We will use this blog to answer as many listener questions and responses as possible, particularly those generated by the current and past series dealing with scientific evidence relating to creation and cosmic history. Questioners will be anonymous. Sometimes the question is shortened in the interest of brevity or our blogpost response expanded in the interest of clarity. Questions emailed to science@johnankerberg.org will be answered by return email. Representative questions may appear on this blogsite.
Question: The Bible tells us that God created the world in seven literal days. How do you reconcile millions and billions of years with the seven day creation? Response: There are hundreds of independent scientific indicators pointing to a very ancient universe, including indicators of the universe’s expansion, such as red-shift phenomena which enable scientists to calculate age, radiometric dating, ice cores, and deposition rates calculated from ocean sediments. Moreover, Hebrew scholarship points to four different interpretations of the Hebrew word for “day” (yom) including long period of time, and they are all “literal” interpretations in the original Hebrew.
Comment: The Hebrew word for day used in Genesis 1 and 2 does not mean very long period of time. I haven’t found a Hebrew word for day that can be translated into anything but from sunset to sunset, the daylight hours, or the morning. Response: There are many fine Hebrew scholars, such as Gleason Archer, Walt Kaiser, and Norm Geisler who disagree with your proposal. It is my personal view that holding to a singular interpretation of “yom” negates not only good theological scholarship, but also negates perfectly good science as well. There’s good and bad theological scholarship; there’s good and bad science. If science and theology seem to disagree, there’s an error in one, or the other, or both. God bless you in your search for truth.
Comment: I was disappointed to read your recent letter (to the ATRI mailing list) stating your position on old-earth creation…I am disappointed by your slanted treatment of this issue. Many believe in the old earth. That is alright. But I would hope that you would treat this serious subject with appropriate circumspection and open-mindedness. Response: Dr. Ankerberg has often given both sides of this debate the podium on his program. At other times, he presents one view, such as the view Dr. Ross is carefully presenting in the present series. He presents this view as representing, in his considered opinion, the TRUTH, because he believes truth is achievable.
Question: Are you good folks aware of the books by Dr. Gerald Schroder? ...His doctorate is in the Earth Sciences and Nuclear Physics. Response: Yes, I have checked out Dr. Schroder’s thesis. It seems to rely completely on a sort of “time warp,” a “perception deception.” If this were a scientifically valid proposal, no doubt it would have received much attention in the scientific community. I do not wish to disparage him or any of the many other creative proposals to reconcile old/young earth problems, but I feel the truth is achievable under the umbrella of mainstream science and orthodox theology. Dr. Hugh Ross definitely qualifies to speak from both of those perspectives. Thanks for writing.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Friday, February 6, 2009
Presuppositionalism
Among creationist Bible believers there are lively disagreements about how and when God created the universe and the living things which inhabit it. Each time Dr. Ankerberg presents scientists and theologians discussing creation-related issues, the ATRI ministry receives a significant number of queries and comments from listeners who feel old earth views are unfaithful to correct biblical interpretation. The current series is no exception. A number of listeners have expressed disappointment, even chagrin, that any theologian of orthodox stripe would promote the view that our earth is not 6,000 to 10,000 years old, but rather, billions of years old.
Personally, I have exchanged hundreds of pages of letters in the last ten years with friends and relatives on this weighty issue, not counting the letter exchanges with listeners in the past few weeks. I have attempted to discuss and clarify the positions of Dr. Ankerberg, Dr. Ross, and other program guests patiently and thoroughly. Almost everyone agrees that it is not a matter of doctrine. One might ask, then, what really is at stake. Is truth at stake? All participants would agree that it is. Our responsibility to grasp truth is vital, along with our responsibility to embrace traditional, orthodox doctrine.
Christians who espouse young earth concepts have strong presuppositional leanings. That means, primarily, that they accept the supernatural revelation of the Bible as pre-eminent and foundational. For them, that is a “given,” a starting point for all other theological discussion, and needs no proof. Such starting points are known by philosophers as “properly basic beliefs.” We must quickly and emphatically state that this belief standard concerning scripture is, indeed, pre-eminent and foundational. However, it is a standard over which agnostics and doubters stumble. In my many conversations with agnostics, the objection to a presuppositional approach to the reliability of scripture surfaces frequently. My responses to them flow toward presenting evidence supporting scripture as a reliable witness to truth and reality. This testimony includes rational evidence that the scripture canon should be accepted as God-inspired, and that the events described in the canon should be accepted as true. Scientifically, we present plentiful evidence for a very ancient cosmos with the Big Bang as the initial event. We also reveal evidence for periodic, sudden creations of new life forms on this earth, ending with the creation of man. The use of such evidential apologetics is encouraged in scripture (I Thes. 5:21, Heb. 11:1). It is a common-sense approach as well.
If we agree that both old earth and young earth creationist believers accept the inspiration and authority of scripture in matters of origins events described in Genesis, what, then, is the source of difficulty? Briefly, the disagreement centers on (1) whether interpretation of Hebrew “yom” (day) is a 24-hour day or a long period of time; and (2) “No death before Adam’s fall,” a scriptural interpretation necessary to preserve the young earth paradigm. Blog readers may wish to check out my outline of the issues relevant to this discussion elsewhere on the homepage of this ATRI website, under the title “Earth and the Cosmos.” For believers in a young earth and universe, the 24-hour day interpretation becomes a pillar of their apologetic approach.
Creationists seeking the truth about the Big Bang, the time scale, creation events, and death before Adam’s fall need to turn to the scientific evidence—for, or against. Scientific evidence in these areas is abundant. The literature teems with evidence for an ancient cosmos starting with the Big Bang, as this blog has often stated. Believers and unbelievers alike have the choice to accept or reject such evidence, even when truth is at stake. But when the secular world searches for truth, we must remember that they will be more impacted by evidence than by presuppositions.
Personally, I have exchanged hundreds of pages of letters in the last ten years with friends and relatives on this weighty issue, not counting the letter exchanges with listeners in the past few weeks. I have attempted to discuss and clarify the positions of Dr. Ankerberg, Dr. Ross, and other program guests patiently and thoroughly. Almost everyone agrees that it is not a matter of doctrine. One might ask, then, what really is at stake. Is truth at stake? All participants would agree that it is. Our responsibility to grasp truth is vital, along with our responsibility to embrace traditional, orthodox doctrine.
Christians who espouse young earth concepts have strong presuppositional leanings. That means, primarily, that they accept the supernatural revelation of the Bible as pre-eminent and foundational. For them, that is a “given,” a starting point for all other theological discussion, and needs no proof. Such starting points are known by philosophers as “properly basic beliefs.” We must quickly and emphatically state that this belief standard concerning scripture is, indeed, pre-eminent and foundational. However, it is a standard over which agnostics and doubters stumble. In my many conversations with agnostics, the objection to a presuppositional approach to the reliability of scripture surfaces frequently. My responses to them flow toward presenting evidence supporting scripture as a reliable witness to truth and reality. This testimony includes rational evidence that the scripture canon should be accepted as God-inspired, and that the events described in the canon should be accepted as true. Scientifically, we present plentiful evidence for a very ancient cosmos with the Big Bang as the initial event. We also reveal evidence for periodic, sudden creations of new life forms on this earth, ending with the creation of man. The use of such evidential apologetics is encouraged in scripture (I Thes. 5:21, Heb. 11:1). It is a common-sense approach as well.
If we agree that both old earth and young earth creationist believers accept the inspiration and authority of scripture in matters of origins events described in Genesis, what, then, is the source of difficulty? Briefly, the disagreement centers on (1) whether interpretation of Hebrew “yom” (day) is a 24-hour day or a long period of time; and (2) “No death before Adam’s fall,” a scriptural interpretation necessary to preserve the young earth paradigm. Blog readers may wish to check out my outline of the issues relevant to this discussion elsewhere on the homepage of this ATRI website, under the title “Earth and the Cosmos.” For believers in a young earth and universe, the 24-hour day interpretation becomes a pillar of their apologetic approach.
Creationists seeking the truth about the Big Bang, the time scale, creation events, and death before Adam’s fall need to turn to the scientific evidence—for, or against. Scientific evidence in these areas is abundant. The literature teems with evidence for an ancient cosmos starting with the Big Bang, as this blog has often stated. Believers and unbelievers alike have the choice to accept or reject such evidence, even when truth is at stake. But when the secular world searches for truth, we must remember that they will be more impacted by evidence than by presuppositions.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Science Apologetics
Let’s more carefully define apologetics as a sequel to our recent post on Evidential Apologetics. Our Christian faith needs a rational foundation. Apologetics is the process whereby we justify, support, and defend our belief system, which could fortify our own beliefs and help us convince a seeker. A large share of our discussions with others relating to matters of faith is connected with apologetics. The John Ankerberg Show discussions on science, past and current, uses science to aid us in supporting our belief that God exists and is the Creator of everything.
The science-minded person’s faith may be particularly strengthened by evidential apologetics. That person seeks answers to questions like “What happened?” “How did it happen?” and “When did it happen?” He is interested in demonstrating that certain causes have resulting effects. Classical apologetics relies upon reason and rationality to evaluate what we observe. This encompasses cosmological (first causes) and teleological (design) arguments. Finally, there is presuppositional apologetics. Presuppositionalists hold that the Bible’s revelation is pre-eminent. This apologetic method accepts God’s existence and written revelation of Himself as a “given,” a starting point for all other discussion. Other apologetics methods exist and there is some overlap in apologetic methodology.
There is a spirited discussion among Christians about whether the earth and universe is old or young and whether God created a fully-formed universe in the last 10,000 years within just six days, as opposed to a Big Bang 13.73 billion years distant. This discussion relates more closely to which apologetic method one embraces than to any other differences within the creationist faith community. If divergent views of creation events and timeframes were understood to be differences in apologetics methods, perhaps some of the heat generated by the discussion would abate.
No professional scientist would minimize the importance of evidence-gathering and analysis. The past and current John Ankerberg Show programs on scientific evidence for the Big Bang, design in the universe, and sudden and supernatural creation of life forms have a distinct flavor of evidential apologetics. As we study these various methods, however, we must recognize value in each and every one. Even champions of one method or another would agree that favoring one method merely indicates a difference in emphasis.
The science-minded person’s faith may be particularly strengthened by evidential apologetics. That person seeks answers to questions like “What happened?” “How did it happen?” and “When did it happen?” He is interested in demonstrating that certain causes have resulting effects. Classical apologetics relies upon reason and rationality to evaluate what we observe. This encompasses cosmological (first causes) and teleological (design) arguments. Finally, there is presuppositional apologetics. Presuppositionalists hold that the Bible’s revelation is pre-eminent. This apologetic method accepts God’s existence and written revelation of Himself as a “given,” a starting point for all other discussion. Other apologetics methods exist and there is some overlap in apologetic methodology.
There is a spirited discussion among Christians about whether the earth and universe is old or young and whether God created a fully-formed universe in the last 10,000 years within just six days, as opposed to a Big Bang 13.73 billion years distant. This discussion relates more closely to which apologetic method one embraces than to any other differences within the creationist faith community. If divergent views of creation events and timeframes were understood to be differences in apologetics methods, perhaps some of the heat generated by the discussion would abate.
No professional scientist would minimize the importance of evidence-gathering and analysis. The past and current John Ankerberg Show programs on scientific evidence for the Big Bang, design in the universe, and sudden and supernatural creation of life forms have a distinct flavor of evidential apologetics. As we study these various methods, however, we must recognize value in each and every one. Even champions of one method or another would agree that favoring one method merely indicates a difference in emphasis.
Friday, January 30, 2009
What Hath God Wrought!
Samuel F. B. Morse’s first telegraph message on May 24, 1844 used a phrase from Numbers 23:23 (KJV): “What Hath God Wrought?” The electronic transmission from Washington, D. C. to Baltimore, MD was the world’s baptism into instantaneous long-range communication. However, breakthroughs such as the 19th century telegraph, while remarkable at the time, have proven to be mightily overshadowed by discoveries and inventions of the past half-century. Since I entered high school in the 1950s, there have been startling advances in scientific knowledge on a great number of fronts. If we were to graphically illustrate these advances, the line may resemble the human population growth curve: slow growth followed by an explosive rise. We live in an unparalleled era of proliferating knowledge. The fallout has produced some strange ironies. Let’s mention two major areas and enlarge on a point we made in the post on 1/17/09.
Unlocking the genetic code: The following events rank as noteworthy in human discovery: the 1952 confirmation of DNA as the fundamental genetic material, the 1953 discovery of its double helix molecular structure, and the resulting unlocking of the genetic code in the 1960s. DNA is a molecule containing a code of startling informational power. Coded information from the DNA of one human body cell would fill 900 books the size of an encyclopedia. DNA synthesizes RNA, which in turn directs the construction of proteins. The human body contains millions of different proteins, which are organic compounds of folded amino acids. There is an astonishing irony about the unlocking of these secrets of genetic information: instead of pointing scientists toward the recognition that living things are intelligently and purposefully designed, many scientists have concluded that all living things have common ancestry resulting from mutation and natural selection, a proposal called the “strong” evolutionary hypothesis. A more valid conclusion based on evidence alone, instead of naturalistic presuppositions of common ancestry, would state that all types of life on earth exist and operate with a remarkable template allowing for a vast degree of varied and unique genetic expression.
Earth Sciences: Revolutionary gains in knowledge have occurred in the earth sciences in the last century. For example, the theory of plate tectonics is now a proven concept not even fifty years old. Plate tectonics is the slow movement of continents with respect to one another, resulting in earthquakes and volcanoes; it also is a beneficial large-scale, long-term mechanism for recycling minerals and biomass. Furthermore, most of our knowledge of oceanography, including the analysis of ocean sediments, which gives us information about ancient earth events and climates, has also been acquired since 1960. Moreover, accurate geologic timescales were deduced from forty independent radiometric dating methods perfected only since the mid-20th century. Additionally, Big Bang cosmology was affirmed in 1964 when leftover universal background radiation permeating the entire universe (previously theorized to exist if a cosmic Big Bang creation event really happened), was discovered at Bell Labs in Holmdel, NJ. Far more detail about that hot Big Bang creation event was revealed by the 1992 COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) and the more recent WMAP (Microwave Anistropy Probe) satellites. The latter has expanded the evidence many-fold. It has made possible determination of the most accurate age of the universe yet determined (13.73 billion years with an error bar of less than 1%) and revealed accurate proportions of the universe’s ordinary matter, dark matter, and dark energy. Finally, in the last three decades we have discovered hundreds of previously unknown fine-tuning characteristics of our universe. Each and every one of these characteristics must exist with great precision for life to exist anywhere in the universe.
What is our response to this recent burgeoning knowledge? Has there been an increase in recognition of a loving God who designed this universe and its characteristics with us in mind? Many spokespersons in the field of science, education, and our culture generally have become more naturalistic and secular, even antagonistic, as if our society’s freedoms of investigation and expression are threatened. Christian creationist views in particular have received scorn and ridicule from prominent scientists. Incredibly, on the other side of the picture, a large number of Christian evangelicals since 1960 have been hardened into an even stronger view that our earth and the universe are only six to ten thousand years old. They reject all evidence of an ancient, finely-tuned cosmos and Planet Earth. They prefer to believe God did all His work on a time scale of several thousand years. They mock the idea that the Big Bang was an event of incredible creative precision, not destructive at all. They reject the idea that God’s sudden and transcendent creative acts could be widely spaced on the time scale of historical geology, evidence for which is abundant.
What Hath God Wrought? In our day, God has enabled mankind, as in no other previous age, to unlock knowledge hitherto inaccessible. Scripture encourages believers to study, to evaluate, to reason. The creation time scale is not a matter of doctrine. It is, however, a matter of rational, accessible truth.
Unlocking the genetic code: The following events rank as noteworthy in human discovery: the 1952 confirmation of DNA as the fundamental genetic material, the 1953 discovery of its double helix molecular structure, and the resulting unlocking of the genetic code in the 1960s. DNA is a molecule containing a code of startling informational power. Coded information from the DNA of one human body cell would fill 900 books the size of an encyclopedia. DNA synthesizes RNA, which in turn directs the construction of proteins. The human body contains millions of different proteins, which are organic compounds of folded amino acids. There is an astonishing irony about the unlocking of these secrets of genetic information: instead of pointing scientists toward the recognition that living things are intelligently and purposefully designed, many scientists have concluded that all living things have common ancestry resulting from mutation and natural selection, a proposal called the “strong” evolutionary hypothesis. A more valid conclusion based on evidence alone, instead of naturalistic presuppositions of common ancestry, would state that all types of life on earth exist and operate with a remarkable template allowing for a vast degree of varied and unique genetic expression.
Earth Sciences: Revolutionary gains in knowledge have occurred in the earth sciences in the last century. For example, the theory of plate tectonics is now a proven concept not even fifty years old. Plate tectonics is the slow movement of continents with respect to one another, resulting in earthquakes and volcanoes; it also is a beneficial large-scale, long-term mechanism for recycling minerals and biomass. Furthermore, most of our knowledge of oceanography, including the analysis of ocean sediments, which gives us information about ancient earth events and climates, has also been acquired since 1960. Moreover, accurate geologic timescales were deduced from forty independent radiometric dating methods perfected only since the mid-20th century. Additionally, Big Bang cosmology was affirmed in 1964 when leftover universal background radiation permeating the entire universe (previously theorized to exist if a cosmic Big Bang creation event really happened), was discovered at Bell Labs in Holmdel, NJ. Far more detail about that hot Big Bang creation event was revealed by the 1992 COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) and the more recent WMAP (Microwave Anistropy Probe) satellites. The latter has expanded the evidence many-fold. It has made possible determination of the most accurate age of the universe yet determined (13.73 billion years with an error bar of less than 1%) and revealed accurate proportions of the universe’s ordinary matter, dark matter, and dark energy. Finally, in the last three decades we have discovered hundreds of previously unknown fine-tuning characteristics of our universe. Each and every one of these characteristics must exist with great precision for life to exist anywhere in the universe.
What is our response to this recent burgeoning knowledge? Has there been an increase in recognition of a loving God who designed this universe and its characteristics with us in mind? Many spokespersons in the field of science, education, and our culture generally have become more naturalistic and secular, even antagonistic, as if our society’s freedoms of investigation and expression are threatened. Christian creationist views in particular have received scorn and ridicule from prominent scientists. Incredibly, on the other side of the picture, a large number of Christian evangelicals since 1960 have been hardened into an even stronger view that our earth and the universe are only six to ten thousand years old. They reject all evidence of an ancient, finely-tuned cosmos and Planet Earth. They prefer to believe God did all His work on a time scale of several thousand years. They mock the idea that the Big Bang was an event of incredible creative precision, not destructive at all. They reject the idea that God’s sudden and transcendent creative acts could be widely spaced on the time scale of historical geology, evidence for which is abundant.
What Hath God Wrought? In our day, God has enabled mankind, as in no other previous age, to unlock knowledge hitherto inaccessible. Scripture encourages believers to study, to evaluate, to reason. The creation time scale is not a matter of doctrine. It is, however, a matter of rational, accessible truth.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Presidential Science
In President Obama’s inaugural speech, one catch-phrase caught my attention like no other. “Restoring science to its rightful place” conjured up a plethora of thoughts and emotions, some positive, some less positive. In the light of my many previous posts encouraging pastors and other church leaders to use science as an apologetic tool in ministry, we must make it clear that our president was not talking about the same thing I have advocated. Let’s discuss a little used term: scientism. Some have used the term in a pejorative sense to ridicule the overuse or misuse of science. The meaning of the term suggests that all knowledge is based on material reality only and that pursuit of that knowledge by the methods of science is exalted above other modes of inquiry and should, therefore, be the exclusive approach to gaining knowledge.
Most analysts believe President Obama’s statement was a reference to global warming. Many people on the political spectrum say science has conclusively shown that man’s fossil fuel emissions are responsible for an increased greenhouse effect. The result is global warming. Therefore, “Restoring science to its rightful place” would mandate belief that carbon emissions, resulting from society’s burning of fossil fuels, are the unquestioned cause of global warming. And once we accept this premise, the plan of action should then be crystal clear.
A chorus of science philosophers in the past half-century has pointed out that the use of any single, clearly defined scientific method may not really be the way to achieve scientific knowledge. They say, with some measure of truth, that there is no simple, or single, method of scientific inquiry. Famous science philosophers such as Michael Polanyi and Thomas Kuhn state that such factors as subjective personal inspiration and scientific consensus (sometimes driven by the worldview of the science community), are even more important than any particular scientific method.
So what is a Christian to believe with respect to the environment, the issue of global warming, and the remedy for global warming? In Genesis 1:28, scripture commands us to care for our environment and its creatures. The inspirational chapters in Job 38 and 39 describe the magnificence and beauty of our creation: the cosmos, weather events, water cycle, earth’s living creatures, and their unique programmed behaviors. The mandate is clearly for environmental awareness, concern, and tender care.
Reasons To Believe scholars Dr. Hugh Ross and Dr. Jeff Zweerink, in a 2006 news release, clarified the issues related to human impact on environment: “Contrary to the claims of a few high profile politicians, celebrities, and environmentalists, some of our human activities in fact create a cooling effect. This delicate balancing act of multiple and diverse natural processes and human activities gives us reason to be cautious.” Alteration of rainfall patterns may be of greater concern than warming. For example, Ross claims that “During Roman times, what is now the Sahara Desert was the breadbasket of the empire.” Trees and shrubs were cut for building materials and fuel, resulting in greatly reduced rainfall levels and hastening the advance of the desert. In the last century, that process has accelerated.
“Over the past four million years, the global climate has oscillated many times,” Ross continues. In my own personal library I have old books which describe variations in earth’s orbit on a 100,000 year cycle. For 10,000 of those years, the earth is in a “global warming” event. These books were published long before the current global warming political hype. Now global warming has become a cause celebre, a belief du jour. There are many other complex factors, including tectonic activity, erosion, and changes in the earth’s biomass which are far more important in causing climate change than the burning of fossil fuels.
Science is no more immune to methodological manias than any other human behaviors such as fads in education or even church worship styles. This is reminiscent of the Apostle Paul’s experience with the Athenians in Acts 17:21 (NIV): “All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.” We should remind ourselves that the latest ideas, the beliefs du jour, may not always be the best ideas or beliefs to embrace. In fact, the beliefs may not even be true. Generally however, science, as an enterprise of advancement of knowledge and the human condition, is still worthy of being held in high esteem.
Most analysts believe President Obama’s statement was a reference to global warming. Many people on the political spectrum say science has conclusively shown that man’s fossil fuel emissions are responsible for an increased greenhouse effect. The result is global warming. Therefore, “Restoring science to its rightful place” would mandate belief that carbon emissions, resulting from society’s burning of fossil fuels, are the unquestioned cause of global warming. And once we accept this premise, the plan of action should then be crystal clear.
A chorus of science philosophers in the past half-century has pointed out that the use of any single, clearly defined scientific method may not really be the way to achieve scientific knowledge. They say, with some measure of truth, that there is no simple, or single, method of scientific inquiry. Famous science philosophers such as Michael Polanyi and Thomas Kuhn state that such factors as subjective personal inspiration and scientific consensus (sometimes driven by the worldview of the science community), are even more important than any particular scientific method.
So what is a Christian to believe with respect to the environment, the issue of global warming, and the remedy for global warming? In Genesis 1:28, scripture commands us to care for our environment and its creatures. The inspirational chapters in Job 38 and 39 describe the magnificence and beauty of our creation: the cosmos, weather events, water cycle, earth’s living creatures, and their unique programmed behaviors. The mandate is clearly for environmental awareness, concern, and tender care.
Reasons To Believe scholars Dr. Hugh Ross and Dr. Jeff Zweerink, in a 2006 news release, clarified the issues related to human impact on environment: “Contrary to the claims of a few high profile politicians, celebrities, and environmentalists, some of our human activities in fact create a cooling effect. This delicate balancing act of multiple and diverse natural processes and human activities gives us reason to be cautious.” Alteration of rainfall patterns may be of greater concern than warming. For example, Ross claims that “During Roman times, what is now the Sahara Desert was the breadbasket of the empire.” Trees and shrubs were cut for building materials and fuel, resulting in greatly reduced rainfall levels and hastening the advance of the desert. In the last century, that process has accelerated.
“Over the past four million years, the global climate has oscillated many times,” Ross continues. In my own personal library I have old books which describe variations in earth’s orbit on a 100,000 year cycle. For 10,000 of those years, the earth is in a “global warming” event. These books were published long before the current global warming political hype. Now global warming has become a cause celebre, a belief du jour. There are many other complex factors, including tectonic activity, erosion, and changes in the earth’s biomass which are far more important in causing climate change than the burning of fossil fuels.
Science is no more immune to methodological manias than any other human behaviors such as fads in education or even church worship styles. This is reminiscent of the Apostle Paul’s experience with the Athenians in Acts 17:21 (NIV): “All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.” We should remind ourselves that the latest ideas, the beliefs du jour, may not always be the best ideas or beliefs to embrace. In fact, the beliefs may not even be true. Generally however, science, as an enterprise of advancement of knowledge and the human condition, is still worthy of being held in high esteem.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Sermons from Science
“God of the Atom” was one of my many experiences with Moody Science Films beginning in the 1940s. The films were an outgrowth of the ministry of the visionary Dr. Irwin A. Moon, a California pastor who had used effective object lessons from science back in the 1930s. He began an evangelistic outreach with Moody Bible Institute in Chicago in 1938 called “Sermons from Science.” The Moody Institute of Science was founded in 1945 with live demonstrations and film productions. Many skillfully crafted science films were produced over the next decade or two, such as Red River of Life, City of the Bees, God of Creation, and Time and Eternity. Their popularity is legendary.
In the 1950s and 1960s the films were marketed not only to churches, but also to public schools, industry, and the military, where in our day, the mention of religious themes may generate a storm of protest. In 1948, President Truman appointed the “President’s Commission on Religion and Welfare in the Armed Forces.” An agreement was made with Moody to use the films in military character guidance programs. At the time, the Secretary of the Army cited their obligation “to the parents of the youthful soldier to continue insofar as possible under the conditions of military service, the wholesome influences of the home, the family, and the community.” By 1951, 200,000 military personnel were watching Moody science films each year. A Supreme Court Decision in 1962 ended the practice.
According to reviewers of modern Moody science film DVD reproductions I consulted, Irwin Moon “believed that the marvels of science provided visible evidence of a divine plan of creation…a glimpse of the natural world so complex that it could only be explained, according to the films’ narrators, through the existence of a higher power or intelligent designer.” Another reviewer, after showing the DVD remakes to his children “knew that the films would cultivate a taste for beauty, a love of science, and a sound theological perspective on the Creator.” Still another writer decries the fact that modern educational programs tend to bombard children with a visual assault of flashy scenes, distracting sound effects, and obnoxious or irreverent dialogue.” Having experienced these Moody Science classics six decades ago, and having used them in church and once or twice in my public school science classes, I attest to their high quality and faith-strengthening, spiritual value.
There is a sad irony to my conclusion. Beginning roughly fifty years ago, after the Moody science films had been produced, our knowledge in the fields of genetics, cosmology, medicine, oceanography, and technology, to mention a few, have all undergone startling changes. New discoveries in these fields have proliferated exponentially. One would think, therefore, that public confidence in the reality of the Creator who fashioned it all, would also have grown exponentially. Alas! Not so. Many have become jaded to scientific discoveries. Our culture is more secular than ever. Materialism deflects us from the simple joys of God-awareness. We battle boredom, frustration, and time constraints in a society with more material goods at our disposal than ever before. Books on atheism achieve more popularity than warranted.
Psalm 29:2 (NIV) affirms the message of the Moody Institute of Science film classics. “Ascribe to the Lord the glory due his name…” A reading of the next eight verses in Psalm 29 reads like a catalog of natural wonders Dr. Moon presented in the films. Today's scientific discoveries reveal more and more about multiple natural wonders, flashing through our senses like a vastly enhanced Moody science film.
In the 1950s and 1960s the films were marketed not only to churches, but also to public schools, industry, and the military, where in our day, the mention of religious themes may generate a storm of protest. In 1948, President Truman appointed the “President’s Commission on Religion and Welfare in the Armed Forces.” An agreement was made with Moody to use the films in military character guidance programs. At the time, the Secretary of the Army cited their obligation “to the parents of the youthful soldier to continue insofar as possible under the conditions of military service, the wholesome influences of the home, the family, and the community.” By 1951, 200,000 military personnel were watching Moody science films each year. A Supreme Court Decision in 1962 ended the practice.
According to reviewers of modern Moody science film DVD reproductions I consulted, Irwin Moon “believed that the marvels of science provided visible evidence of a divine plan of creation…a glimpse of the natural world so complex that it could only be explained, according to the films’ narrators, through the existence of a higher power or intelligent designer.” Another reviewer, after showing the DVD remakes to his children “knew that the films would cultivate a taste for beauty, a love of science, and a sound theological perspective on the Creator.” Still another writer decries the fact that modern educational programs tend to bombard children with a visual assault of flashy scenes, distracting sound effects, and obnoxious or irreverent dialogue.” Having experienced these Moody Science classics six decades ago, and having used them in church and once or twice in my public school science classes, I attest to their high quality and faith-strengthening, spiritual value.
There is a sad irony to my conclusion. Beginning roughly fifty years ago, after the Moody science films had been produced, our knowledge in the fields of genetics, cosmology, medicine, oceanography, and technology, to mention a few, have all undergone startling changes. New discoveries in these fields have proliferated exponentially. One would think, therefore, that public confidence in the reality of the Creator who fashioned it all, would also have grown exponentially. Alas! Not so. Many have become jaded to scientific discoveries. Our culture is more secular than ever. Materialism deflects us from the simple joys of God-awareness. We battle boredom, frustration, and time constraints in a society with more material goods at our disposal than ever before. Books on atheism achieve more popularity than warranted.
Psalm 29:2 (NIV) affirms the message of the Moody Institute of Science film classics. “Ascribe to the Lord the glory due his name…” A reading of the next eight verses in Psalm 29 reads like a catalog of natural wonders Dr. Moon presented in the films. Today's scientific discoveries reveal more and more about multiple natural wonders, flashing through our senses like a vastly enhanced Moody science film.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Debates with Atheists
Have you ever debated an atheist? Formal exchanges between theists and atheists are popular and instructive, even entertaining. Many such encounters have been published or recorded in recent years. When an audience is present, they sometimes behave like partisans at an athletic contest. One such debate occurred between philosopher/theologian William Lane Craig and atheist professor of philosophy Walter Sinnott-Armstrong. In the first chapter of God? A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist, Craig laid out five major reasons for his theistic belief. This chapter was essentially a development of his opening remarks in a debate at Dartmouth College in 1999.
A brief overview of Craig’s five major points follows: (1) a discussion of ontological arguments: beginnings, causes, infinity; (2) the existence of moral values as an indicator of God’s existence; and (3) an inner certainty that God exists and can be immediately experienced and known directly. Philosophers call such beliefs “properly basic beliefs,” according to Craig. They do not need to be justified by other beliefs. The other two major points appeal more strongly to the science-minded person. Let’s call them evidential support pillars for God’s existence: (4) the features of the universe, describing hundreds of characteristics which must be “just right”—tuned to an unimaginable degree of precision in order for life to exist anywhere; (5) plentiful physical and documentary evidence related to Christ’s life, death, and resurrection.
Evidential apologetics, particularly with respect to science, have become a more vital channel for affirmation of the theistic Christian belief system. Atheists such as Sinnott-Armstrong complain that the evidence to justify belief in God is weak or non-existent. Many atheists are materialists, believing that there is no reality that does not have a physical manifestation. They claim science supports materialism. Physical evidence such as apparent design, coupled with the complex function of apparently designed living systems, does not serve to convince atheists either. Well-reasoned theistic arguments become buried under an avalanche of refutation. For the atheist, the process of searching for the truth of God’s existence is secondary to the defense of their worldview, perhaps even secondary to the process of developing their argument. For many science philosophers, describing or defining the science process is not the same as discovering truth. Objective truth about what is “really real,” however, does exist. Truth in today’s culture is becoming increasingly subjective and relative, but Holy Scripture proposes that truth is accessible.
The created order is generously salted with evidence of the existence of God. It is perfectly rational to infer His creative acts through the traditional methods of science. Psalm 19:4 says the heavens “speak” as if with a voice and with words. Doubters reject such evidence and systematically rationalize it away. Believers, however, examine the evidence and rationalize a Cause.
A brief overview of Craig’s five major points follows: (1) a discussion of ontological arguments: beginnings, causes, infinity; (2) the existence of moral values as an indicator of God’s existence; and (3) an inner certainty that God exists and can be immediately experienced and known directly. Philosophers call such beliefs “properly basic beliefs,” according to Craig. They do not need to be justified by other beliefs. The other two major points appeal more strongly to the science-minded person. Let’s call them evidential support pillars for God’s existence: (4) the features of the universe, describing hundreds of characteristics which must be “just right”—tuned to an unimaginable degree of precision in order for life to exist anywhere; (5) plentiful physical and documentary evidence related to Christ’s life, death, and resurrection.
Evidential apologetics, particularly with respect to science, have become a more vital channel for affirmation of the theistic Christian belief system. Atheists such as Sinnott-Armstrong complain that the evidence to justify belief in God is weak or non-existent. Many atheists are materialists, believing that there is no reality that does not have a physical manifestation. They claim science supports materialism. Physical evidence such as apparent design, coupled with the complex function of apparently designed living systems, does not serve to convince atheists either. Well-reasoned theistic arguments become buried under an avalanche of refutation. For the atheist, the process of searching for the truth of God’s existence is secondary to the defense of their worldview, perhaps even secondary to the process of developing their argument. For many science philosophers, describing or defining the science process is not the same as discovering truth. Objective truth about what is “really real,” however, does exist. Truth in today’s culture is becoming increasingly subjective and relative, but Holy Scripture proposes that truth is accessible.
The created order is generously salted with evidence of the existence of God. It is perfectly rational to infer His creative acts through the traditional methods of science. Psalm 19:4 says the heavens “speak” as if with a voice and with words. Doubters reject such evidence and systematically rationalize it away. Believers, however, examine the evidence and rationalize a Cause.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)