126 Sermon Illustrations on Science

Two intellectuals recently debated a timely moral question: Is the human embryo a tiny human being, worthy of protection? Or is it just a cluster of cells we can and should use in research? One of the debaters was a Christian philosopher; the other, a scientist.

Now, you might assume that the Christian argued theology and that the scientist kept to empirical facts. If so, you'd be wrong.

The moral boxing match took place in the pages of the Wall Street Journal. In the left corner, defending embryo destruction, was David Baltimore, president of the California Institute of Technology and a Nobel Prize-winning scientist. In the right corner, defending the inherent dignity of embryos, was Robert George, the distinguished Princeton moral and political philosopher.

George pointed out that embryos possess the "epigenetic primordia" for internally directed growth and maturation as distinct, self-integrating, human organisms. Each embryo is therefore already -- and not merely potentially -- a living member of the human species.

As George put it, "The being that is now you or me is the same being that was once an adolescent, and before that a toddler, and before that an infant, and before that a fetus, and before that an embryo. To have destroyed the being that is you or me at any of these stages would have been to destroy you or me."

Baltimore could deny none of this. After all, George was simply pointing out the stubborn facts of science and logic. Instead, Baltimore made his appeal based on subjective feeling. "To me," Baltimore said, "a tiny mass of cells that has never been in a uterus is hardly a human being."

Somebody should give Baltimore a history lesson. The past warns of the danger of making personal opinion the basis for defining humanity. Sixty years ago, the Nazis justified horrific medical experiments on Jews because to them, Jews were "hardly human beings." A hundred and fifty years ago, white Southerners enslaved black Africans because in their opinion, Africans were "hardly human beings."

Dr. George is right: Biologically, human embryos are fully human. The only question remaining is, will we protect them, or will we allow some humans, because of their age, size, stage of development, or condition of dependency, to be killed to benefit others?

As George notes, we should recoil from and resist defining humanity based on such morally irrelevant criteria. Where would this leave the weak, the frail, and the handicapped? They'd end up in the researcher's lab, that's where.

It's worth noting that George, a Christian, made his case without appealing to religious authority. Instead, he confronted his opponent -- a man of science -- with facts of science that utterly devastated the case for killing embryonic humans. In doing so, he proved that Christians have nothing to fear from science. The Judeo-Christian worldview always conforms to reality. We should not be surprised that science backs up biblical doctrine -- doctrine which teaching that our humanity begins at conception.

We ought to remember this the next time we get into a discussion about embryonic research with our unsaved friends -- or when you talk to your senators or congressmen. We don't have to argue theology, which they may not accept. As Dr. George puts it, science will do just fine.

For further reading:

"Stem Cell Research: A Debate." The Wall Street Journal, July 30, 2001.

_________________________

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

*

Since it is God's rationality that orders nature, not our own, science cannot proceed by armchair cogitations.

A sweet voice rose above the assembly on Sunday morning: "God's secrets are written in the first light," announced the refrain. The listeners were startled, for this was no church service; it was the 1993 annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). The singer was Nancy Abrams, wife of cosmologist Joel Primack, and her hymn celebrated the residual cosmic background radiation from the Big Bang. The performance highlighted a session on the relationship between science and religion, where participants discussed "The Religious Significance of Big Bang Cosmology" and "Scientific Resources for a Global Religious Myth."

Establishment science has long separated religion and science into antagonistic categories. But the human urge for a unified vision of the world is spilling over those artificial boundaries. The only question is what kind of religion will be taken as compatible with science. This is, after all, the age of do-it-yourself God kits, and many AAAS speakers argued that traditional faiths must give way to "a science-based myth," elevating cosmic evolution into a "compelling 'religious' narrative."

What these priestly pronouncements overlook is that Western science presupposes its own indigenous religious context: Christianity. In The Soul of Science: Christian Faith and Natural Philosophy, Nancy Pearcey and Charles Thaxton note that many ancient cultures-the Egyptians, the Chinese-developed high levels of technology, but that scientific thinking, with its emphasis on experiment and mathematical formulation, arose in Western Europe. Why is that?

The answer is that Christian belief provided several key presuppositions for modern science:

- Nature is a garden, not a god. In many pagan religions, the world seems alive with sun gods, river goddesses, astral deities. But the Bible teaches that nature is God's handiwork. In the words of historian R. Hooykaas, Christianity "de-deified" nature.

As long as nature commanded religious worship, digging too closely into her secrets was deemed irreverent. In Christianity, nature was no longer an object of worship. Only then could it become an object of scientific study.

- Nature is ordered. In most cultures, nature "seemed to common sense intractable, even mysterious and dangerous," writes historian Carl Becker. But Christians "argued that, since God is goodness and reason, his creation must somehow be ... good and reasonable." The conviction that nature operates by "laws" was an article of Christian faith.

Similarly, historian A. R. Hall says the concept of natural law, unknown in the ancient and the Asian world, originated with the biblical "belief in a deity who was at once Creator and Law-Giver."

- That order is mathematical. The ancient Greeks relegated mathematics to a realm of abstract ideals; matter itself they regarded as unpredictable and imprecise. But many of the early scientists argued that the doctrine of creation ex nihilo means God is completely sovereign over matter; it must follow precisely the rules he laid down for it. Hence, historian R. G. Collingwood writes, "The possibility of an applied mathematics is an expression ... of the Christian belief that nature is the creation of an omnipotent God."

A striking example is Johannes Kepler, who struggled for years with a slight difference between observations and calculations of the orbit of Mars, until he hit upon the notion that orbits were not circular but elliptical. If Kepler had not been convinced that nature is mathematically precise, he would not have agonized over that minute difference and would not have broken through a belief that held sway for two thousand years.

- Human minds can discover that order. Joseph Needham, expert on Chinese culture, says the Chinese failed to develop science because they viewed the natural order as inscrutable. "It was not an order ordained by a rational personal being," Needham explains, "hence there was no guarantee that other rational personal beings would be able to spell out ... the pre-existing divine code of laws."

In Europe, by contrast, there was such a "guarantee": Christianity taught that the natural order was created by a divine mind, and was therefore intelligible to human minds. The early scientists were confident that (in the words of theologian Christopher Kaiser), "the same Logos" that orders nature "is also reflected in human reason."

- That order is known by experiment. Yet, since it is God's rationality that orders nature, not our own, science cannot proceed by armchair cogitations. Instead, we must observe and experiment.

For example, when Galileo wondered whether a ten-pound weight falls faster than a one-pound weight, he offered no analysis on "the nature of weight" (for which he was roundly criticized in his day). Instead, he dropped cannonballs off the Leaning Tower of Pisa. This signaled a shift in understanding that science must proceed by experiment and observation.

As Christians, we often hear the charge that faith is hostile to science. But this "warfare" image is artificial. In The Heavenly City of the Eighteenth-Century Philosophers, Becker shows that the first modern historians, such as Voltaire, were Enlightenment rationalists who sought to discredit Christianity by casting it as an enemy of science and progress. But today the historical facts are destroying that stereotype.

Christians ought to reclaim our heritage in science. God calls us to "take every thought captive to obedience to Christ." And if we don't, there is no telling what "compelling" new (false) myths scientists will concoct to feed our society's deep spiritual hunger.

_________________

Copyright (c) 1995 Christianity Today, Inc./CHRISTIANITY TODAY Magazine

ctcurrtk5T90645814

*

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

A strange phenomenon you may have observed in recent years is the willingness, even eagerness, of our academic colleagues to affirm recent creation (creation of the universe, earth, and life in the last few thousand years) as the Biblical teaching on origins. On this issue they seem to concur wholeheartedly with a sizable and vocal segment of the evangelical community, but there's no cause for rejoicing here. The reasons for this concurrence are diametrically opposite.

Some academics find in young-earth creationism a ready excuse to disregard "archaic notions" about the authenticity and authority of the Bible as a revealer of truth concerning God and man. If scientific absurdity shows up on the very first page, there's no need to give serious attention to whatever other "myths" may follow. Any attempt to demonstrate that the Bible teaches a different view, an old-earth view that is scientifically credible and aligns perfectly with even the latest data, is immediately and often vehemently dismissed as propagandistic.

Other academics support the six-day story for its poetic beauty. They insist that scientific fact and religious faith have nothing to do with each other, that they can and must exist separately, the one as a matter of mind, the other as a matter of heart or intuition, and never the twain should be asked to meet. These folks, too, react strongly against any attempt to reconcile the accepted scientific record with the words of Scripture.

For years a Biblically and scientifically plausible old-earth interpretation of creation events has met with no less vitriolic opposition in evangelical circles, though that response is beginning to change. Some pastors and parishioners have come to recognize the "when" of creation as a peripheral issue in their relationship to Christ. They can reexamine the arguments used to support the young-earth position and acknowledge a strong case for an old-earth interpretation. But there are still many others who uphold the young-earth position as the front-line defense against modern (and postmodern) assaults on the Christian faith.

ENTRENCHED BELIEFS

Reasons for this emotion-charged entrenchment are discussed in CREATION AND TIME, a book written by Hugh; we will attempt to summarize them here. The source of resistance in all groups of young-earth proponents, however, seems the same: fear. In the anti-Christian academics we see the fear of having to take the Gospel into careful consideration. That's just too risky for those terrified by the prospect of peer ridicule and rejection, terrified to face the losses that might accompany a change to Christian values and morals through a relationship with Christ.

The fact v. faith separatists harbor some of the same fears, but especially the fear of "literal" interpretation and APPLICATION of Biblical truths. Abuses of "literalness" may trample grace and truth under foot, but so does the utter lack of it. And yet subjectivity feels much more comfortable - and it's certainly more accommodating to modern cultures.

In the Christians who remain adamantly committed to the young-earth view exists a deep-seated fear that someday, somewhere, somehow scientists will discover some fact that clearly and irrefutably contradicts a scriptural statement. And then where will we be? If we trust science, we'll lose our faith in that moment. But if Biblical truth stands above all else, above the so-called facts discovered through the work and thoughts of fallen men, our faith will remain intact. (That's how the reasoning goes.) Science, then, is entirely suspect and may be judged as hopelessly flawed.

Sadly, with the slamming down of that gavel, the Christian community walks away from some of the most powerful faith-building tools available since the founding of the church. All the great cosmological discoveries of the twentieth century fly in the face of materialist notions about the infinite, random universe. On the contrary, they support the fact of a finite beginning caused by and guided by a divine, personal, caring designer, who exists before and beyond the universe. We yearn to see those tools put to use (see, for example, our books THE FINGERPRINT OF GOD and THE CREATOR AND THE COSMOS), for we have found them effective, dramatically so.

But how can we open the door to dialogue? How can we appeal this unwarranted judgment? Willingness to understand and address specific fears is an important step, often a first step, in the long but worthwhile process.

With the first two groups described above, compassion, trust, and sharing of personal histories will be essential to exposing and breaking through emotional and spiritual barriers. Experiences will vary from individual to individual, but the anti-Christian's fears are usually rooted in painful encounters with Christian (sometimes in name only) people. Defensive or pat responses to these wounding encounters will only heighten the barriers; so we must proceed with utmost care, consideration and prayer, not to mention humility.

These qualities are important in discussions with the third group, as well. In the case of these individuals, we can anticipate some of the most troubling barriers they face by reflecting on what they've probably been taught about the "dangers" of old-earth creationist views, and we can start by addressing those specific issues. The five fears we encounter most often are these:

FEAR #1

OLD-EARTH CREATIONISM = EVOLUTIONISM

Relief of such a fear can come through demonstrating that a several-billion-year-old universe and a few-billion-year-old earth are hopelessly too young to accommodate the strictly natural process assembly of even the simplest possible life forms. The difference between 104 years and 1010 years appears trivial compared to the approximately 10100,000,000,000 years non-theistic interpretations of life require. And that's not just the conclusion of Bible-believing Christians. It's the central point of several widely known, academically respected books by nonChristian researchers in a variety of relevant fields (e.g., Robert Shapiro's ORIGINS: A SKEPTIC'S GUIDE TO THE CREATION OF LIFE ON EARTH, Michael Denton's EVOLUTION: A THEORY IN CRISIS, and Hubert Yockey's INFORMATION THEORY AND MOLECULAR BIOLOGY).

Beyond the origin of life, a comparison of speciation vs. extinction rates before and after the first human beings may help expose the limits of natural processes to explain the observed changes in life on Earth. The speciation rate before humans slightly (but significantly over the millenia) exceeded the extinction rate. Since humans came on the scene, however, the extinction rate has remained fairly constant (about one species per year discounting the effects of human abuse), but the speciation rate has dropped to virtually zero. What could account for this dramatic change? The best explanation, given the provable limitations on natural selection and mutations, is a divine Speciator intervened through all the years recorded in the fossils and then ceased to intervene once He created the first humans. (Does that story sound familiar?)

FEAR #2

OLD-EARTH CREATIONISM = A DENIAL OF LITERAL ADAM AND EVE

While it is true that some old-earth creationists deny the historicity of a literal Adam and Eve or identify Adam and Eve with an ancient australopithicene couple, many (if not most) old-earthers accept the factuality of a recently and specially created Adam and Eve. While the scientific record establishes the existence of bipedal primates as far back as three million years, it does not establish that these bipedal creatures were humans (that is, spiritual beings) and it suggests that they did become extinct.

Genesis states that God created only one species with body, soul, and spirit. Anthropological evidence for spiritual expression dates back only 8,000-24,000 years. (Primates' and other mammals' burial practices serve only as evidence for soul.) The anthropological dates are consistent with the best Biblical dates for Adam and Eve, specifically 6,000-60,000 years ago.

FEAR #3

OLD-EARTH CREATIONISM = DISTORTION OF DOCTRINE OF SALVATION

What is vital to the Christian doctrine is to know WHO created and perhaps something about HOW He created, but not WHEN He created. This ranking is reflected in the structure of Genesis One. The text clearly identifies the who and some of the how of creation, but it says little about the when, other than to indicate what came after what. Some young-earth creationists express concern that if God took billions of years to create, He must be less than all-powerful. But the logic of this supposition does not hold. If a four-minute miler chooses to walk along a garden path, his speed (or lack of it) in no way reflects limitations on his capability.

FEAR #4

OLD-EARTH CREATIONISM = DENIAL OF BIBLICAL INERRANCY

Rather than denying Biblical inerrancy, most old-earth creationists appeal for uncompromising consistency in interpretation of Scripture. Paying due respect to the entire canon requires consideration of all relevant texts when interpreting a particular verse or passage. In the case of creation's time frame, integrative analysis strongly supports, and in no way contradicts, an old-earth interpretation of Genesis One.

At the second summit of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, the issue of the age of the universe and earth appeared on the agenda. Three papers were presented, and long deliberations followed. The conclusion of all the theologians and Old Testament scholars present was that inerrancy requires belief in creation but not in 24-hour creation days.

FEAR #5

OLD-EARTH CREATIONISM = ELEVATION OF SCIENCE ABOVE THE BIBLE

CREATION AND TIME (Navpress, 1994), Dr. Hugh Ross's most recent book, addresses the creation date controversy from historical, scientific, theological and evangelical perspectives. R.C. Sproul, president of Ligonier Ministries, writes, "With gentleness, compassion, and scintillating logic, CREATION AND TIME shines the light of revelation on the too-dark dispute between those who would banish God and those who would banish reason from their thinking."

The problem lies in confusing "science" with the facts of nature. Science is man's attempt to discover and interpret the facts of nature. Errors and contradictions are possible in science, as well as in theology, since human reasoning and interpreting is involved. But no possibility for error or contradiction exists in either the facts of nature or the words of the Bible. Both are perfect, for both came from God, the source of all truth, in whose character is no deceit or capriciousness.

That which is perfect cannot be inferior or superior to anything else that is perfect. Truth will always be harmonious and consistent with truth. No book of the Bible is more true or less true than any other book. Nor is any book more true or less true than the facts of the natural realm, which also emanated from God. When apparent contradiction arises, it's time for further study into both Scripture and nature.

BIBLICAL EVIDENCES

Given that most young-earth creationists have been taught to discount science, a beginning dialogue about the plausibility of the old-earth view will go further if it focuses on Biblical rather than scientific evidences in support of long creation periods and an ancient earth. CREATION AND TIME lists (and more fully develops) the following Biblical arguments for interpreting the Genesis One creation days as long epochs rather than as a span of 144 hours:

1. God's perspective on time is far different from humans' (Psalm 90:4).

2. The Hebrew words YOM, 'EREB, and BOQER (day, evening, morning) have flexible usage and do not refer solely to the whole or parts of 24-hour days. Neither do numbered days refer strictly to 24-hour periods.

3. Chronologies are meant to be time-discernible. In other words, verification for the spelled-out sequence of events will be discoverable and clear. (If all God's acts of creation were squeezed into that 144-hour period, there's no way future investigation could attest to what happened before or after what.)

4. The "evening and morning" sentences contain unusual syntax.

5. The seventh day continues through Old and New Testament times and on into the future.

6. The events between Adam's creation and Eve's seem to require far more than 24 hours.

7. In Genesis 2:4 the word for "day," YOM, refers to the entire creation week, demonstrating its flexible usage.

8. The Bible writers used mountains and the foundations of the earth as metaphors for God's eternality.

9. The mountains, hills, and heavens are described as "ancient," "age-old," and "of long ago" in numerous Biblical passages.

10. God is truthful and desires to reveal truth, both in the creation and in the written Word. He does not trick or deceive.

11. The Bible affirms that the creation reveals God's existence, His handiwork, His power, and His divine nature.

12. The Bible affirms that the Word of God includes not only the words of the Bible but also His words written on the heavens and the earth.

13. Several Bible writers attest to the vastness of the universe, which in turn reflects age.

14. The work week for man (168 hours) and the work week for the land (7 years) both may be viewed as analogues to God's creation week.

15. The Bible does not deny the physical death of plants and animals before Adam's fall. "Death through sin" refers to spiritual death.

16. Plant and animal death, and thus bloodshed, before Adam's sin does not alter the doctrine of atonement.

17. The creation has been subject to decay since its inception, and that decay process is a strategic part of physical life and God's creative plan.

18. An eighth day is coming. God's rest (cessation) from creating will someday end, and He will create again.

19. God is no less than Almighty for taking more than 144 hours to create.

20. Every people group will be represented in the host of the redeemed, including some physical scientists.

When presented with these Biblical arguments and evidences, some young-earth creationists respond by suggesting that only someone with a modern, science-trained perspective would ever see them as such. If that's the case, however, we would expect the early church fathers to be unanimous in affirming the young-earth, 24-hour-day interpretation. And that is not what we find. In fact, few of the early church fathers took a dogmatic view on either the time or timespan of creation events. Most saw these as a wonderful mystery yet to be unfolded. Young-earth creationism really arose after the King James translation of the Bible and a sequence of clashes between the theological and scientific communities that followed.

If and when a person becomes willing to examine the scientific evidences for an old universe and earth, the fun can really begin. A long and exciting list awaits. (CREATION AND TIME presents a sizable chunk of that list.)

But what we recommend is to begin with a simple, irrefutable piece of evidence, such as the vast size of the universe, which, as mentioned above, reliably indicates age. The most distant objects in the universe are about a hundred billion trillion miles away. With light traveling at 186,000 miles per second, light takes about 15 billion years to reach Earth from these distant objects. And since we do see them, and since our distance measurements have been tested and affirmed, and since we can prove the constancy of the velocity of light and that the light actually emanated from the distant objects and not from some intervening point, those objects must really be that old.

Beyond simply rejecting such scientific evidences for a vast and ancient universe and an old earth, young-earth creationists have gone on to assemble approximately eighty "scientific" evidences for a creation date of roughly 10,000 years. If you have tried these on your science-trained colleagues, you have no doubt discovered (perhaps with painful embarrassment) that all these "evidences" are based on misunderstanding and error.

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

Please be encouraged yourself and encourage others, as 1 Thessalonians 5:21a says, to "test" what is taught both on campus and in church. As a professor, you are accustomed to having students and others test their ideas on you, and if it is known that you are a Christian, those ideas probably include views on origins and time scales. If every Christian professor were equipped and willing to discuss such issues, the damage caused on many campuses by the misconstrued "Christian" view of creation could begin to undergo repair.

Sadly, it is in our churches that the fires of the creation controversy are fanned most vigorously. Controlling the flames will require college and university professors to take a more vocal role than they may be accustomed to or comfortable with. Most Christian professors we know, especially science professors, prefer to avoid science-and-faith issues in their fellowship groups, partly to keep from stirring up hornets' nests, partly to keep from sounding know-it-all, and partly to be true to their quiet, cautious personalities. But the stakes are too high and the number of scholars in evangelical churches too low for even a few to remain on the sidelines. Look for opportunities to form teams in communicating with pastors and lay people.

_________________

Dr. Hugh Ross earned his Ph.D. in astronomy from the University of Toronto and researched galaxies and quasars at the California Institute of Technology. He is president of Reasons To Believe, an organization founded to develop new tools for demonstrating the factual basis for belief in God and the Bible. Ross speaks regularly throughout the U.S. and around the world; has written three books; published numerous articles in professional and popular publications; and appears frequently on radio and television programs. He and his wife, Kathy, live in Southern California and have two sons. Kathy edits the Reasons To Believe newsletter Facts and Faith.

EDITOR'S NOTE

Reasons to Believe can be reached at P.O. Box 5978, Pasadena, CA 91117 or by phone at (818) 335-1480. It maintains a hotline for fielding questions on science, faith, and the Bible and providese free subscriptions to its newsletter FACTS & FAITH.

COPYRIGHT © 1995-2002 LEADERSHIP U. All rights reserved. This site is part of the TELLING THE TRUTH PROJECT.

*

I was once invited to lecture at the Lenin Military Academy and to participate in a discussion at the Center for Geopolitical Strategy in Moscow with six Russian generals - all but one, atheists. As we entered this imposing building, I was aware of being in an historic setting, for all of the general secretaries of the USSR had earned their education there. In the welcoming hall were the portraits of Peter the Great and Kutusov. Every facet of the building was pompous and stately, intended not accidentally I am sure, to make the individual feel small and insignificant.

Here, in its inner chambers, our discussion began. As the conversation unfolded from early unease through robust argumentation all the way to our warm conclusion, something incredible happened. One by one, each of these generals conceded that Russia was now in a pathetic state, not just economically but morally. As the men stood to bid us good-bye, the senior-ranking general grasped my hand and said, "Dr. Zacharias, I believe what you have brought us is the truth. But it is so hard to change after seventy years of believing a lie."

How haunting are the general's words! After seventy years of believing a lie, it is so hard to change. What a moment in history when once-Marxist nations admit to a dastardly failed experiment that demonstrates beyond any doubt the dire consequences that are reaped when God is eliminated from the framework of life's choices.

Yet strangely enough, we in the West are now moving toward that same ideological base, unwilling to believe what stares us in the face. I vividly remember after speaking at Cornell University one evening, a young woman, who was a science major, approached me. Her eyes were filled with tears as she confessed to me and her peers, "I cannot tell you how deeply I struggle. I long to believe in God and walk the way of Christ. But everything in my academic pursuit steers me away from God. Science is a religion here and leaves no room for God."

Friend, are you perhaps like the Russian general or the university student, longing to know truth in a world that says there is no God, no soul, and no afterlife? The truth is that the resurrection of Jesus is a reality that cannot be dismissed out of hand without a serious study of the historical record. And in that record - the Gospels - you may, in turn, discover Him who is "the resurrection and the life."

_________________________

Copyright © 2002 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International 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.

*

“Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new.”

“The important thing is not to stop questioning.”

“Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from that of their social environment.”

“At the same time, as social beings, we are moved in the relations with our fellow beings by such feelings as sympathy, pride, hate, need for power, pity, and so on.”

“If you can't explain something simply, you don't know enough about it.”

“You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.”

“It should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid.”

“When I examine myself and my methods of thought, I come to the conclusion that the gift of fantasy has meant more to me than my talent for absorbing positive knowledge.”

“What I seek to accomplish is to serve with my feeble capacity truth and justice at the risk of pleasing no one.”

“I know quite certainly that I myself have no special talent; curiosity, obsession and dogged endurance, combined with self-criticism have brought me to my ideas.”

“A hundred times every day I remind myself that my inner and outer life depend on the labors of other men, living and dead, and that I must exert myself in order to give in the same measure as I have received and am still receiving.”

“It gives me great pleasure indeed to see the stubbornness of an incorrigible nonconformist warmly acclaimed.”

“Imagination is more important than knowledge, for knowledge is limited while imagination embraces the entire world.”

“In that way imagination and intelligence enter into our existence in the part of servants of the primary instincts.”

“We are all ruled in what we do by impulses; and these impulses are so organized that our actions in general serve for our self preservation and that of the race.”

“Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet.”

“The faster you go, the shorter you are.”

“Only two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.”

“The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.”

“Nothing that I can do will change the structure of the universe. But maybe, by raising my voice I can help the greatest of all causes -- goodwill among men and peace on earth.”

“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead; his eyes are closed.”

“Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one's living at it.”

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

“Nearly every great advance in science arises from a crises in the old theory, through an endeavor to find a way out of the difficulties created. We must examine old ideas, old theories, although they belong to the past, for this is the only way to understand the importance of the new ones and the extent of their validity.”

“I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research.”

“It is the theory that decides what can be observed.”

“Strange is our situation here on earth. Each of us comes for a short visit, not knowing why, yet sometimes seeming to divine a purpose. From the standpoint of daily life, however, there is one thing we do know: that man is here for the sake of other men - above all for those upon whose smiles and well-being our own happiness depends.”

“We still do not know one thousandth of one percent of what nature has revealed to us.”

“One must not attempt to justify them, but rather to sense their nature simply and clearly.”

“If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?”

“The significant problems we face can not be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them.”

“The world we have made as a result of the level of thinking we have done this far creates problems that we cannot solve at the same level at which we created them.”

“Only a life lived for others is worth living.”

“The difference between what the most and the least learned people know is inexpressibly trivial in relation to that which is unknown.”

“Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT's relativity.”

“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a persistent one.”

“As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”

“Do not worry about your difficulties in Mathematics. I can assure you mine are still greater.”

“God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically.”

“Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal.”

“The release of atomic energy has not created a new problem. It has merely made more urgent the necessity of solving an existing one.”

“It's not that I'm so smart, it's just that I stay with problems longer.”

“The wireless telegraph is not difficult to understand. The ordinary telegraph is like a very long cat. You pull the tail in New York, and it meows in Los Angeles. The wireless is the same, only without the cat.”

“They come into being not through demonstration but through revelation, through the medium of powerful personalities.”

“I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.”

“God does not play dice with the universe.”

“Before God we are equally wise - and equally foolish.”

“When the solution is simple, God is answering.”

“I think and think for months and years. Ninety-nine times, the conclusion is false. The hundredth time I am right.”

“Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler.”

“Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.”

“The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.”

“The legs are the wheels of creativity.”

“To stimulate creativity, one must develop the childlike inclination for play and the childlike desire for recognition.”

“Gravitation can not be held responsible for people falling in love.”

“How on earth are you ever going to explain in terms of chemistry and physics so important a biological phenomenon as first love?”

“Sometimes one pays most for the things one gets for nothing.”

“If I had my life to live over again, I'd be a plumber.”

“I never think of the future - it comes soon enough.”

“The distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.”

“Few are those who see with their own eyes and feel with their own hearts.”

“I do not know with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones.”

“The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it.”

“To know what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty... this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.”

“Our task must be to free ourselves... by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature and its beauty.”

“If one were to take that goal out of out of its religious form and look merely at its purely human side, one might state it perhaps thus: free and responsible development of the individual, so that he may place his powers freely and gladly in the service of all mankind.”

“It is easier to denature plutonium than to denature the evil spirit of man.”

“It is every man's obligation to put back into the world at least the equivalent of what he takes out of it.”

“The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible.”

“Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.”

“Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.”

“One cannot alter a condition with the same mind set that created it in the first place.”

“The intuitive mind is a sacred gift; the rational mind is faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.”

“It stands to the everlasting credit of science that by acting on the human mind it has overcome man's insecurity before himself and before nature.”

“Divine souls suffer violent opposition from mediocre minds.”

“Occurrences in this domain are beyond the reach of exact prediction because of the variety of factors in operation, not because of any lack of order in nature.”

“Peace cannot be achieved through violence, it can only be attained through understanding.”

“Every kind of peaceful cooperation among men is primarily based on mutual trust and only secondarily on institutions such as courts of justice and police.”

“The only way to escape the personal corruption of praise is to go on working.”

“The true value of a human being can be found in the degree to which he has attained liberation from the self.”

“Intelligence is not the ability to store information, but to know where to find it.”

“Intellectuals solve problems; geniuses prevent them.”

“We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality.”

“I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own - a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.”

“I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.”

“The only source of knowledge is experience.”

“It is the supreme art of the teacher to awaken joy in creative expression and knowledge.”

“The words of language, as they are written or spoken, do not seem to play any role in my mechanism of thought. The physical entities which seem to serve as elements in thought are certain signs and more or less clear images.”

“If A is a success in life, then A equals x plus y plus Z. Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut.”

“There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.”

“A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.”

“The life of the individual only has meaning insofar as it aids in making the life of every living thing nobler and more beautiful. Life is sacred, that is to say, it is the supreme value to which all other values are subordinate.”

“It is strange to be known so universally and yet to be so lonely.”

“It is better to believe than to disbelieve; in so doing you bring everything to the realm of possibility.”

“To the Master's honor all must turn, each in its track, without a sound, forever tracing Newton's ground.”

“There does, in fact, appear to be a plan.”

“1. Out of clutter, find simplicity.

2. From discord, find harmony.

3. In the middle of difficulty, lies opportunity.”

- Albert Einstein, THE THREE RULES OF WORK

“I never thought that others would take them so much more seriously then I did.”

-- Albert Einstein, speaking about his theories

*

Persons and things. Crudely, but insightfully, the world can be divided into these two categories: The world of persons. The world of things.

The great advance of contemporary science is to ever increase our understanding of the world of things. Whether those things be molecules, or oak trees, or the human brain. Science with her methods studies, pokes, prods, and for good measure, measures the thing. And through these determines the determinate properties of the thing — its inner workings and cycles.

The great advance of contemporary technology is to take our new knowledge of things and use it to manipulate the world of things to our advantage. Science tells us that electromagnetic waves have certain properties, and the engineer manipulates those properties so that electromagnetic waves communicate information, and incredibly, we have fiber optic cables.

Here comes the danger: when we confuse the world of persons with the world of things. That is, when we treat the persons that populate our world merely as things, things that we can define, put in a box, and fully comprehend. You see, once you have fully defined someone in your mind, they become a static thing to you, and you surreptitiously subvert their personhood. And once the person is counted as a defined thing, a determined thing, then the person easily becomes something to be manipulated for our advantage. The person becomes like a technology to be used for our own desires, and we become engineers of persons for our own ends.

Immanuel Kant, possibly the most influential modern philosopher, postulated that people should not be means, but only ends. That is, we shouldn't use people merely as things in service to our ends, but we should respect persons as ends in themselves — who we are in service of. Kant understood the danger in confusing the world of persons and the world of things. And his postulate is meant to keep them separate. But how do we do that? How do we not treat people as means? How do we respect them as ends?

Kant is not very helpful in answering these questions. Fortunately, seventeen centuries before Kant, there was One wiser than Kant who did give an answer. Jesus Christ instructed us to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. You see, respecting your neighbor as a person, as an end, begins with realizing you are a person — a person who loves, and hurts, and hopes, and longs, and most of all who needs God. That is how we learn to love our neighbor. We realize they have needs, hopes, wants, and hurts, just as we do. And as we learn to see our neighbor in this light, then loving them becomes a realizable aim. And in loving our neighbors as God has first loved us, we do not confuse the world of things and the world of persons.

____________

Copyright © 2003 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

*

Dr. Dennis Danielson, professor of English at the University of British Columbia, has some advice: Don’t believe everything you read in textbooks.

Speaking at the meeting of the American Scientific Affiliation in July, Danielson noted that the conventional wisdom says that when scholars thought the earth was the center of the universe, then humans were the king of the cosmic hill, creatures in God’s image. But when Copernicus discovered Earth orbited the Sun, man concluded that he was a mere animal — or so the story goes.

After nearly a decade of research, however, Danielson, who has specialized in linking the humanities and science, has debunked that story.

As a student, Danielson learned that when Copernicus discovered that Earth orbited the Sun, this demoted our planet. Instead of the center of the universe, Earth became one planet in a myriad. This “standard interpretation” is generally assumed to be historical fact. But Danielson has called it “the great Copernican cliché.”

First, the cliché misstates what thinkers before Copernicus believed. Though they believed the earth was the center around which the universe revolved, they didn’t think that position put Earth at the top of the cosmic heap. To the contrary, they had a low view of the center of the universe. The fifteenth-century philosopher Pico called it “a dung heap.”

Instead, Earth orbiting the Sun was seen as a promotion for the earth. Copernicus’s student Rheticus wrote, “The globe of the earth HAS RISEN, while the Sun has DESCENDED to the center of universe.”

So why did scholars resist the evidence that Earth moved around the Sun? Danielson found, “It was objected to because it ran counter to centuries of established astronomical tradition ... [and] because it involved the absurd idea that TERRA FIRMA was in motion.”

Then where did textbook writers get the idea that moving Earth from the center of the universe gave Earth and humans inferior status? Danielson’s research indicates that one hundred years after Copernicus, a writer of satire — not a scientist — started the story. Bouvier de Fontenelle wrote satirically that Copernicus had “humbled the vanity of mankind,” whose arrogance had imagined himself as the center of the universe. This interpretation caught on and became the “unquestioned version of the Enlightenment.”

In our lifetimes, the late astronomer Carl Sagan spoke of “billions and billions” of stars in the universe, with Earth being a small speck. Danielson notes an even “larger pattern” of demotion that appears in all of Carl Sagan’s books.

Danielson summarizes: The “stage version of this transformation features the dark forces of religion and the Church locked in mortal combat with the enlightening power of science. Science has demonstrated the insignificance of mankind and the universe overall, and it has established — you guessed it — the centrality and importance of scientists in showing us how cosmically unimportant we are.”

It’s a convenient story for scientists and naturalists alike, but the Copernican cliché is nothing but an urban legend. Debunk it the next time you hear it.

FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION:

A tape or CD of Danielson’s lecture “Copernicus and the Tale of the Pale Blue Dot” is available from Florian Audio Visual. For information, e-mail FLORIAN@WTCIWEB.COM.

Learn more about DENNIS DANIELSON AND HIS WORK.

Dennis Danielson, ed., THE BOOK OF THE COSMOS (Perseus, 2002).

Nicole Winfield, “VATICAN STARGAZERS CLEAR UP IMAGE,” CHICAGO TRIBUNE, 31 August 2003.

Steve Goldstein, “THE POPE’S TELESCOPE,” PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, 7 September 2002.

“DANIELSON DEBUNKS ‘COPERNICAN CLICHÉ’ ,” NEWSLETTER OF THE AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC AFFILIATION, September/October 2003. (Free ADOBE ACROBAT READER required.)

See BreakPoint commentaries “OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION“ and “WAGGING THE DOG.” (Archived commentaries; free registration required.)

Visit the website for REASONS TO BELIEVE , with Christian astrophysicist Hugh Ross; it includes daily updates titled “Today’s New Reason to Believe.”

Guy Consolmagno, BROTHER ASTRONOMER: ADVENTURES OF A VATICAN SCIENTIST (McGraw-Hill, 2001).

Eric C. Barrett and David Fisher, SCIENTISTS WHO BELIEVE (Moody Press, 1984).

____________

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

*

When beset by life's myriad troubles and distractions, it helps to take the long view. In this case, the really, really long view: 14 billion light years long.

That's the approximate size/age of the visible universe from our vantage point, according to current scientific consensus. How many stars shine out there? “Billions and billions,” as the late astronomer Carl Sagan used to say.

More specifically, NASA estimates that if the 100 billion or so galaxies thought to exist contain about 100 billion stars each, the number of stars in the universe is about 10 thousand billion billion. That's 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 -- more than the number of individual grains of sand on all the world's beaches.

For a humbling visual perspective of our own little sliver of the cosmos, check the “Powers of Ten” online tutorial offered by Florida State University's National High Magnetic Field Laboratory.[1]

A “photo” series starts out 10 million light years away and zooms in toward our solar system in decreasing orders of magnitude. At maximum distance, the majestic Milky Way -- which would take 100 millennia to cross in a starship traveling at light speed -- appears as a bright splotch among thousands of other splotches. Far out on one of the Milky Way's spiral arms, our own sun doesn't become visible until we're one measly light year out. The earth becomes a tiny dot at 10 million kilometers. The magnifications continue all the way into the subatomic structure of an oak leaf, where quarks dwell. They look remarkably like the galaxies at 10 million light years out.

That's just the immediate neighborhood. Visit an even more amazing web site, “An Atlas of the Universe”[2], and navigate maps of galactic superclusters bunched together in great sheets stretching across billions of light years. Behold the Hubble Deep Field Image, a slice of sky in Ursa Major photographed over 10 days in 1995 by the Hubble Space Telescope. It reveals the light of remote galaxies as they appeared as long as 10 billion years ago. And bear in mind: We're only talking about “visible” space.

“The light from more distant objects simply has not had time to reach us,” observes British astrophysicist Richard Powell, creator of the site. “The geometry of the universe suggests that it may have an infinite size and that it will expand forever. Even if the universe is not infinite, our visible universe must be a minute speck in a much larger totality.”

To many scientists and skeptics, and some unsteady believers, such vastness suggests a God-less cosmos -- or one ruled by an impassive, clockwork intelligence unconcerned with us and the mote of dust we call home.

“Religion used to teach that the earth was the center of the universe, the single most important place that God created,” crows Adrian Barnett, an energetic exponent of atheism. “We think we are special, and that supremely powerful beings look after us. We are not special. We are simply the result of a (probably very common) chemical accident billions of years ago, in a place where the conditions were right for life to flourish.”

King David thought differently. As a youth, he probably spent a lot of time watching the night sky as he tended his father's sheep. He must have beheld thousands of stars -- an intricate tapestry seldom seen by residents of our modern, light-drenched urban world.

“O Lord, our Lord, how majestic is Thy name in all the earth, Who hast displayed Thy splendor above the heavens!” David wrote in one of his greatest songs of praise and awe. “When I consider Thy heavens, the work of Thy fingers, The moon and the stars, which Thou hast ordained; What is man, that Thou dost take thought of him? And the son of man, that Thou dost care for him? Yet Thou hast made him a little lower than God, And dost crown him with glory and majesty!” (Psalm 8:1,3-5, NASB).

While teaching a Sunday School class for middle-schoolers recently, I asked them how the size of God's universe made them feel in light of David's words.

“Small!” blurted one.

“Loved,” said another, more quietly.

If the God of all time and space personally entered human history 2,000 years ago, as a bright star shone over David's city, do we not owe Him all we have and are -- until His name is called majestic among all the peoples of the earth?

__________

1. http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/scienceopticsu/powersof10/~

index.html

2. http://www.anzwers.org/free/universe/index.html

*

Can God use accidents and embarrassing pauses? He did in the life of one prominent professor.

On the first day of class at the University of California at Berkeley, Dr. Henry F. Schaefer, was lecturing 680 freshman chemistry students. When he cued his assistant to demonstrate a crucial concept, the assistant wasn't ready. Desperate to avoid “dead air,” Schaefer ad-libbed a joke — in which he mentioned having been in church the previous Sunday. By then his assistant was ready, and Schaefer resumed his lecture.

But after class, about fifty students lined up to talk to him. What was a science professor doing in church? One student remarked that a favorite high school chemistry teacher had taught with great certainty that it was impossible to be a practicing chemist and a Christian. What did Schaefer think? He gave a short reply, but didn't have time to answer fully.

The students in line overheard that conversation, and one asked if he would lecture on why a chemistry professor would believe in God. And so God used that brief exchange in 1984 to prod Schaefer into preparing “Scientists and Their Gods,” a lecture he has delivered on campuses worldwide and now appears as part of his outstanding new book, SCIENCE AND CHRISTIANITY: CONFLICT OR COHERENCE?

Henry Schaefer is an ideal person to answer skeptics. First, he once was one. Furthermore, he has been nominated several times for a Nobel Prize, so no one can say he's not a top scientist. Plus, he communicates on a popular level, making a profound case clearly, simply, and spiced with humor.

In the lecture “Scientists and Their Gods” Schaefer quotes a striking statement from physicist Robert Griffiths: “If we need an atheist for a debate, I go to the philosophy department. The physics department isn't much use.”

Schaefer's argument, you see, is that being a scientist doesn't necessarily make one an atheist. Allan Sandage, for example, considered the world's greatest living cosmologist, says, “The world is too complicated in all its parts and interconnections to be due to chance alone. I am convinced that the existence of life with all its order ... is simply too well put together.”

Or take Nobel laureate Charles Townes. He said, “To me, God is personal yet omnipresent — a great source of strength, who has made an enormous difference to me.” Even the atheist Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman admitted, “Many scientists do believe in both science and God ... in a perfectly consistent way.”

Sigma Xi, the international honor society for scientific and engineering research, polled its members about religion and found that 41 percent of Ph.D. scientists reported that they attended church on a typical Sunday. Another survey found 52 percent of biologists identifying themselves as Christians. M.I.T. professor Alan Lightman adds, “contrary to popular myth, scientists appear to have the same range of attitudes about religious matters as does the general public.”

That's why I'm so grateful to Henry Schaefer, the distinguished scientist and professor at the University of Georgia, for his contribution in his excellent book, SCIENCE AND CHRISTIANITY: CONFLICT OR COHERENCE? One reviewer says the book “attempts to woo readers to Christ, not beat them over the head.” To obtain your copy, call us here at BreakPoint (1-877-322-5527).

Do science and Christianity conflict? Not at all, and Henry Schaefer provides many scientific evidences of their perfect coherence.

FOR FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION:

• Dr. Henry F. Schaefer III, Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence? (University of Georgia, 2003). You can order this book ($20) from BreakPoint: 1-877-3-CALLBP. Read the table of contents from the book and read comments from others.

• David Fisher and Eric C. Barrett, Scientists Who Believe: 21 Tell Their Own Stories (Moody, 1984). You can order this book ($20) from BreakPoint: 1-877-3-CALLBP.

• BreakPoint Commentary No. 031219, “Lost and Found: Modern Science and Ancient Faith.”

• BreakPoint Commentary No. 031204, “We've Been Lied To: Christianity and the Rise of Science.”

• “The Theological Roots of Modern Science,” Dr. Henry F. Schaefer III, lecturing at University of California, Santa Barbara. Available on VHS and DVD.

• John Woodbridge, ed., More Than Conquerors (Moody Press, 1992).

• John Collins, Science and Faith: Friends or Foes? (Crossway Books, 2003).

• Nancy Pearcey and Charles Thaxton, The Soul of Science: Christian Faith and Natural Philosophy (Crossway Books, 1994).

__________

Copyright (c) 2004 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

Yesterday I talked about Dr. Henry Schaefer's book Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence? and what it says about the intelligent design debate. Today I want to talk about another part of the book that caught my attention: Schaefer's discussion of quantum mechanics.: I realize that a discussion like this will sound a little bit intimidating.

Fortunately, Schaefer does a good job of clarifying the subject for those of us who haven't spent years studying science.

QUANTUM MECHANICS is defined by the ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA as the “science dealing with the behavior of matter and light on the atomic and subatomic scale.” This field is a specialty of Schaefer's, and so he's very familiar with the popular argument that quantum mechanics supports postmodernism. He also has enough experience in the field to show that quantum mechanics does no such thing.

The postmodernists' argument goes something like this: Scientists are unable to measure precisely both the position and the velocity of a particle at the same time. This phenomenon is known as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Some scientists believe that this inability is due to human fallibility. This is what Einstein was talking about when he said, “God does not play dice with the universe.” He meant that it is not the laws of nature that are to blame when we can't make exact measurements; it is our own limitations.

But postmodernists take a different approach, interpreting the uncertainty principle as a sign of human strength rather than weakness. As Schaefer puts it, postmodernists “claim that when we choose which property will be measured during an experiment, this is essentially equivalent to saying that we ‘create' a particular property.” In the words of science writer Michael Talbot, “It is the consciousness of the observer that intervenes and triggers which of the possible outcomes is observed.” In other words, the postmodernist argument: There isn't any objective reality, only the reality created by the observer. You could say that this argument is a variation on the old question, “If a tree falls in the forest with no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?” To that, the postmodernists would answer no.

Schaefer begs to differ. He writes, “Experiments are obviously designed and directed by human beings. But this does not mean that the observer gives reality to the quantum event. One can always imagine a set of natural circumstances (involving no human being) that could give rise to the same quantum event.”

The postmodernist sees no objective pattern in the movement of molecules. But when you use a high-speed spectrascope, Schaefer says, you see a pattern and order that immediately impress the human mind as examples of design and “seem to be pointing to some sort of intelligible truth.” That's another direct blow to the postmodern interpretation of physics.

As Schaefer points out, to study science at all requires one to believe that “the universe is real, not illusory” and that “mankind ... can discover order in the universe by rational interpretation.” It's not the postmodern worldview that teaches this truth; it's the Christian worldview. It's just more evidence that, in science as in other fields, faith is a help, not a hindrance.

FOR FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION:

• Dr. Henry F. Schaefer III, Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence? (University of Georgia, 2003). Read the table of contents from the book and read comments from others.

• BreakPoint Commentary No. 040308, “Science in the Light of Faith: A Valuable Perspective.”

• BreakPoint Commentary No. 040105, “Scientists and Their Gods: The Question of Coherence.”

• See also BreakPoint commentaries “Lost and Found“ and “A New Ending to an Old Story.”

• Jonathan C. Rienstra-Kiracofe, “God Is in the Details,” Books & Culture, 23 February 2004.

• Lectures by Dr. Henry Schaefer -- http://www.leaderu.com/offices/schaefer/lectures.html.

• P. Moreland, “What is Scientific Naturalism?“ Boundless, 4 March 2004.

__________

Copyright (c) 2004 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

Allan Rex Sandage is considered the greatest observational cosmologist in the world. As former journalist Lee Strobel writes in his book THE CASE FOR A CREATOR, Sandage had “deciphered the secrets of the stars, plumbed the mysteries of quasars,” and quantified the expansion of the universe.

In 1985 Sandage took part in a conference about the origin of the universe. The panel was divided between scientists who believed in God and those who did not. Each side would vigorously defend its viewpoint.

Everybody knew which side Sandage would defend. Though ethnically Jewish, he was known to have been a virtual atheist since he was a child. But the audience was in for a shock. While discussing the Big Bang and its philosophical implications, Sandage announced that he had become a Christian — and that it was science that drove him to his beliefs.

The Big Bang, Sandage said, was a supernatural event that the realm of physics could not explain. The abrupt emergence of space, time, matter, and energy indicate the need for some sort of transcendent power.

“It was my science that drove me to the conclusion that the world is much more complicated than can be explained by science,” Sandage said later. “It was only through the supernatural that I can understand the mystery of existence.”

This outlook was shocking because it flew in the face of centuries of secular teachings about religion and science. Why do so many scientists — and some theologians — claim that there is a war between science and religion, or that we have to seal off science and religion in completely different realms? One scientist who did this was the late Stephen Jay Gould. He claimed that science and faith occupy different “magistera.” “The net of science covers the empirical universe,” Gould said, while “the net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value.” Gould called his theory NOMA, an acronym for “non-overlapping magisterial.”

Lee Strobel took this theory to geophysicist Stephen Meyer, who agreed that it was partially true. The problem with NOMA, he said, is that biblical religion makes very specific claims about historical events that Christians maintain happened in time and space. This means that Christianity “is going to intersect some of the factual claims of history and science. There's either going to be conflict or agreement.” The only way you can make NOMA work, Meyer says, is to water down Christianity, which is what Gould did. For example, according to the Bible, Jesus appeared to His disciple Thomas and showed him physical evidence, the holes in His hands; Gould dismissed this as nothing more than a morality tale.

But as Meyers argues, there is no need to water down biblical teachings — because scientists in every field are uncovering evidence that points to the existence of an intelligent designer. To learn more about this evidence, read Lee Strobel's great book THE CASE FOR A CREATOR.

Science and faith are not at war, as Allan Sandage discovered. Rather, as the Psalmist put it, “The heavens declare the glory of God” — and here on earth, more and more scientists are beginning to agree.

FOR FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION:

• Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator (Zondervan, 2004).

• BreakPoint Commentary No. 040920, “Putting God Out of a Job: The Case for a Creator.”

• BreakPoint Commentary No. 031222, “A New Ending to an Old Story: Following the 'Plot Twists'.”

• BreakPoint Commentary No. 030509, “Speaking of Birthdays: A Big Brain Interprets the Big Bang.”

• Roberto Rivera, “Gods and Peanuts: Reason and Revelation,” BreakPoint Online, 22 May 2002.

• Jeff Robinson, “Seminary appoints Dembski to lead new Center for Science and Theology,” Towers Online, 16 September 2004.

• See Chuck Colson's Ten Questions about Origins, a useful tool for the classroom.

• See BreakPoint's Intelligent Design research page.

• Henry Schaefer, Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence? (University of Georgia Press, 2003).

________

Copyright (c) 2004 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

Science is more than a system of scientific laws. To the serious scientist, it is a way of life. Spending a lifetime peering through powerful microscopes, studying bird feathers or insect eyes, or analyzing rock or crystal formations seems hopelessly boring to the non-scientist. I mean, who cares? Right?

My friend Karl F. Bruder has been all over the world working as a geologist, crossing the sands of the Sahara, climbing remote mountains, and drilling the polar icecap. The travel may seem glamorous to some, but once a scientist gets there, it's all work -- sometimes repetitive, difficult, and fruitless.

Karl is a believer in Jesus. He believes that creation is one way God reveals Himself to mankind. God has commanded us to know Him (Philippians 3:10). But He is the invisible God. He is spirit, and is to be worshiped “in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24).

So how do we see the unseen God? One way is through His creation; through what He has made. It's a vast and endless study: outer space, mountains and rocks, lakes and rivers, fish and birds, man and his DNA, the atom and its sub-particles.

The scientist does that for us. He looks for patterns, connections, explanations, exceptions. He compares, contrasts, analyzes, and cross-references. And with every verifiable discovery, from the mundane to the spectacular, he shows us amazing design. He may not see God in it, but the believer in Jesus does, because he has had the mystery of origins and purpose revealed to him in the Bible.

I'm grateful to Karl for emphasizing this to me. A true scientist, he is nevertheless a strong believer and follower of Jesus. With men and women like him, inductive process and faith go hand in hand, giving us non-scientists a bigger understanding of God. -- Dave Egner

DESTINATION POINTS

* Do I know a scientist who believes in Jesus? How can I approach that person to talk about our mutual faith? What questions could I ask?

* Should I be alarmed if science and faith seem to be in complete disagreement? Why?

* Should I consider a career in science? What challenges would I face?

Study science and you'll see God's design.

Once upon a time, a long time ago, there lived a village of warrior hobbits. No more than three feet tall or so, they dwelled in caves and hunted down dragons and pygmy elephants with stone weaponry.

I was forced to rub my eyes, shake my head, and check once again that I was reading the Associated Press, and not a supermarket tabloid. But there it was, originally announced in NATURE magazine and soon likewise plastered across the pages of newspapers and magazines around the world.

Archaeologists discovered the remains of these little people on the Indonesian island of Flores. They named them Homo floresiensis, but they were quickly nicknamed “Hobbits.” Scientists found remains of Komodo dragons and large rodents that had been cooked in cave fires. Scientists assure us that these little “hominids” died out about 13,000 years ago, and that they were descendents of Homo erectus, the alleged evolutionary ancestor of modern humans.

So how do Christians explain these bones in light of the Book of Genesis? Are not these remains one more blow to a biblical revelation that tells us all humanity descended from one man who was created from the dust, probably less than 10,000 years ago?

Well, no. As a matter of fact, these remains should remind Christians of just how incoherent much of contemporary science is when it comes to questions of human origins.

Scientists right now are debating how to fit the Flores Lilliputians into existing Darwinian schemes of an “out of Africa” evolution of Homo erectus into Homo sapiens. Given these findings, scientists must rewrite their version of the human story, again. This should remind us of how senseless it is to be intimidated by the “facts” of scientific “proof” against a biblical cosmology. Scientific investigations into origins, from abstract theories to dating mechanisms, are based on numerous naturalistic presuppositions and are constantly being revised and updated.

This should cause Christians to assert without embarrassment that the little people of Flores were human beings, descendants of Adam, bearing the image of God. They were smaller than us, but we have encountered pygmy groups before. We can also argue on the basis of biblical revelation that they probably lived much more recently than the archeologists tell us.

The overwhelming proof of weaponry and mastery of fire is also a bit embarrassing to some contemporary scientific theories. This just doesn't match up with what scientists believe is possible, given the brain size of the Hobbits. You can be sure, that if the incontrovertible remains of cooked Komodo dragons and weapons had not been found, scientists would have portrayed Homo floresiensis as a wandering savage. And now there is the question of how these little people actually got to this isolated island, leading some scientists to speculate that they may have even had watercraft.

This should bring back memories of contemporary science “debunking” the existence of biblical people groups and cities, only to find later archaeological proof of them. It should also cause us to rethink the reigning human story given to us by the scientific establishment. Many of us, including Christians, tend to think of primeval human history in terms of primitive savagery. And yet, Scripture presents us with a counter-story of a technologically advanced early human civilization -- able to develop agricultural innovations (Gen 4:2), great cities (Gen 4:17), and towering architectural achievements (Gen 11:4-6). Indeed, as we survey the remnants of earlier civilizations -- from Egyptian pyramids to Mayan temples -- perhaps we should ask ourselves if early human history was not far more advanced than the naturalists tell us is possible.

There are other factors at work. For hundreds of years local Indonesian legends have told of cave-dwelling little people on the islands, legends scientists ignored as ignorant superstition. Now they know that there is some basis in fact, even thought the scientists still want to date the Flores Hobbits in the too-distant past. Could it be that this demonstrates once again the chronological and technological snobbery of Western science? We assume reflexively that people in the distant past were senseless and that their memories and stories are all just so much nonsense.

But what if we're wrong? After all, people groups all over the world have “legends” of a global flood, legends scientists dismiss as superstition. Psychologists have joined the fray, arguing that flood “sagas” are part of a collective unconscious mythology or, in one theory, have their roots in the human childhood experience of bedwetting. But what if these stories are so universal precisely because the Flood actually happened? Moreover, what if other ancient “legends” have more veracity than scientists would have us believe?

This pile of little bones serves to remind us that all of us view the cosmos through a grid. Much of the scientific establishment views the evidence through the grid of a worldview that excludes from the beginning the possibility of the supernatural.

Christians, however, must view the cosmos through the grid of a biblical storyline that makes sense of both human dignity and cosmic tragedy. This means that Christians are able to account for phenomena that the grid of naturalism can never see. This means that Christians should never be embarrassed by what contemporary culture ridicules as remnants of an ancient superstitious “saga” of a primeval garden, a talking Serpent, a flaming sword.

But it also means that Christians should survey the world with awe and wonder at the mysterious creativity of a God who designed for us supernovas, waterfalls, electrons, dinosaurs, diamonds, and, yes, perhaps even a Hobbit or two.

________

Russell D. Moore is dean of the school of theology and senior vice president for academic administration at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.

*

“Corina's brain is the most beautiful object that exists, even more beautiful than Corina herself, for it allows her to perceive beauty, have a self, and know about existence in the first place.”(1) The article unfolds in the March 2005 National Geographic. The magazine gives particular attention to the brain and its functions, sharing some recent developments in neuroscience and technological capabilities in medicine. The article is peppered with intriguing information and, as always, stunning photography.

But National Geographic follows its consistent pattern. It represents a blatant form of naturalism and propagates those philosophical assumptions.

What is “naturalism?” The kind I'm speaking of is “philosophical naturalism” or “philosophical materialism.” As the name implies, it holds to a view that the natural world (or the world of time, space, and matter) is all that exists. Period. It also holds to the story of Darwinian evolution. While the latter has its own set of issues, the former is the more subtle, dangerous, and pervasive idea threading through our culture today.

Strangely enough, while analysts talk so much about postmodernism and the death of truth on the sociological level, the culture at large still swallows the idea that science is the high priest and that its knowledge is absolute. Postmodernists still go to the doctor for antibiotics and believe the earth orbits the sun.

But regardless of the inconsistency in our culture, the ideas of naturalism are deeply present. Take the opening sentence of this National Geographic article as an example. What does that mean? Smuggled into the writing is a philosophical view that Corina's brain (and its functions) is all she is. In fact, they may even be more important than she is. Do you see the problem? At the very most, Corina is identical to her brain; that is, she is her brain — nothing else.

Join me in a thought-experiment. Suppose we were to take your brain and could lay out every cell on a table. It would of course be a very long chain of cells that make up your brain. Now which one of those cells would be “you”? Which one of those cells would say, “'I' am the one who owns and unifies all the functions of the brain! 'I' am the one that does the thinking, the believing, and the willing!”? The trouble is, none of the cells would have this capacity. In fact, people have had half of their brains removed and the “I” was still there. Why? Because we are more than our brain.

Are we possibly a soul? The article, in its opening remarks, noted that most neuroscientists don't believe in a soul. And since the scientists are the “authorities,” our notions of a soul are only popular-level myths. How should we think about this? “I” cannot be found in my brain but I'm not allowed to talk about a soul. Such is the predicament.

Let's not be fooled that science is omniscient. It is an enterprise that makes observations and describes the natural world. It serves its purposes well. However, if a scientist believes the natural world is all there is, well, he didn't discover “naturalism” in science. He discovered it in a certain branch of philosophy.

What if there is more to the world than mere nature? What if there is such a thing as morals, intentions, souls, and even God? These would not count for a scientist because he cannot observe them. The danger in our culture is not open-mindedness, but close-mindedness by limiting our analysis to our senses.

Corina is more beautiful than her brain, for Corina is more than her brain. It is in her brain that much activity happens. But she is not located there. She is a soul who uses her brain to navigate the world that God has made. And it is up to Corina, you, and me to do what it takes to build our souls and use our bodies to love God and make his name great in the earth.

Neuroscience is not threatening to belief in the soul. However, when neuroscientists say more than neuroscience reveals in order to promote a philosophical assumption, it would be guilty of a terrible dishonesty.

Since the dawn of the world, humans have believed in a soul. The Bible confirms its existence and its life after death. And Christ has promised that, though our bodies will die, he has prepared a place for our souls as we await the resurrection of a body and brain that are both imperishable.

________

1. James Shreeve, “Paths to the Mind Brain Link”, National Geographic, March 2005), 8.

________

Copyright © 2005 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

*

One of the assumptions behind the question of whether science has disproved religion is that the discoveries of modern science have proved biblical religion to be indefensible. One such false belief is that the scientific method can actually “prove” things. In fact, because empirical science rests on what philosophers call the inductive method, scientific conclusions never offer certainties, only probabilities.

Induction is the principle of scientific inquiry that begins with particular instances of a specific observation in order to offer a generalization about the thing observed. For example, all the dogs I have encountered have four legs, so I conclude with the generalization that all dogs have four legs. However, my conclusion is not proved as such. It is not deduced from a universally known truth; it is based on limited exposure to the “facts,” and so is only a statement of probability. And as it happens, there are dogs born with three legs or injured and left with three.

Inductive scientific methods cannot prove with certainty. Furthermore, the past is not directly accessible to us and so all theories concerning origins and earth history are hypotheses not facts. Similarly, the future is not accessible to the senses so predictions about natural processes in the future are based on philosophical assumptions (faith).

Though readily admitted by philosophers of science, the general public is often unaware of the nature of the scientific enterprise. So when the question is posed in relation to Christianity, most people are referring to a blind leap in the dark that is undertaken at the point where science and reason can take us no further. Christianity, they believe, is held to in the absence of evidence or even contrary to the known facts.

Faith is not, however, a leap; it is a foundation. Furthermore, all science is based upon a faith of some kind; we must all believe certain things before we can speak of science. For example, we must believe there is a real world of matter “out there” that is accessible and correlated to our senses. We must believe that our minds are giving us reliable information about the world. We must believe that language and mathematics, reason and logic can all be applied to the world of our senses.

In fact, the most basic assumption of the sciences, taken for granted by each, is the uniformity of nature - the expectation that the present and future will be like the past. Yet these are not proven by natural science - they are believed on faith! It is because we believe these things that science itself is made a meaningful and intelligible discipline.

Since science is based upon faith assumptions (metaphysical beliefs) that cannot be proved, we need to ask a different question: What KIND OF FAITH do we need in order to make our use of science intelligible? Which faith provides an adequate foundation for science? And, importantly, how then does each faith perspective affect the methods and conclusions of science?

Everybody, scientist or not, nurtures these “religious perspectives” about the world through a number of interconnected beliefs (presuppositions). We call this simply, a worldview. In order to adequately answer these questions then, we must compare and contrast the pre-suppositions of these differing faith systems.

Naturalism holds that matter and energy is all there is. The whole universe is in flux, matter in motion. Everything we observe in the universe created itself from an ultimate chaos. The universe is the product of chance not design, and thus requires no recourse to God for an explanation. Human beings are nothing more than a random collocation of atoms.

In contrast, Christian theism holds that the God of the Bible, perfectly manifest in Jesus Christ, is the creator, sustainer and redeemer of this world. Rather than the void of chance, the mind of the triune God creates orders and sustains all that is.

Recognizing the two divergent starting points is imperative – it is either chance or it is God.

________

Copyright © 2005 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

*

The news is filled lately with stories about the promise of adult stem-cell therapy. Last fall, for example, researchers reported they successfully produced stem cells from adult skin cells, bypassing the need for embryonic stem cells. The Los Angeles Times reported recently that treatment using umbilical and marrow cells healed a boy of a fatal skin disease. Doctors said the treatment’s success may move that disease “off the incurable list” for other patients.

And the Family Research Council just released a report about more successes. “Currently, peer-reviewed studies have documented 73 different conditions in humans where patient health has been improved through adult stem cell therapy ... and over 1,400 FDA approved trials are ongoing.”

The paper describes a myriad of therapies, including the regeneration of heart tissue for a man with congestive heart failure; enabling a patient with Type I Diabetes to become insulin-free; and the treatment of a bone-cancer victim, who is now cancer-free. The report also cites adult stem-cell treatments that could treat trauma injuries and help patients with liver cancer.

Good news, indeed — and good news that we no longer have to wrestle with the moral question of embryonic stem-cell research.

Well, not so fast ... Both candidates for president still favor it, for they are marching to the drumbeat of those who want no restrictions on science.

Michael Kinsley, for example, a columnist who himself suffers from Parkinson’s, said bluntly, “This issue [that is, embryonic stem cell research] will not go away.”

“Scientifically,” Kinsley says, “it makes no sense to abandon any promising avenue just because another has opened up ... Every year that goes by, science opens new doors.”

I hope you see the problem: Just because science opens a door does not mean we should walk through it. In fact, science rarely asks the question, “Should we?” It only asks the question, “Can we?”

Kinsley’s response reflects a certain worldview: specifically, “scientism,” the belief that scientific investigation is the only means to knowledge and progress. As such, it must be free from restraints or interference. Scientists — not political leaders, and certainly not morally concerned citizens — ought to determine what is or is not permissible in the laboratory.

In addition, scientism, given its materialistic grounding, rejects any appeal to the sanctity of human life. The worldview of scientism teaches that we humans are merely an interesting and potentially useful collection of cells and genetic material.

The problem is, if a human embryo only has worth insofar as it can be USED for others, then what worth does a person have who is DEPENDENT on others — say, someone who is permanently disabled? See where that leaves Kinsley and all the rest of us? Vulnerable.

It is certain that the next president will revisit federal policy on embryo-destructive research. Even though it is not needed, proponents are not going to back down. That is why Christians, who believe in the sacredness of human life from conception to natural death, need to continue vigorous opposition to research on living human beings. If we do not, who is next in a world with science unchecked by ethical restraints?

________

Copyright (c) 2008 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

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

A similar article from BreakPoint WorldView Magazine: Viewpoint, July [30] 2008

“Materialism’s Blinders: Biotechnology and Truth,” by Chuck Colson

Your eyes may glaze over when you read the headlines about stem-cell research — debates over moral quandaries, federal funding, and legislative decisions about regulation. But you need to pay attention and speak up: The next debate may be about your own worth.

Much of the news you read or hear about focuses on embryonic stem-cell research — heralded as “vital” to medical research. However, while much study has focused on embryo-destructive research, nothing of significance has come of it: It has not worked. Meanwhile, reports about adult stem-cell research, which does not require destroying a human embryo to extract a stem cell, are beginning to appear frequently. For example, the Los Angeles Times recently reported that treatment using umbilical and marrow cells healed one boy of a fatal skin disease — thus, the treatment’s success may move that same disease “off the incurable list” for other patients.

Australian researchers have also joined in the race to advance ethical stem-cell research, producing stem cells from skin cells or adult cells, rather than from human embryos that are later destroyed. “What you then have the capacity to do with this type of cell or this technology is to make both patient-specific and disease-specific stem cell lines,” said Dr. Andrew Laslett of the Australian Stem Cell Centre. Groups in the United States, Japan, Scotland, Germany, and China are also pursuing this line of research.

Carron Morrow, as I noted on “BreakPoint” last August, can testify to the efficacy of ethical stem-cell research. In critical need of a new heart, Carron agreed to an experimental study that utilized her own bone marrow from her left hip. After cultivation, 30 million stem cells were injected into the right side of her heart. After she underwent a CT scan four months later, the doctor declared her heart to be “normal.”

So what’s the problem? If science is on the side of ethical research, then why are we still debating the moral problems with embryonic stem-cell research? Because it’s not about science — it’s about worldview.

SCIENCE AS WORLDVIEW

When scientists in Japan and Wisconsin announced a breakthrough in stem-cell research — reprogramming skin cells to act like embryonic stem cells — the news outlets expressed a hopeful end to the seemingly dreary debate. But as I said at the time, the struggle is far from over. There is a principle at stake — and advocates of embryo-destructive research don’t want to surrender it.

You see, winning the embryo-research debate is not about curing disease: It is about taking the upper hand over pro-life advocates, depicting them as hard-headed and uncaring. It’s a political battle.

It is also a worldview battle: pitting scientific materialism against the biblical worldview, which holds that all human life is sacred, from its earliest stages until natural death. The biblical view places restrictions on what we do to human embryos. Scientists and proponents of embryo research do not want restrictions, because they place science as the highest source of knowledge and morality. They worship, so to speak, at the altar of scientism.

“Scientism” is the belief that scientific investigation is the only means of knowledge — that scientists can get answers to everything, including philosophy and morality. Moreover, it holds that humans are nothing more than a collection of cells and genetic material — material to be used for whatever scientists believe to be useful.

In fact, columnist Michael Kinsley, who hopes stem cells will cure him of Parkinson’s disease, immediately jumped on the findings about skin cells being reprogrammed to act as stem cells — insisting that embryonic stem-cell research must still continue. He dismissed what he called the “intense minority who believe that a clump of a few dozen cells floating in a petri dish has the same human rights as you or I.” Never mind the fact that he also began his life as “a clump of a few dozen cells” — only he was allowed to live, while he and others believe we ought to exploit and kill other such embryos supposedly for the “greater good.” Some are more equal than others, it seems, as Orwell famously put it.

“This issue will not go away,” Kinsley proclaimed. “Scientifically, it makes no sense to abandon any promising avenue just because another has opened up.... Every year that goes by, science opens new doors...” See the emphasis? Science is the be-all, end-all. And morality and ethics must not hinder its march.

It is the ultimate reductionism: Since you can know truth only through what can be determined by science, questions like love, altruism, and the like are out of bounds — they are impermissible for inquiry. So, anything in the moral realm — the “should” or “ought to” questions — as opposed to the “what is” question, which is what science measures, never enters the equation. This view of science undermines the worth and dignity of human life. It reduces us to the sum of our material parts. It takes away the soul — what distinguishes us as humans.

As I wrote in HOW NOW SHALL WE LIVE?, we have bought into the myth that science is our savior: Through our ever-advancing science and technology, we will save ourselves. We are in the third stage of geneticist H. J. Muller’s history of life: attempting to reach inside and control our own nature. And scientists believe in inevitable progress, that the change they seek is always for the better. However, such faith that we can save ourselves through science can be sustained only if we deny the human capacity for barbarism — which is hard to do with a straight face in today’s world.

And that leads us to our present state: cannibalizing fellow humanity for the hoped-for — but thus far, elusive — benefit of others.

This is not to withhold sympathy for Michael Kinsley and others who are looking for cures to debilitating diseases. But when they reduce the importance and dignity of the earliest stage of human life — the human embryo — they reduce their own dignity, as well. If a human embryo only has worth as it can be used for others, then what worth has a person whose dependence on others, due to illness, can be deemed a drain to society? You see where Kinsley’s calculations take us — and himself.

THE ABOLITION OF MAN

It is this view of science that, taken to its logical conclusion, ends up putting its proponents’ own heads on the chopping block, as it were. For if humans are just commodities, just materials, then when your usefulness is outweighed by the cost of your “upkeep,” out you go. It’s the sort of utilitarian notion that has Business Week weighing the costs of caring for premature babies.

In fact, Britain offers us a view of the position in which we may place ourselves if the Church does not speak out consistently and effectively right now. In a myriad of cases, from parental rights to animal-human hybrids to birthing “savior siblings” to treat another child’s illness, humans are viewed as commodities — not individuals with inherent dignity and worth. For example, the Times of London reported that “Single women and lesbian couples won landmark parental rights ... as MPs voted to remove the requirement that fertility clinics consider a child’s need for a father.” So much for a child’s right to have a mother and a father — it’s about the consumer’s right to have a child as she sees fit.

That vote was part of the United Kingdom’s larger Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill that pro-life Britons are fighting so valiantly against, seeking to uphold the sanctity of human life. As Centurion Philip Pedley, who lives in the Cayman Islands, observed, many in Britain look enviously at the battles for life being fought here in the United States. Why? They wish they had taken these cultural issues seriously 20 to 30 years ago, Pedley says. They wish they “had had a BreakPoint informing, alerting, and inspiring” them to action. They realize the truth of that maxim attributed to Jefferson — that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

If Christians don’t speak up about these critical life issues regarding embryonic stem-cell research, abortion, and even nanotechnology, who will? Much of the rest of society is going blindly along with who they think are the “all-knowing” scientists. Soon we will find ourselves in the same place as Christians in Britain, wishing we had done something sooner and finding life — even our own — at peril.

Every couple of years it seems that a new team of researchers decides to put prayer to the test. There is quite a bit of variety among the focuses of such studies, which range from examining the effectiveness of prayer on in vitro fertilization to the effectiveness of intercessory prayer for cardiac patients undergoing surgery; essentially, however, each asks the question, “Does Prayer Work?” The latest study of the kind has been conducted by researchers at Duke University Medical Center. Like many of its predecessors, this study found no conclusive evidence that prayer decreases medical complications or increases the life span of those patients observed.(1)

Should the negative results of these scientific studies deflate believers everywhere and make us more hesitant to expect answers to our prayers? Not at all. Bishop Tom Wright explains the problem inherent to this sort of study:

[I]f God is God you can't put him into a test-tube. Remember the

children in THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE? When Lucy had

got through the wardrobe into Narnia, the other children tried to

test her claim by getting into the wardrobe themselves to see if

there was a way through. There wasn't. Only later on, when they

got in one day to hide, did they find themselves in a snowy wood

with a lamppost, a family of beavers, and the rumour of a lion

called Aslan.

And one of the things they learned about Aslan was that he wasn't

a tame lion. You couldn't get him to do tricks. He was

powerful, wise, and loving, but not tame. The question was not,

could you get Aslan to do things for you, but, could Aslan enlist

you in his service?(2)

Wright goes on to make the point that the correct question should not be “Does Prayer Work?” but “Does God Work?” We gravely underestimate the creator of the world when we view prayer as a technique that can be mastered to manipulate Him. The effectiveness of our prayers does not turn on how well we know how to pray but on how well we know the one to whom we are praying. A truly successful prayer is not one that has secured an affirmative answer to our petition, but one that has brought us closer to the one we've petitioned.

When we pray, we approach the throne of an omnipotent king. Such a thought should inspire so much awe in us that we nearly forget the cares that brought us there. Once we've made our request, we wait for the king's answer, knowing that He has attended to us and need only give the word to fulfill our plea. But when He answers us, if He presents to us a different plan, we must bow to his will. By coming into the presence of the king, we have pledged ourselves to his service. We have opened the door to friendship with the Ancient of Days, a prospect both terrifying and exhilarating. Bishop Wright concludes, “Once you start doing business with Jesus, there's no knowing where it will end. What do you WANT? Do you really want to ask Jesus, God's anointed one, the Son of David, to start doing things in your life? Because once you do, there's no going back.”

Prayer always works. But beware: through it God may work upon us in ways we would never have anticipated.

________

1. http://www.dukehealth.org/news/9136

2. A sermon for the Eucharist at Hamsterly on the Last Sunday after Trinity, 26 October 2003, by the Bishop of Durham.

________

Copyright © 2005 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

*

Daniel C. Dennett is one of the world's most influential evolutionary scientists, and unlike many of his colleagues, Dennett doesn't run away from Darwinism's logical conclusions. Instead, he describes Darwin's theory of evolution as a “universal acid” that completely reshapes reality, destroying those truths previously held to be enduring and unchanging.

“Whenever Darwinism is the topic, the temperature rises, because more is at stake than just the empirical facts about how life on Earth evolved, or the correct logic of the theory that accounts for those facts,” Dennett asserts.

In a recent interview with Germany's DER SPIEGEL, Dennett dismissed the concept of Intelligent Design, arguing that all intelligent persons simply must accept Darwin's theory at face value. Nevertheless, Dennett does understand the logic of Intelligent Design. As he sees it, many persons reject evolution because it “goes right to the heart of the most troubling discovery in science of the last few hundred years.” This is “the idea that it takes a big fancy smart thing to make a lesser thing. I call that the trickle-down theory of creation. You'll never see a spear making a spear maker. You'll never see a horseshoe making a blacksmith. You'll never see a pot making a potter. It's always the other way around and this is so obvious that it just seems to stand to reason.”

Nevertheless, Dennett believes this reasoning to be profoundly wrong. Interestingly, he suggests that the idea of Intelligent Design, at least in its fundamental form, may be even older than the human species. He offers the suggestion that what he identifies as earlier species of hominids might have created objects and then “had a sense of being more wonderful than their artifacts.” Then, Dennett simply suggests that HOMO SAPIENS, capable of creating a seemingly endless array of objects, would assume that they, too, were the products of an intelligent creator.

Amazingly, Dennett, along with his colleague Richard Dawkins, uses the reality of complexity and apparent design to argue AGAINST a designer. In one sense, Dennett simply turns the idea of design on its head, arguing that greater design means, in effect, less proof of a designer. As Dennett claims, “not only can you get design from un-designed things, you can even get the evolution of designers from that un-design. You end up with authors and poets and artists and engineers and other designers of things, other creators -- very recent fruits of the tree of life. And it challenges people's sense that life has meaning.” Well, of course it does.

Dennett does believe that human beings are unique as a species. This special status is essentially a function of linguistics. Dennett, who serves as University Professor and Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy at Tufts University, as well as Director of the Center for Cognitive Studies at the university, has devoted himself to the understanding of human consciousness and linguisticality.

The ability to use language, Dennett explains, means that human beings can learn, not only from their own experience, but from others, both living and dead. Thus, “human culture itself becomes a profound evolutionary force. That is what gives us an epistemological horizon which is far, far greater than that of any other species. We are the only species that knows who we are, that knows that we have evolved. Our songs, art, books and religious beliefs are all ultimately a product of evolutionary algorithms. Some find that thrilling, others depressing.”

Dennett's ideas are worth a close look. After all, he boldly accepts what so many other evolutionary scientists deny -- that Darwin's theory means the impossibility of any belief in God. While evolutionists such as the late Stephen J. Gould argued that evolution and religion could be considered as “non-overlapping magisterium,” thus allowing each to operate in separate spheres, Dennett explicitly rejects this argument. He directs specific criticism at evolutionist Michael Ruse, accusing him of “just trying to put the implications of Darwin's insights into soft focus and to reassure people that there is not as much conflict between the perspective of evolutionary biology and their traditional ways of thinking.”

When it comes to the human soul, Dennett insists that it must be no more than human consciousness operating as a part of our physical bodies. Dennett's physicalism means that he rejects any concept of the soul as independent of the chemical operations of the brain. As he told DER SPIEGEL, “The brain is no more wonder tissue than the lungs or the liver. It's just a tissue.”

Committed to a radical form of naturalistic materialism, Dennett understands belief in God to be nothing more than an artifact of the evolutionary process. The death of God, Dennett explains, “is a very clear consequence” of Darwinism.

On this point, we should at least be thankful that Dennett is more intellectually honest than many of his evolutionary colleagues. He allows that belief in God may be culturally acceptable, but only insofar as this God has nothing to do with our origins or our lives -- past, present or future.

“One has to understand that God's role has been diminished over the eons,” Dennett instructs. “First, we had God ... making Adam and making every creature with his hands, plucking the rib from Adam and making Eve from that rib. Then we trade that God in for the God who sets evolution in motion. And then you say you don't even need that God -- the lawgiver -- because if we take these ideas from cosmology seriously then there are other places and other laws and life evolves where it can. So now we no longer have God the lawfinder or God the lawgiver, but just God the master of ceremonies. When God is the master of ceremonies and doesn't actually play any role anymore in the universe, he's sort of diminished and no longer intervenes in any way.” Put simply, “the job description for God shrinks.”

In his 1995 book, DARWIN'S DANGEROUS IDEA, Dennett began by reciting a Sunday School song he had learned as a child. The song, “Tell Me Why,” asks why the stars shine, why the ivy twines, and why the sky's so blue. As the song assures, these things are so because God made them so. “This straightforward, sentimental declaration still brings a lump to my throat -- so sweet, so innocent, so reassuring a vision of life!” Dennett remembers. Nevertheless, he doesn't believe that it is true. “The sweet, simple vision of the song, taken literally, is one that most of us have outgrown, however fondly we may recall it. The kindly God who lovingly fashioned each and every one of us (all creatures great and small) and sprinkled the sky with shining stars for our delight -- THAT God is, like Santa Claus, a myth of childhood, not anything a sane, undeluded adult could literally believe in. THAT God must either be turned into a symbol for something less concrete or abandoned altogether.”

The only concept of God that can survive the emergence of Darwinism is God as an intellectual concept who simply offers a mythopoetic means of appreciating grandeur and beauty.

Theism, the belief in a personal and self-existent God, must go the way of the Dodo bird, he argues. “A faith, like a species, must evolve or go extinct when the environment changes. It is not a gentle process in either case.... We preach freedom of religion, but only so far.” He continues: “It is nice to have grizzly bears and wolves living in the wild. They are no longer a menace; we can peacefully coexist, with a little wisdom. The same policy can be discerned in our political tolerance, in religious freedom. You are free to preserve or create any religious creed you wish, so long as it does not become a public menace.”

Well, we have been warned. Dennett clearly understands traditional Christianity to be just the kind of public menace he fears. Nevertheless, he is absolutely certain that he and his cherished theory of evolution will win -- and fairly soon. Darwin's theory of evolution will, he confidently asserts, come to occupy a “secure and untroubled place in the minds -- and hearts -- of every educated person on the globe.”

Dennett's excitement about Darwinism goes back to his childhood, when he and his friends would speculate about the existence and effect of a substance they called the “universal acid.” “Universal acid is a liquid so corrosive that it will eat through ANYTHING! The problem is: what do you keep it in? It dissolves glass bottles and stainless-steel canisters as readily as paper bags. What would happen if you somehow came upon or created a dollop of universal acid? Would the whole planet eventually be destroyed? What would it leave in its wake? After everything had been transformed by its encounter with universal acid, what would the world look like?”

As an adult, Dennett now seizes upon Darwinism as the very universal acid that had fascinated his imagination as a boy. This universal acid is not a liquid substance, but an intellectual idea.

“Little did I realize that in a few years I would encounter an idea -- Darwin's idea -- bearing an unmistakable likeness to universal acid: it eats through just about every traditional concept, and leaves in its wake a revolutionized world-view, with most of the old landmarks still recognizable, but transformed in fundamental ways.”

Transformed indeed. Dennett understands that every important idea and pattern of thought is instantly transformed if Darwinism is accepted as true. The evolutionary worldview of Darwinism, based in purely materialistic and naturalistic explanations of all phenomena, leaves no room for transcendent meaning, human dignity, morality, or hope. Human beings, along with the rest of the cosmos, are simply the accidental byproducts of vast cosmic forces.

Daniel C. Dennett understands all this, but exults in Darwin's “dangerous idea.” Indeed, he suggests that he would award Darwin “the gold medal for the best idea anybody ever had.” Remember Dennett the next time you hear the argument that evolution and Christianity are compatible. The basic incompatibility of Darwin's theory is the one facet of Dennett's thought we can truly appreciate. Now, if only his evolutionary colleagues would be equally candid.

*

On March 15, mathematician John D. Barrow joined the likes of Mother Teresa and Alexander Solzhenitsyn when he was named the winner of this year's Templeton Prize. The prize is awarded for “progress towards research or discoveries about spiritual realities.”

What constitutes “progress” is as varied as the recipients themselves. I received the award in 1993, so it includes prison ministers and nuns ministering to the poor in Calcutta and noted scientists.

Barrow, who teaches at Cambridge University, is the latest in a recent series of scientists to win the prize. He is best known for his work on what is called the “Anthropic Principle.”

Simply stated, the Anthropic Principle is an account of the “seemingly incredible coincidences that allow for our presence” in the Universe. The existence of carbon-based life, which is what humans are, is dependent on a series of independent variables, what Astronomer Royal Martin Rees calls “just six numbers.” These include “the particular energy state of the electron to the exact level of the weak nuclear force,” to name but two.

If any of these values were off by even an infinitesimal amount, carbon-based life like us would be impossible — so would science, which is the act of observing nature. Barrows argues that the universe that “emerged out of the big bang ... was already governed by laws that were fine-tuned to encourage the rise of carbon-based life forms.”

This is what prompted Freeman Dyson, “the best physicist never to win a Nobel Prize,” to say that “it appears that the universe knew we were coming.”

Not surprisingly, this kind of talk makes today's evolutionary establishment — orthodox materialists, after all — nervous because it suggests that perhaps blind chance and purposelessness don't govern the cosmos. This prompted evolutionists to look for an alternative to the Anthropic Principle, one that would keep intelligence and purpose out of the picture.

Since the incredible fine-tuning of THIS universe can't be scientifically denied, the alternatives they looked to were STAR TREK stuff. They posited the existence of multiple universes, and given an infinite number of universes, so they say, at least one of them will be fine-tuned in a way that makes carbon-based life possible.

The key word there is GIVEN, which, by definition, means we can't prove their existence. The “alternatives” are nothing but mathematical models that can neither be proven nor disproved. So, as philosopher Karl Popper wrote, this makes them METAphysics, not physics — in a word, SPECULATION.

Ironically, this is the very charge directed by many of these same people at the intelligent design movement — that we are introducing religion or metaphysics. Yet, while the intelligent design movement is ruled out-of-bounds, this kind of speculation, whose true goal is to avoid thinking about the possibility of God, is regarded as the scientific cutting edge.

This unwillingness of many scientists to consider the implications of the Anthropic Principle made Barrow's work risky, courageous, and significant. Our congratulations to the Templeton committee for honoring such an eminent scientist, whose scientific work affirms that the idea of a Creator is the “best explanation” for the universe.

________

Copyright (c) 2006 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

When a U.S. district court ruled last December that the Dover, Pennsylvania, school district could not require the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, opponents of intelligent design thought the issue had been settled — not just in Pennsylvania, but also across the entire country. Well, their celebrations may have been premature, unless school policies are somehow exempted from the requirements of democracy.

Virginia Commonwealth University recently released the results of its “Life Sciences Survey,” which measures public attitudes toward scientific issues. Among the issues asked about was the “origin of biological life.”

By nearly a 5-1 margin, people believe that God, either “directly” or by guiding the process, was responsible for the “origin of biological life.” Only 15 percent agreed with teaching a strictly materialistic explanation.

Most Americans, you see, favor a “pluralistic approach to teaching about origin of life in public schools.” In this “pluralistic approach,” sometimes called “teaching the controversy,” students would be exposed to various explanations.

These polling results cause weeping and gnashing of teeth among doctrinaire Darwinists, who see it as evidence of irrationality or superstition among ordinary Americans. Some even suggest that America's leadership in science and technology is threatened by these “unscientific” attitudes.

Nonsense! What's on display is not irrationality or disdain for science: It's simply a reflection of the innate human understanding of God — what theologians call the IMAGO DEI. Years of propaganda by scientists and teachers can't erase it, and it's also a recognition of the limits of science.

Father Richard Neuhaus captured this in the March issue of FIRST THINGS. The “controversy,” he wrote, “is composed of a complex mixture of science, religion, culture, and politics.” This “complex mixture,” which involves every aspect of human life, cannot be settled by a single judge's opinion or by the Darwinists' propaganda. People simply know better, and they want to have a say in how their children are educated.

This is true not only of intelligent design. The same dynamic is at work in the embryonic stem-cell research debate. The scientific establishment insists that it must operate without interference from those it deems “irrational,” like Christians it considers enemies of progress.

Yet 56 percent in the same survey agreed that “scientific research doesn't pay enough attention to the moral values of society.” Fifty-two percent agreed that this research creates as many problems as solutions. For a group aspiring to god-like status, like scientists, this is bad news.

But it cannot be otherwise. Science does not operate independently of the larger culture. Scientists are not exempt from, as Neuhaus puts it, paying their respects to democracy. Thinking otherwise is not science: It is SCIENTISM, the ideology that regards science as the only way to the truth. And if this survey is any indication, Americans don't buy it.

That's why debates over science and culture will continue. They will continue until the scientific establishment — and the courts — acknowledge the limits of what science can and cannot tell us, and when it begins to give a say to the people on how they want their children educated.

________

Copyright (c) 2006 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.