FACTS AND FAITH

1987 Volume 1, No. 1
Spring / Summer

* Due to copyrights, original graphics and tables may not appear in these articles

Science in the News: Supernovae: Heavenly Fireworks

By Hugh Ross

Of all stellar events, a supernova is the most energetic. When a large star exhausts its primary supply of fusion fuel, namely hydrogen and helium, it no longer has the energy to resist gravitational collapse. The outer shell of the star falls freely towards the core, crushing it, and igniting one last cataclysmic nuclear explosion. So spectacular is the blast that for several months a supernova can outshine a billion other stars.

Supernovae are responsible for nearly all elements heavier than helium. This means that our bodies are made from the ashes of supernovae. Supernovae also generate nearly all of the energetic cosmic radiation in the universe. A nearby supernova could exterminate us with its deadly rays.

Fortunately, supernovae are rare events. Astronomers estimate that there is only one supernova per galaxy every twenty to fifty years. Since galaxies are so large, we would expect a major destruction of life-forms by supernovae only about once every ten million years.

The Vela supernova, which exploded about 1500 light years away from Earth at about the time of the Genesis flood, is probably the nearest supernova event in the history of modern man.1 Most of the cosmic rays that now penetrate our bodies probably come from Vela. It is possible that the shortening of human life-spans described in Genesis may result from this supernova event.

On February 23, 1987, Earth dwellers witnessed the closest visible supernova since 1604. (An 18th-century supernova was near enough to be detected at radio wavelengths, but not at optical.) Supernova 1987a, which blazes in a companion galaxy to our own, hit the headlines as it gave forth the first unmistakable evidence of neutrinos (small fundamental particles) emanating from an astronomical source other than our sun. Teams in both Japan and Ohio recorded within a few seconds of one another a neutrino burst coming from the right direction.2

What do researchers hope to learn from Supernova 1987a? First, it may assist astronomers in pinning down the role of neutrinos in the creation and subsequent development of the universe. Second, it may help astronomers to more accurately measure the distances to faraway galaxies. Finally, it may assist paleontologists in determining how many of the gaps observed in the fossil record can be attributed to the effects of supernovae.

What are the current chances of a supernova too close for comfort? Astronomers have recently detected huge emissions of nitrogen in the atmospheres of Eta Carina and Betelgeuse. Theoreticians tells us that such emissions take place only in the moments before a supernova explosion. Moments, here, is a relative term meaning anything from a second to ten thousand years. Eta Carina is a very large star. So, its explosion will be a spectacular sight. However, it is distant enough (9000 light years) that we will experience no other impact. Betelgeuse, only 500 years distant, poses serious threat of damage.

Some scripture passages relevant to supernovae would be Gen. 5-11, Ps. 104:30, and Rev. 16.

References

  1. John Tierney. "Scholar Without a School," in Science 83. March 1983, pp. 48-52.
  2. David Lindley. "Neutrinos from the Supernova," in Nature, 326. (1987), p. 239.
  3. Ellen Fried. "The Ungentle Death of a Giant Star," in Science 86. January/February 1986, pp. 63-64.

Let us Reason

By Hugh and Kathy Ross

Aurelius Augustinius, better known to us as St. Augustine, is considered by most historians the chief Christian apologist of the post-Nicene and mediaeval eras (5th to 12th centuries A.D.). His incisive arguments silenced atheists and exposed the distortions of heretics. Some of his work still provides fuel for discussion on such issues as the "innocence of babes" and the "days" of creation.

Augustine, for all his merits, also made some grave errors. In attacking a preposterous theory about "antipodes," people on the opposite side of the globe "who walk with feet [diametrically] opposite ours,"1 he went too far. His polemical tour de force aimed at the whole of the theory, including its statement about the shape of the earth. Eloquently he set forth his case, chiefly from Psalm 104:2, which poetically depicts God’s stretching out the heavens "like a curtain," presumably across a flat stage—or so the image suggested to Augustine.

Regrettably, the great thinker violated some basic rules of scholarship. First, he failed to explore the original language of his proof text. A study of Hebrew writings (available to him) would have revealed that yeri’a was used for tent curtains—walls and ceilings—not just for a two-dimensional drape. Second, he ignored other relevant passages of scripture, such as Isaiah 40:22, which refers to the earth as an orb.

Further, he neglected to consider the light which scientific findings might have to shed upon the subject. In this case, he would have found a well established proof of the earth’s sphericity from the combined efforts (from the 7th to the 3rd centuries B.C.) of Anaximander, Aristarchus, and Eratosthenes.2, 3

Augustine’s flawed argument held sway for more than a millennium. Not until 15th century explorers defied the risks of falling off Earth’s edges and survived to tell about it did the bubble finally burst.

What lessons can we draw? For one, we can learn to listen to those who oppose our views. They may be right and we wrong, if only in part, and regardless of motives. For another, the effectiveness of a persuasive tool may not reflect its accuracy or legitimacy. Finally, we need to make every effort to ensure that an argument is consistent with all truth. How easy it is to bypass important scripture verses or language study or research findings from even the more obscure fields.

As a safeguard, the Reasons to Believe faculty submits its materials to a board of referees for their critical evaluation and recommendations. This group of scholars, some Christians and some not, now is being expanded to cover a broader range of disciplines and perspectives. Our goal is to serve God, also our readers and friends, as responsibly and reliably as possible.

References

  1. Augustine. "The City of God," Book XVI, Chapter 9 in Great Books of the Western World, volume 18, Augustine. edited by Robert Maynard Hutchins. (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952), p. 428.
  2. George Abell. Explorations of the Universe. (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1964), pp. 16-19.
  3. Irene Fisher. "Another Look at Eratosthenes’ and Posidonius’ Determinations of the Earth’s Circumference," in Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 16 (1975), pp. 152-67.

Viewpoint: Dueling Revelations

By Hugh Ross

Reasons to Believe was born out of a longing for Biblically sound as well as scientifically valid treatment of various great issues of the Christian faith. A barrier to such treatment is the prevailing notion that only one revelation is trustworthy.

Scientists and theologians seem equally dogmatic. Popular British astrophysicist Fred Hoyle declares, "It is against the spirit of scientific inquiry to regard observable effects as arising from ‘causes unknown to science.’"1 Conservative theologian John C. Whitcomb writes, "Cosmogony, cosmology, and metaphysics all must grope in darkness apart from God’s special revelation in scripture."2

Within Christendom we find groups that hold to the unerring revelation of the Bible but consider the revelation from science and nature to be flawed and therefore suspect, while other organizations acknowledge that "the scientific approach is capable of giving reliable information about the natural world," but accept Biblical reliability only in matters of "faith and conduct."

How can this be? If God is responsible for the words of the Bible, and if God personally created the universe, and if God cannot lie, then the facts of science and nature must match the message of the Bible.

We are glad to report that our convictions on this matter have been affirmed by an organization whose work we esteem, the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. From its deliberations on science and the Bible have come the following statements:3

  • We affirm that any preunderstandings which the interpreter brings to Scripture should be in harmony with scriptural teaching and subject to correction by it.
  • We deny that Scripture should be required to fit alien preunderstandings, inconsistent with itself, such as naturalism, evolutionism, scientism, secular humanism, and relativism.
  • We affirm that since God is the author of all truth, all truths, biblical and extrabiblical, are consistent and cohere, and that the Bible speaks truth when it touches on matters pertaining to nature, history, or anything else. We further affirm that in some cases extrabiblical data have value for clarifying what Scripture teaches, and for prompting correction of faulty interpretations.
  • We deny that extrabiblical views ever disprove the teaching of Scripture or hold priority over it.
  • We affirm the harmony of special with general revelation and therefore of biblical teaching with the facts of nature.
  • We deny that any genuine scientific facts are inconsistent with the true meaning of any passage of Scripture.
  • We affirm that Genesis 1-11 is factual, as is the rest of the book.
  • We deny that the teachings of Genesis 1-11 are mythical and that scientific hypotheses about earth history or the origin of humanity may be invoked to overthrow what Scripture teaches about creation.

It is our prayer that these statements will go a long way towards overcoming the confusion and conflict that needlessly divide Christians and undermine the effectiveness of our witness to the world.

References

  1. Fred Hoyle. "A New Model for the Expanding Universe," in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 108 (1948), p. 372.
  2. John C.Whitcomb and Donald B. DeYoung. The Moon: Its Creation, Form, and Significance (Winona Lake, Indiana: BMH Books, 1978), p.69.
  3. Earl D. Radmacher and Robert D. Preus, editors. Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Academie Books, 1986), pp. 901-903.

From the President's Desk

Of the many wonderful and sometimes difficult lessons God is giving me through my not-so-little year-and-a-half old son, Joel, a strategic one has come through my efforts to understand his early attempts at speaking. His facial expression, intonation, and gestures offer helpful clues in many cases, but at times I'm utterly baffled by his earnest requests for "ishee" and his emphatic declarations on "puck!" (which I now know means "cup") or "pay-play!" (possibly his word for "airplane"?).

I can see his frustration and disappointment when I fail to comprehend his message, and I feel the same way, too. Such moments of stymied communication give me greater motivation than ever to speak clearly, comprehensibly, on subjects which may include vocabulary and concepts unfamiliar to those of you who have never studied physical sciences—or any other sciences, for that matter—or mathematics or the scriptures.

As I work to develop this skill, I appreciate your patience, as well as your comments and suggestions. Many have offered valuable critique via the response sheets at our recent events. Please pray for me as I make revisions, incorporating your recommendations, and please accept my thanks for all your kind, encouraging words.

Gratefully,

Hugh Ross

As I See It

By Steve Scheele

The message of Reasons to Believe is essentially this—that our best understanding of our physical and social worlds points directly to the Bible and the God of the Bible as the best authorities on which to base our lives. Our approach to ministry is simply to present relevant facts and allow people to decide for themselves what makes sense.

Research scientists engage in the production of new knowledge through science—making guesses as to how and why things are what they are and do what they do, testing, interpreting results, and refining their guesses. Because of the way our society operates, it may be years (even decades) before some of the new knowledge produced by the scientific vanguard becomes accessible to people outside their immediate peer group, people like me. But, when new knowledge and understanding does become generally pervasive, it changes the way we think, the way we believe—ultimately, the way we live.

For example, by the1960’s people generally had accepted evolutionary theory, including the notion that all of life is a result of natural processes. Therefore, based on this new world view, people began to look "within self" for answers to life's questions—hence the movement towards humanism and humanistic psychology. If natural processes were all that shaped and directed the universe, then the theology that made sense would be "God is dead." And, practically speaking, a lifestyle that made sense would be self exploration—expansion of one’s mental, emotional, and physical experiences through drugs, meditation, psychotherapy, sex, etc.

Since 1980, however, new discoveries in the physical sciences yield a different view of our universe, a view that will reshape the way people believe about their world and their lives. The idea that the universe is virtually infinite and, thus, that life could have assembled itself entirely by natural processes, now is understood to be implausible by the leading physicists of our day.

As these new findings from physics continue to be assembled and analyzed and to filter across the boundaries into other disciplines of science, the picture that emerges more and more closely parallels what the Bible has been telling us all along about the ways things and people began and about the way things and people are.

Because of the scientific, philosophical/theological, and practical training of our Reasons to Believe faculty, this organization is uniquely equipped to send out the evidence that the Bible’s message is reliable, and to encourage people to take a step (not a blind leap) of faith.

Faith, as I see it, involves evaluating evidence and making commitments based on the certainty of that evidence. Faith is a method—taking established facts and making decisions based on their implications.

In other words, Reasons to Believe offers to its audience a secure basis for faith. God has provided evidence of Himself—of His character and purposes—both through His written word and through His creative activities. Both sets of evidence call for a response, a response of humility, an acknowledgment that God not only desires a relationship with us but also that He alone has made that relationship possible, through Jesus Christ.

Puzzles and Paradoxes

Would you like to try your hand (or head?) at solving a problem? Here's one that may be familiar to you: Exodus 8:15, 8:32, and 9:34 tell us that Egypt's pharaoh "hardened his heart" when Moses asked him to let the people of Israel go. However, in Exodus 4:21, 7:3, 9:12, 10:1, 10:20, 10:27, 11:10, 14:4, and 14:8 we learn that God hardened Pharaoh's heart. Which of the five tools for paradox resolution (listed below) must be applied to unravel this seeming contradiction? The person sending the earliest post-marked correct answer will receive a $20 Reasons to Believe gift certificate toward the purchase of books, papers, tapes, and videos from our catalog, or toward tuition/admission for our courses and special events.

Here is a list of the tools from science for resolving paradoxes (one or more may be applied, as necessary):

  1. Establish the correct frame of reference, or point of view, for the passage(s) under consideration.
  2. Correctly define the system(s) in question. [Some examples of systems would be a family unit, a church, the heavens, the universe, Israel, etc.]
  3. Make observations over a greater or lesser range of magnitudes, e.g. over a longer or shorter span of time, a smaller or larger geographical region, etc.
  4. Make observations over more dimensions or different dimensions, e.g. over three dimensions rather than two, five instead of three, or over time and space rather than space alone, etc.
  5. Gather more detailed/more complete information.

For our puzzle enthusiasts, link all nine of the dots below using only three straight lines. Remember, the lines must connect.

[graphic excluded]

Look for the solution in our next issue.

Readers Write

We invite you to write us with questions about science and scripture, about the relationship between facts and faith. A few of the questions we receive will be answered in each issue of the newsletter. Think about this: the question you raise may touch upon an elusive doubt that another reader has never been able to express.

Readers Write

...I am struggling to become a Christian. I am searching desperately for data and evidence that would show that the universe had a beginning (a creation event outside of the First Law of Thermodynamics) and that the energy of the universe had an origin and is not just eternally oscillating in and out. I cannot possibly emphasize enough how important the location of such data is to me...

--V.R.D., Whippany, NJ

...It really bothers me when atheists, and others, print these pamphlets about contradictions in the Bible... My problem is not so much that they are doing it, but that people are believing it out of ignorance! It makes me want to find these people who believe this baloney and present them with the facts - and let them make an intelligent choice....

--N.W., Santa Ana, CA

A Word from the Editor

By Kathy Ross

Apologetics. We call ours a ministry of apologetics. Hugh's new title at his home church is Minister of Apologetics. A joke floats around the campus that Hugh received the title because of his proficiency in saying, "I'm sorry."

This joke points to the reason why many people have trouble appreciating the word apologetics. They immediately associate it with the sometimes painful experience of acknowledging a fault or failure. While the root words are the same for apologetic and apologetics, the usages differ distinctly.

Apo is the Greek expression for "away" or "off," as in apostle, one "sent away," and apostate, "standing off" from the faith. Logia is Greek for "speaking" or "oration," as in monologue, "one person speaking." In time it came to mean "study" and "reason," too, as in biology and logic.

Apologia, which appears several times in the New Testament, meant a "speaking away" of accusations and charges, a defense and vindication. The Apostle Paul used the word to describe his legal right of response to the bloodthirsty Jewish leaders who screamed for his execution (Acts 25:16) and also with reference to his personal right of response to the "judgments" of certain hypercritical rabble rousers at Corinth (I Corinthians 9:3).

Both Paul and Peter used the word in another sense, too, that of arguing persuasively in defense of faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ (Philippians 1:7 and I Peter 3:15). Peter exhorts all believers to be prepared to give "an answer," literally, an "apologia," to anyone who asks the reason for their hope.

Making its way into the English language via Latin and French, apologetics became the word for the presentation of defenses and proofs for the Christian faith, for the "speaking/reasoning away" of any attacks and challenges, real or potential. And still it is used that way.

So, to the person who says, "We shouldn't make any apologies for the Christian faith, I’ll say, "No, we shouldn’t, and yes, we should!" While it is true that we find in our God and in His word no faults and failings to acknowledge (though we do in ourselves and in fellow believers), it is also true that we have Christ’s command to prepare a case for those seeking reasons to believe.

Field Report

  • First, a word from the front lines, our prayer team. The most important work of the ministry is conducted every third Monday evening of the month (and Thursday evening, too, if that's a better time for some), when Bruce and Charlotte Douglas lead our pray-ers in bringing our praises and requests to God. One night they prayed that Hugh would have the opportunity to meet with a particular pastor whose church members have been disturbed by controversies concerning Genesis One and science. The very next morning this pastor telephoned Hugh to say, "I would like to talk with you, but I have just one opening in my appointment book between now and two months from now—it's this week. Can you make it?" Yes, the two men did meet and their discussion proved helpful. Praise goes to God.
  • A letter from the Africa Centre for World Mission reports that our Genesis One booklet is among the literature on sale to the public at the Pretoria Natural History Museum in South Africa. The pamphlet also is gaining distribution through Christian bookstores in South Africa (plans call for wider distribution across the continent), and it is part of the curriculum for science and scripture courses at several Bible colleges and seminaries.
  • A Friday evening lecture at UC Irvine on cosmological evidences for the Biblical doctrine of God drew more than 150 students and area residents. The lively question-and-answer session and the talk by Hugh Ross were captured on tape, available from Reasons to Believe. You may order the two-tape set via the response card included in this issue or by phoning our office. Special thanks go to Kathy Kolf and other student sponsors who organized a 59-hour prayer watch leading up to that event.
  • "The air was chilly, but hearts were warm and open," says Hugh in describing his recent trip to Anchorage. Noon-hour outreaches downtown and evening talks in the suburbs drew engineers, secretaries, executives, school teachers, homemakers, missionaries, and many others, from a wide variety of spiritual perspectives. One man had never before set foot inside a church. By the end of the week he had brought two co-workers and all of his family with him to the sessions. We pray that both he and they will continue to move closer to Jesus Christ.

Accomplishments of the past quarter

  • completion of a short book summarizing the cosmological evidences for the Biblical doctrine of God, and the packaging of this material on audio cassettes (a two-tape set),
  • preparation of an outline reviewing God's purposes at work in evil, suffering, and death,
  • field testing of these new materials for both academic and general audiences,
  • development of a credit course on origins for educators,
  • acquisition of space for our business offices,
  • hiring of staff for business operations and for coordination of volunteers.

Objectives for the next quarter

  • to launch three Reasons-to-Believe-sponsored lecture series,
  • to communicate our vision to more pastors and media people so as to broaden the reach of our ministry,
  • to finalize arrangements for college-credit courses for educators and others,
  • to write three more chapters of the manuscript on cosmological proofs for the Biblical doctrine of God,
  • to publish a pamphlet on evil, death, and suffering in light of God's power and love,
  • to produce an expanded version of Genesis One: A Scientific Perspective,
  • to acquire additional office space, and
  • to streamline our materials distribution.

In Memoriam

Merton Williams moved to his new home with the Lord on April 11, 1987. Ten years ago Mert was diagnosed as having bone cancer and told that he might live for about six months, perhaps a year or two. A few days later Mert told some of his friends, "Now I know I’m terminal. I always was, but, now I really believe it! From now on I want every day to count for Christ—to tell as many people as I can about Him. What have I got to lose?"

Mert did just what he said. Immediately he became a regular on his church’s evangelism team. God used him mightily in many different witnessing situations.

Mert never asked people to pray for his physical healing. Instead he asked, "Pray that I won’t get bitter. Pray that I’m never tempted to badmouth the Lord."

When by his doctor’s admission Mert became a walking miracle, Mert, took nothing for granted. He persisted in preaching that physical healing is temporary, that we’re all terminal, that outside of Christ we are all wicked (Jeremiah 17:9), and that we all desperately need a Savior.

Mert rejoiced with us at the founding of Reasons to Believe. Many times we were encouraged by his deep desire and prayer for our ministry to succeed. We are honored and encouraged yet again as his family has requested that all memorial gifts go to support Reasons to Believe.

Knowing Mert’s desire for Christians to be equipped to answer tough questions about our faith, the staff of Reasons to Believe has determined that these memorial gifts will go toward the production and distribution of evangelism training materials.

This page, and all contents, are Copyright © 1987 by Reasons To Believe.