incorrect. In Marsden's words: "One conspicuous example is that, although universities welcome African-Americans and build programs in African-American studies, they find little place for positive evaluations of the dominant religion of African-American culture." One might paraphrase this point by saying that the secular content of the Reverend Martin Luther King's views on racial justice has a very different status from the religious background of those same views. The former goes to the university as an honored participant; the latter only as an object of scientific study. Why is that?

ACADEMIC FREEDOM?

One reason is that secularists employ a definition of rationality that allows no place for a supernatural Creator. An ongoing academic freedom case at San Francisco State University provides a striking example of the disapproval with which the scientific community regards the concept of a God who threatens to become a reality we cannot ignore. Biology professor Dean Kenyon was the co-author some 20 years ago of a respected book titled Biochemical Predestination that supported the orthodox scientific theory that living organisms evolved from nonliving chemicals through natural chemical processes. As the years went by, Kenyon's doubts grew, however, and eventually he concluded that the evidence did not support the assumption that unintelligent material processes are capable of forming living organisms by chemical evolution.

As instructor of a large introductory course for nonmajors, Kenyon taught the prevailing theories of chemical and biological evolution, but he also taught the weaknesses of those theories and suggested to his classes that life might in fact be the product of "intelligent design"-however distasteful that prospect might be to orthodox scientific materialists. A few students complained, and the professor was called on the carpet. The dean of science told him that his teaching of intelligent design amounted to biblical creationism, and that to consider this possibility favorably was to bring the forbidden topic of religion into science. To ensure that he had no further opportunity to advocate such absurdities, Kenyon was removed from his regular classroom duties and relegated to laboratory supervision.

Professor Kenyon challenged this administrative action by bringing a complaint before San Francisco State University's Academic Freedom Committee. The committee ruled that professors of biology, like those who teach other subjects, have a right to dissent from the prevailing orthodoxy in their field. It therefore unanimously urged the administrators to reinstate Kenyon in the classroom. The dean and the department chair balked at first, but they gave way after the full academic senate voted to support the committee's recommendation.

Kenyon won a victory, but the conflict is not over. In late February, the Biology faculty at San Francisco State adopted, by a vote of 27 to 5, a resolution declaring that "There is no scientific evidence to support the concept of intelligent design," and that therefore "the intelligent design view is not scientific." In context, the statement, like many others on the subject from the scientific community, combines two discordant propositions. On the one hand, the scientific authorities want to say that intelligent design is not eligible for consideration because it is religion, not science, and hence cannot be tested. On the other hand, they want to say that they have thoroughly tested the concept and rejected it as false. The apparent purpose of this confused declaration is to set the stage for another effort to prevent Kenyon from suggesting to students that there really is evidence for intelligent design, but what will happen next is anybody's guess.

DEBATING DARWINISM

The Kenyon case thus constitutes only a limited victory for those who believe that genuine academic freedom requires a hearing for theistic thinking about problems such as the origin of life; but even this limited victory reflects the fact that a debate about the dogmas of naturalistic evolution has been successfully launched in the universities. In that debate, considerable attention has been paid to my own book Darwin on Trial (InterVarsity), and to the lectures on Darwinism that I have given on many university campuses, some of which have been widely distributed on videotape. Other Christian thinkers have also made substantial contributions to the debate. For example, Whitworth College philosophy professor Steven Meyer published a fine essay on the Kenyon case in the Wall Street Journal just before San Francisco State's academic senate voted on the matter. Kenyon's colleagues thus knew that he was not an isolated individual, but a person asserting a position that has support in the society at large.

The example of naturalistic evolution tells us why theistic thinking has so little standing in the academic world. The contemporary academic world takes for granted a philosophy called scientific naturalism. According to this philosophy, nature is "all there is," which is to say the cosmos is a closed system of material causes and effects that can never be influenced by anything outside of nature-like God-for existence.

"God," in this system of thought, is a product of the human imagination and largely a remnant of prescientific ignorance. At one time, humans believed in a host of gods living in places like Mount Olympus and attributed natural events like storms and fires to the whims of these beings. As knowledge advanced, humans gradually put aside the lesser spirits but retained the one Supreme Being as the cause of our existence.

At last, the greatest scientific discovery of all was made, and humans learned that we are the products of a combination of chance events and impersonal natural laws. This discovery set the stage for the famous "death of God," the insight that man created God rather than the other way around. The most advanced and influential thinkers thereafter ignored the Creator altogether, or they looked for a way to conform religion to naturalism through liberal theology. Others retained some remnant of supernatural religion by imagining the Creator as responsible for establishing the laws of nature at the ultimate beginning of the cosmos, where scientific investigation is unable to penetrate.

Naturalistic philosophy is not necessarily hostile to the "idea of God." On the contrary, that is just the point. For philosophical naturalists, God is not an independent reality but an idea in the human mind. Proper naturalists do not insist upon the nonexistence of God because that is to take the issue more seriously than it deserves. Instead, they consign the whole subject to the category of "religious belief," which is understood to be a product of the human imagination. Although God does not exist, or at least does not take part in historical events, beliefs about God do exist and have important consequences. Such religious belief contrasts with scientific knowledge. The difference is that beliefs are untestable and hence valid only for the person who holds them, whereas knowledge is objective and hence valid for everyone. That is why, in an educational system based on naturalistic principles, naturalistic evolution may be taught to students as fact regardless of whether they or their parents object. No statements assuming the objective existence of God may be made, however, because no student should have to listen to subjective beliefs being presented as if they were facts.

GENTEEL NIHILISM

Naturalistic philosophy has ethical consequences, and these are also manifest in public education and law. At one time it was thought possible to find a basis for morality and justice in science itself, but with the fall of Marxism, that hope has been discredited. The current fashion in academia is a genteel nihilism. Because scientific knowledge extends only to questions of fact and not to questions of value, matters of morality are inherently subjective and relative. In consequence, students in public schools are taught that they must choose standards of morality themselves and should subject all morality that comes to them by tradition or training in the home to critical analysis.

The predominance of naturalistic assumptions in the universities and colleges guarantees that theistic thinking will be taken more as a personal eccentricity than as a serious contribution to knowledge. What is the value of a theism that is founded upon unreality? As naturalists see it, when God died, humankind lost nothing important because we still retained the goodness and rationality that we had projected onto this imaginary father figure in the first place. To bring God back into the picture now is, at worst, to embrace irrationality or, at best, to add some superfluous God-talk to ideas that are justifiable on naturalistic grounds. The most favorable thing you can say about a Christian theist in academia is that his work is so good you would never have guessed he was a Christian.

Many Christian college and seminary professors have understandably wanted to win the respect of their peers in the secular academic world, and so they have worked mightily to reconcile the naturalistic understanding of knowledge with Christian faith. Intelligent naturalists do not necessarily disapprove of this effort, provided it is clear who is in charge. What they do insist upon is that subjective religious belief must always conform itself to objective scientific knowledge, never the other way around. Thus, if a Christian college professor teaches "evolution" exactly as Carl Sagan or Stephen Jay Gould would teach it, he may append a theistic interpretation that characterizes the process as God's way of creating. This interpretation will earn him no great credit from naturalists, but they will be tolerant so long as it is clear that the theism in "theistic evolution" refers to a personal reflection upon a process that is objectively explainable on a naturalistic basis. If a professor were to give his theism some scientific content - for example, by suggesting that pre-existing intelligence may be required to make living organisms from nonliving chemicals - he would forfeit instantly his standing in the scientific community and the secular academic world. Like Dean Kenyon, he would be accused of injecting subjective "religion" into the objective realm of science.

Biblical creationists who challenge the theory of evolution on a combination of scriptural and scientific grounds have fared no better. Their premise, that the Bible has some standing as a record of natural history, seems nonsensical to those who see the world through naturalistic spectacles. To metaphysical naturalists, the Bible belongs to the realm of religion, whereas the history of life on earth belongs to the naturalistic realm of science. There is no reason whatever to expect the two to be consistent, because the biblical account of natural history is deemed to be composed of prescientific legends. The program of squaring science with the Bible is thus about as sensible as trying to square the scientific account of childbirth with the story that the stork brings babies. For naturalists, the proper way of reconciling science and Scripture is to adopt a naturalistic interpretation of Scripture. This is accomplished through what is called the "higher criticism" of the Bible, and it is the orthodox theory of interpretation in most mainline seminaries today.

WHAT WORKS, WHAT DOESN'T

If neither theistic evolution nor biblical creationism is effective in challenging the domination of scientific naturalism in our colleges and universities, what approach does have a chance of success? When I began writing my book Darwin on Trial, several basic points were clear to me:

First, the Darwinian theory of evolution is not merely or primarily a scientific theory of interest to professional scientists in their laboratories and classrooms. It is, first and foremost, a creation story for the culture, a story that is endorsed by government and propagated through the media and the public schools. The story tells us that we were created by blind and purposeless material processes rather than by a purposeful Creator who cares about what we do and what happens to us. The theory entails a naturalistic view of God, whether or not that implication is made explicit in a particular textbook or television program.

Second, what is fundamentally important about the Darwinian theory is not the claim that biological creation was a gradual, long-term process. The important claim is that purposeless material processes, such as random mutation and natural selection, were capable of doing all the work of biological creation so that there is no need for a Creator. This claim - which I call the Blind Watchmaker thesis - masquerades as something that has been proved by scientific evidence. On the contrary, the evidence that the mutation/selection mechanism can create new complex organs or new types of organisms is somewhere between very weak and nonexistent. The Blind Watchmaker mechanism is a child of metaphysical naturalism, not of empirical science. It survives because the leading alternative is supernatural creation, which is unacceptable to the rules of today's science.

Third, the all-important task was to mount a critique of the Blind Watchmaker thesis that the academic and scientific culture could not easily ignore. To do this, it was necessary to put aside all questions of biblical interpretation or veracity and to concentrate entirely on the claims of Darwinism. In the academic world, a Bible/science debate is a nonstarter, because it invokes a stereotype that shuts off thought. What was needed was to press questions that are legitimated within the context of mainstream academic thinking, questions about what has been proved about evolution and what has merely been assumed.

Finally, conditions were, in many respects, more favorable for a re- examination of Darwinism in the 1990s than previously. During the 1980s, widespread publicity had been given to the writings of certain prominent fossil experts, who had insisted that the fossil record was incompatible with the Darwinian picture that major evolutionary changes occur in gradual increments by the accumulation of tiny random mutations through natural selection. The Darwinists had proposed a subtheory to solve the problem, called punctuated equilibria or "punk eek," but this improvisation was vulnerable to criticism. The very need for a new theory to deal with the fossil record indicated that the problem was conceded to be serious.

#3466

*

Patrick O’Boyle recalls the late-1940's Hyde Park "Speakers’ Corner" appearances of Frank Sheed, the Catholic author and publisher:

"Sheed could be devastating with hecklers. Once, after he had described the extraordinary order and design to be seen in the universe, a persistent challenger retorted by pointing to all the world’s ills, and ended shouting, 'I could make a better universe than your God!' 'I won’t ask you to make a universe,' Sheed replied. 'But would you make a rabbit -- just to establish confidence?'"

-- Commonweal (4/23/99)

(Creation, Pride)

Genesis 1, Psalm 139

*

While the discovery of a meteorite that scientists say could indicate that there once was life on Mars could have important implications for theology, don't expect any talk of a Christian mission to the galaxy at least for a while.

The scientific evidence is sketchy and the theological questions are fuzzy, but religious thinkers are pondering the implications that there could be life on other planets.

"The wonders of the universe are more fantastic than we thought," former Harvard Divinity School dean Krister Stendahl told Knight-Tribune News Service. "This challenges our understanding of God in a positive way" and suggests that God "has other timetables in other parts of the universe," he said.

Scientists say the meteorite is 4.5 billion years old and was likely knocked into space by an asteroid collision on Mars 16 million years ago, crashing onto Antarctica a relatively recent 13,000 years ago. The 4-pound rock was found in 1984 and named Allan Hills 84001.

Using instruments that didn't exist five years ago, scientists said they discovered molecular material consistent with life and what may be actual fossils of microscopic organisms. Skeptics were quick to point out that the markings could have been caused by inorganic chemical reactions.

The NASA scientists admitted the evidence is highly speculative and as yet there is no "smoking gun" to indicate that life once existed on Mars. They invited other scientists worldwide to challenge their research.

Still, the news tantalized even skeptics, who said it could turn out to be the most important scientific find of the 20th century.

"If the results are verified, it is a turning point in human history," scientist Carl Sagan told USA Today.

And while he is still skeptical, Stanley Miller of the University of California at San Diego told the New York Times, the implications of the discovery could be astounding.

"If it turns out that there really was life on Mars, then we have to believe that if reasonably good conditions exist on any planet, life probably forms rather easily," he said. "The galaxy may indeed be full of habited places."

President Clinton pledged that the American space program will "put its full intellectual power and technological prowess" into searching for more evidence of life on Mars and directed Vice President Al Gore to convene a "bipartisan space summit" in November to pursue questions raised by the meteorite.

The find could have implications not only for science, but also for philosophy and religion, others said.

A New York Times editorial reasoned that the discovery could raise new doubts for Christians. "Creationists who find it difficult to accept the evolution of life on Earth might face even greater difficulties in coping with life evolving elsewhere," the paper editorialized.

But Bill Williams, president of Grand Canyon University in Phoenix, said faith and science can coexist.

"Faith and science are complementary forces and, when engaged in dialogue, create a deeper faith and a more complete understanding of the universe," said Williams, who teaches a Bible study on "Christ in Contemporary Society" at North Phoenix Baptist Church.

The possibility of other life forms in the universe is "certainly within my understanding of the Christian world view," Williams said.

Fundamentalist Baptist leader Jerry Falwell said he does not believe in life on other planets. "They can spend a trillion dollars looking for it but they'll never find it," Falwell said. "The Bible makes clear that Jesus Christ is the only mediator between God and Man" and his work on Earth was entirely for the descendants of Adam and Eve, Falwell told USA Today.

However, Bert Dominy, a theology professor at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, said the Bible describes only God's relationship to humanity and does not address the issue of extra-terrestrial life. "It's a non-issue, biblically," Dominy said.

Dominy said he is personally not excited about theological implications of the Mars finding. "A lot of this is speculative," he said. "We don't know enough and they don't know enough to really talk intelligently yet. I just kind of take this stuff in stride until you have more to go on."

One theologian who declined to be interviewed on the record noted that one reason some Christians find such discoveries troubling is their world view is shaped more by science than by their experience with Jesus Christ.

Christians need not feel threatened by scientific discoveries unless they have based their views on the origin of life or salvation on science, he said, "because science can change and will change."

Bob Murphy, a NASA scientist and Baptist layman from Maryland, said he did not find the report "particularly alarming or astonishing, either from a theological or scientific point of view."

"It's interesting, but my perception, like many others, is that life probably is widespread," explained Murphy, a project scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., and member of Woodbrook Baptist Church in Baltimore.

"The laws of physics work the same throughout the universe. God created them, and I don't expect he would change them arbitrarily for one planet."

"I think the real exciting news will be when we find higher forms of life," he said.

Bob Newman, a seminary professor who holds a doctorate in astrophysics, said he is "kind of open to the question" of life on other planets.

The Bible states that life is created by God, and "presumably then it's wherever God chose to put it," said Newman, a New Testament professor at Biblical Theological Seminary, an independent evangelical school in Hatfield, Pa.

"The Bible doesn't really say anything about life in the universe other than us," Newman said, but that silence does not necessarily mean that extraterrestrial life cannot exist.

"The Bible does tell us that God has created other life than humans and animals" such as angels and demons, he said.

Those are life forms "much different than ours" and probably the result of "some sort of earlier creation" not described in Scripture, he added. "There's no evidence of their creation in Genesis 1 or 2 but we're told they're created in Nehemiah 9."

Whether any beings on other planets would need salvation or missionaries is also an open question.

In his 1976 recording "UFO," contemporary Christian singer Larry Norman reasoned of Christ: "If there's life on other planets, and I'm sure that he must know, and he's been there once already and has died to save their soul."

But Newman said it is unclear that extraterrestrials would even need redemption. "If you found beings on other planets and had no evidence they were descended from Adam, you'd first have to find out if they're fallen," Newman said.

Both Murphy and Newman cited "Out of the Silent Planet" from the late Christian apologist C.S. Lewis' science fiction trilogy as a leading source of thinking about the possibility and implications of life in space.

Murphy recalled a Bible study he attended years ago where scientists discussed questions like whether the missionary mandate to proclaim the Christian message to all creatures would include extraterrestrials.

One view was that if other civilizations were discovered, Christians would have the duty to evangelize them. Another, advocated by Lewis, was that there could be other creatures in the universe, but because man is so fallen and corrupt, they are isolated from Earth for their own protection.

"If there are other creatures, it's the same God," Murphy said. "I would expect they would be in need of salvation, but I don't want to restrict God's ability to do something different."

"I would also presume if they are in need of salvation, God has other ways of doing that and not waiting for us to get there," Murphy said.

Newman said speculation about the eternal destiny of such creatures ultimately must fall back on the goodness of God. "If God chose to create beings elsewhere, he'll figure out how to redeem them," he said.

A Baptist theologian and pastor in Texas suggested that salvation obtained for humanity by Jesus Christ on Earth could also be effective in other places.

The apostle Paul wrote in Romans of the creation itself longing for redemption and in Colossians that all things "hold together" in Christ, noted George Mason, pastor of Wilshire Baptist Church in Dallas.

"It seems to me that the implications of Jesus' earthly human existence are not only for humankind," said Mason, who holds a doctorate in systematic theology.

"The fact that Jesus has ascended to the Father and is no longer confined to the limitations of space/time in a human body makes him through the Spirit able to be present throughout the universe in his lordship," Mason said.

"What the implications are for other life forms beyond our knowledge in the universe, we could only speculate," Mason said. "But if we are to think cosmically about the relationship of God to creation, we should work that out from our understanding of the universal lordship of Christ."

Executive Editor: Greg Warner

Associate Editor: Bob Allen

Phone: (904) 262- 6626

Fax: (904) 262-7745

ASSOCIATED BAPTIST PRESS

RNab6809mrjA6809b6814

#3924

*

Astronomer Paul Davies, though an unbeliever, has recently said this:

The temptation to believe that the Universe is the product of some sort

of DESIGN, a manifestation of subtle aesthetic and mathematical

judgment, is overwhelming. The belief that there is 'something behind

it all' is one that I personally share with, I suspect, a majority of

physicists. This rather diffuse feeling could, I suppose, be termed

theism in its widest sense.

Hayword, p. 201.

Sermon in Big Questions Series. Darwinian evolution. Genesis 1:20-26

======================

CREATION OR EVOLUTION?

======================

I. Did God really create everything?

II. Inner tensions.

A. Truth of Bible - but Science also tries to establish truth.

B. Some Christians have made dumb statements concerning science.

C. Faith and facts.

III. A theory that has changed the world.

A. The voyage of the "Beagle" in 1859.

B. Theory took society by storm.

C. Unintended consequences.

IV. Problems with Darwinism.

A. Improbability of random mutations.

B. The "missing links" are still missing.

C. Macro or micro?

V. Varieties of Creationism.

A. Theistic evolution.

B. Young earth creationism.

C. Ancient earth creationism.*

VI. People are special.

A. Darwinianism and the human animal.

B. Bible is adamant that humans are special.

C. Are you related to your Creator?

#3998

*

In 1967 astronomers were startled to discover radio pulses coming from outer space. "Our first thought," they said, was that "this was another intelligent race" trying to communicate with us. They labeled the signals "LGM," standing for Little Green Men.

But it turned out they had discovered a pulsar, a rotating star that mimics a radio beacon.

How can scientists tell whether something is coming from a natural or an intelligent source? When you think of it, this is the question at the heart of the creation-evolution debate: How can we tell whether life originated by natural causes or was created by an intelligent being?

Think for a moment of some common analogies. Imagine we are traveling through South Dakota and see a mountain with the faces of four presidents carved in it. Immediately we recognize the work of an intelligent agent. No one would mistake Mount Rushmore for a natural phenomenon.

Or imagine finding an arrowhead beside a stream. No one would attribute the shape to water erosion.

This ability to distinguish human workmanship from the products of nature is crucial in archaeology. Digging through the dust in Mesopotamia, the archaeologist has to decide whether he has found a bit of rock or a bit of broken pottery.

It's true that the physical world can produce a regular pattern -- like the ripples on a beach. Or like the radio pulses that fooled astronomers into thinking they had found Little Green Men. But what nature cannot produce is complexity.

Imagine we're walking along a beach and come across some words written in the sand: "John Loves Mary." Immediately we recognize a different level of order from the surrounding ripples -- what scientists call complexity.

Or imagine we're looking up at the sky and we see something that looks fluffy and white like a cloud but spells out the words "Drink Coca-Cola." Without a moment's doubt we conclude that this is no ordinary cloud, and we start looking around for an airplane pilot doing sky-writing.

You see, common everyday experience gives us a good idea of the things nature is capable of creating by itself -- and the things that can be created only by an intelligent source.

So what does that tell us about the origin of life?

At the core of life is the DNA molecule. Geneticists tell us the structure of DNA is identical to a language. It acts like a code -- a molecular communication system within the cell.

In other words, when geneticists probed the nucleus of the cell they came across something analogous to "John Loves Mary" or "Drink Coca-Cola."

Of course, DNA contains a lot more information than these simple phrases. The average DNA molecule contains as much information as a city library. So if "John Loves Mary" had to be written by an intelligent being, how much more the DNA code?

You don't have to have sophisticated knowledge of chemistry and genetics to respond to challenges from evolution. Based on common experience -- and, after all, science is supposed to be based on experience -- you can argue logically that life was created by an intelligent agent.

Which is exactly what Christians have always believed.

_________________________________

Copyright (c) 1999 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

He graduated from Harvard. He has a Ph.D. in geology. He studied under eminent evolutionist Stephen J. Gould.

One would not expect a man of Kurt Wise's credentials to argue strongly and convincingly for biblical creation. Nevertheless, during the Gheens Lecture series at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., Wise debunked his former professor's viewpoint -- presenting theories of fossil records and the flood which sustain a young earth creation.

"I do believe that based upon the nature of God that the testimony in Genesis is a perspicuous account -- a clear historical narrative of the origin of things," said Wise, the director of origins research at Bryan College in Dayton, Tenn.

Despite claims by conventional science to the contrary, Wise said, issues of creation and biblical accounts are far from settled.

In fact, as one compares the "crazy idea" of biblical creation with evolutionary and old earth theories, often a young earth seems more probable, Wise contended.

Much of Wise's reasoning for a young earth proposal is based on his belief in the validity of the biblical flood accounts.

He theorizes that an ocean catastrophe of tremendous proportions initiated the flood, a cataclysm which resulted in a number of simultaneous occurrences.

The ocean crust, being denser than the mantle below it, subducted, or literally dove into the strata below it, Wise said. As massive slabs of rocks plunged lower into the earth, they pulled continents with them. Such force, moving at a meter per second, created enough velocity to move the continents to where they are today and to create mountains where they collided (as is the case with the Himalayans between India and the neighboring region of Asia).

This model, as validated by computer simulation, is the only one that provides sufficient velocity to create these huge mountains, Wise said, while an old earth theory, in which continents move as fast as a fingernail grows, would not produce such velocity.

At the same time as subduction, hot mantle material moved upward, vaporizing ocean water, shooting water thousands of feet into the air, Wise said, describing the spouts are the "fountains of the deep" mentioned in Genesis.

Wise speculated the rising mantle combined with rain also raised water levels about a mile -- thus creating the flood.

Covered with water, the earth, in a manner similar to tides, turned beneath the water, Wise said, and the resulting massive swishing moved debris and buried the fossils. Thus, many rock patterns and fossil accounts are explained, he said.

This fossil record perhaps presents the best proof of creation and disproof of old earth theories, Wise said.

With an evolutionary model, one would expect to find characteristics of the fossils in the rock layers such as a gradual evolving of species up the layers. On the contrary, scientists have discovered little variation. The fossil records in the layers are missing the so-called "missing link" species.

This sameness of species throughout the layers, Wise said, fits more with a theory of a flood burying the various species randomly.

"Catastrophic plate tectonics is a very powerful explanatory tool," Wise said. "It explains an enormous amount of data on the surface of the earth. Not that we're done -- this is only the beginning because there's a whole bunch of questions that we don't know the answer to."

Thus, the crazy idea, Wise said, "as is true of every good theory of science, generates more questions than it seems to answer." One of those questions deals with the age of the earth -- "a difficult topic," Wise said. Traditionally, scientists have argued that a universe billions of light years in diameter would have to be billions of years old in order for one actually to see the stars.

But, Wise argued, such a theory ignores the idea of God creating the light from the stars "in transit." In addition, the traditional theory assumes a flat universe -- a proposition which is far from universally accepted.

In considering the many different theories, Wise said, some scholars argue strongly for a young earth, while others that argue strongly for an ancient earth.

"Ultimately," Wise explained, "it comes down to a question of which of those you wish to believe."

*

"I never think I have hit hard," said the great 18th century English writer Samuel Johnson, "unless it rebounds." Dr. Johnson understood that when we challenge someone with hard-hitting arguments, he'll come back with counterarguments -- and those "rebounds" can help us sharpen our own thinking.

As I'll discuss over the next couple of days, the powerful arguments for "intelligent design" -- arguments that God created the universe -- have rebounded in recent books from scientists and philosophers who disagree with design. But design can handle the counterarguments with ease. And that's what's exciting - for Christians, and for the future of science.

Let me start with the book Finding Darwin's God, by Kenneth Miller. Miller is a professor of biology at Brown University who has long been a critic of intelligent design. He is also a devout Roman Catholic who rejects the atheism of many scientists. Miller thinks that evolution and Christianity can be reconciled. In fact, he says he believes in God "because of evolution."

Because of evolution? Here's Miller's key argument. The God of the Bible, he says, is not an absentee landlord who set up the universe and then took a permanent vacation. Rather, "God's presence and His power," Miller writes, "are part of the continuing truth of existence." God could have, if He had chosen to do so, done all His creating entirely through natural processes. "Ordinary processes," says Miller, "ought to be sufficient to allow for God's work." Therefore, if science discovers that evolution solely via natural processes is true, then that's how God chose to work. God is free to do as He pleases.

Well yes, God is free to do as He pleases, and that's precisely what's wrong with Miller's argument. We can only discover that God acted solely through natural processes if we give the other possibilities, like intelligent design, a real chance. God could have used natural causes, or He could have acted directly. If science is going to find the truth, it must be open to all the possibilities.

Miller doesn't want to allow that. He says that science properly understood is only "mechanism and materialism." Even though a Designer might have influenced nature, we can never know that except as a matter of faith. Science cannot detect intelligent design.

But this rebound totally misses the mark. As mathematician and philosopher William Dembski explains in Intelligent Design, his exciting new book from InterVarsity Press, science detects intelligent causes all the time. We know that the massive stone heads on Easter Island have an intelligent cause, even though we've never seen that cause directly. We know that the wind or dripping water could never have inscribed the Rosetta Stone.

The shapes on Easter Island and the marks on the Rosetta stone exhibit what Dembski calls specified complexity: a distinctive pattern that reliably indicates an intelligent cause. But Miller thinks that a God who intelligently designed bacteria would be a magician or mechanic unworthy of our praise.

As Dembski points out, however, saying what God would or would not have done is getting out in front of the evidence. Science ought to pursue the truth, no holds barred. If the evidence of biology indicates intelligent design, then that is where science should go -- and let the rebounds bounce where they will.

___________________

Copyright (c) 2000 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

On a clear night this month, after you finish eating dinner, step outside and look to the west. High in the sky, about midway between the zenith and the horizon, you'll see the planet Jupiter.

Now, few people -- other than astronomers, perhaps -- ordinarily give Jupiter much attention. But that dot of light in the western sky may be absolutely critical to our existence. As University of Washington scientists Donald Brownlee and Peter Ward argue in their new book, Rare Earth, Jupiter acts as our own planet's protective big brother.

Indeed, they argue that not only Jupiter, but the Moon, the Solar System's position in the Milky Way, and a host of other special conditions make Earth probably the only environment suitable for human life.

Rare Earth has stirred controversy in the scientific community because it challenges the conventional wisdom that the universe is teeming with intelligent life. But it is controversial for another reason, too. If dozens of conditions -- such as the shape of Jupiter's orbit or its mass -- need to be precisely specified for human life to exist, might that not point to divine design?

Of course, that's exactly what Christian astronomers have argued for years. Thus, some critics are already complaining that Brownlee and Ward are lending support to theism. Reviewers have been speculating darkly about the authors' motives.

But Brownlee and Ward have no theological agenda to advance. They simply don't think the evidence supports the view that the universe is full of planets suitable for life. As Brownlee told the New York Times, "Almost all environments in the universe are terrible for life. It's only Garden of Eden places like the Earth," he said, "where it can exist."

The authors point out that Jupiter's orbit is remarkably stable, and nearly circular. Otherwise, our Solar System could "literally be torn apart" by gravitational forces.

Many recently discovered gas giants, like Jupiter, surprised astronomers by exhibiting wildly eccentric, or highly elliptical orbits. Such orbits would be utterly destructive to any small, Earth-like planets in the gas giants' paths.

Finally, Brownlee and Ward argue that Jupiter's immense size protects the Earth. With its great mass, 318 times greater than the Earth's, Jupiter scatters comets and other bodies that might otherwise catastrophically collide with our planet.

But the remarkable features of Jupiter provide only one strand in this cosmic tapestry. The Solar System's position in the galaxy, the Moon's vital contribution to the Earth's rotation, the role of plate tectonics -- one line of evidence after another lead Rare Earth's authors to conclude that our planetary home is quite possibly unique.

Brownlee and Ward don't attribute that uniqueness, however, to design. For them, it's just a matter of cosmic good luck.

But the evidence, like that reported in their book, makes the case for intelligent design just as the great scientist Isaac Newton understood it hundreds of years ago. With much less evidence than we have today, Newton argued that reason itself was best served by a hypothesis of design. "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets," he wrote, "could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."

What's exciting is that intelligent design is now returning to science: scientists need only the openness to embrace it.

___________________

Copyright (c) 2000 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

According to the conventional wisdom, creation is religion while evolution is science. Cornelius G. Hunter delivers a fresh critique of this common assumption. Hunter shows that religious concerns lay at the root of Darwin’s case for evolution and that they drive the scientific arguments for evolution even to this day.

Hunter challenges many conventional thoughts about evolution on both sides of the debate. Creationists often argue that evolution presupposes the nonexistence of God, while evolutionists commonly claim to be convinced of evolution independent of any religious presuppositions. According to Hunter, neither claim is true: “Evolution is neither atheism in disguise nor merely science at work.” [1] Rather, the theory of evolution formulated by Charles Darwin in his 1859 book, ORIGIN OF SPECIES, presupposed a specific concept of God that was common in Victorian society.

As the book’s subtitle indicates, Darwin’s theory of evolution was actually devised as a solution to the problem of evil. The crux of his argument was that life in the real world is not the pretty or pleasant existence a good God would make it. Darwin could not persuade himself that God intended “that the cat should play with mice.” [2] Modern thinkers from Milton to Leibniz resolved the problem of moral evil — the bad things that humans do — by distancing God from human events: God made human beings autonomous and cannot be blamed for their imperfections. Darwin resolved the problem of NATURAL evil — the “bad” things that occur in nature — by distancing God from natural events: God made nature autonomous and cannot be blamed for ITS imperfections. In this way, Darwin defended God’s goodness at the cost of denying His sovereignty.

The seemingly neutral argument of Darwin’s ORIGIN OF SPECIES, then, turns out to depend on metaphysical, religious presuppositions. Hunter shows that the main evidences for evolution depend on the assumption that if God had created living things directly He would not have made them the way they are. In three chapters, Hunter summarizes the purported evidence for evolution from comparative anatomy, observable small-scale changes in living things, and the fossil record. Along the way he points out various problems with the evidence and exposes the metaphysical arguments underlying the scientific considerations. For example, he quotes evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould as saying, “Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution — paths that a sensible God would never tread but that a natural process, constrained by history, follows perforce.” [3] In this same vein, Darwin once joked that he found it hard to believe that “the shape of my nose was designed.” [4] In a later chapter, Hunter explains that “nature’s failure to fulfill our ideals and expectations was considered clear proof of evolution. All birds should fly, but since some don’t, there must be a crude law of nature rather than a Creator behind such incompetence.” [5]

To a great extent, then, Darwin’s theory of evolution was prompted by the inadequacies of creationism as understood in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Having proved that species are not the immutable, optimally designed creatures that creationists purported them to be, Darwin concluded that creationism was false. Hunter writes: “Evolution is supported by the premise that God must make species absolutely fixed — beaks must not get longer and coloration must not change. And since beaks do get longer and coloration does change, we know that God must not have created them” (p. 64). In Darwin’s day, creationists assumed that God would never allow any species to become extinct. The revelations of extinct species in the fossil record seemed, therefore, to disprove creation.

DARWIN’S GOD, while provocative and insightful, is lacking in one respect. Again and again Hunter makes the crucial point that Darwin’s theory of evolution was an attempt to explain how God could have created a world with suffering and death. Darwin’s explanation is ultimately at odds with the biblical view of God as Creator and providential Caretaker of His world. Unfortunately, Hunter does not clearly offer an alternative. Granted that Darwin’s solution to the problem of natural evil is biblically unacceptable, Christians need to offer a fully developed, positive alternative that is BOTH biblically sound and scientifically credible.

Robert M. Bowman, Jr. is president of the Institute for the Development of Evangelical Apologetics (IDEA), in Pasadena, California. Mr. Bowman is co-author with Kenneth D. Boa of Faith Has Its Reasons: An Integrative Approach to Defending Christianity (NavPress, 2001).

___________

1. “Darwin’s God,” by Cornelius G. Hunter, p. 8.

2. ibid., p. 12.

3. ibid., p. 48.

4. ibid., p. 63.

5. ibid., p. 105.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #18783]

Dr. Arno Penzias was frustrated. While adjusting an antenna for a radioastronomy experiment, he and Dr. Robert Wilson encountered a noise that wouldn’t go away — no matter what direction they rotated their directional antenna. Eventually they realized they had discovered “cosmic background radiation,” which many physicists now call “the radio echo of creation.”

At the time, many scientists scoffed at the words in Genesis, “In the beginning.” They assumed that the universe had existed from eternity past.

And some scientists prefer the notion that the universe has no beginning. Aristotle philosophized that matter was eternal, and tradition dies slowly — even with strong contrary evidence. More importantly, if the universe did have a beginning, that implies a Creator — and many people prefer not to believe that.

But Dr. Penzias says, “The creation of the universe is supported by all the observable data astronomy has produced so far. As a result, the people who reject the data can arguably be described as having a ‘religious’ belief.” That is, people who refuse to consider the evidence because it conflicts with their preconceived ideas are following a “dogma” in the most stubborn sense of the word.

In an article in PERSPECTIVES ON SCIENCE AND CHRISTIAN FAITH, Penzias told Dr. Jerry Bergman of the American Scientific Affiliation, “I invite you to examine the snapshot provided by half a century’s worth of astrophysical data and see what the pieces of the universe actually look like.... In order to achieve consistency with our observations we must ... assume not only creation of matter and energy out of nothing, but creation of space and time as well.”

Penzias, a Nobel Prize winner, added, “The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted had I had nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.”

Another word that shows up in discussions of whether or not the universe had a beginning is SINGULARITY. This interpretation visualizes all the matter of the universe concentrated in a “singular” location of infinitesimally small size and expanding to form all the galaxies, stars, and planets.

Dr. Penzias says that interpretation fails the test of mathematical physics. During a lecture at Northern Illinois University, he pointed out that when the distance between objects decreases, the gravitational attraction between them increases. So if all the matter of the universe had once been compressed into an infinitesimally small “singularity,” the gravitational pull would have been so massive that the matter never would have spread out and formed today’s universe. “It would collapse into a black hole and stay that way.”

So what does Penzias think that the Big Bang was? He says the most logical explanation is “a moment of discrete creation from nothing!”

Some have paraphrased the Big Bang as “God spoke, and bang, the universe was created.” That’s close to the Psalmist’s statement: “He spoke, and it came to be; He commanded, and it stood firm.”

As we continue to point out on BreakPoint, the Big Bang really points to a Big Brain — to God who has the wisdom and power to create everything that exists.

FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION:

Jerry Bergman, Ph.D., “ARNO A. PENZIAS: ASTROPHYSICIST, NOBEL LAUREATE,” PERSPECTIVES ON SCIENCE AND CHRISTIAN FAITH, September 1994.

Henry Margenau and Roy Abraham Varghese, eds., COSMOS, BIOS, THEOS (Open Court Publishing, 1992). See chapter titled, “Creation Is Supported by All the Data So Far.”

Denis Brian, GENIUS TALK: CONVERSATIONS WITH NOBEL SCIENTISTS AND OTHER LUMINARIES (Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1995). The Arno Penzias chapter is on pages 153-177.

Gordy Slack, “WHEN SCIENCE AND RELIGION COLLIDE OR WHY EINSTEIN WASN’T AN ATHEIST,” MOTHER JONES, November/December 1997.

“PENZIAS AND WILSON’S DISCOVERY IS ONE OF THE CENTURY’S KEY ADVANCES,” Lucent Technologies, rev. February 2001.

Read “ARNO PENZIAS — AUTOBIOGRAPHY“ on the Nobel Foundation website.

Gregg Easterbrook, “WHAT CAME BEFORE CREATION?“ U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, July 20, 1998.

“PHYSICISTS PUZZLE OVER UNEXPECTED FINDINGS IN ‘LITTLE’ BIG BANG,” University of Rochester News, November 11, 2002.

The Intelligent Design Network of New Mexico is encouraging citizens to contact the governor and their legislators to comment on the NEWLY REVISED SCIENCE STANDARDS FOR EDUCATION.

Al Dobras, “IT’S ALL ABOUT LUCK: AVOIDING INTELLIGENT DESIGN AT ALL COSTS,” BREAKPOINT ONLINE, April 7, 2003.

Roberto Rivera, “GODS AND PEANUTS: REASON AND REVELATION,” BREAKPOINT ONLINE, May 22, 2002.

William A. Dembski, “SKEPTICISM’S PROSPECTS FOR UNSEATING INTELLIGENT DESIGN,” BREAKPOINT ONLINE, June 24, 2002.

BreakPoint Commentary No. 020627, “CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE: INTELLIGENT DESIGN IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY.”

____________

Copyright (c) 2003 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #7029]

In one aisle, the local computer store sells a single CD for between $99 and $299. In the next aisle, they carry multi-pack CDs for less than a dollar per disc. Why the drastic price discrepancy? They're both made of the same plastic.

The difference is, of course, that the cheap compact discs are blank -- while the expensive ones are encoded with various versions of Microsoft's new Windows XP operating system.

The analogy for explaining the difference is the chemist who calculated the value of the chemicals in his body. Computing the cost of the carbon, iron, calcium, and the other elemental chemicals on the periodic table of the elements -- he found his body was worth ninety-seven cents.

But that's not the way the chemicals appear in living bodies. When he calculated the value of the hemoglobin, insulin, and other complex organic compounds that actually composed his body, he realized he was worth more than $6 million!

That's what the body's programming does. It's information technology from the DNA, which is why many scientists are now talking about Intelligent Design of the body.

When I was in high school, my science teacher said everything consisted of matter and energy. Now scientists know better. Caltech president and Nobel laureate David Baltimore says, "Modern biology is a science of information," noting that DNA is matter that is alive because it contains complex informational codes.

But Dr. Baltimore thinks the DNA software wrote itself. Last year, shortly before the White House announced completion of the preliminary mapping of the human genome, Baltimore wrote in the New York Times, "It will take many decades to fully comprehend the magnificence of the DNA edifice ... held in the nucleus of each cell of the body...." Yet, he says, even our limited understanding confirms that human genes "look much like those of fruit flies, worms, and even plants.... [W]e are all descended from the same humble beginnings ... That should be, but won't be, the end of creationism."

Now let's think about that for a moment. Deciphering DNA and the human genome is very similar to what computer scientists call "reverse engineering." They take a software program and work backwards to find out how it was written.

Can you imagine anyone reverse engineering the new Microsoft software, and concluding that natural processes put it together? Does Windows XP somehow prove that Bill Gates or his engineers don't exist? I don't think so.

Yet some materialists explain the complexities of nature by ingenious intellectual headstands to avoid recognizing an Intelligent Designer. Former atheist Dr. J. Budziszewski remembers the efforts he expended in that direction, and summarizes, "There are certain forms of stupidity that one has to be highly intelligent and educated to commit."

The person who tries to dodge the conclusion of Intelligent Design, is like the customer who tries to convince himself that Windows XP wrote itself -- and therefore he needn't be concerned about copyright rules. If we have a Creator, we're accountable to him -- and some people prefer to avoid that conclusion.

The recent release of Windows XP illustrates the concept of intelligent design. If Windows XP points to Bill Gates, how much more do the marvelous complexities of DNA point directly to God, the great Intelligent Designer?

_________________________

Copyright © 2001 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. 'BreakPoint with Chuck Colson' is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

One of the most controversial and stimulating ideas to surface in scientific circles in the last twenty years has been the idea that the universe shows evidence of having been designed. And perhaps the most remarkable thing about the idea is that even those who oppose intelligent design no longer can dismiss it outright, as was the case just decades ago. They have been forced to take it seriously.

In DESIGNER UNIVERSE: INTELLIGENT DESIGN AND THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, Jimmy Davis and Henry Poe examine why the idea of intelligent design has re-emerged as a serious philosophical understanding of the origin of the universe after it had been buried by Darwinian naturalism for over a hundred years. Davis, a professor of chemistry, and Poe, the first appointee to the Charles Colson Chair of Faith and Culture, both teach at Union University. This book demonstrates why Union has developed such a strong academic reputation in recent years.

DESIGNER UNIVERSE describes how advances in scientific knowledge during the twentieth century have raised new questions. There once was a time when materialistic naturalism seemed to answer all the questions about the universe -- but no longer. Now consider just a few of these new ideas that Poe and Davis explore in DESIGNER UNIVERSE.

Until the twentieth century, western science accepted the teaching of Aristotle that the universe had always existed. But in the light of the evidence of the Big Bang and the expansion of the universe, more and more cosmologists are concluding that the universe must have had some original beginning. Design had no place in an eternal universe, but if the universe has a beginning, that opens the door for the inevitable question of where it came from and what (or Who) began it.

Many have attempted to dodge this conclusion with the notion of infinite regress. Since the time of the great Enlightenment skeptic, David Hume, naturalists argued that the universe doesn't need a first cause. Instead, they said, the universe is explained by an infinite series of finite events -- which, on its face, is a preposterous concept. But an expanding universe with a beginning doesn't allow for an infinite regress. If the universe had a beginning, it had a first cause.

Finally, scientists for a long time assumed there was nothing particularly significant about our little planet. Here we are in a backwater spot in an ordinary galaxy. And they concluded life probably exists on as many as 100 billion planets. But by the 1990s, scientists began to realize how unique the earth really is and how many complex factors had to be absolutely fine tuned for life to appear. This is called the anthropic principle. If earth were a bit closer to the sun, water would boil away -- life would be impossible. Or if it were a little further away, it would be too cold for life -- everything would freeze over. Similarly, if gravity were slightly greater than it is, the earth would implode -- and so forth. This fine tuning didn't happen by accident, but must have occurred under the watchful eye of a Designer.

Intelligent design is being taken seriously and provides a powerful apologetic. When we raise these kinds of issues, any honest scientist or skeptic has to say, "I've got to look at the evidence." For a good overview of that evidence for intelligent design, DESIGNER UNIVERSE is a readable and worthwhile introduction.

For further information:

[To access the following links, be sure to copy and paste the entire web address between carats into your web browser.]

Jimmy H. Davis and Henry L. Poe, DESIGNER UNIVERSE: INTELLIGENT DESIGN AND THE EXISTENCE OF GOD (Broadman & Holman, 2002).

William Dembski, "Skepticism's Prospects for Unseating Intelligent Design," BREAKPOINT ONLINE, 24 June 2002. (Talk delivered at CSICOP's Fourth World Skeptics Conference in Burbank, California, on 21 June 2002.)

Roberto Rivera, "Gods and Peanuts," BREAKPOINT ONLINE, 22 May 2002.

_________________________

Copyright © 2002 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

Maybe you've seen it on a friend's computer -- the colorful screensaver of the "SETI at home" project. SETI is a research project that takes data from the giant Arecibo radio telescope in Puerto Rico and parcels it out in small packets to personal computers all over the world. Those computers then use their idle processing time to search for signals. Anyone with a PC can join, and millions have.

Science fiction? Maybe not. Historically, nearly all Christian theologians have argued that human beings are unique in the universe -- so I'm not suggesting that E.T. is really out there, signaling to us. But SETI, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, is important for two reasons, both of which provide good opportunities for Christians to engage the culture.

The first reason is the basic logic underlying the research program. Imagine going out to the Mojave Desert with millions of other people. Each person is given an acre of ground to search carefully. "Look for something," you're told, "that could not have been produced by natural forces." Eventually, someone finds a bottle cap; another person finds an old tire; and so on.

Why are these objects special? Because they display the hallmarks of intelligent design. Bottle caps and tires cannot be produced by any combination of natural forces. Obviously someone created them, deliberately.

Exactly the same logic motivates SETI. If you set the tuner of your car radio between stations, what you hear is static -- random noise lacking any pattern. But, at some points on the dial, a strong, narrow- band signal occurs, carrying information -- like my voice speaking these words.

That's what SETI is looking for -- a pattern that could only have been produced by an intelligence. To qualify as a genuine signal, the SETI Declaration states, "the most plausible explanation for the evidence is the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence rather than some other natural phenomenon."

But if it's possible to find intelligent design in the data gathered by radio telescopes, couldn't we also find design in biological objects? Is it possible that even bacteria display the hallmarks of intelligent cause? The logic is precisely the same. And this forces scientists to acknowledge the basic presuppositions we hold as Christians. The worldview implications here are enormous.

And that's the second reason SETI is significant. Anyone who has read astronomer Carl Sagan's novel "Contact," a fictional account of the discovery of extraterrestrial intelligence, knows how that story is permeated by openly religious concerns. Physicist Paul Davies writes, "underlying the narrative is the sub-theme that the universe as a whole is a product of intelligent design, and the aliens hint at how the hallmark of this design is written into the very structure of the universe." The separation between the "scientific and religious aspects" of SETI, Davies continues, "is really only skin-deep."

Sagan believed that if there's intelligent design in the universe, we should be able to detect it. His life-long disagreement with Christians turned, not on whether design could be detected, but on the character of the designer.

SETI is important to us because the whole research program would be impossible apart from the logic of intelligent design. The fact that scientists are openly pursuing it gives us a chance to point out to our neighbors that there is a basis for intelligent design and that the only compelling source of that design is the God of the Bible.

For further reference:

SETI Declaration of Principles:

Davies, Paul. Are We Alone? Philosophical Implications of the Discovery of Extraterrestrial Life. New York: Basic Books, 1995, p. 136.

__________________________

Copyright (c) 2001 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted

with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio

ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

In his new book, The Case for Faith, journalist Lee Strobel says he struggled to find answers to questions he thought blocked belief in God -- including scientific teachings that ruled out the God who created the heavens and the earth.

Strobel had always accepted Darwin's evolutionary theories. But the more he investigated Darwinism's claims, he writes, the more he questioned "whether the sweeping conclusions of Darwinists are really justified by the hard scientific facts."

For instance, Darwin's theory does not answer the fundamental question of how life began in the first place. Darwin presupposes that non-living chemicals could develop themselves into living matter, given the right amount of time and circumstances. Nobel Prize-winner Harold Urey agreed. He suggested that earth's primitive atmosphere -- composed of ammonia, methane, and hydrogen -- favored the emergence of organic compounds.

But in the 1980s, NASA scientists proved "that the primitive earth never had any ammonia, methane, or hydrogen," Strobel discovered. Instead, NASA found it was composed of water, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen. And as one scientist put it, "you absolutely cannot get the same experimental results with that mixture."

Scientists have proposed many other theories for how life originated -- everything from random chance to special delivery by aliens. Some have "used computer models to try to show how chemical reactions might have occurred," Strobel writes, "but these scenarios only work if the computer is programmed to eliminate some of the insurmountable obstacles that chemicals would have actually faced in the real world."

Many scientists now admit that research on origins of life has reached a dead end. A dead end, that is, only if one rejects Intelligent Design theory.

To evaluate the plausibility of Intelligent Design, Strobel went to Dr. Walter Bradley, former director of the Polymer Technology Center at Texas A&M University. Bradley is an expert on origin-of-life theories.

Bradley pointed out that for many years, scientists have used arguments based on analogies to things we understand to formulate new hypotheses in emerging areas of science. For example, he says, "If the only time we see written information -- whether it's a painting on a cave wall or a novel from Amazon.com -- is when there's an intelligence behind it," it makes sense to assume that this would be true of nature, as well.

Bradley reminded Strobel that "what is encoded on the DNA inside of every cell of every living creature is purely and simply written information." DNA's four- letter chemical alphabet combines to form words, sentences, and paragraphs. These comprise all the instructions the cell needs to guide its functioning.

"When we see written language, we can infer, based on our experience, that it has an intelligent cause," Bradley explains. "And we can legitimately use analogical reasoning to conclude that the ... information sequences in DNA also had an intelligent cause."

Secular scientists reject Intelligent Design theory, Bradley believes, not for scientific reasons, but philosophical ones: They simply don't want to believe in God.

I hope you'll read Lee Strobel's book, The Case for Faith. You'll learn why Darwin's theory is as dead as he is. And you'll learn how strongly scientific evidence backs up the words of Genesis: "In the beginning, God."

For further reference:

Strobel, Lee. The Case for Faith. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000.

_____________________

Copyright (c) 2001 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

SCIENTIFIC AGE OF THE EARTH

===========================

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ISSUE:

EARNST MAYR, HARVARD, "The revolution began when it became obvious that the earth was very ancient rather than having been created only 6,000 years ago. This finding was the snowball that started the whole avalanche.", THE NATURE OF THE DARWINIAN REVOLUTION, p.3

Lawrence BADASH, Prof. of History of Science, Univ. of CA, Santa Barbara, "As the sun's first ray's of thermonuclear light blazed across the galaxy 4.5 billion years ago, the primal earth emerged from a spinning, turbulent cloud of gas, dust and planetoids that surrounded the new star...On these figures for the age of the earth rest all of geology and evolution." SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, Aug., 1989, p.90

GEORGE WALD, Nobel Laureate, Harvard, "However improbable we regard thesis event, or any of the steps which it involves, given enough time it will almost certainly happen at least once…Time is in fact the hero of the plot…Given so much time, the 'impossible' becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.", THE PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY OF LIFE, p. 12.

ASSUMPTIONS OF DATING PROCESSES:

"The Rb-Sr isochron method has been one of the most important approaches in isotopic geochronology. But some of the basic assumptions of the method are being questioned at the present time." ("Influences of the Nature of the Initial Rb-Sr System on Isochron Validity," Chemical Geology, Isotope Geoscience, Section 80 (1989): p.1, Y.F. Zheng)

RADIOMETRIC DATING INVOLVES AT LEAST EIGHT UNTESTABLE ASSUMPTIONS

(1) BEGINNING CONDITIONS KNOWN.

(2) RATIO OF DAUGHTER TO NATURAL.

(3) CONSTANT DECAY RATE.

(4-7) NO LEACHING OR ADDITION OF PARENT OR DAUGHTER.

(8) ALL ASSUMPTIONS VALID FOR BILLIONS OF YEARS

"ASSUMPTIONS", HENRY FAUL, "Two important assumptions are implicit in this equation: First, that we are dealing with a closed system. And second, that no atoms of the daughter were present in the system when it formed. These assumptions furnish the most serious limitations on the accumulation clock. Rigorously closed systems probably do not exist in nature, but surprisingly, many minerals and rocks satisfy the requirement well enough to be useful for nuclear age determination. The problem is one of judicious geologic selection.", AGES OF ROCKS, PLANETS & STARS, p.vi.

SHIFTY URANIUM, J.D. Macdougall, "The fourth assumption presupposes that the concentration of uranium in any specimen has remained constant over the specimen's life...groundwater percolation can leach away a proportion of the uranium present in the rock crystals. The mobility of the uranium is such that as one part of a rock formation is being improvised another part can become abnormally enriched. Such changes can also take place at relatively low temperatures." SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, Vol.235(6):118

SHOULD BE IN ROCKS, Fanale & Schaeffer, Brookhaven National Laboratory, "Studies of the helium method (2) have shown that low ages based on helium, obtained on common rock-forming minerals, do not necessarily reflect diffusive loss of helium from the lattices of those minerals; under ideal conditions, some mineral lattices even appear to retain helium quantitatively for longer than 100,000,000 years.", SCIENCE Vol.149, p.312

"DATING OP MOON SAMPLES: PITFALLS AND PARADOXES", "What complicates things for the uraniumlead method is that nonradiogenic lead 204, 206, 207 and 208 also exist naturally, and scientists are not sure what the ratios of nonradiogenic to radiogenic lead were early in the moon's history...The problem of how much lead was around to begin with still remains...If all of the agedating methods (rubidiumstrontium, uraniumlead and potassiumargon) had yielded the same ages, the picture would be neat. But they haven't. The lead ages, for example, have been consistently older...Isotopic ages have been obtained for material from five landing sites on the moon--those of Apollo's 11, 12, 14, 15 and Luna 16; each site has a different age. But in a given site, the ages also vary...Ideally, however, any one basaltic rock from a given site should yield the same isotopic age, regardless of the method used.", Everly Driscoll, SCIENCE NEWS, Vol. 101, p. 12

CONSTANT RATES? Frederic B. Jueneman, FAIC, "There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radiodecay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago but, rather, within the age and memory of man." INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, p.21, Tune 1982

METHODS ARE NOT CONCORDANT.

CONCLUSIONS ARE SELECTED.

CONTRADICTIONS ARBITRARILY REJECTED.

DIFFERENT AGES FROM ONE ROCK, Joan C. Engels, "It is now well known that KAr ages obtained from different minerals in a single rock may be strikingly discordant.", JOURNAL OF GEOLOGY, ,Vol.79, p.609

FOUNDATION DECAYS, Gail, Arden, & Huchenson Oxford, "We suspect that the lack of concordance may result in some part, from the choice of isotope ratios from primitive lead, rather than from lead gain or Uranium loss. It therefore follows that the whole of the classical interpretation of the meteorite, lead isotope data is in doubt and that the radiometric estimates of the age of the earth are placed in jeopardy." NATURE, Vol.240, p.67.

RECENT LAVA dated at 22 million years old, C.S. Nobel & J.J. Naughton, Dept. of Chem, Hawaiian Inst. of Geophysics, "The radiogenic argon and helium contents of three basalts erupted into the deep ocean from an active volcano (Kilauea) have been measured. Ages calculated from these measurements increase with sample depth up to 22 million years for lavas deduced to be recent....it is possible to deduce that these lavas are very young, probably less than 200 years old. The samples, in fact, may be very recent...", SCIENCE, Vol.162, p.265

ARBITRARY, A. HAYATSU, Dept. of Geophysics, U. of Western Ontario, "In conventional interpretation of KAr age data, it is common to discard ages which are substantially too high or too low compared with the rest of the group or with other available data such as the geological time scale. The discrepancies between the rejected and the accepted are arbitrarily attributed to excess or loss of argon." CANADIAN JOURNAL OF EARTH SCIENCE, 16:974.

DISSENTERS EJECTED, R. L. MAUGER, E. Carolina U., "In general, dates in the 'correct ball park' are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor or the discrepancies fully explained.", CONTRIBUTIONS TO GEOLOGY, Vol.15 (1): 17

CARBON 14

"C14 AGES IN ERROR", ROBERT E. LEE, "The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged.... It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come out to be accepted. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted(l dates are actually selected dates." ANTHROPOLOGICAL JOURNAL OF CANADA, Vol. 19, no. 3, 1981, p.9

FUNDMENTAL ASSUMPTION, Report on ( 14 Conference (145 International Scientists), Science, Vol. 150, p. 1490. "Throughout the conference emphasis was placed on the fact that laboratories do not measure ages, they measure sample activities. The connection between activity and age is made through a set of assumptions...one of the main assumptions of C14 dating is that the atmospheric radiocarbon level has held steady over the age-range to which the method applies.

C14 INCREASING! "Symposium Organized By International Atomic Energy Authority", H. E. Suess, UCLA, "...presented the latest determinations...as adduced from the current activity of endrochronologically dated growth rings of the Californian bristle cone pine....The carbon14 concentration increases rather steadily during this time.. These results confirm the change in carbon14 concentration.... and indicate that the concentration increases..." SCIENCE, Vol.157, p.726

"PROOF OF PUDDING" TESTS (MOON ROCKS, G. CANYON & HAWAIIAN LAVAS) DEMONSTRATE INVALIDITY.

"CLOCKS" UNRELIABLE, (AntiCreationist) W.D. Stansfield, Prof. Biological Science, Cal. Polyt. State U., "If we assume that (1) a rock contained no Pb206 when it was formed, (2) all Pb206 now in the rock was produced by radioactive decay of u238, (3) the rate of decay has been constant, (4) there has been no differential leaching by water of either element, and (5) no U238 has been transported into the rock from another source, then we might expect our estimate of age to be fairly accurate. Each assumption is a potential variable, the magnitude of which can seldom be ascertained. In cases where the daughter product is a gas, as in the decay of potassium (K40) to the gas argon (Ar 43 it is essential that none of the gas escapes from the rock over long periods of time...It is obvious that radiometric technique may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological 'clock". THE SCIENCE OF EVOLUTION, 1977, p.84.

GEOLOGICAL PHENOMENON...RAPID!

FOSSILS; LARGE, DETAILED, POLYSTRATE. MERGING FLOW STRUCTURES.

STRATA SAYS RAPID, DUNBAR & ROGERS, "Use of the lead/uranium ratio, however, soon demonstrated its age to be more than two thousand million years,.... To some thoughtful stratigraphers this amazing discovery presented a dilemma, for if the known stratified rocks have been accumulating throughout this vast span of time the average rate of deposition must have been extremely slow, yet there is very good evidence that individual beds accumulated rapidly. Thus Schuchert ....found that if a geologic column were built up by superposing the thickest known part of each of the geologic systems in North America, from Cambrian to the present, the composite record would be about 259,000 feet thick. If we combine his results with the latest estimates of time based on radioactive minerals, we get the figures in Table 5, in which the last column indicates the estimated average rate of deposition. Internal evidence in the strata, however, belies these estimates. In the Coal Measures of Nova Scotia, for example, the stumps and trunks of many trees are preserved standing upright as they grew, clearly having been buried before they had time to fall or rot away. Here sediment certainly accumulated to a depth of many feet within a few years. ln other formations where articulated skeletons of large animals are preserved, the sediment must have covered them within a few days at the most. Abundant fossil shells likewise indicate rapid burial, for if shells are long exposed on the sea floor they suffer abrasion or corrosion and are overgrown by sessile organisms or perforated by boring animals. At the rate of deposition postulated by Schuchert, 1000 years, more or less, would have been required to bury a shell 5 inches in diameter. With very local exceptions fossil shells show no evidence of such long exposure." PRINCIPLES OF STRATIGRAPHY, p. 128.

SWIFT COAL AND QUICK OIL

RAPID COAL, GEORGE R. HILL Dean of College of Mines & Mineral Industries, "A rather startling and serendipitous discovery resulted....These observations suggest that in their formation, high rank coals,....were probably subjected to high temperature at some stage in their history. A possible mechanism for formation of these high rank coals could have been a short time, rapid heating event." [Six Hours], CHEMTECH, May, 1972, p. 292.

GARBAGE INTO OIL, SENTINEL STAR, Friday, February 26, 1982, "LONDON British scientists claimed to have invented a way to turn household garbage into oil suitable for home heating or power plant use. "We are doing in 10 minutes what it has taken nature 150 million years to do', said Noel McAuliffe of Manchester University's Institute of Science and Technology."

UBIQUITOUS RIPPLE MARKS

TEMPORAL SIGNIFICANCE OF RIPPLE MARKS, EDWIN D. MCKEE, "The chief significance of ripple lamination in the geologic record is that it is an indicator of environments involving large and rapid sand accumulation… areas where addition of new sand normally is at a slow rate have little chance of developing into superimposed ripple lamination…In contrast, areas in which sand accumulates periodically but rapidly, as in river flood plains were sand laden waters of strong floods suddenly lose velocity are very favorable for building up ripplelaminated deposits." Primary Sedimentary Structures and Their Hydrodynamic Interpretation, SOCIETY OF ECONOMIC PALEONTOLOGISTS AND MINERALOGISTS, p.107.

RAPID SEDIMENTATION, ADOLF SClLACHER, Geoiogisches Inst., Univ. Frankfurt, "This proves instantaneous deposition of the individual beds, as postulated by the turbiditycurrent theory....the sandy layers of the Flysch did not accumulate gradually but were cast instantaneously by turbidity currents each bed in its entire thickness, in a matter of hours or less." JOURNAL OF GEOLOGY, Vol. 70, p. 227.

TEMPORAL SIGNIFICANCE OF LAYERS, Alan V. Jopling, Dept. of Geology, Harvard, "it is reasonable to postulate a very rapid rate of deposition; that is a single lamina would probably be deposited in a period of seconds or minutes rather than in a period of hours. ...there is factual evidence from both field observation and experiment that laminae composed of bed material are commonly deposited by current action within a period of seconds or minutes." Some Deductions on the Temporal Significance of Laminae, JOURNAL OF SEDIMENTARY PETROLOGY, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp.880-887.

"GLOBAL" HOMOGENEOUS LAYERS

ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE & LIMESTONE, W.C. KRUMBEIN, L.L. SLOSS, Dept. of Geol., Northwestern Univ. "Changes in atmospheric partial pressures of carbon dioxide produce corresponding changes in carbon dioxide solubility. Because of these relations, there is a direct connection between atmospheric carbon dioxide and the amount of dissolved calcium ion in sea water.. If the carbon dioxide dissolved in seawater decreases, some bicarbonate ions change to carbonate, thereby causing precipitation of calcium carbonate. " STRATIGRAPHY AND SEDIMENTATION, p.223

CAVE FORMATIONS

POLICE SPELEOTHERMS, "Hanging from a ceiling beam in the 40-year-old building's basement are several rows of formations not usually seen so close to ground level. Stalactites. Yep, stalactites; more than 100 of the squiggly, slippery rock formations that thousands of people pay to see in places named Carlsbad and Mammoth....They are natural cave ornaments, pure and simple....Deputy Chief Ray Hawkins has been parking in the basement of the building at Harwood and Main streets since the 1960s and can't remember a time when the mineral sickles weren't hanging around." DALLAS MORNING NEWS, 4/4/1994, p. 13A

INDICATORS OF YOUNG EARTH

According to AntiCreationist, W.D. Stansfield, Prof. Biological Science, Cal. Polyt. State Univ., SCIENCE OF EVOLUTION, 1977, p. 84. [see HolwickID #22261]

Water from volcanoes

Helium in atmosphere

Lava from volcanoes

Uranium accumulation

Pressure in oil reservoirs

Human population

Meteoric dust in strata

Meteorites in strata

Radiocarbon in atmosphere

________________________

Web pages and graphics are Copyright ©1996-1998 Northside Church of Christ - All rights reserved. Bible tracts & articles are copyrighted by their respective owners.

[Purports to be an anti-creationist admitting validity of creationist arguments; others feel what follows is a distortion of his real views, which can be found at http://www.theistic-evolution.com/stansfield.html]

Descriptions of Young Earth Evidence

====================================

By Anti-Creationist, William D. Stansfield, Prof. Biological Sciences, California Polytechnic State University

WATER FROM VOLCANOES

"It has been estimated that seventy volcanoes the size of Mexico's Paricutin producing 0.001 cubic mile of water per year for 4.5 billion years of earth's history could account for the 315 million cubic miles of water in the oceans today. There are now approximately 600 active volcanoes and about 10,000 dormant ones. Six hundred volcanoes comparable to Paricutin could account for the present oceans in approximately 0.5 billion years."

URANIUM IN THE OCEANS

"Uranium salts presently appear to be accumulating in the oceans at about 100 times the rate of their loss. It is estimated that 60,000,000,000 grams of uranium is added to the oceans annually. Under uniformitarian rules, the total concentration of uranium salts of the oceans (estimated at less than 1E+17 grams) could be accumulated in less than one million years.

HELIUM IN THE ATMOSPHERE

"The atmospheric content of helium-4 (the most abundant isotope of helium) has accumulated from the radioactive decay of uranium and thorium in the earth's crust and oceans, from nuclear reactions caused by cosmic rays, and from the sun. If the present rate of accumulation has been constant throughout four billion years of the earth's history, there should be thirty times as much helium in our present atmosphere as is presently there."

METEORIC DUST IN STRATA

"One estimate of meteoric dust settling to earth places it at 14.3 million tons annually. If this rate has been constant throughout five billion years of geologic history, one might expect over fifty feet of meteorite dust to have settled all over the surface of the earth. ... The average meteorite contains about three hundred times more nickel than the average earth rock."

METEORITES IN STRATA

"No meteorites have been found in the geological column."

LAVA IN THE CRUST

"It has been estimated that four volcanoes spewing lava at the rate observed for Paricutin and continuing for five billion years could almost account for the volume of the continental crusts. The Colombian plateau of northwestern United States (covering 200,000 square miles) was produced by a gigantic lava flow several thousands of feet deep. The Canadian shield and other extensive lava flows indicate that volcanic activity has indeed followed an accelerated tempo in the past. The fact that only a small percentage of crustal rocks are recognizably lavas...."

PRESSURE IN OIL RESERVOIRS

"Some geologist find it difficult to understand how the great pressures found in some oil wells could be retained over millions of years."

HUMAN POPULATION DYNAMICS

"If humanity is really about 2.5 million years old (as claimed by Dr. Louis Leakey), creationist calculate from conservative population estimates (2.4 children per family, average generation and life span of forty-three years) that the world population would have grown from a single family to 10 to the 2700th power of people over one million years. The present world population is about 2xlO to the 9th power, an infinitesimal part of the 10 to the 2700th power."

RADIOCARBON IN ATMOSPHERE

"It now appears that the C14 decay rate in living organisms is about 30 per cent less than its production rate in the upper atmosphere. Since the amount of Cl4 is now increasing in the atmosphere, it may be assumed that the quantity of C14 was even lower in the past than at the present. This condition would lead to abnormally low C14/Cl2 ratios for the older fossils. Such a fossil would be interpreted as being much older than it really is. ... Creationists argue that since Cl4 has not yet reached its equilibrium rate, the age of the atmosphere must be less than 20,000 years old."

DR. STANSFIELD'S "ANSWER":

"By this methodology, creationists stand guilty of the "crime" they ascribe to evolutionists, namely uniformitarianism. All the above methods for dating the age of the earth, its various strata, and its fossils are questionable, because the rates are likely to have fluctuated widely over earth history. A method that appears to have much greater reliability for determining absolute ages of rocks is that of radiometric dating."

BUT HE ACKNOWLEDGES:

"If we assume that (1) a rock contained no Pb206 when it was formed, (2) all Pb206 now in the rock was produced by radioactive decay of U238, (3) the rate of decay has been constant, (4) there has been no differential leaching by water of either element, and (5) no U238 has been transported into the rock from another source, then we might expect our estimate of age to be fairly accurate. Each assumption is a potential variable, the magnitude of which can seldom be ascertained. In cases where the daughter product is a gas, as in the decay of potassium (K40) to the gas argon (Ar 40) it is essential that none of the gas escapes from the rock over long periods of time.

It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable longterm radiological 'clock."'

SCIENCE OF EVOLUTION, pp. 80-84.

___________________

Web pages and graphics are Copyright ©1996-1998 Northside Church of Christ - All rights reserved. Bible tracts & articles are copyrighted by their respective owners.

*

[Study of age of earth from traditional scientific viewpoint]

Overview

• How old is the Earth, and how do we know?

• Common creationist "dating methods"

• Common creationist criticisms of mainstream dating methods

• Suggested further reading

• References

HOW OLD IS THE EARTH, AND HOW DO WE KNOW?

=========================================

The generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%). This value is derived from several different lines of evidence.

Unfortunately, the age cannot be computed directly from material that is solely from the Earth. There is evidence that energy from the Earth's accumulation caused the surface to be molten. Further, the processes of erosion and crustal recycling have apparently destroyed all of the earliest surface.

The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.

While these values do not compute an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age.

The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204.

If the solar system formed from a common pool of matter, which was uniformly distributed in terms of Pb isotope ratios, then the initial plots for all objects from that pool of matter would fall on a single point.

Over time, the amounts of Pb-206 and Pb-207 will change in some samples, as these isotopes are decay end-products of uranium decay (U-238 decays to Pb-206, and U-235 decays to Pb-207). This causes the data points to separate from each other. The higher the uranium-to-lead ratio of a rock, the more the Pb-206/Pb-204 and Pb-207/Pb-204 values will change with time.

If the source of the solar system was also uniformly distributed with respect to uranium isotope ratios, then the data points will always fall on a single line. And from the slope of the line we can compute the amount of time which has passed since the pool of matter became separated into individual objects. See the Isochron Dating FAQ or Faure (1986, chapter 18) for technical detail.

A young-Earther would object to all of the "assumptions" listed above. However, the test for these assumptions is the plot of the data itself. The actual underlying assumption is that, if those requirements have not been met, there is no reason for the data points to fall on a line.

The resulting plot has data points for each of five meteorites that contain varying levels of uranium, a single data point for all meteorites that do not, and one (solid circle) data point for modern terrestrial sediments. It looks like this:

Pb-Pb isochron of terrestrial and meteorite samples.

[chart does not display in Microsoft Access]

Most of the other measurements for the age of the Earth rest upon calculating an age for the solar system by dating objects which are expected to have formed with the planets but are not geologically active (and therefore cannot erase evidence of their formation), such as meteorites. Below is a table of radiometric ages derived from groups of meteorites:

Type of meteorite Number Method Age (billions yrs)

Chondrites (CM, CV, H, L, LL, E) 13 Sm-Nd 4.21 +/- 0.76

Carbonaceous chondrites 4 Rb-Sr 4.37 +/- 0.34

Chondrites (undisturbed H, LL, E) 38 Rb-Sr 4.50 +/- 0.02

Chondrites (H, L, LL, E) 50 Rb-Sr 4.43 +/- 0.04

H Chondrites (undisturbed) 17 Rb-Sr 4.52 +/- 0.04

H Chondrites 15 Rb-Sr 4.59 +/- 0.06

L Chondrites (relatively undisturbed) 6 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.12

L Chondrites 5 Rb-Sr 4.38 +/- 0.12

LL Chondrites (undisturbed) 13 Rb-Sr 4.49 +/- 0.02

LL Chondrites 10 Rb-Sr 4.46 +/- 0.06

E Chondrites (undisturbed) 8 Rb-Sr 4.51 +/- 0.04

E Chondrites 8 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.13

Eucrites (polymict) 23 Rb-Sr 4.53 +/- 0.19

Eucrites 11 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.30

Eucrites 13 Lu-Hf 4.57 +/- 0.19

Diogenites 5 Rb-Sr 4.45 +/- 0.18

Iron (plus iron from St. Severin) 8 Re-Os 4.57 +/- 0.21

After Dalrymple (1991, p. 291); duplicate studies on identical meteorite

types omitted.

As shown in the table, there is excellent agreement on about 4.5 billion years, between several meteorites and by several different dating methods. Note that young-Earthers cannot accuse us of selective use of data -- the above table includes a significant fraction of all meteorites on which isotope dating has been attempted. According to Dalrymple (1991, p. 286), less than 100 meteorites have been subjected to isotope dating, and of those about 70 yield ages with low analytical error.

Further, the oldest age determinations of individual meteorites generally give concordant ages by multiple radiometric means, or multiple tests across different samples. For example:

Type of meteorite Method Age (billions yrs)

Allende whole rock Ar-Ar 4.52 +/- 0.02

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.53 +/- 0.02

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.48 +/- 0.02

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.55 +/- 0.03

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.55 +/- 0.03

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.57 +/- 0.03

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.50 +/- 0.02

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.56 +/- 0.05

Guarena whole rock Ar-Ar 4.44 +/- 0.06

13 samples Rb-Sr 4.46 +/- 0.08

Shaw whole rock Ar-Ar 4.43 +/- 0.06

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.40 +/- 0.06

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.29 +/- 0.06

Olivenza 18 samples Rb-Sr 4.53 +/- 0.16

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.49 +/- 0.06

Saint Severin 4 samples Sm-Nd 4.55 +/- 0.33

10 samples Rb-Sr 4.51 +/- 0.15

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.43 +/- 0.04

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.38 +/- 0.04

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.42 +/- 0.04

Indarch 9 samples Rb-Sr 4.46 +/- 0.08

12 samples Rb-Sr 4.39 +/- 0.04

Juvinas 5 samples Sm-Nd 4.56 +/- 0.08

5 samples Rb-Sr 4.50 +/- 0.07

Moama 3 samples Sm-Nd 4.46 +/- 0.03

4 samples Sm-Nd 4.52 +/- 0.05

Y-75011 9 samples Rb-Sr 4.50 +/- 0.05

7 samples Sm-Nd 4.52 +/- 0.16

5 samples Rb-Sr 4.46 +/- 0.06

4 samples Sm-Nd 4.52 +/- 0.33

Angra dos Reis 7 samples Sm-Nd 4.55 +/- 0.04

3 samples Sm-Nd 4.56 +/- 0.04

Mundrabrilla silicates Ar-Ar 4.50 +/- 0.06

silicates Ar-Ar 4.57 +/- 0.06

olivine Ar-Ar 4.54 +/- 0.04

plagioclase Ar-Ar 4.50 +/- 0.04

Weekeroo Station 4 samples Rb-Sr 4.39 +/- 0.07

silicates Ar-Ar 4.54 +/- 0.03

After Dalrymple (1991, p. 286); meteorites dated by only a single

means omitted.

Also note that the meteorite ages (both when dated mainly by Rb-Sr dating in groups, and by multiple means individually) are in exact agreement with the solar system "model lead age" produced earlier.

COMMON YOUNG-EARTH "DATING METHODS"

===================================

Young-Earthers have several methods which they claim to give "upper limits" to the age of the Earth, much lower than the age calculated above (usually in the thousands of years). Those which appear the most frequently in "talk.origins" website are reproduced below...

Note that these aren't necessarily the "best" or most difficult to refute of young-Earth arguments. However, they are quite popular in modern creation-"science" literature (even though they should not be!) and they are the ones are posted to "talk.origins" website more than any others.

1. ACCUMULATION OF HELIUM IN THE ATMOSPHERE

The young-Earth argument goes something like this: helium-4 is created by radioactive decay (alpha particles are helium nuclei) and is constantly added to the atmosphere. Helium is not light enough to escape the Earth's gravity (unlike hydrogen), and it will therefore accumulate over time. The current level of helium in the atmosphere would accumulate in less than two hundred thousand years, therefore the Earth is young. (I believe this argument was originally put forth by Mormon young-Earther Melvin Cook, in a letter to the editor which was published in NATURE.)

But helium can and does escape from the atmosphere, at rates calculated to be nearly identical to rates of production. In order to "get" a young age from their calculations, young-Earthers "handwave away" mechanisms by which helium can escape. For example, Henry Morris says:

"There is no evidence at all that Helium 4 either does, or can, escape from the exosphere in significant amounts." (MORRIS 1974, P. 151)

But Morris is wrong. Surely one cannot "invent" a good dating mechanism by simply ignoring processes which work in the opposite direction of the process which the date is based upon. Dalrymple says:

"Banks and Holzer (12) have shown that the polar wind can account for an escape of (2 to 4) x 106 ions/cm2 /sec of 4He, which is nearly identical to the estimated production flux of (2.5 +/- 1.5) x 106 atoms/cm2/sec. Calculations for 3He lead to similar results, i.e., a rate virtually identical to the estimated production flux. Another possible escape mechanism is direct interaction of the solar wind with the upper atmosphere during the short periods of lower magnetic-field intensity while the field is reversing. Sheldon and Kern (112) estimated that 20 geomagnetic-field reversals over the past 3.5 million years would have assured a balance between helium production and loss." (DALRYMPLE 1984, p. 112)

Dalrymple's references:

• (12) Banks, P. M. & T. E. Holzer. 1969. "High-latitude plasma transport: the polar wind" in JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH 74, pp. 6317-6332.

• (112) Sheldon, W. R. & J. W. Kern. 1972. "Atmospheric helium and geomagnetic field reversals" in JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH 77, pp. 6194-6201.

This argument also appears in the following creationist literature:

BAKER (1976, PP. 25-26)

BROWN (1989, PP. 16 AND 52)

JANSMA (1985, P. 61)

WHITCOMB AND MORRIS (1961, PP. 384-385)

WYSONG (1976, PP. 161-163)

2. DECAY OF THE EARTH'S MAGNETIC FIELD

The young-Earth argument: the dipole component of the magnetic field has decreased slightly over the time that it has been measured. Assuming the generally accepted "dynamo theory" for the existence of the Earth's magnetic field is wrong, the mechanism might instead be an initially created field which has been losing strength ever since the creation event. An exponential fit (assuming a half-life of 1400 years on 130 years' worth of measurements) yields an impossibly high magnetic field even 8000 years ago, therefore the Earth must be young. The main proponent of this argument was Thomas Barnes.

There are several things wrong with this "dating" mechanism. It's hard to just LIST them all. The primary four are:

1. While there is no complete model to the geodynamo (certain key properties of the core are unknown), there are reasonable starts and there are no good reasons for rejecting such an entity out of hand. If it is possible for energy to be added to the field, then the extrapolation is useless.

2. There is overwhelming evidence that the magnetic field has reversed itself, rendering any unidirectional extrapolation on field strength useless. Even some young-Earthers admit to that these days -- e.g., HUMPHREYS (1988).

3. Much of the energy in the field is probably locked in toroidal fields that are not even visible external to the core. This means that the extrapolation rests on the assumption that fluctuations in the observable portion of the field accurately represent fluctuations in its total energy.

4. Barnes' extrapolation completely ignores the nondipole component of the field. Even if we grant that it is permissible to ignore portions of the field that are internal to the core, Barnes' extrapolation also ignores portions of the field which are visible and instead rests on extrapolation of a theoretical entity.

That last part is more important than it may sound. The Earth's magnetic field is often split in two components when measured. The "dipole" component is the part which approximates a theoretically perfect field around a single magnet, and the "nondipole" components are the ("messy") remainder. A study in the 1960s showed that the decrease in the dipole component since the turn of the century had been nearly completely compensated by an increase in the strength of the nondipole components of the field. (In other words, the measurements show that the field has been diverging from the shape that would be expected of a theoretical ideal magnet, more than the amount of energy has actually been changing.) Barnes' extrapolation therefore does not really rest on the change in energy of the field.

For information, see DALRYMPLE (1984, PP. 106-108) or STRAHLER (1987, PP. 150-155).

This argument also appears in the following creationist literature:

BAKER (1976, P. 25)

BROWN (1989, PP. 17 AND 53)

JACKSON (1989, PP. 37-38)

JANSMA (1985, PP. 61-62)

MORRIS (1974, PP. 157-158)

WYSONG (1976, PP. 160-161)

3. ACCUMULATION OF METEORITIC DUST ON THE MOON

The most common form of this young-Earth argument is based on a single measurement of the rate of meteoritic dust influx to the Earth gave a value in the millions of tons per year. While this is negligible compared to the processes of erosion on the Earth (about a shoebox-full of dust per acre per year), there are no such processes on the Moon. Young-Earthers claim that the Moon must receive a similar amount of dust (perhaps 25% as much per unit surface area due to its lesser gravity), and there should be a very large dust layer (about a hundred feet thick) if the Moon is several billion years old.

Morris says, regarding the dust influx rate:

"The BEST MEASUREMENTS have been made by Hans Pettersson, who obtained the figure of 14 million tons per year.(1)"

MORRIS (1974, P. 152) [capitalized emphasis added -CS]

Pettersson stood on a mountain top and collected dust there with a device intended for measuring smog levels. He measured the amount of nickel collected, and published calculations based on the assumption that all nickel that he collected was meteoritic in origin. That assumption was wrong and caused his published figures to be a vast overestimate.

Pettersson's calculation resulted in the a figure of about 15 million tons per year. In the very same paper, he indicated that he believed that value to be a "generous" over-estimate, and said that 5 million tons per year was a more likely figure.

Several measurements of higher precision were available from many sources by the time Morris wrote SCIENTIFIC CREATIONISM. These measurements give the value (for influx rate to the Earth) of about 20,000 to 40,000 tons per year. Multiple measurements (chemical signature of ocean sediments, satellite penetration detectors, microcratering rate of objects left exposed on the lunar surface) all agree on approximately the same value -- nearly three orders of magnitude lower than the value which Morris chose to use.

Morris chose to pick obsolete data with known problems, and call it the "best" measurement available. With the proper values, the expected depth of meteoritic dust on the Moon is less than one foot.

For further information, see DALRYMPLE (1984, PP. 108-111) or STRAHLER (1987, PP. 143-144).

ADDENDUM: "LOOSE DUST" VS. "METEORITIC MATERIAL"

Some folks in talk.origins occasionally sow further confusion by discussing the thickness of the "lunar soil" as if it represented the entire quantity of meteoritic material on the lunar surface. The lunar soil is a very thin layer (usually an inch or less) of LOOSE powder present on the surface of the Moon.

However, the lunar soil is not the only meteoritic material on the lunar surface. The "soil" is merely the portion of powdery material which is kept loose by micrometeorite impacts. Below it is the regolith, which is a mixture of rock fragments and PACKED powdery material. The regolith averages about five meters deep on the lunar maria and ten meters on the lunar highlands.

In addition, lunar rocks are broken down by various processes (such as micrometeorite impacts and radiation). Quite a bit of the powdered material (even the loose portion) is not meteoritic in origin.

ADDENDUM: CREATIONISTS DISOWN THE "MOON DUST" ARGUMENT

There is a recent creationist technical paper on this topic which admits that the depth of dust on the Moon is concordant with the mainstream age and history of the solar system (SNELLING AND RUSH 1993). Their abstract concludes with:

"It thus appears that the amount of meteoritic dust and meteorite debris in the lunar regolith and surface dust layer, even taking into account the postulated early intense bombardment, does not contradict the evolutionists' multi-billion year timescale (while not proving it). Unfortunately, attempted counter-responses by creationists have so far failed because of spurious arguments or faulty calculations. Thus, until new evidence is forthcoming, creationists should not continue to use the dust on the moon as evidence against an old age for the moon and the solar system."

Snelling and Rush's paper also refutes the oft-posted creationist "myth" about the expectation of a thick dust layer during to the Apollo mission. The Apollo mission had been preceded by several unmanned landings -- the Soviet Luna (six landers), American Ranger (five landers) and Surveyor (seven landers). The physical properties of the lunar surface were well-known years before man set foot on it. Even prior to the unmanned landings, Snelling and Rush document that there was no clear consensus in the astronomical community on the depth of dust to expect.

Even though the creationists themselves have refuted this argument, (and refutations from the mainstream community have been around for ten to twenty years longer than that), the "Moon dust" argument continues to be propagated in their "popular" literature, and continues to appear in talk.origins on a regular basis:

BAKER (1976, P. 25)

BROWN (1989, PP. 17 AND 53)

JACKSON (1989, PP. 40-41)

JANSMA (1985, PP. 62-63)

WHITCOMB AND MORRIS (1961, PP. 379-380)

WYSONG (1976, PP. 166-168)

See the talkorigins.org archived feedback for FEBRUARY and APRIL 1997, for additional examples.

4. ACCUMULATION OF METALS INTO THE OCEANS

In 1965, CHEMICAL OCEANOGRAPHY published a list of some metals' "residency times" in the ocean. This calculation was performed by dividing the amount of various metals in the oceans by the rate at which rivers bring the metals into the oceans.

Several creationists have reproduced this table of numbers, claiming that these numbers gave "upper limits" for the age of the oceans (therefore the Earth) because the numbers represented the amount of time that it would take for the oceans to "fill up" to their present level of these various metals from zero.

First, let us examine the results of this "dating method." Most creationist works do not produce all of the numbers, only the ones whose values are "convenient." The following list is more complete:

Al - 100 years Ni - 9,000 years Sb - 350,000 years

Fe - 140 years Co - 18,000 years Mo - 500,000 years

Ti - 160 years Hg - 42,000 years Au - 560,000 years

Cr - 350 years Bi - 45,000 years Ag - 2,100,000 years

Th - 350 years Cu - 50,000 years K - 11,000,000 years

Mn - 1,400 years Ba - 84,000 years Sr - 19,000,000 years

W - 1,000 years Sn - 100,000 years Li - 20,000,000 years

Pb - 2,000 years Zn - 180,000 years Mg - 45,000,000 years

Si - 8,000 years Rb - 270,000 years Na - 260,000,000 years

Now, let us critically examine this method as a method of finding an age for the Earth.

• The method ignores known mechanisms which remove metals from the oceans:

• Many of the listed metals are in fact KNOWN to be at or near equilibrium; that is, the rates for their entering and leaving the ocean are the same to within uncertainty of measurement. (Some of the chemistry of the ocean floor is not well-understood, which unfortunately leaves a fairly large uncertainty.) One cannot derive a date from a process where equilibrium is within the range of uncertainty -- it could go on forever without changing concentration of the ocean.

• Even the metals which are not known to be at equilibrium are known to be relatively close to it. I have seen a similar calculation on uranium, failing to note that the uncertainty in the efflux estimate is larger than its distance from equilibrium. To calculate a TRUE upper limit, we must calculate the MAXIMUM upper limit, using all values at the appropriate extreme of their measurement uncertainty. We must perform the calculations on the highest possible efflux rate, and the lowest possible influx rate. If equilibrium is within reach of those values, no upper limit on age can be derived.

• In addition, EVEN IF we knew exactly the rates at which metals were removed from the oceans, and EVEN IF these rates did not match the influx rates, these numbers are still wrong. It would probably require solving a differential equation, and any reasonable approximation MUST "figure in" the efflux rate. Any creationist who presents these values as an "upper limit" has missed this factor entirely. These published values are only "upper limits" when the efflux rate is zero (which is known to be false for all the metals). Any efflux decreases the rate at which the metals build up, invalidating the alleged "limit."

• The method simply does not work. Ignoring the three problems above, the results are scattered randomly (five are under 1,000 years; five are 1,000-9,999 years; five are 10,000-99,999 years; six are 100,000-999,999 years; and six are 1,000,000 years or above). Also, the only two results that agree are 350 years, and Aluminum gives 100 years. If this is a valid method, then the age of the Earth must be less than the lowest "upper limit" in the table. Nobody in the debate would agree on a 100-year-old Earth.

• These "dating methods" do not actually date anything, which prevents independent confirmation. (Is a 19M year "limit" [Sr] a "confirmation" of a 42k year "limit" [Hg]?) Independent confirmation is very important for dating methods -- scientists generally do not place much confidence in a date that is only computed from a single measurement.

• These methods depend on uniformity of a process which is almost certainly not uniform. There is no reason to believe that influx rates have been constant throughout time. There is reason to expect that, due to a relatively large amount of exposed land, today's erosion (and therefore influx) rates are higher than typical past rates.

• There is no "check" built into these methods. There is no way to tell if the calculated result is good or not. The best methods used by geologists to perform dating have a built-in check which identifies undatable samples. The only way a creationist can "tell" which of these methods produce bad values is to throw out the results that he doesn't like.

One might wonder why creationist authors have found it worthy of publishing. Yet, it is quite common. This argument also appears in the following creationist literature:

BAKER (1976, P. 25)

BROWN (1989, P. 16)

MORRIS (1974, PP. 153-156)

MORRIS & PARKER (1987, PP. 284-284 AND 290-291)

WYSONG (1976, PP. 162, 163)

CONCLUSION

==========

Obviously, these are a pretty popular set of "dating" mechanisms; they appear frequently in creationist literature from the 1960s through the late 1980s (and can be found on many creationist web sites even today). They appear in talk.origins more often than any other young-Earth arguments. They are all built upon a distortion of the data.

A curious and unbiased observer could quite reasonably refuse to even listen to the creationists until they "clean house" and stop pushing these arguments. If I found "Piltdown Man" in a modern biology text as evidence for human evolution, I'd throw the book away. (If I applied the same standards to the fairly large collection of creationist materials that I own, none would remain.)

COMMON CREATIONIST CRITICISMS OF MAINSTREAM DATING METHODS

Most creationist criticisms of radiometric dating can be categorized into a few groups. These include:

1. REFERENCE TO A CASE WHERE THE GIVEN METHOD DID NOT WORK.

2. CLAIMS THAT THE ASSUMPTIONS OF A METHOD MAY BE VIOLATED:

1. CONSTANCY OF RADIOACTIVE DECAY RATES.

2. CONTAMINATION IS LIKELY TO OCCUR.

1. REFERENCE TO A CASE WHERE THE GIVEN METHOD DID NOT WORK

This is perhaps the most common objection of all. Creationists point to instances where a given method produced a result that is clearly wrong, and then argue that therefore all such dates may be ignored. Such an argument fails on two counts:

• First, an instance where a method fails to work does not imply that it does not ever work. The question is not whether there are "undatable" objects, but rather whether or not ALL objects cannot be dated by a given method. The fact that one wristwatch has failed to keep time properly cannot be used as a justification for discarding all watches.

How many creationists would see the same time on five different clocks and then feel free to ignore it? Yet, when five radiometric dating methods agree on the age of one of the Earth's oldest rock formations (DALRYMPLE 1986, P. 44), it is dismissed without a thought.

• Second, these arguments fail to address the fact that radiometric dating produces results in line with "evolutionary" expectations about 95% of the time (Dalrymple 1992, personal correspondence). The claim that the methods produce bad results essentially at random does not explain why these "bad results" are so consistently in line with mainstream science.

2. CLAIMS THAT THE ASSUMPTIONS OF A METHOD MAY BE VIOLATED

Certain requirements are involved with all radiometric dating methods. These generally include constancy of decay rate and lack of contamination (gain or loss of parent or daughter isotope). Creationists often attack these requirements as "unjustified assumptions," though they are really neither "unjustified" nor "assumptions" in most cases.

2.1 CONSTANCY OF RADIOACTIVE DECAY RATES.

Rates of radiometric decay (the ones relevant to radiometric dating) are thought to be based on rather fundamental properties of matter, such as the probability per unit time that a certain particle can "tunnel" out of the nucleus of the atom. The nucleus is well-insulated and therefore is relatively immune to larger-scale effects such as pressure or temperature.

Significant changes to rates of radiometric decay of isotopes relevant to geological dating have never been observed under any conditions. EMERY (1972) is a comprehensive survey of experimental results and theoretical limits on variation of decay rates. Note that the largest changes reported by Emery are both irrelevant (they do not involve isotopes or modes of decay used for this FAQ), and minuscule (decay rate changed by of order 1%) compared to the change needed to compress the apparent age of the Earth into the young-Earthers' timescale.

A short digression on mechanisms for radioactive decay, taken from by Steve Carlip (subsequently edited in response to Steve's request):

For the case of alpha decay, [...] the simple underlying mechanism is quantum mechanical tunneling through a potential barrier. You will find a simple explanation in any elementary quantum mechanics textbook; for example, Ohanion's PRINCIPLES OF QUANTUM MECHANICS has a nice example of alpha decay on page 89. The fact that the process is probabilistic, and the exponential dependence on time, are straightforward consequences of quantum mechanics. (The time dependence is a case of "Fermi's golden rule" --- see, for example, page 292 of Ohanion.)

An exact computation of decay rates is, of course, much more complicated, since it requires a detailed understanding of the shape of the potential barrier. In principle, this is computable from quantum chromodynamics, but in practice the computation is much too complex to be done in the near future. There are, however, reliable approximations available, and in addition the shape of the potential can be measured experimentally.

For beta decay, the underlying fundamental theory is different; one begins with electroweak theory (for which Glashow, Weinberg and Salam won their Nobel prize) rather than quantum chromodynamics.

As described above, the process of radioactive decay is predicated on rather fundamental properties of matter. In order to explain old isotopic ages on a young Earth by means of accelerated decay, an increase of six to ten orders of magnitude in rates of decay would be needed (depending on whether the acceleration was spread out over the entire pre-Flood period, or accomplished entirely during the Flood).

Such a huge change in fundamental properties would have plenty of noticeable effects on processes other than radioactive decay (taken from by Steve Carlip):

So there has been a lot of creative work on how to look for evidence of such changes.

A nice (technical) summary is given by SISTERNA AND VUCETICH (1991). Among the phenomena they look at are:

• searches for changes in the radius of Mercury, the Moon, and Mars (these would change because of changes in the strength of interactions within the materials that they are formed from);

• searches for long term ("secular") changes in the orbits of the Moon and the Earth --- measured by looking at such diverse phenomena as ancient solar eclipses and coral growth patterns;

• ranging data for the distance from Earth to Mars, using the Viking spacecraft;

• data on the orbital motion of a binary pulsar PSR 1913+16;

• observations of long-lived isotopes that decay by beta decay (Re 187, K 40, Rb 87) and comparisons to isotopes that decay by different mechanisms;

• the Oklo natural nuclear reactor (mentioned in another posting);

• experimental searches for differences in gravitational attraction between different elements (Eotvos-type experiments);

• absorption lines of quasars (fine structure and hyperfine splittings);

• laboratory searches for changes in the mass difference between the K0 meson and its antiparticle.

While it is not obvious, each of these observations is sensitive to changes in the physical constants that control radioactive decay. For example, a change in the strength of weak interactions (which govern beta decay) would have different effects on the binding energy, and therefore the gravitational attraction, of different elements. Similarly, such changes in binding energy would affect orbital motion, while (more directly) changes in interaction strengths would affect the spectra we observe in distant stars.

The observations are a mixture of very sensitive laboratory tests, which do not go very far back in time but are able to detect extremely small changes, and astronomical observations, which are somewhat less precise but which look back in time. (Remember that processes we observe in a star a million light years away are telling us about physics a million years ago.) While any single observation is subject to debate about methodology, the combined results of such a large number of independent tests are hard to argue with.

The overall result is that no one has found any evidence of changes in fundamental constants, to an accuracy of about one part in 1011 per year.

To summarize: both experimental evidence and theoretical considerations preclude significant changes to rates of radioactive decay. The limits placed are somewhere between ten and twenty ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE below the changes which would be necessary to accommodate the apparent age of the Earth within the young-Earth timescale (by means of accelerated decay).

2.2 CONTAMINATION MAY HAVE OCCURRED.

This is addressed in the most detail in the ISOCHRON DATING FAQ , for all of the methods discussed in the "age of the Earth" part of this FAQ are isochron (or equivalent) methods, which have a check built in that detect most forms of contamination.

It is true that some dating methods (e.g., K-Ar and carbon-14) do not have a built-in check for contamination, and if there has been contamination these methods will produce a meaningless age. For this reason, the results of such dating methods are not treated with as much confidence.

Also, similarly to item (1) above, pleas to contamination do not address the fact that radiometric results are nearly always in agreement with old-Earth expectations. If the methods were producing completely "haywire" results essentially at random, such a pattern of concordant results would not be expected.

SUGGESTED FURTHER READING

=========================

An excellent, detailed exposition of the means by which the Earth's age is known, as well as the history of attempts to estimate that value, is given in DALRYMPLE (1991). This book is a must-read for anyone who wishes to critique mainstream methods for dating the Earth. A review of this book in the young-Earth creationist journal ORIGINS (BROWN 1992) includes the following text:

"Dalrymple makes a good case for an age of about 4.5 billion years for the material of which the Earth, Moon, and meteorites are composed. [...] His treatment in THE AGE OF THE EARTH has made it much more difficult to plausibly explain radiometric data on the basis of a creation of the entire Solar System, or the physical matter in planet Earth, within the last few thousand years. In my opinion, the defense of such a position is a losing battle."

(Note: R.H. Brown believes life on Earth and the geological column to be young, but argues that a proper reading of Genesis allows the Earth itself to be much older.)

For those who wish to develop more than a layman's understanding of radiometric dating, FAURE (1986) is the prime textbook/handbook on the topic.

There are several shorter works which describe creationist "dating" methods and/or creationist challenges to mainstream dating methods. The best in my opinion is DALRYMPLE (1986). BRUSH (1982) and DALRYMPLE (1984) are also very good.

Writings by old-Earth creationists demonstrate that argument for an old Earth is quite possible without "assumption of evolution." The best few are STONER (1992), WONDERLY (1987), and YOUNG (1982). In addition, WONDERLY (1981), NEWMAN & ECKELMANN (1977), and WONDERLY (1977) are also good.

And, of course STRAHLER (1987) covers the entire creation/evolution controversy (including all of the topics discussed here) in a reasonable level of detail and with lots of references.

__________________________

REFERENCES

Baker, Sylvia, 1976. EVOLUTION: BONE OF CONTENTION, New Jersey, Evangelical Press. 35 pp. ISBN 0-85234-226-8

Back to HELIUM , MAGNETIC DECAY , MOON DUST , or METALS IN OCEANS .

Brown, Robert H., 1992. "An Age-Old Question -- Review of THE AGE OF THE EARTH by Brent Dalrymple" in ORIGINS Volume 19, No. 2, pp. 87-90.

Back to REFERENCE TO THIS BOOK REVIEW .

Brown, Walter T., Jr., 1989. IN THE BEGINNING..., Arizona, Center for Scientific Creation. 122 pp.

Back to HELIUM , MAGNETIC DECAY , MOON DUST , or METALS IN OCEANS .

Brush, Steven G., 1982, "Finding the age of the Earth by physics or by faith?" in JOURNAL OF GEOLOGICAL EDUCATION 30, pp. 34-58.

Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1991. THE AGE OF THE EARTH, California, Stanford University Press. 474 pp. ISBN 0-8047-1569-6

Back to meteorites (OLDEST or MULTIPLE DATING METHODS) or FURTHER READING .

Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1986. RADIOMETRIC DATING, GEOLOGIC TIME, AND THE AGE OF THE EARTH: A REPLY TO "SCIENTIFIC" CREATIONISM, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 86-110. 76 pp.

Back to MODEL LEAD AGE , MULTIPLE DATING METHODS , or FURTHER READING .

Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1984. "How Old Is the Earth? A Reply to ``Scientific Creationism''", in PROCEEDINGS OF THE 63RD ANNUAL MEETING OF THE PACIFIC DIVISION, AAAS 1, Part 3, California, AAAS. pp. 66-131.

Back to HELIUM , MAGNETIC DECAY , MOON DUST , or FURTHER READING .

Emery, G. T., 1972. "Perturbation of nuclear decay rates" in ANNUAL REVIEWS OF NUCLEAR SCIENCE 22 , pp. 165-202.

Faure, Gunter, 1986. PRINCIPLES OF ISOTOPE GEOLOGY 2nd edition, New York, John Wiley & Sons. 589 pp. ISBN 0-471-86412-9

Back to ISOCHRON DATING , or FURTHER READING .

Humphreys, D. Russell, 1988. "Has the Earth's magnetic field ever flipped?" in CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY 25, No. 3, pp. 130-137.

Jackson, Wayne, 1989. CREATION, EVOLUTION, AND THE AGE OF THE EARTH, California, Courier Publications. 57 pp.

Back to MAGNETIC DECAY or MOON DUST .

Jansma, Sidney J., Jr., 1985. SIX DAYS, Michigan, Jansma.

Back to HELIUM , MAGNETIC DECAY , or MOON DUST .

Morris, Henry, and Gary Parker, 1987. WHAT IS CREATION SCIENCE?, California, Master Books. 336 pp. ISBN 0-89051-081-4

Morris, Henry, 1974. SCIENTIFIC CREATIONISM, California, Creation- Life Publishers. 217 pp. ISBN 0-89051-001-6

Back to HELIUM , MAGNETIC DECAY , MOON DUST , or METALS IN OCEANS .

Murthy, V. R., and C. C. Patterson, 1962. "Primary isochron of zero age for meteorites and the Earth" in JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH 67, p. 1161.

Newman, Robert C., and Herman J. Eckelmann, Jr., 1977. GENESIS ONE AND THE ORIGIN OF THE EARTH , Pennsylvania, IBRI. 154 pp. ISBN 0-944788-97-1

Sisterna, P., and H. Vucetich, 1990. "Time variation of fundamental constants: Bounds from geophysical and astronomical data" in PHYSICAL REVIEW D (PARTICLES AND FIELDS) 41, no. 4, pp. 1034-1046.

Snelling, Andrew A., and David E. Rush, 1993. "Moon Dust and the Age of the Solar System" in CREATION EX NIHILO TECHNICAL JOURNAL 7, No. 1, pp. 2-42.

Stoner, Don, 1992. A NEW LOOK AT AN OLD EARTH: WHAT THE CREATION INSTITUTES ARE NOT TELLING YOU ABOUT GENESIS, California, Schroeder Publishing. 192 pp. ISBN 1-881446-00-X.

Strahler, Arthur N., 1987. SCIENCE AND EARTH HISTORY: THE CREATION/ EVOLUTION CONTROVERSY , New York, Prometheus. 552 pp. ISBN 0-87975-414-1

Back to MAGNETIC DECAY , MOON DUST , or FURTHER READING .

Whitcomb, John C., and Henry M. Morris, 1961. THE GENESIS FLOOD, New Jersey, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company. 518 pp. ISBN 0-87552-338-2

Back to HELIUM or MOON DUST .

Wonderly, Daniel E., 1987. NEGLECT OF GEOLOGIC DATA: SEDIMENTARY STRATA COMPARED WITH YOUNG-EARTH CREATIONIST WRITINGS, Pennsylvania, IBRI. 130 pp. ISBN 0-944788-00-9

Wonderly, Daniel E., 1981. CORAL REEFS AND RELATED CARBONATE STRUCTURES AS INDICATORS OF GREAT AGE, Pennsylvania, IBRI. 19 pp.

Wonderly, Daniel E., 1977. GOD'S TIME-RECORDS IN ANCIENT SEDIMENTS, Michigan, Crystal Press. 258 pp. ISBN 0-930402-01-4

Wysong, R. L., 1976. THE CREATION-EVOLUTION CONTROVERSY, Michigan, Inquiry Press. 455 pp. ISBN 0-918112-01-X

Back to HELIUM , MAGNETIC DECAY , MOON DUST , or METALS IN OCEANS .

York, D., and R. M. Farquhar, 1972. THE EARTH'S AGE AND GEOCHRONOLOGY, Oxford: Pergamon Press, 178 pp.

Young, Davis A., 1982. CHRISTIANITY AND THE AGE OF THE EARTH, California, Artisan. 188 pp. ISBN 0-934666-27-X

________________________

Copyright © 1996-7 [Last Update: April 22, 1997]

*

Hugh Ross and Duane Gish Debate the Age of the Earth and the Universe

=====================================================================

Jim Dobson, the host [of radio's Focus on the Family], opened the program.

DOBSON:

[addressing Mike Trout, the announcer] Well Mike, we're going to do something almost dangerous today. Dangerous in the sense that the topic we're gonna discuss today is a controversial one that could divide some members of the Christian community. We certainly don't want to do that. I've been urged to devote a program to the topic we're going to talk about today ... by many people including a board member of FOF. And that's what really brings us to this moment. The topic is the origin of the universe and the age of the earth, which may not on the face of it seem like a topic related to the family, but it certainly is relevant to our faith and to scripture and to our understanding of who we are and how we got here, and that's all of us, certainly, within the Christian community. And that's how it came to be that we did two previous topics on this subject and that kind of led to what we're going to do today. Let me explain. Astrophysics is a hobby with me - it's not something I consider myself terribly knowledgeable of, although I've been interested in the subject since I was in elementary school - been reading about it all that time. So we have done several programs on the vastness of the universe - what God has put out there and the beauty of His creation. The heavens declare the glory of God and it really strengthens my faith to take a look at what we know about the universe. So we have done several programs about that subject. On Dec 12 and 13, 1985, we did a program with Dr. Duane Gish and Dr. Richard Bliss, both from the ICR on the subject of creation and how it should be taught in the schools and we got into this broader subject in that program. In that program the guests expressed their firm conviction that the earth is no more than about 10,000 years old and that the Genesis account of creation refers to six 24 hour days, specifically meaning that the earth is very young and that after that God rested and there was no further creative activity. Then on April 17, 1991, Dr. Hugh Ross was our guest and he discussed his book, "The Fingerprint of God". Dr. Ross provided scientific evidence for the Biblical account of creation, but Dr. Ross believes that the earth is billions of years old and the Genesis account refers not to 6 24 hour days but to eons. That program was one of the most popular programs of the year 1991. We just got an overwhelming amount of mail - almost 10,000 requests for the tape of that interview and the mail was overwhelmingly positive, I might say. On the other hand there was a small - I think about 40 or 50 letters - but a very vociferous, angry response to that program from people who considered Dr. Ross' view of the earth as very very old as being unbiblical and even heretical, and there were some very emotional reactions to it - one Christian radio station threatened to take our broadcast off the air ... It was as though Dr. Ross was saying, "I don't believe the Bible," to those people, and so there are these different perspectives. And so I had a certain amount of mail from people asking me to deal with this issue further and to allow a discussion of the two sides. I tried to express in my reactions to that mail that the issue is one of Biblical interpretation, not deliberate contradiction of basic truths, and I neither challenged Dr. Ross when he was here or Dr. Gish when he and Dr. Bliss were here, because first of all I don't feel qualified in that area. I'm not a theologian, I'm not a physicist, I'm not a biochemist, I don't have expertise in these areas and furthermore, I don't know what's right. Some people feel like they absolutely know - I'm not one of them. And so I thought the best thing we could do was to bring the guests here again and allow them to discuss the subject...

TROUT:

There is an aspect to this topic that just causes people to think and to study. That in and of itself is a healthy exercise...

DOBSON:

Yeah, we can call it brain food. You know, if we just get people reading the Scriptures, we've accomplished what we wanted to do or part of it. I do believe that the Bible is the inspired Word and when all truth is known there will be no contradiction within it. That fact is not on the table today - we're not debating that. I also believe that Dr. Ross, Dr. Gish and Dr. Bliss are equally committed to the truth and to Jesus Christ and they simply come down on different sides of A very thorny issue, with differing perspectives on how important it is. So we have invited Dr. Gish and Dr. Ross here today to debate, or at least to discuss this matter of the age of the universe as it relates to our faith. I just ask for charity among those who are listening, because we are trying to do what is right here. Let me introduce the guests and then we will get on with the topic. Dr. Hugh Ross holds a Ph.D. in astronomy from the University of Toronto, he's the president and director of Reasons to Believe, located in LA. Dr. Ross, welcome back.

ROSS:

Thank you, it's good to be here.

DOBSON:

Dr. Gish holds a Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of California at Berkeley and he's Vice President of ICR, also located in Southern California...

Well gentlemen, let's get to it. Duane, I'm going to give you the first shot. You strongly believe in the young earth theory, you don't believe in the big bang. You believe that creation occurred in six 24 hour days. Explain why and why this issue is so important to you.

GISH:

Well yes, Dr. Dobson. My concern is not so much with the age of things. We keep contrasting say the young age to the vastly old age that Hugh believes in and of course there is a difference there, but I'm more concerned about how the universe came into existence. I accept the Biblical account that we find in the Bible: God did create the heavens and the earth and we read in the Bible that on the fourth day God created the sun and the moon and the starts and that when that period of creation was over - six days creation was finished - it has not been continued for billions of years of time. It was not a natural process it had to be something that was supernaturally done by God. God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. Now Hugh in his view - in his big bang cosmology, big bang cosmology is a natural process that begins with this big bang, and following the big bang then as this hydrogen and helium distributed itself throughout the universe and as stars evolved and galaxies evolved and our solar system created itself and so on.. That's been going on for, say, 15, 16, 17, 18 billion years. Well in a process like that, you see, I don't see any difference between that view and that of any atheist cosmologist or any unbelieving cosmologist who believes in the big bang, I can't see the difference and I don't see the agreement between this natural evolutionary origin of the universe and the universe that God created in the book of Genesis. In other words certainly if creation is not finished - Hugh believes that stars are still forming today you see, so we still - evolutionary creation has been going on for 18 billion years.

DOBSON:

Hugh, why is it necessary to remove God from the process of the big bang if you merely describe how He may have done what He did?

ROSS:

Well that's my very point, that God's not at all removed. When you solve the equations of general relativity - and we can prove that those equations govern the universe - you discover that you are face to face with an ultimate origin for all matter and energy and even the dimensions of length width height and time that encompass the cosmos. There's only one holy book that teaches a doctrine that's consistent with that and that's the Bible. We believe in a God that's transcendent in bringing the universe into existence. As Hebrews 11:3 puts it, the universe that we can detect was made from that which we cannot detect. And that's why atheists in astronomy and physics have reacted so strongly to the big bang: because it establishes this ultimate creation event.

DOBSON:

For those who have not read on this subject - they may be lost already - explain what the big bang theory is.

ROSS:

Well the big bang theory is the theory that there's a beginning - a creation event, and that moreover this creation event was caused by a being that transcends matter energy length, width, height and time - that's what I mean by transcendent. If you go into Hinduism or Buddhism they say that time is eternal that the cosmos is eternal, that the cosmos oscillates. And what the big bang does for us is prove that these religions are false and that only the Christian interpretation of the cosmos is correct.

DOBSON:

Which is that there was a definite point of beginning and that beginning was that all matter was together in an infinitely small space and it exploded throughout...

ROSS:

The matter, energy, space and time were literally created out of nothing by this divine being.

DOBSON:

Well Duane, why must God be removed from that theory? Why do you necessarily see that as a process a natural process without divine intervention?

GISH:

Well I'd reply in this way: That practically all unbelieving astronomers accept the big bang cosmology - not all of them - there are some very important astronomers who do not believe it. Now they don't see God there at all I mean it's a natural process. You have this cosmic egg, they don't know where it came from or how it got there, they don't know why it exploded...

DOBSON:

But you don't believe Hugh believes that...

GISH:

Hugh believes that, yeah...

DOBSON:

Believes that the cosmic egg got there and we don't know how it got there...

GISH:

Well that's the world of what we would call science, these, these astronomers...

DOBSON:

But that's not what he...

GISH:

Well, you see, if Hugh could explain to me what is the difference between what he believes - what his theory it - and if I go talk to an atheist I can't if I talk to an atheist astronomer and tell him, "Would you explain to me the big bang cosmology and what took place" and ask Hugh the same thing, I don't detect any difference. You have the cosmic egg and it explodes and out of this gas somehow stars create themselves and galaxies create themselves and all that. And that's exactly what this atheist...

DOBSON:

Wasn't the difference God versus no God?

GISH:

The difference is, Hugh says God's back there somewhere. But what did God do in this process? What did He do? How can Hugh say, "God did it, you see? How do we know that God did it? The atheist astronomer sitting right by him will say exactly what he did as far as this big bang cosmology is concerned.

ROSS:

Well, let me complete the picture. What I'm saying is that God brought into existence miraculously all the energy, matter and all the dimensions of space and time that encompass the universe. He also very carefully designed the characteristics and the parameters of the universe so that it could sustain life. 19 characteristics of the universe had to be very highly fine-tuned in order for life to exist. More than that God must create the solar system. There are 40 characteristics of the solar system that must be very highly fine tuned for life to exist on the earth. So we're seeing the miracle of the big bang that brought all of matter, space and time into existence. There's another 19 miracles in terms of the design characteristics of the universe that we' discovered so far, and the list gets bigger every year and now there's 40 characteristic of the solar system that show the creator designing that. So it's not just God involved at the beginning of the cosmos - He's involved thereafter - regularly intervening into the system to create and shape. Now at the same time you have formation going on. Duane's right - I do believe that stars are forming today. But I also believe that raindrops form today. In fact raindrop formation is a whole lot easier naturally than star formation...

DOBSON:

So that's the moving around of created matter...

GISH:

Well let me say this: Hugh, if what you say is true - all these very special things had to be, and you say God created all these very special things - well that's just what I'm saying: God created the universe. It didn't come about by some natural evolutionary process beginning with the big bang. You had to have all these very special conditions about the solar systems and about the universe and Hugh says that proves God made it. And I say, I agree 100 percent. I don't believe that you just start with some big bang and things just unroll and evolve. You can't hold to the big bang cosmology and believe what you just said, you see. If you say all these very special things just couldn't happen naturally...

ROSS:

Duane, that's not how the astronomers interpret it. The astronomers reacted to it because of its theistic implications...

GISH:

Now wait a minute. They say, "All these things happened naturally - just some evolutionary process...

ROSS:

The stars, the galaxies...

GISH:

God's not necessary, it was just a natural process. And you say stars are still forming today. Listen Hugh, forming a star is a vastly different thing than a raindrop forming. The raindrop forming had to have a little nucleus and moisture, and the raindrop will form. But a star! I have articles with me, Hugh, where these astronomers say, they do not have an adequate theory on stellar formation. They do not even have a satisfactory theory. And I think every physicist will agree how a raindrop forms - it's just a very simple thing. You cannot equate the formation of a raindrop to a star. Oh, no...

ROSS:

Well, as I sent you in the mail, the equations that describe star formation are far simpler than those that describe raindrop formation. You're dealing with a gas. Moreover, we see star formation in real time. You can take your pair of binoculars out tonight and watch it. It's actually happening.

GISH:

You .. I have articles right here with me , Hugh, that documents the fact that these astronomers say they've never seen a star form and there may be areas where they think stars are forming, but the matter is not infalling, it's moving away from the nucleus, and I have articles here which document the fact - they've never seen stars form. No one even claims they've seen stars form. There may be areas of the sky where they say, "Well that's where stars are forming," but they never... well I know one article said, "well, it'll be 100,000 years from now there'll be a star there"...

ROSS:

Well to correct the matter, we've been observing star formation at the longer wavelengths - at the infrared and radio, and just this week, published in the Astrophysical Journal, was the first time ever observation of star formation at optical wavelengths...

DOBSON:

I'm sure...

ROSS:

we've just about lost everybody...

DOBSON:

That issue will certainly bless the homemaker out there.

DOBSON:

Duane, tell me why you feel our understanding of Biblical accuracy rises or falls on this issue. Tell me why this is so central to ...

GISH:

Well for example, James Barr, who's professor at Oxford University, not a believer, not a Christian. He said this: He said he did not know of one Hebrew scholar at one world class university who did not believe that the Bible says everything was created in six ordinary days some thousands of years ago, and the Flood was a global flood. He didn't know of any scholar at any world class university who did not believe that's what the Bible says. Now there's no question that's what the Bible says. Now, in order to believe what Hugh believes we have to have some very questionable and absolutely erroneous interpretation of certain words in the Bible. And there's a number of examples that we could cite from Hugh's writings themselves where he has misinterpreted certain words to make them fit his cosmology, you see...

DOBSON:

Focusing on the word for "day" I suppose...

GISH:

Well, that's just one, where the word "yom" used where it's modified by evening and morning, when those two modifiers are used it always without exception means a twenty four hour day, and when you say the third day or first day that always when used with a numeral refers to a twenty four hour day...

DOBSON:

How could there be a twenty four hour day before the earth was revolving around the sun?

GISH:

Well, I just believe, Jim, that God had the ability, the power, to cause the earth to rotate at just the right speed to coincide with the first, second and third day. I don't think we have too hard a job for God to take care of. Uh, and He said a day and He put it that way. Someone has said that God could not have been more precise in His language if He wanted to denote a twenty four hour day...

DOBSON:

Now, before we leave that issue, Hugh, let's hear the other side. I know from your writings I know you believe that word is used in other ways in scripture.

ROSS:

Right, and the quote from James Barr is an ancient quote. I mean I've defended my view of long creation days in front of the faculty of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and not one of them was willing to dispute the conclusions. In fact they were enthusiastically endorsing the conclusions. This issue was also debated by the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy and again they refused to say that the Bible requires six consecutive twenty four hour days.

DOBSON:

And so you see that word used in other places. Explain the documentation.

ROSS:

Well, the thing I'd like to emphasize is that it's not enough to just take the Bible literally. We must take it literally and consistently, so all 66 books are agreeing with one another, not contradicting one another. And my problem with the six consecutive twenty-four hour day interpretation is that I can't remove the inconsistencies, but I can if I interpret them to be long periods of time.

DOBSON:

You're referring to the scriptures that refer to the ancient earth...

ROSS:

Well, the ancient earth, the fact that we're still in the seventh day of God's rest - I believe as Duane does that God's at rest now - He's not creating, but Hebrews and Psalms tell us that we're still in that sate of rest. God's not going to create again until the new creation that we see in Revelation 21, so that means the seventh day must be a long time period, and that's consistent with the first chapter where we see that there's no closure on the seventh day...

DOBSON:

It never says there was a morning and an evening...

GISH:

Well, that wasn't necessary, because there was no particular act of creation on that day. Now the future day of rest, that's a future day. It has no reference to the past seventh day. There is a day of rest, but that does not have to do with the seventh day. I don't think you can influence interpretation of those six days by any reference to the day of rest...

ROSS:

Well, it's called God's seventh day of rest...

GISH:

Well, if you can produce one example, Hugh, in the Bible, where the evening and the morning was a certain day or where it refers to the first day or the second day and it's more than twenty four hours, I don't think you can do that...

ROSS:

But that doesn't mean it's a Hebrew rule of grammar. I mean the lexicons will bear that out...

GISH:

An example. No, lexicons do not, Hugh. Now, and then there's other problems. You say the word Nethan which says that God caused to appear the sun on the fourth day. That word nethan nowhere in any lexicon is described or defined as "to make or to appear". It means to set, to establish, or to place...

ROSS:

It has 36 definitions...

GISH:

Not, n..., not in ....

ROSS:

36 definitions...

DOBSON:

I'm lost now sure enough...

GISH:

You see, nethan... the command, concerning the sun, is the creative command, just the same ways as when God said, "Let there be light" and there was light.. Now on the fourth day God said "let there be the sun. Let there be the stars." It's the same command, it's a creative command Hugh. It's not saying "just made to appear"...

ROSS:

Well no, I would dispute that. It's the verb hayah, let there be. As you're well aware, there are three verbs in the Hebrew that would connote God directly creating . Those verbs are not used for the first and fourth creation days. Rather the verb that was used was hayah, let there be.

DOBSON:

Duane, do you draw any significance from II Peter 3:8 which says, "But do not ignore this one fact beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as one day"

GISH:

Well Jim, it's often said that a text without context is a pretext. And you see here, what the context is, Jim, it's referring to prophecy the apostle Peter says, "Ah but dear friends, these certain prophecies have not been fulfilled, but be patient because with God a thousand years is as a day or a day is as a thousand years". It has no reference to the days of creation. That is not intended to refer to those days of creation you see. The days of creation there in the book of Genesis as the text indicates were just ordinary days. I know it's difficult for some people to accept that and you see that's the problem, because it's some of these difficulties. Now Hugh wants billions of years. He's got to have billions of years. He can't evolve a universe in say less than 13, 14, 15 billion years...

ROSS:

Can't evolve it in billions of years either...

GISH:

No, that's right...

DOBSON:

Flat out, Hugh, you reject evolution, biological evolution.

ROSS:

Absolutely. It's not going to happen in billions of years...

GISH:

But you do not reject astronomical evolution. Anybody who accepts big bang cosmology - that's evolution. There's no question about it.

ROSS:

The big bang as a creation event at the origin. When you get back to those billions of years you're confronted with this transcendent creation event ...

GISH:

Well Hugh, I'm talking about the process, origin of stars, origin of galaxies, the origin of our solar system...

ROSS:

Well when you get into the solar system it must be designed, it must be crafted ...

GISH:

Absolutely. The solar system gives every proof of being a created article - gives every evidence of design, not just coming out of some..

ROSS:

Well I agree with that, I'm not disputing that...

GISH:

Well then we agree then the solar system did not evolve. Is that right,? It was created. God created the planets and the sun...

ROSS:

He would have had to have designed the sun, the earth and the moon in order for life to be possible on this planet. He would have had to design the universe - ah the number of stars has to be precise. The age of the universe must be just right. If the universe it too young you can't have life, if it's too old you can't have life. In fact everything must be middle aged...

GISH:

You know, what you're saying it that the universe was created, I mean when you get through with all these statements what you're saying, Hugh, there's tremendous evidence for creation...

ROSS:

Exactly...

GISH:

It was created, it was designed, and created and that's what I'm saying, but here in your material you say in order to get this universe we have today from the big bang we have to even invent something that's totally imaginary and that's cold dark matter. Now that's just exactly like believing in Santa Clause or believing in the tooth fairy, because you and I both know no one have ever seen or detected this cold dark matter...

ROSS:

That's not true...

GISH:

That you must have . It is not seen. No one has ever seen it. No one has ever detected it. You can't detect it.

ROSS:

Well, you need to read our next issue of "Facts and Faith" - we'll be describing five discovery made in the last eight weeks...

DOBSON:

Gentlemen, we're out of time, but we're just getting going, we're really beginning to cook this issue. So I'm just going to ask you to stay right where you are and Mike will end the program today and tomorrow we'll hear what's about to occur.... You know, I uh just from my own perspective, I said at the top of the program, that I'm confused as to the truth within this issue and the two sides of it, and I don't know who's right. I haven't expressed my views, but I see problems in both perspectives, and I'd like to get into that a little bit next time. It reminds me in some ways of the first year that Shirley and I were married and we needed some life insurance, so I invited in about 7 or 8 life insurance salesmen and I figured I'd listen to all of them and then I'd know life insurance and make a decision... I got so confused that I wound up just saying, "You, tell me what to buy." And in some ways as we get into the original languages and the scientific theories it may not be possible for us ordinary folks to track you guys, but we're gonna try and we'll discuss it some more next time.

AUGUST 13, 1992

DOBSON:

Well, gentlemen as we discussed last time apparently the existence of the big bang - the explosion of matter that some people think - I think Hugh identifies with this perspective - that began in an infinitely small space and sphere of time is at the heart of the controversy. Did God create the universe that way? Did He start it with a big bang or did He do it some other way? And, uh, let me share a couple of scriptures with you that sound to me like He did - that sound like the big bang was the mechanism by which He created it, and then you comment on it. Uh, the first is in Psalms 102 beginning with verse 25 says "Of old did thou lay the foundations of the earth and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They will perish, but thou dost endure. They will all wear out like a garment. Thou changest them like raiment and they pass away." So we have a specific beginning point that he laid them out. Now let me go to Isaiah 42:5: Thus says God the Lord who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread forth the earth and what comes from it. That sounds like it is moving. He stretched them out, and then there is that scripture that says the heavens will wax old like a garment and be rolled up like a scroll and there will be a new heavens and a new earth, which sounds to me like He exploded it outward and He plans to pull it all in to another beginning point and to explode it again. Does that not sound like the context of those scriptures?

GISH:

Well, God in His creation may in some way have stretched out things. We don't know just whether He ... where the stars are now. I've always assumed where the stars are and the galaxies are that's where God placed them...

DOBSON:

That they're not moving apart from each other...

GISH:

Well, they may be. I don't know. Even there's a disagreement among astronomers on that point...

ROSS:

So you don't believe the universe is expanding?

GISH:

I ... don't believe necessarily it is. Of course there are other astronomers, equally, quite well known who would disagree that the red shift is necessarily an indication that galaxies are moving away from us...

ROSS:

[unintelligible] [probably asking him to name the astronomers who "would disagree that the red shift is necessarily an indication that galaxies are moving away from us"]

GISH:

Anomalies. There's Geoffrey [sp?] Burbage and Hannes Althein and Halton Arp and many people like that...

DOBSON:

Good old Halton Arp. Very good friend of mine...

ROSS:

He IS a friend of mine...

DOBSON:

Is that right?

GISH:

Certainly not atheists, but they don't accept the current big bang cosmology. But I want to say that the Bible tells us that on the first day God created light. Now you take this big bang. And certainly a big flash. But when these gases expand out into the vast stretches of the universe I mean it's dark, I mean black, no light anywhere in the universe at that time, or very little of it, because it expands to where the temperature is about 100 degrees Kelvin about 100 degrees above absolute zero and these gases are tremendously expanded and I don't see that in the scriptures you see. What Hugh believes and what the big bang cosmologists believe that things started at one point. The thing exploded, these gases expanded out into the vast stretches of the universe. That's all there was, there's just hydrogen and helium there, vastly expanded. There were no stars, no galaxies, nothing like that. And then somehow from this vastly expanded gas at low temperatures stars created themselves, and then galaxies created themselves. Finally our solar system created itself. And then if you go along with biological evolution then life evolved and went from the first form...

DOBSON:

But that's a big step that you wouldn't support, or even the phrase that they created themselves, Hugh, you wouldn't accept that...

ROSS:

No, I'm not accepting that

GISH:

Well, okay. I just have to know: what is the difference, what is the difference that Hugh believes. I heard Hugh discuss this subject with Eric Lerner. Now Eric Lerner does not believe in the big bang. He is an evolutionist - totally - unbeliever and I heard the discussion and Dr. Dobson, I couldn't tell who was the Christian and who was the unbeliever, because they were just discussing two naturalistic theories, evolutionary theories of the origin of the universe and Hugh was defending the bib bang cosmology, Eric Lerner was defending the plasma theory and so forth and so on, back and forth and I couldn't - I wouldn't have known who...

ROSS:

Well maybe you missed something, Duane. Eric Lerner supports the idea of an infinitely old universe cause he believes that with infinite time he doesn't need a creator, and he says so in his book. He's driven by his atheistic beliefs, and he's threatened by the big bang because it only gives him billions of years. Now let me throw out something that I think would be helpful for the layman. The universe is big, very big, and when you look at the amount of time it takes light to come from those distant sources to us, it's consistent not with infinite time - not with thousands of years, but billions of years. And that's very simple - just the very vastness of the cosmos. And this is why astronomers say it's easier for them to believe in a flat earth than a universe only thousands of years old - because they measure it to be so vast...

DOBSON:

Duane, you would say that God created the light between us and those bodies, right?

GISH:

Well, the Bible does tell us this: That God created the sun and the stars and He created them to be for signs and seasons on the earth. Obviously we had to see them immediately - we couldn't wait - we couldn't wait for billions of years for the light to get here...

DOBSON:

Well, if we weren't here we wouldn't be waiting.

GISH:

Well, that's right, if we weren't here. But I believe we were here, and God created those stars to be for signs and seasons on the earth. Now if I were God, I don't know how I would do it otherwise to make those things visible, you'd have to create the light in between. No atheist or unbeliever is going to accept that explanation obviously - he doesn't believe in God. But we have a God who is the Creator and if God wanted to create that stream of photons in place and so forth He could have done it...

ROSS:

He could have done it, Duane, but we have measurements to prove that He didn't do it that way...

GISH:

No, I don't think you have measurements to prove anything...

ROSS:

Well, let me...

GISH:

If you follow your cosmological theories, then...

ROSS:

As a beam of light travels through space it changes as it travels through space. The spectral lines are broadened consistent with the amount of space it's traveled through...

DOBSON:

Is that the Doppler effect?

ROSS:

No, it's not the Doppler effect...

DOBSON:

I'm showing my ignorance...

ROSS:

Well, the lines from these objects are sharp, but because of intervening material that jostles back and forth in the line of sight, the lines get broadened out. Also the continuum radiation, which is the radiation between the spectral lines, becomes progressively redder and redder because of the intervening dust.

[everyone tries to talk at once. Laughter]

ROSS:

If you see a forest fire and the smoke from that fire will make the sun look red, it's the same effect, so if a beam of light traverses space, the continuum radiation gets redder and redder and the spectral lines get broader and broader, and as astronomers make these measurements on the stars and the galaxies, they establish that the light actually came from the source, not from some intermediate point.

DOBSON:

Now Hugh, from my reading as a layman, and before you get sassy with me, tell me how to discipline a toddler, you know? Come over into my area! From my recent readings, especially the spring, of 1992, uh, there's a great deal of excitement in the scientific community, especially among astronomers, about the discoveries by COBE as related to the big bang. Put that into the simplest terms you can, and then Duane, I'd like you to give your reaction to it.

ROSS:

Well, we're featuring a four page article on it in our next "Facts and Faith" newsletter, it's at the printer right now, and we're describing not just that discovery, but four others - five discoveries in the last two months, and these five discoveries are all consistent with a particular subclass of big bang models. Before these discoveries we knew it had to be a big bang because of this tremendous dissipation of heat that we observe in the universe, but we didn't know exactly what kind of big bang. Now we do, and because of that exact definition - more exact than we've ever had before, astronomers and physicists are coming out of the closet and saying we're looking at God - that the belief in God today is more credible than it's ever been in the past 100 years.

DOBSON:

Dr. Steven Hawking, that I've talked about here on the program before, whom some people consider to be the brightest man on the face of the earth said, and this isn't a direct quote, but it's very close, that this may not only be the most important discovery of the century, but of all time...

ROSS:

Right, that is the exact quote. You got it right.

DOBSON:

You obviously don't agree, Duane.

GISH:

I certainly challenge the statement by Dr. Ross that there have been all these observations the last few weeks that's confirmed the existence of cold dark matter...

ROSS:

Exotic matter, Duane...

GISH:

...no radiation, and gives off no heat, you can't see it, no light, no radiation, no way to detect it. I have an article right here in front of me, "The Race to Detect Dark Matter" and it says how tremendously difficult - these are particles - if it exists - not ordinary matter...

ROSS:

Well let me give you ...

GISH:

How do you detect matter that is totally exotic, you don't even know what it is, you've never seen it, it gives off no radiation, it doesn't give off any light, it's just been postulated to exist because as you say in your article in one of your publications, "without cold dark matter we cannot get the universe we have today with the big bang cosmology". So what you have done is invent another theory to support your previous theory. It's like saying this: Santa Clause could not possibly reach all the points on earth in 24 hours. Now we believe in Santa Clause, we know he must have done it. Well then we invent another theory: that his reindeer can move at the speed of light. Therefore it's possible that Santa Clause reached all points in 24 hours. Now this cold dark matter is a reindeer that moved at the speed of light, it's something that is totally imaginary. No one has seen it, no one can detect it. It's just postulated you say it must be there....

ROSS:

Well, let me try to bring you up to date. It has been detected...

GISH:

Well, I, Look...

DOBSON:

Let him give the answer.

GISH:

Those of us at ICR follow these things just as closely as anybody...

ROSS:

Are you reading the astrophysical journals?

GISH:

Reading, astrophysical journals...[unintelligible]

ROSS:

I've got papers right here with me. This stuff is newly published...

DOBSON:

Is there any evidence that cold dark matter exists?

ROSS:

Well, we're talking about exotic matter. There's three kinds of exotic matter: cold dark matter, warm dark matter and hot dark matter...

GISH:

'Scuse me, what do you mean by, let's define exotic matter, what do you mean?

ROSS:

Exotic matter is that kind of matter that does not strongly interact with radiation. Atoms and molecules, the protons and neutrons that we're used to - what we call ordinary matter - has the property that it strongly interacts with radiation. Exotic matter does not, and there are about 36 different kinds of particles that make up this exotic matter...

GISH:

Excuse me, is this exotic matter - is that hypothetical or is that something you've got in the laboratory...

ROSS:

Let me finish, OK?

GISH:

Yeah.

ROSS:

Because it doesn't strongly interact with radiation it's difficult to detect at electromagnetic wavelengths - using our telescopes with light observation, you can't detect it directly by the light. On the other hand exotic matter uh, exerts gravity. There's a gravitational tug that it exerts. And what the theory of general relativity tells us is that massive objects have the capacity of bending light that comes by them. That was the first proof we had of general relativity when we saw starlight being bent when it passes by the sun in a solar eclipse. Well it turns out that galaxies and giant, massive gas clouds will lense light the same way, and so if we look at the light of quasars that happened to have between them and us one of these massive objects we get a measure by measuring that bending of the total mass that's responsible for that bending. That includes the ordinary plus the exotic. Now those measurements have been made and coupled with the first accurate ever measurement of the ordinary mass of the universe - this was published just eight weeks ago - by the Hubble telescope, through measuring the deuterium line at ultraviolet wavelengths it gave us an accurate measure of the ordinary mass. So if you have an accurate measure of the total mass, you subtract the ordinary mass, that gives you the exotic mass...

DOBSON:

Now you, you've gotten us off into very deep water...

ROSS:

That's only one confirmation...

DOBSON:

Give me the bottom line, the bottom line is that COBE has identified some radiation that seems to confirm...

ROSS:

The bottom line is this: by five separate discoveries, all independent of one another, they're confirming that we're looking at a universe that has a few times more exotic matter than ordinary matter - somewhere between 3 to 10 times as much exotic matter as ordinary matter.

DOBSON:

And that would have been necessary to have caused the galaxies and the...

ROSS:

Well, if you don't get the ripples then you don't get the galaxy structure. Without that ratio of exotic we don't get the boron and beryllium in the universe. So that's why they're all so excited.

DOBSON:

Without that the theory crumbles in your view. Is that right, Duane?

GISH:

Absolutely. Hugh himself has said that. He says that in one of his articles. He says here, "It is impossible for galaxies to clump the way they do without some kind and amount of cold dark matter playing a significant role in the dynamics of galaxy clustering. You gotta have cold dark matter...

DOBSON:

I have a tough question for each of you and I would really like, cause I don't want this to get away from me without dealing with it. Hugh, my greatest problem with the perspective you come from, and it's very, uh, well it's almost arrogant for me to even debate you guys because I have so little information. But from my understanding of the Bible, my greatest problem is that I understand that sickness and death and sorrow and pain came into the world with Adam's sin. That was a perfect world, that the Garden of Eden was perfect, without flaw prior to Adam and Eve's sin, and at that moment sorrow and suffering came into the world. Well that was obviously very late in the scheme of things, and the way you describe the earth being billions of years old, means that that violent world of animals had to occur for eons prior to Adam's sin - that creates problems for me - one animal ripping apart and eating another one and all of that process - I don't understand how that's consistent with our understanding of the Genesis account of Adam and Eve.

ROSS:

Well, I remember a Bible study at CalTech when we were studying Revelation 21, and several of us discovered in the text that the laws of physics radically change with the new creation. You have this universe removed from existence with its constants and laws of physics, and replaced by a brand new universe with different laws and constants of physics. And the question is, why? Well what happens at that transformation is that God has permanently conquered the problem of evil, suffering, pain and death, and with the removal of these things, there's no longer a need for this universe. Back to Romans 8:22: The entire creation groans waiting for the adoption of sons. Literally the whole universe is groaning. In other words I believe that God built into this universe those equations of physics and constants of physics so that once man chose to introduce evil into the system, God could very quickly, in a matter of just thousands of years, conquer that problem of evil and then take us into the universe He had planned for us all along. But He wants to wait until that problem is permanently conquered before He takes us in there.

DOBSON:

Duane, the concern that I expressed is...

GISH:

I don't think Hugh answered your concern. I... I.... what you expressed a concern that there was death and pain and suffering before the sin of Adam, before man rebelled against God, and I don't think Hugh even attempted to answer that problem - I didn't find the answer there. There is a problem, of course. If there's always pain and suffering and you have these hominids, whatever they were, subhuman and uh, dying and uh, for billions of years or millions of years before Adam sinned, then death did not come into the world then by Adam's sin. It was here in abundance before that. Now, maybe, maybe Hugh would say that human death came in at that time, uh, I don't know whether he would say something lower than man was dying at that time and, you know I think...

ROSS:

That's correct, I believe that that act brought about human death...

GISH:

Well, let me tell you another reason why we're concerned about this, and I want to bring in another person here - a person we're concerned about, a person whose views have evolved, I should use that word objectively, evolved considerably, and that's a man uh, Dr. Davis Young who's a geologist who started out believing in the Flood - by the way we haven't mentioned the Flood - Hugh did not mention the flood. Hugh does not believe in a global Flood. Now there's no way you can read that Scripture and get anything but a global flood. Now the Flood, I mean...

ROSS:

How about a universal flood?

GISH:

A global flood...

ROSS:

I believe in a universal flood...

GISH:

But you don't believe in a global flood...

ROSS:

Well the two terms are not necessarily synonymous... they're only synonymous to twentieth century readers...

GISH:

Don't do it with semantics. Did the flood waters cover the earth?

ROSS:

All of mankind was destroyed and all the animals associated with him...

GISH:

Ah, no, no, no...

[everyone tries to talk at once]

DOBSON:

We'll do well to settle the Young Earth theory without getting into the ...

GISH:

You know, Davis Young, and we're really concerned with this. Here's an article he published, entitled "Theology and natural science" and this was in The Reformed Journal, May of 1988, on page 15. Now here's a man who originally believed in the Flood and so forth and he got into geology and now he more or less believes in evolution and so forth and so on. He says this, he says, "Human antiquity does raise some interesting questions, " 'cause he said here that he believes that humans are possibly hundreds of thousands of years old - that is, they came on the earth hundreds of thousands of years ago. He says this, "Human antiquity does raise some interesting questions. One problem concerns the traditional view of the transmission of the creation, fall and Cain and Abel narratives. The older view is that these narratives are accounts that were handed down from early times and that the near eastern myths are corrupted versions of the truth. The antiquity of the race precludes written accounts dating back to the first humans, and it strains credulity to accept the idea that these narratives were transmitted verbally and without corruption for thousands of years until they were written down."

ROSS:

But you know, Duane, I don't believe any of that.

GISH:

You see what he says? Here's a man...

ROSS:

I don't believe that...

GISH:

... believe in these old ages and things like that and he says now, "we got a problem. It really strains credulity to believe that Cain and Abel, Garden of Eden, the Fall, could really be true.

ROSS:

I believe they are true.

DOBSON:

Duane, I said I was going to ask a tough question to each of you. Let me ask you the question that troubles me the most about the uh, position which you represent. Uh, it, it, doesn't seem to me that the process of trying to explain as scientifically as possible how God created the universe necessarily removes Him from it. It seems to me that you all ascribe positions to those who come from the other perspective - with all kinds of things that they deny - you know, belief in evolution and belief that these things were natural processes I don't - Hugh's not saying that. Uh, belief that God was removed from it. It seems to me that that's putting them in a position that they don't take for themselves.

GISH:

He's got God there, but his ... if you accept his big bang cosmology, you've got hundreds of people right around you, astronomers who don't believe in God...

DOBSON:

Yeah, but that doesn't matter, if they don't believe that's their problem. He doesn't identify with all those people...

GISH:

When the Bible tells us that Christ raised Lazarus from the dead, there's a body been in the grave several days - in a state of decay. Now, there is no way to explain that biologically...

DOBSON:

absolutely, or the water into wine or anything else. Those were supernatural events.

GISH:

That's right. Now why should we go out and try to find a natural explanation for the evolutionary cosmology, and it is evolutionary because we start with hydrogen gas and we get the stars and so on and so forth...

ROSS:

I disagree...

DOBSON:

God is the author of the natural processes, so it doesn't exclude Him to...

GISH:

You say He programmed matter to do that...

DOBSON:

...He's the King of the universe and He is breathing these things...

GISH:

If God really had to do something, you don't believe in evolution, because...

DOBSON:

[frustrated] I don't believe in evolution...

GISH:

If God had to do something repeatedly and He had to design it, why don't you say He just created it? He created a full fledged universe, and if He did all these things and it had to be very special, seems to me, it ...

DOBSON:

I don't know how that removes him. The tides come and go and come and go. He is the author of the tides. But He set in motion the natural processes and the tides function as the moon...

GISH:

Yes, that's very very different, Dr. Dobson than trying to get a star or a galaxy or get a universe. Very different....

ROSS:

It's a lot simpler.

GISH:

If you looked at rocks and pebbles I think you're quite naturally conclude they form naturally. Now you see an arrowhead lying among those rocks and pebbles. You'd immediately conclude from the fact that there's design and purpose there and the way it's deliberately shaped, that was created by an intelligent being. I think that's very logical, but now, just to start with those rocks and pebbles and you go through millions of years of natural processes and finally you get an arrowhead, you don't see any act of creation in that, but you do see the arrowhead, that was a special act, direct creation and I think that's what we see in nature...

DOBSON:

It's impossible to look at any of God's creation and not see His handiwork.

GISH:

Amen. You see, here's ... the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament displays [?] his handiwork. Now the atheist looks out at this universe, takes the same theory that Hugh believes in, the big bang cosmology. How's he gonna see the hand of God - how's he going to see the glory of God in this space, when he says it just came about by some big bang natural evolutionary process?

ROSS:

Let me read a brief quote from a non Christian astronomer, George Greenstein. He says this in his book, "The Symbiotic Universe",

"As we survey all the evidence the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a supreme being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"

I know of nine books in addition to mine that write about these new discoveries of the universe - I'm the only one who's a Christian.

DOBSON:

One of them is "God and the Astronomers" by Robert Jastrow...

GISH:

I say if you see all of this you see that God did it - that God created - just like I see a Chevrolet automobile, I believe an automobile factory produced it. It just didn't evolve.

DOBSON:

That's a given. The question only is how and how long ago. But you don't remove God from it simply by saying, "How did He do it?" and trying to figure it out.

GISH:

Well, if I try to figure out water changed into wine by some natural process I'm denying that Christ had anything to do with it - it could happen naturally. If I really believed that water could naturally change into wine, ahh, or that a dead body could come out of the grave after being there for three or four days ... how can I explain that naturally? You see? And that's what these people say. That's what I confront all the time in my lectures and my debates. People say, "Now, we cannot even consider the creation. That's a supernatural explanation."

DOBSON:

But these people you're debating are not Hugh Ross...

GISH:

Well, I know...

ROSS:

... Not the astronomers either. The astronomers are using forensics because they look back in time, and they're discovering that it can't be natural, it's gotta be supernatural...

DOBSON:

Well, we're down near the end of the program - the second program. Tell me where you guys agree. Bring us together, for Pete's sake. What are the substantive issues on which there is total agreement...

GISH:

Well, Hugh and I both agree that God uh, created - and I think there's a difference on what happened then - but God created us for a purpose, there's a relationship between the created and the creator, God controls our destiny, God not only created this universe, but He created as I said for a purpose and God not only created us, but He loved us and He provided for our salvation through the person of Jesus Christ.

ROSS:

Well, I think we agree on a lot more. We both agree that the Bible is the error-free word of God - not just in faith and practice, but science and history. We both agree in a literal Adam and Eve. We agree in the same date for Adam and Eve - that it's recent. We agree on the Cain and Abel story. We agree that life ah must require many millions literally of divine interventions - miraculous hands to bring it about...

DOBSON:

For you, Hugh, the the age of the universe is important scientifically, but not terribly important theologically?

ROSS:

No, it's important for both, because I can't have the Bible consistent with a thousands of year old universe.

DOBSON:

And for you, Duane, it is absolutely critical to the authenticity of the Bible?

GISH:

Well, I think it's important, very definitely is very important. You see a creationist does not need an immensely old universe. Now the evolutionist he's got to have an immensely old universe - or an immensely old earth - he cannot consider any evidence for a young earth...

ROSS:

He needs infinite time, literally.

GISH:

He just can't do it, there's just no way he can consider that possibility...

DOBSON:

You don't consider yourself an evolutionist, ah, Hugh?

ROSS:

No, the evolutionist needs near-infinite time - billions of years are hopeless...

GISH:

No, no, no Hugh, that's not true. Because most of your fellow astronomers who are evolutionists believe the universe is somewhere between 7 and 13 billions years old. They don't need hundreds of billions of years. Now I agree with this: If a protein molecule evolved by chance, you certainly would need about a hundred billion years or more or 500 billion years...

ROSS:

No, you need ten to the 100 billion years...

DOBSON:

And you don't believe that happened...

ROSS:

... the time is absurdly great...

DOBSON:

Well, I was bringing this into a landing and we're off again. Gentlemen, I ah, this subject fascinates me. I don't know if there's anybody else out there that followed it or is interested in the issue but I rather think they are. Both of your ministries are doing very well. You find a lot of interest Hugh, your "Reasons to Believe" is expanding and exciting things are happening there.

ROSS:

That's true.

DOBSON:

Institute of Creation Research, what's going on there?

GISH:

Yes, we're having anywhere from 1000 to 4, 5 or 6 thousand people to our weekend seminars and these are scheduled all through next year and ah, I've just returned from touring university campuses - West Point and places like that and there's a tremendous interest in the subject of origins, there's not question about it, it's very gripping subject today and very controversial even in some Christian circles, but mainly between those who look at things as having a naturalistic origin you see, versus a supernatural origin. And we, I'm convinced as a biochemist that life could never have created itself spontaneously and certainly I'm convinced this universe could not have created itself naturally.

DOBSON:

I certainly agree on both those points, do you, Hugh?

ROSS:

That's right.

DOBSON:

Boy, we'd better quit while we're ahead. I appreciate you all coming to Colorado Springs to be with us and talk about this subject. We have a little over a minute left. Explain what you say to the person out there who is more confused than ever, and wants to do what's right. How do we, how do we give them some kind of closure? Hugh, first.

ROSS:

Ah, you're catching me off guard, but ah, we've always recognized that the existence of God and particularly the God of the Bible are questions that people most want answered, so giving them those evidences is a starting point for getting them into the Bible as the error-free word of God.

GISH:

Romans 1:20 tells us that nobody has any excuse because in the things God has made you can very clearly and easily discern certain unseen attributes of God, and so I would urge these people to look at this universe and living world and see the handiwork of God - the evidences for His existence, and then ask themselves the question: Why did God create me, what is my relationship to my creator?

DOBSON:

Duane would you find fault with me if I said to people who are out there, ah, regardless of which side you come down on, show a little charity to those who have come at it from the other side and honestly believe they're right?

GISH:

Well absolutely, that's why Hugh and I have a cordial relationship, you see, a friendly relationship, absolutely, I think we have to be humble, I think when we say we have the total answer, I think we have to be very careful, and I think we have to be very kind and thoughtful, even with those who profess to be atheists. There were a number of them at the debate I had the other evening at the university of Utah who showed up. And ah, I just ...

DOBSON:

There's really no room for anger, especially for those who are honestly trying to find truth...

ROSS:

Well yeah, I appreciate ...

DOBSON:

... a dark glass. You know we're up there with our hands up to the window and we're trying to see and it's sometimes kind of hard...

ROSS:

You know, I appreciate Duane's perspective. I think one thing that's concerned me about your colleagues at the Institute for Creation Research is labeling me in print as "an apostate who has no heart for evangelism." And I think we need to be much more charitable...

GISH:

I don't know who would have said that. You might say some of your views today [unintelligible] heretical ...

ROSS:

No they put this in print...

GISH:

But that would be ah, a little bit unkind, I believe.

ROSS:

Well I know Duane does and I appreciate that.

DOBSON:

Well, God bless you guys [wraps up the program]

____________________

Transcribed by William Hamilton

Warren Rubel Lecture in Christianity and Higher Learning, by Bruce J. Hrivnak, delivered to the faculty and students of Christ College, Valparaiso University.

INTRODUCTION

It is an honor and a pleasure to be here with you this evening. It was with mixed emotions that I agreed to speak on the topic of "Christianity and Higher Learning." In addition to the honor of the invitation, I felt daunted by the task, for I have never given such a lecture. I also felt humbled by the selection (do they really want me!) and excited by the opportunity that it would enforce upon me to reflect further on this topic which I consider to be central to my work here at Valparaiso University. I am glad to be here.

The Psalmist writes, "The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech, night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out to the ends of the world" (Ps 19:1-4a).(1)

However, one might think it to be just the opposite, that those who spend the most time studying the heavens and nature appear least inclined to be religious. There is a perception that a person who is a scientist lives according to logic, data, and a detached objectivity, and that in contrast a person who is religious lives by faith, feelings, and a personal subjectivity. Facts versus faith. This idea of science and religion as two divergent approaches to life in this world is pretty pervasive. I find that people are often surprised to find out that I am both a scientist and a Christian.

Science has answered so many questions about our world and with more time, it may seem that it will answer almost all. In the past, things that mankind attributed to God we now attribute to gravity, germs, plate tectonics, etc. Science, due to its technological prowess and benefits, has risen in prestige. As science has increased our knowledge, it appears that God has been pushed to the edges or completely out of the picture.

How has the Christian church responded? It has responded in a variety of ways but often defensively. In an effort to uphold the supernatural teachings of the Bible, including miracles, the incarnation of God in Jesus, his virgin birth, and the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the church has often responded by emphasizing the importance of faith and by being suspicious of science. Scientists are often cast as atheists with a hidden agenda to disrupt belief in God and turn young people from the faith of their fathers and mothers. While this contrast may not be the experience of all, it is still a common strain. Controversy over the teaching of biological evolution and "creation science," and evidence regarding the "big bang" beginning for the cosmos appear from time to time in the popular news. At least in the area of origins there seems to be a "warfare" between science and religion. Before examining this more, let me tell you some things about my own particular background, and then go on to interweave my reflections on science and the Christian faith with my own life story.

MY BEGINNINGS AS A CHRISTIAN AND SCIENTIST

My development as a Christian and as a scientist initially followed two separate paths.

I grew up attending church regularly, learning Bible stories and God’s commandments. I thought of God as distant. I remember a vivid sense of God as a judge with a balance scale. I was basically a good kid, and would feel on some days that my good actions and thoughts outweighed the bad; however, that was not always the case, and who knew what tomorrow might bring. What if on the judgement day the scales were tipped against me? I had a clear sense of God’s righteous law.

My coming to understand and embrace the gospel, God’s good news, was strongly influenced by my mother. I remember as a boy in elementary school that she began reading the Bible regularly, attended Christian meetings, and took my brother and me with her to a small chapel on Sunday evenings. I could see some changes occurring in my mother’s life. It appeared that she was able to show love beyond the call of duty in the midst of some challenging situations. This I attributed to God’s work in her life.

What I heard at this time also made sense. I learned several things that the Bible teaches. First that no one is good enough to please God. We all fall short. The Bible says that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," and that "the wages of sin is death" (Rom. 3:23, 6:23). Then, that God provided the solution. He sent His son who was righteous. Furthermore, that through faith in Jesus we are saved, on the basis of his righteous life and his substitutionary death. "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor. 5:21). Finally that we can have assurance of this salvation. "I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life" (1 Jn 5:13). What would earlier have seemed like arrogant presumption I now saw as a gracious gift.

This was good news to me! It meant that there was a way for me to be right with God, in spite of the fact that I personally could not live up to his standards or even my own. It was as I was beginning junior high school that I made a faith commitment to God, trusting in what Jesus did to atone for my sins before a holy and loving God. I came to see God as my heavenly Father who personally cared for me. Not only did this remove fear of judgement and lead to trust in God, but it gave me a growing sense of purpose for my life. I also saw God working in my life to help me begin to be less self-centered and more loving, although these are areas in which I continue to need growth.

In the meantime, I found that I was good in math and was interested in science. I was a serious student and loved to read. My parents, both immigrants from Czechoslovakia, worked hard and had a very strong desire that their children graduate from college. The manned space program was just getting started at this time. A career as an astronaut was appealing, but the need for glasses and motion sickness on carnival rides clearly disqualified me! Nevertheless, space had an appeal for me as it did for many others, and my high school yearbook lists my career goal as "physicist."

Looking back, I see what a private Christian life I lived in high school and on into college. I had a discipline of Bible reading and praying, and desired to do what was right. However, I did not have Christian friendships and did not get involved in Christian activities outside of attending church on Sunday. My faith was a private compartment in my life.

During my junior high school and high school days, my family joined a growing Baptist church that I would classify as evangelical and somewhat fundamentalist. From this church background, I came to several impressions as I went away to college. One was that young people who were committed Christians went to Bible college in order to go on the mission field or to become a pastor, a "full-time" Christian worker. (I did not feel that committed and probably wasn't at that time.) Another was that in going to a major secular university one would be very open to attacks on one’s faith and to the ridicule of atheistic professors, and that not "losing the faith" would be a real challenge. (I think that there is some truth to that, and in fact I saw some evidence of that in my first-year philosophy class.)

I also sensed that in the church there existed both a suspicion of science and a high regard for science. A deep suspicion of science because it ignored God and often came to conclusions seemingly contrary to the Bible, particularly epitomized by the theory of evolution of man from lower life forms. On the other hand, the prestige of science was valued. If some scientific discovery seemed to be harmonious with the Bible (or rather let me say with an interpretation of the Bible), it was noted in a bulletin insert or a sermon illustration as being consistent with or even "confirming" the Bible. I heard that new satellites had shown that the Earth was not perfectly round and had "four corners," as had been stated in Isaiah 11:12 which speaks of God gathering dispersed Israel from the "four corners of the earth." The fact that science had not yet found the bottom of the ocean was highlighted when Micah 7:19 was read, "You will again have compassion on us; you will tread our sins underfoot and hurl all our iniquities into the depths of the sea." I found such references to science distracting (I didn’t think that the forgiveness of my sins depended upon the bottom of the ocean remaining beyond discovery) and sometimes distressing. I wondered how I would be regarded as a scientist in the church.

I don’t want to imply that this was the background of every young person growing up in a conservative church in the 1960’s with an interest in science. On the other hand, I don’t think that this was simply my perception or only the way things were in my church. There clearly was a deep-rooted suspicion of science and the universities in many conservative churches, and in some cases this may have been well-founded. This can lead one to wonder if it had always been the case that the church and science were in opposition.

CHRISTIANITY AND SCIENCE: A LOOK AT THE HISTORIC BACKGROUND

How did we arrive at the situation of opposition or even warfare between science and religion?

It may be surprising to some to learn that many of the founders of modern science were deeply religious men and committed Christians. Names of these include Johannes Kepler (who determined the shape of the orbits that the planets follow around the sun), Galileo (who first turned the newly invented telescope towards the heavens to study them), Isaac Newton (the brilliant physicist who among other things formulated the basic laws of motion and gravity), Michael Faraday (the great experimenter in electricity), and James Clerk Maxwell (who formulated the laws relating electricity and magnetism). Listen to the following words: "I give you thanks, Creator and God, that you have given me this joy in thy creation, and I rejoice in the works of your hands. See I have now completed the work to which I was called. In it I have used all the talents you have lent to my spirit." This was written by Kepler in one of his notebooks.(2)

Modern science and the scientific method of systematic inquiry arose in Western Europe. Some historians say that it was Christianity that provided a foundation for modern science with its belief in one God with a definite character, which meant that the universe was an orderly and knowable place. (3) From the Bible one can derive a worldview that nature is both real (not an illusion) and has value since it was created by God and thus is worthy of study. The Creation is good, the material world is not evil. As an outcome of the Protestant Reformation and its doctrine of the "priesthood of all believers," the teaching arose that not just religious but all lawful secular vocations can be callings from God.(3) A majority of the initial members of the Royal Society of London, one of the first scientific societies, were Puritans,(4) who saw the study of nature as a way of glorifying God. I list the names above not to imply that we should believe what they believed because they were important people or scientific heroes, but rather to show that scientific study and Christian faith were quite compatible and even mutually encouraging.

Even the situation with Galileo, which is often cast as a proto-typical case of the church opposing science, turns out to be more complicated than that upon further inquiry. Apparently Galileo had many enemies among those at the universities who staunchly supported the Aristotelian views he attacked. Also Galileo’s personality seemed to antagonize others and in controversy his attacks were biting. Envy of his rising status may also have been involved. The point to be made is that the trial and condemnation of Galileo made by the Catholic church was more complex than simply the case of the church seeking to maintain its authority and so restraining scientific inquiry.(5)

With this background, why is the situation so different today? Several factors appear to have been at work during the 18th and 19th centuries. These include rationalism, anti-traditionalism, the "God of the gaps" view of God which invokes God to explain the gaps in our knowledge, the efforts in some circles to remove the supernatural from the Bible, Darwinian evolution and the ensuing controversies, and an increasingly naturalistic viewpoint. All of these appear to have been factors and have been written about.(6) Apparently some, among whom was Thomas Huxley at the end of the 19th century, consciously wanted to overthrow the cultural dominance of Christianity, to replace a "Christian worldview with scientific materialism."(3) The warfare image was initially spread primarily by opponents of Christianity such as Andrew D. White, the president of Cornell, who wrote A HISTORY OF THE WARFARE OF SCIENCE WITH THEOLOGY (1896) that helped to lead to the popular impression of a past and lasting opposition. However, as we have seen, such opposition was not the case.

In the second quarter of the 20th century, as conservative Christians saw themselves as a minority within or as separatists from many of the major church denominations, a fortress mentality seems to have set in. Modernism and liberalism in theology and naturalism in science seemed to be carrying the day. A tightly defined circle of orthodoxy was established, one which often included a commitment to a literal interpretation of the Bible. The public fallout of the Scopes trial (1925) concerning the teaching of evolution in public schools further put conservative Christians on the defensive. Committed to the belief that true science, which dealt with facts, was not in contradiction to the Bible, they concluded that scientific ideas which seemed to contradict the Bible must be false or biased science.7 This led to a retreat from the scientific laboratories and in many cases from engagement in the world and instead led to Bible colleges and the study of the Bible and practical skills. In some cases, anti-intellectualism arose, if not in principle, at least in practice. Of course, this exacerbated the problem, for this resulted in fewer Christians in science and fewer Christian role models for students.6

I realize that this is not true of all traditions, but as I look back, this is my broad-stroke interpretation of the background out of which I went off to college.

MY TIME IN COLLEGE AND SOME CHANGING VIEWS

I majored in Physics as an undergraduate at the University of Pennsylvania, and kept busy with studies and running on the track team. I continued in my life as a private Christian, reading the Bible and attending a local church for an hour on Sunday, but with very little Christian engagement beyond that. Each semester in college, I'd plan to get more involved with Penn’s InterVarsity Christian Fellowship (IVCF), believing group Bible study and Christian fellowship were good things to do. However, I actually participated little because it was not a high priority among the several things competing for my time.

During my last semester as an undergraduate, however, several things happened to cause some changes. I attended a large Christian conference over Christmas break at the University of Illinois, sponsored by IVCF. I was encouraged and challenged to see a basketball arena filled with 16,000 fellow college students who were serious about living a Christian life. Over spring break I went to a smaller Christian student conference featuring Francis Schaeffer, a Christian apologist who encouraged Christians to engage the world. I realized that I tended to confine my faith internally and did not have confidence that it fit with the real world. Reading the works of Schaeffer, such as THE GOD WHO IS THERE,(8) gave me confidence to face the world as a Christian with the sense that all truth was God's truth: a Christian worldview would really fit with the real world that God made, and in fact was the only one that would. One can get the idea, with all of the various philosophies that have arisen in the world, that Christianity had been tried and found wanting and that these others fit better with the real world. But I came to see that these different worldviews developed from the presuppositions and choices that people made as to how they would respond to life in this fallen world. The idea that the teachings of the Bible and a Christian worldview actually made sense of the world was exciting and liberating for me. Related to this, that same spring, I felt particularly challenged to trust God more in all of my life. Inwardly I had a personal, private faith that God cared for me. Way out there, I believed that God had created the stars, but my life and faith was compartmentalized. In terms of my day-to-day life, how I spent my time and set priorities, I felt that I was struggling on my own. I sensed that I was leading a basically self-centered life, filtering things through the grid of what they would do for me. I didn’t feel good about this; this was not the way that I wanted to live the rest of my life. I wanted to live as an integrated, whole person. I remember sitting down on a street curb, reflecting on this and the illogical nature of believing that God was involved in the big picture of the universe out there, but feeling that I could not trust him for how I should live my life down here. At that time I remember making a specific commitment to begin seeking God’s involvement in every area of my life.

As these things were coming together in my life, I graduated with a degree in Physics. I had applied to several graduate schools in Astronomy, and in God’s providence I stayed in Philadelphia and entered the Astronomy Department at the University of Pennsylvania. This turned out to be an exciting and challenging chapter in my life. I became an active part of a small church that had just been started by some recent seminary graduates who desired to minister to students and present a Christian witness to the campus community. Several of us were graduate students in the physical sciences and the pastor was a physics major as an undergraduate. I had found kindred souls. Lucy and I met and were married there. I consciously determined to set some priorities for my time and to not let my studies be the focus of my whole life as they had been as an undergraduate. It was a time of digging into the Bible and theology as a group and of seeking to consciously live in Christian community.

MY RESEARCH: STUDYING THE STARS

Along with my graduate studies I also did some teaching at Penn in their summer school and at nearby LaSalle College. I enjoyed teaching and seemed to do well at it. However, my thesis research was going slowly. At that time I could see myself enjoying a career as a college teacher. Success and enthusiasm in research came more slowly but have come to be an integral part of my professional life.

My early research as a graduate student and in the years immediately after that focussed on the basic properties of stars. These can be determined most accurately when they have a companion star. By studying the orbital and light variations of such binary stars, one can deduce the mass, size, and luminosity of each.

Stars, however, also change or evolve with time due to changes in their internal structures. Stars like the sun will expand and eventually become large red giant stars. Such stars can have the diameter of a hundred suns. After a period of stability, the star will again expand and begin to lose its outer layers. These then drift away, producing a huge shell of gas around the star and leaving in the center a hot core. This is called a planetary nebula, which, however, is a misnomer, since it is not related to planets. The gas shell eventually dissipates into space and the core cools to become a white dwarf. This is the cycle that we think stars like the sun go through.

The particular research I have been engaged in is studying the transition from the red giant, the large red star, to the planetary nebula, when one sees the glowing shell of gas around the hot core. What goes on in between? It turns out it’s a stage that’s been hard to study partly because it takes place rapidly, astronomically speaking, over a few thousand years, and partly because the star is often obscured by the gas and dust it is losing. The opportunity to study them arose in 1983 with the IRAS satellite. It orbited the earth with a telescope sensitive to infrared emission, and by surveying the entire sky, it found a quarter of a million sources. Infrared emission is given off by objects that are warm, not hot like stars such as the sun. This is what one would expect for stars surrounded by gas and dust, which would absorb the light from the star and then warm up and shine in the infrared.

When the IRAS data became available, I was at the University of Calgary in a postdoctoral position. It was fortunate timing that during the year before coming to Valparaiso, I had the opportunity to begin interacting with Dr. Sun Kwok, who had just joined the faculty at Calgary and who was already recognized as an expert in the study of planetary nebulae. We began collaborating on some research during that last year and have continued doing so for 17 years. The satellite data showed where in the sky these infrared sources were located. Using some of the largest telescopes in the world, located in Hawaii, we had the opportunity to look for these objects and to see whether the star in the center was visible. In many cases the star was completely obscured, but in some cases we could actually see the central star. We were quite excited when we found the first case of a bright star that corresponded to the infrared source. When we took the spectrum of it we saw indeed it was a red supergiant. Thus we had begun to find some of these transitional objects. We continued finding additional ones, a few dozen in total.

At the same time, my colleagues at the University of Calgary began looking at some spectral data from the IRAS satellite. A large peak at 21 microns in the infrared spectrum indicated some new molecular feature that had not previously been studied or recognized here on the earth, arising from the gas and dust around the star. This was exciting and in a way got us going on a bit of a detective story. We initially found four such objects and later a dozen, and all the ones that showed the signature of this new chemistry in space were stars in the transitional phase between red giant and planetary nebula. Something in that stage or that environment caused this molecule to form. We found that a common trait in all the objects with the 21 micron emission feature was that they possess an unusually large abundance of carbon. After some more recent satellite data and a lot of work in laboratories, the source of this emission peak has likely been identified as titanium carbide around the star. However, that may not be the end of the story as there have more recently been some other suggested identifications. It has been exciting to participate in the discovery of some new molecules in space. This identification of titanium carbide could set limits on how titanium is formed in stars and so it gets us into the subject of nucleosynthesis and the formation of elements.

We are also interested in studying how the gas was ejected from the star. The red giant stars are spherical in shape, yet planetary nebula gas shells have a variety of shapes. Using the telescopes again in Hawaii we were able to take pictures of these objects, but they were just too small to see details of the shapes of the gas shells. However, that changed when we had the opportunity to use the Hubble Space Telescope. In Figure 1 are shown Hubble pictures taken of two objects from our study. From ground-based telescopes in Hawaii we had been able to determine that each of them appeared not as a single point of light but as two blobs. With the Hubble much more detail is seen. They each appear to have bipolar lobes, with light scattered from the lobes toward us and with a dark lane across the middle. In addition we see some faint circular arcs. (Note that these are false color pictures, with the colors used to bring out enhancements in the bright regions.) In Figure 2 are displayed two more objects that we observed with the Hubble which again show a bipolar structure, but in this case one of them appears to be tilted toward us. We are finding that many of these transitional objects have a bipolar structure, so a theoretical model had been constructed assuming there must be a torus or donut-shaped region of dust around the central star which prohibits the light and gas from expanding in those directions. Thus the gas expands in opposite directions through the hole in the torus and scatters the light towards us producing such bipolar shapes. In one of our most recent Hubble images (Figure 3) we are able, for the first time, to directly see this obscuring torus. In two additional cases we have been able to discover surrounding circular arcs. These arcs are seen by light reflected from the gas. The presence of both circular arcs and bipolar lobes in the same objects suggests that the gas was initially ejected from the star in a spherical process, producing the circular arcs, and then later changed to produce gas moving off in opposite directions. We are presently investigating why this would occur.(9)

I am also carrying out some research with students using the modest but modern facilities of the Valparaiso University Observatory to study how the brighter of these stars vary in light due to pulsation. This can tell us something about the internal structure of the stars.

This is only one small taste of what we have been learning about the cosmos. The stars that I have been studying are all found in our Milky Way Galaxy. As we move beyond our own galaxy, we find a universe consisting of galaxies each containing billions of stars. One of the special projects done with the Hubble Space Telescope was to focus the cameras for ten days on one region of the sky, taking hundreds of photographs that were then superimposed on one another to build up an image of the faint light. Each one of the objects in the resulting picture (Figure 4) is a galaxy, except for a few nearby foreground stars. There are 1,500 galaxies in the image. Now, just to put it in perspective, this picture has the angular size of a grain of sand held at arm’s length. This region was picked because it seemed to be an empty region in space. If we assume that it is typical of the whole universe, that implies that there are a total of 50 billion galaxies, each containing billion stars. Truly this is an awesome and beautiful universe!

MY LIFE AS A CHRISTIAN AND A SCIENTIST

This glorious universe was created by God, and I consider it a privilege to be able to study it and teach others about it. One can ask what difference it makes to me as an astronomer that I have a Christian faith. Has it affected the kind of work I do or how I carry it out?

Has my faith affected my choice of research topics? No, not significantly. The Earth is the Lord’s and the heavens are his handiwork; thus they are all appropriate areas of study. (In principle, being a Christian could certainly affect the subject of one’s scholarly research &emdash; certain experiments on humans or animals would be inappropriate, and some areas have more immediate benefit or usefulness than others.) But I have basically carried out my research in areas of interest and opportunity. Perhaps I have been less enthusiastic than some in the search for extraterrestrial life. This is partly because I believe that life did not arise by random chance and partly because I don’t believe that the existence of extraterrestrial live is such an ultimate question. The question of whether we are alone in the universe has been answered by God.

Has my faith affected the way I carry out my scholarly work? Yes, I believe that it has. I have benefited recently from reading Mark Schwehn’s book EXILES FROM EDEN(11) (and wish that I had read it earlier). I appreciated his illustration of several spiritual virtues that can influence the way one goes about his/her scholarly work. Here are some of these that elicited personal responses.

HUMILITY: being humble before other scholars and working to try to understand what they are saying. A more senior scholar can either take time for younger colleagues in his field and even learn from them, or he can simply dismiss their differing views out of laziness, busyness, or as a response to feeling threatened.

SELF-DENIAL: not putting myself first. I have certain ideas, theories that I favor. It is not hard to promote these if I look primarily at supportive data and stress how it fits with my hypothesis, or if I look primarily at the weaknesses of competing theories, without acknowledging and dealing adequately with their strengths. It takes more effort to charitably and sincerely deal with the competing ideas of a colleague than to minimize or simply ignore them. Yet we can be tempted to do this, if not for self-promotion, at least as a response to the pressure of time and the desire to complete a project as soon as possible and have it published. In fact, after reading this section of Mark Schwehn’s book, I felt that I had to go back and do some more work on a paper I was preparing, to see that I was fair to another viewpoint. I want to ‘"do unto others as [I] would have them do unto [me]" (Matt. 7:12).

One can also consider HONESTY AND INTEGRITY. Honesty is, of course, expected in reporting data and experimental results. It is an implicit assumption in scientific research. Being honest and presenting realistic expectations also comes into play in writing grant proposals.(12) Do I really expect to carry out all of the great research that I propose within the specified time period? I find that I struggle constantly with setting unrealistic expectations of what I will get done and then so often feeling the pressure of being behind schedule.

It is easy to get caught up in self-promotion and even to exaggerate the importance of a scholarly project. We hear it said "If you don’t promote your work, who will?" "If others don’t know about the good work that you’re doing, then you are less likely to get your research proposals approved and funded. And this affects not only you, but also support for your students and even the presentation of the university in a more favorable light." So there is a balance here. I find that I need to be self-conscious about this so that I am fair and don’t get caught up in self-promotion. I also believe that it is important that I do GOOD WORK. My summer research students each year hear me stress the importance of working diligently and carefully and doing the job right, and if we later find that we have not done this, then going back and carefully correcting our work. For me, this follows because it is the Lord whom I serve and his handiwork that I am describing. This means working whole-heartedly and carefully.

As a teacher, my faith motivates me to deal with students as whole people, who feel the ups and downs of life in a fallen world. I set high standards for them, because I want them to learn about the cosmos and also to learn to think carefully and critically. God made a very interesting world and he gave us the ability to inquire into it. I particularly encourage students to work at integrating their learning with their religious beliefs. In the astronomy survey course, the question of origins comes up as we discuss the history of the earth and cosmology. Almost all Valparaiso University students have some religious beliefs and most come from a background of Christianity. As an assignment near the end of the semester in Astronomy 101, I present the students with three basic approaches on how the biblical language on origins can be understood. Please realize that this is oversimplified, but I think that it is representative. One is a literal approach, which considers the biblical discussion of origins and especially Genesis chapters 1 and 2 as being literal. This is the approach taken by "young-earth creationists," who interpret the six creation days in Genesis as consecutive 24-hour days and conclude that the Earth is young, a few thousand years old. On the other side is the figurative interpretation, in which the different genres of writing found in the bible are noted and the creation account in Genesis is interpreted figuratively. A third approach is to see a harmony between the creation accounts in the Bible and the findings of science.(13)

All three views start with the basic idea that God is the creator. The figurative view avoids conflict with science by assuming that the Bible does not make scientific statements. The literal view believes that the Bible does make scientific statements and that the scientific evidence for billions of year ages for the Earth and stars and the evidence for evolution in the cosmos is simply wrong. The harmony view advocates a correspondence between the description and the order of creation in the Bible and the modern scientific picture. In this view, for example, God’s initial creation of light corresponds to the big bang. My goal is not to persuade students to one particular view, but to have them read and discuss the various views in order to see how others approach these questions. I desire for them to begin to integrate rather than to compartmentalize their faith and learning. Some of them are doing this. I am glad to be at a place like Valparaiso where encouraging such examination and integration is not seen as out of place but rather encouraged.

In two particular areas, I confess, I feel like I walk a bit of a tightrope regarding my work as a scientist and my Christian commitment.

I have encountered many devoted Christians who believe that the Bible teaches that God made the sun and stars just like they are within six 24-hour days not long ago. They have been taught to believe that is what the Bible teaches and that any other view is unbiblical and simply an accommodation to modern science. This view can even be made a test of Christian orthodoxy. I have usually avoided being controversial on this issue. I have been content to talk one-on-one with people to express my opinion that the evidence of nature does not support the view that the Earth and the cosmos are only thousands of years old; rather they appear to be billions of years old and shows evidence of change by processes in nature. Of course, that in itself does not settle the issue, for I do not wish to imply that the scientific viewpoint should simply decide it. But I think that we need to take seriously the evidence in nature as being part of God’s general revelation to mankind. Since it has the same author, the general revelation we see in nature should be consistent with the special revelation that we find in the Bible. How then do we deal with apparent differences between them? Perhaps the arguments about whether the sun moves around the earth or vice versa are instructive here. I have basically adopted the principle summarized by the Princeton theologian Charles Hodge, "if [the ordinary] sense brings the Mosaic account into conflict with facts, and another sense would avoid such conflict, then it is obligatory on us to adopt the other."(14) Thus I look for an alternate interpretation of the biblical text that would fit with the data of astronomy or archeology or history without doing violence to the context or the overall biblical thrust on the topic.

Those of us with a strong view of God’s providence in human affairs should not have difficulty in accepting His providence in cosmic affairs. I think that one can understand the days of creation as being representative of God’s creative activity, with the order perhaps indicating not the order of creation (which would imply that plant life was created on day three and the sun on day four), but the order of how it would have appeared to an observer on earth (had one been present). I am pleased that my own denomination, the Presbyterian Church in America, has recently adopted a statement which, while affirming the historicity of the early chapters of Genesis, has also affirmed that ministers my have divergent views on the length of the creation days. I am reminded of a quote on this subject J. H Pratt from the end of the 19th century which is as follows: "The Book of Nature and the Word of God emanate from the same infallible Author, and therefore cannot be at variance. But man is a fallible interpreter, and by mistaking one or both of these Divine Records he forces them too often into unnatural conflict."(15)

While I do not believe that this is a central issue of Christian doctrine which should divide believers, nevertheless, I feel that I should be more aggressive at times and not let uncritical thinking in this area go unchallenged. There is an issue of truth and the integrity of God’s creation involved. In fact, the "young-earth" view may set an unnecessary hurdle in the way of scientists and other educated people coming to faith in Christ and trust in the reliability of the scriptures. As an aside, I have been pleased to recently met several younger Christian astronomers who are just getting started in their careers. At their initiative, several of us have been getting together at the annual meeting of the American Astronomical Society and encouraging one another in our callings. A healthy exchange of e-mail circulates among us on various issues. I am delighted to see this.

The other area where I feel that I walk a tightrope is that of time and priorities. Wanting to do my work well as a teacher and scholar requires a lot of time. Here at Valparaiso University, we place a high commitment on teaching and mentoring our students well. Given the time that takes, it is then difficult to maintain an active scholarly research program on a national or international level. I struggle with issues of time and balance here. Not balance between teaching and scholarship, but between academic work and the rest of my life. Being an astronomer is my vocation, not my life. In the larger picture I am called to not only be a scholar-teacher, but also a husband, father, churchman, and neighbor. I am to do all of these things in the context of serving God, by his grace, and as one who is accountable to him. As my brother has reminded me on more than one occasion, on our deathbeds it is unlikely that we will regret that we had not spent more time at our work. I very much appreciate the patience of my wife and children and Lucy’s gentle nudges when things get too out of balance with my work.

I thank you for your patience in hearing me describe the path that I have taken to and in my vocation as an astronomer, and also how my Christian commitment has impacted this. As I mentioned earlier, I carry out this work with a sense that it is a privilege and a responsibility. It is a privilege to study the heavens as God’s handiwork and their development by processes that God has created. It is a privilege to tell others of the awesomeness of the creation: professional colleagues though papers and conferences, students in the classroom, and the community at the public nights at the observatory. I also consider it a responsibility to serve God with the abilities that he has given me and to love and serve him with my heart and soul and strength and mind. This calling has been exciting and fulfilling, and the reflection that the preparation for this lecture entailed has been helpful in self-consciously refreshing my vision. The Westminster Shorter Catechism, question 1, asks in 17th century English, "What is the chief end of man?" The answer is, "The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever." That answer continues to sound good to me today.

___________________

REFERENCES

1. References from the scripture are taken from the Holy Bible: New International Version, copyright by the International Bible Society.

2. Quoted by Nancy R. Pearcy and Charles B. Thaxton, in The Soul of Science: Christian Faith and Natural Philosophy, 1994 (Wheaton,IL: Crossway Books), p 23.

3. Pearcy, Nancy R., and Thaxton, Charles B., 1994, in The Soul of Science: Science: Christian Faith and Natural Philosophy, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books), pp. 17-42.

4. Stated by Kenneth L. Pike in With Heart and Mind: A Personal Synthesis of Scholarship and Devotion, 1970 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), pp. 26-27.

5. Hummel, Charles E., 1986, in The Galileo Connection: Resolving Conflicts between Science & the Bible (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press), pp. 80-125.

6. Marsden, George M., 1991, in Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans) pp. 122-152.

7. Marsden, George M., 1980, in Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism 1870-1925 (New York: Oxford), pp. 212-121.

8. Schaeffer, Francis A., 1968, the God who is there (Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press).

9. For a popular account of this research, see S. Kwok, 1998, Sky & Telescope, 96, (Oct.) pp. 30-35. For more technical accounts, I refer the reader to the following articles: Kwok, S. et al. 1998, Astrophys. J., 501, L117-L121; Su, K. Y. L., et al. 1998, Astrophys. J., 508, 744-751; Hrivnak, B. J., et al. 1999, Astrophys. J., 524, 849-856; Volk, K., et al. 1999, Astrophys. J., 516, L99-L102.

10. Image from the Space Telescope Science Institute/NASA.

11. Schwehn, Mark R. 1993, Exiles from Eden: Religion and the Academic Vocation in America (New York: Oxford).

12. I was stimulated to think about this after reading Walter R. Hearn, Being a Christian in Science, 1995, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press), p. 43.

13. Examples of these views are as follows: literal - The Biblical Basis for Modern Science by Henry M. Morris, 1984, (Grand Rapids: Baker); concordant or harmony - The Fingerprint of God by Hugh Ross, 1991 (Orange, CA: Promise Publishing), Genesis One & the Origin of the Earth, by Robert C. Newman & Herman J. Eckelmann, Jr., 1977 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press); figurative - The Fourth Day: What the Bible and the Heavens are telling us about the Creation by Howard J. Van Till, 1986 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).

14. Hodge, Charles A., 1872, Systematic Theology, Part I (New York: Scribner), p. 571, quoted by Robert C. Newman and Herman J. Eckelmann Jr. in Genesis One & the Origin of the Earth, 1997 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press), p. 134.

15. Pratt, J. H. 1872, in Science and Scripture Not at Variance, quoted in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, published by the American Scientific Affiliation, a national organization of scientists who are Christians.

Some additional books on Christianity and science not referenced above that I have found to be helpful and interesting over the years include the following: The Christian View of Science and Scripture, Bernard Ramm, 1954 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans); Christianity & the Age of the Earth, Davis A. Young, 1982, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan); The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, Mark A. Noll, 1994 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).

It's a classic story of creation -- one you may be familiar with, but probably have never heard spelled out quite this way. Here's how it goes:

"In the beginning was no intelligence or purpose; there were only

particles and impersonal laws of physics. These two things plus

chance did all the creating. Without them nothing was made that

has been made. The particles combined to become complex living

stuff through a process of evolution. Primitive humans, not

having science to tell them what had happened, dreamed up a

Creator they called God."

As Wilberforce Forum Board of Reference member Phillip Johnson writes in his new book THE RIGHT QUESTIONS, this is the "creation story" of evolutionary naturalism. And once we understand that -- really what they're saying -- we will have the enforcers of Darwinism on the run.

As Johnson explains, there is "an unacknowledged creation story" at the root of all secular learning which is the precise opposite of the biblical one. But don't expect to hear it told forthrightly at Harvard or Berkeley or anywhere else. To state its elements this explicitly would be to reveal that it is merely a story. "A foundational story," Johnson writes, "is much more powerful when it is pervasively assumed." If its elements, you see, are never evaluated, it appears to be an unavoidable implication of reason itself.

The secular creation story originated with Charles Darwin, whose evolutionary theories appeared to make God unnecessary as Creator. Religious belief, intellectuals assumed, would die out as soon as people became better educated.

A modern evangelist for the secular creation story is Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin. The primary job for science educators, Lewontin maintains, is to get the public "to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world ... and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, science, as the only begetter of truth." At least he's honest about what evolutionists are up to.

Today, Johnson writes, the grip of materialism has become so strong, and respect for traditional Christianity so weak, that even when people become dissatisfied with materialistic explanations for life, they tend to turn to an unbiblical compromise, like process theology, in which God evolves with the world.

And unfortunately Christians sometimes tend to argue just over scientific facts. Now we should do that, but you can't be trapped into arguing about the details when you should be focusing at the same time on the fundamental assumptions that generate the evolutionary story.

"To put it simply," Johnson writes, "Christians have been losing because they have not found the best way to state the question. They do battle on ground that favors the agnostics." We must understand that the debate is not a clash between science and religion, or between reason and faith. It is a clash between two religions -- Christianity and naturalism -- and two definitions of science -- evolution and intelligent design.

When we talk with our children and our neighbors, we must focus on the fundamental assumptions that generate the evolutionary story. We must make sure they understand that the real debate is between two creation narratives: between one that says, "In the beginning were the particles," and one that says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; all things were made through Him ... "

FURTHER READING & INFORMATION

Phillip E. Johnson, THE RIGHT QUESTIONS: TRUTH, MEANING, AND PUBLIC DEBATE (InterVarsity, 2002). https://www.pfmonline.net/str_donation.taf?Site=BP_Item&Item_Code=BKTRQ

Phillip E. Johnson, THE WEDGE OF TRUTH: SPLITTING THE FOUNDATIONS OF NATURALISM (InterVarsity, 2000).

Nicholas Wade, "In Nature vs. Nurture, a Voice for Nature," NEW YORK TIMES, 17 September 2002 (free registration required). http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/17/science/social/17PINK.html

The video "Icons of Evolution" features professional and engaging interviews with scientific experts, focusing on the incorrect assumptions and data used by Darwin and the scientific facts that refute them.

William A. Dembski, "Skepticism's Prospects for Unseating Intelligent Design," BREAKPOINT ONLINE, 24 June 2002. http://www.breakpoint.org/Breakpoint/ChannelRoot/FeaturesGroup/OnlineFeatures/Skepticisms+Prospects+for+Unseating+Intelligent+Design.htm [see HolwickID #22287]

_________________________

Copyright © 2002 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

Akin to a bittersweet symphony, the doctrine of creation is at once discernible and mysterious. When I surprise my students with 14 variations on a theme, it's sometimes 13 more than they bargained for as far as creation theories gleaned from Genesis texts are concerned.

Spill the beans on your personal view of creation, however, and it often becomes a litmus test for the amount of verve and/or credulity you inherently possess. (But with Hebrew ex nihilo texts, the better word is probably chutzpah!) Take a firm stance on the earth's age, recent or ancient, and you run the risk of criticism either way from Christians whose appreciation for the well-orchestrated symphony you're listening to is negligible to nonexistent.

Inquiring young minds everywhere want to know, "Is the earth young or old?" While standing firm on the issue isn't ultimately as crucial as our views about Scripture, the Trinity, the deity of Christ and his substitutionary atonement, the age question gets asked out of all proportion to these doctrines considered more central to Christian faith. Yet it still deserves a thoughtful rather than evasive response, at least for those who ask with sincerity as opposed to the taunts of close-minded gadflies.

Educated more as a theologian/philosopher, it's apparent to me how often Christian scientists do their theology wrongly, however noble their intentions. Sometimes a good bit of naivete is at work when they consider the meanings of biblical texts. Scientists are smart, true, but this alone doesn't insure or preserve the accuracy of their hermeneutic, their "born-again" status notwithstanding.

Rather, it takes a good bit of training in relevant spheres to explore ancient texts with precision. Hence, Christian scientists are by no means immune to interpreting Scripture poorly, their off-the-chart IQs notwithstanding. Erring scientists, flagrant mistakes aside, should turn their attention to what respected biblicists and theologians are saying. Why? Because as such they typically understand the requisite texts better.

Theologians, however, also fail miserably at times to see the big picture unveiled so beautifully by creation. Widely read books offer up their respective exegeses of Genesis that could only be described as creation-account hopefuls, truncated and uninformed to various degrees. Why? Because the findings of science, even when theistically framed, are either ignored or never perceived as straightforward attempts to arrive at truth. Basically, this approach rejects altogether the significance of common grace as a feature of God's revelatory work.

Less than farsighted advocates of various creation theories are found at every turn. On the scientific side, recent creationist Carl Baugh betrays telltale signs of having gone off the deep end. He's now a passionate believer in Bible codes and planetary harmonics, not to mention the pink skies of the antediluvian world! On the theological side, conservative biblicist John MacArthur disparages the insights that only God's general revelation can bring to the table, especially when they smack scientifically of an ancient earth or universe. One thing's for sure -- it doesn't follow logically that old earth evangelicals are on a doubly slippery slope toward evolution, on the one hand, and liberalism on the other.

Fairness dictates that the quintessential old earther Hugh Ross also be critiqued. In spite of his wide-ranging efforts in science apologetics, Ross' view lays bare an approach chockfull of creationist overconfidence. Why? Because he too easily jettisons aspects of other creation views that carry some real weight, whether exegetical or scientific. A lack of philosophical sophistication weakens his thinking overall, although his "testable creation model" is certainly moving in the right direction. And on the theological front, well-intentioned exegetes who insist that Genesis 6-8 reflects only a Noahic flood of local magnitude are trudging through textual ground that they alone seem to have muddied unnecessarily.

One proposal for moving beyond the apparent confusion regarding the earth's age is to begin working out the implications of a phrase borrowed from the intelligent design movement's ever-growing theistic think tank -- functional integrity. Simply put, the natural world's raw data is continually exporting to our minds (built for revelatory input!) enough factual integrity about the way things really work to defeat evolutionary theory on its own terms, without recourse to a single biblical text!

Recognized by relatively few, general revelation is intrinsically suited for exactly this kind of task. Why? Because nature's functional integrity can only tell the truth about reality's createdness. It's only our totalizing interpretations of the way the earth and cosmos must obviously have been created that go off course, not nature's manifesting of the facts themselves.

So if general revelation alone can dismantle evolutionary theory, does general revelation alone have the built-in ability, the functional integrity, to determine the earth's age as either "ancient" or "recent" apart from scriptural texts? Probably so. But if not, why not? Does it ever add true beliefs to our body of knowledge already based upon special revelation's truths? Yes, in many respects. Should we understand the Bible to be encyclopedic in nature vis-a-vis truth itself, expecting an explicit statement about the earth's age? Probably not. Can we use general revelation, then, to help find an answer to the age question? Yes, because an undisputed text settling the matter categorically with a conservative consensus in tow is curiously absent.

Moreover, the age issue, say some, can be bypassed altogether on biblical grounds by merely upholding the "literary framework hypothesis" in connection with the Genesis days, a theory that says Gen. 1:1-2:3 demonstrates a literary/theological character uniquely its own, with empirical matters about creation simply never entering the interpretive equation. But its age-of-the-earth agnosticism proves unsatisfactory for those zealously pursuing research about age matters to their quantifiable limits. Although the literary framework theory may be what Genesis as a supernaturally inscribed book of beginnings intends to teach, inquiring minds hunger for creative details that the theory itself simply can't provide. Hence, the slack is suitably taken up and explained by readily available truths found within God's natural creation.

While confusion and conflict typify creation studies today, there's at least one point of agreement. Creation theorists clearly concur that Genesis, chapter one, tells us about a Creator-God, one who in some mysterious fashion spoke the world into existence by his power, intelligence and creativity. There's deep mystery involved when it comes to the how aspects of created reality, but the fact that God did it isn't really debated among fellow theists.

Finitude is marvelous thing. To forever be on the creature half of the Creator-creature distinction is as it should be. As members of the creaturehood club, so to speak, epistemological humility is a prerequisite for the discovery of truth, creation related or not. When it comes to the very how of creation, recent and old earth creationists alike seem to need an epistemological scaling down of sorts, especially when the mystery of creation gets sacrificed on the altar of human constructs that purport to have sketched a full-scale blueprint of exactly how God did it. Nevertheless, the earth is in fact either young or old, and it's permissible to explore this state of affairs to the "n"th degree.

_________________

Ostrander is associate dean and associate professor of Christian theology at Boyce College, the undergraduate school of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky.

*

The historical parallels between KITZMILLER V. DOVER, the intelligent design case now being tried in Pennsylvania, and the “Scopes Monkey Trial” aren't lost on the judge hearing the case: John Jones. Jones told the Philadelphia Inquirer last weekend that he “became a judge with the hope of having an opportunity to rule in matters of great importance.” That's why he looked forward to hearing this case.

People who have tried cases before Jones characterized him as being “meticulously prepared,” and given the attention surrounding the case, Kitzmiller is no exception. But there's one bit of preparation from which Jones should have abstained. He told the Inquirer that, as part of his preparation, he planned on re-watching the 1960 movie INHERIT THE WIND, a fictionalized account of the Scopes trial.

While Jones admitted that he didn't know, as he put it, if seeing the film “would be helpful to the decision I have to make,” he thought it “would help put things in historical context.” Well, I have written the judge, telling him that just is not so.

When I say that INHERIT THE WIND is a fictionalized account, I'm not just referring to a few name changes and a bit of dramatic license. I mean the kind of changes that stand the original story on its head and leave viewers with a completely erroneous sense of what happened in Dayton, Tennessee, in 1925.

In the film, John Scopes is a principled and heroic biology teacher doing battle against the forces of ignorance and intolerance. The locals are depicted as little short of peasants with torches and pitchforks who yell, “Devil!” when Scopes's defense attorney, based on the famous Clarence Darrow, arrives in town. Led by a minister (of course), they drag Scopes out of the classroom and put him on trial.

Meanwhile, the prosecutor, based on William Jennings Bryan, is a dour fanatic whose religious beliefs do not withstand scrutiny.

The problem is that none of this is true. The Tennessee law, while on the books, had never been enforced. John Scopes never taught biology; he was the football coach recruited by the ACLU as a “test case.” And far from being dragged out of the classroom, after his conviction, which was overturned, he paid a $100 fine and went to play tennis.

The real William Jennings Bryan, a former presidential candidate, was once called “the closest thing to socialism the American mind could tolerate.” Bryan's main concerns about Darwinism had to do with its social, not its theological, implications. And unlike the movie, where he collapses under cross-examination, in real life Bryan gave as good as he got.

Now, these distortions wouldn't matter except that the average American's views of the Scopes trial are almost entirely the product of INHERIT THE WIND. That's why I wrote Judge Jones, informing him about the film's inaccuracies.

If he or you want to “put things in historical context,” a much better place to look is the excellent new book by Marvin Olasky and John Perry titled Monkey Business: The True Story of the Scopes Trial. The book debunks the Scopes myth created by H. L. Mencken and other reporters and replaces it with the hard facts of the case.

And this is something that I recommend you do to educate your neighbors. After all, the issues in the Pennsylvania case are difficult enough without confusing movies for real life.

________

Copyright (c) 2005 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*