FACTS & FAITH

1987 Volume 1, No. 2
Fall

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

Let Us Reason: Making Light of Apologetics

By Hugh Ross

Recently, some proponents of creationism have claimed support for their view from a supposed decrease in the speed of light, a decrease from a near infinite velocity just 6 thousand years ago down to the present velocity of about 300 million meters per second. The apparent motive for such a claim is to eliminate many of the astronomical evidences for a creation event as ancient as 20 billion years.

Their argument says that a galaxy 4 billion lights years* away, according to the present value for the velocity of light, could actually be only 4,000 light years distant if the velocity of light were millions of times greater 5 and 6 thousand years ago. In other words, the light from this galaxy could have reached our eyes in a mere 4 thousand years rather than in 4 billion.

This issue of the purported change in the velocity of light demonstrates at least five abuses of Christian apologetics. The first has to do with correctly identifying which issues are relevant and which are not. In this case, whether the universe is 6 thousand or 20 billion years old makes no difference in the creation versus evolution debate. While it is true that 80 years ago1010 years (about 10 billion years) seemed to some scientists adequate time to support all the processes for the mechanistic evolution of life, more recent scholarship, both Christian and non-Christian, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 shows that much more than 1010,000,000,000 years would be necessary and that natural processes alone would be insufficient. Hence, the distinction between l04 and 1010 years becomes insignificant.

TABLE 1: Velocity of light measurements favoring a decrease in its value.

Source

Date

Value (meters/sec.)

Roemer 1676 310,000,000
Bradley 1727 308,000,000
Young and Forbes 1876 301,400,000
Michelson 1926 299,798,000
Aslakson 1951 299,794,200
Astrophysical Quantities a 1961 299,792,900
Chemical Rubber Handbook a 1972 299,792,500
Blaney et al 1974 299,792,459

a composite value based on dozens of independent measurements

A second abuse lies in the improper treatment of scientific data. The measurements on which the decay of light idea are based appear in Table 1. The distorted graph of those measurements is shown in Figure 1 [graphic excluded]. Notice how extreme is the curve. But, this distortion is not the only problem. Table 2 shows more of the many measurements of the velocity of light and includes standard errors for the measurements cited. You will see, there, that the changing figures do not show a consistent decrease; rather, they represent only an increasing accuracy in the measurements. Though Roemer's number is three percent higher than the currently accepted value, the fact that his standard error is three percent makes the difference insignificant.

The values and standard errors for all velocity of light measurements give no basis for concluding that the velocity is anything other than constant. Moreover, the standard errors are now so small that any variation, if it does exist, must be extremely small. The suggested exponential decrease is without factual foundation. A third abuse is the failure to consider the physical implications of the hypothesis. One significant consequence of any variation in the velocity of light is that it would affect the luminosity of the sun. Measurements of the radius and mass of the sun are sufficient to verify that nuclear fusion must be taking place within the sun's core. Since the energy release from nuclear fusion is proportional to the square of the velocity of light, even the slightest change in the velocity of light would dramatically alter the temperature of our planet—so dramatically as to exterminate all life. Even a 3% change would pose a problem, let alone the factors of several million required by a creation time scale of only 6 thousand years.

Someone may posit ad hoc that the mass defects of nuclear burning might have exponentially decreased in such a way as to balance off perfectly the effect of the changes in the velocity of light. However, in that case it still would take billions of years to produce the observed relative abundances of the elements.

TABLE 2. More velocity of light measurements, including notation of standard errors.

Source Date Value (m/s) Standard error (m/s)
Roemer 1676 310,000,000 10,000,000
Bradley 1727 308,000,000 10,000,000
Fizeau 1849 313,000,000 20,000,000
Foucault 1850 298,000,000 2,000,000
Young & Forbes 1876 301,400,000 2,000,000
Michelson 1881 299,796,000 10,000
Rosa & Dorsey 1906 299,784,000 10,000
Mercier 1923 299,782,000 20,000
Michelson 1926 299,798,000 10,000
Anderson 1940 299,776,000 10,000
Essen 1950 299,792,500 1,000
Aslakson 1951 299,794,200 1,900
Edge 1956 299,792,400 500
Astrophysical Quantities b 1961 299,792,900 400
Chem. Rubber Handbook b 1972 299,792,500 200
Blaney et al 1974 299,792,459.0 0.8

b composite value based on dozens of independent measurements

A fourth abuse is the improper treatment of Biblical data. A literal reading of the Hebrew text of Genesis does not require a recent creation date for the universe-certainly not the date 4004 B.C. On the contrary, dozens of Biblical passages (and some reputable evangelical scholars) argue for Genesis One creation "days" as epochs, not 24-hour intervals.6, 7, 8

A fifth abuse, and an all-too-common one, is the failure to submit the hypothesis to the scrutiny of appropriately trained scholars and experts. It may be easy to hide from a general audience the fatal flaws in an argument such as this one. It is quite another matter to hide them from astronomers, physicists, linguists, and others working in relevant disciplines.

In 1 Thessalonians 5:21 the Lord exhorts us to test everything. The hypothesis of an exponential decrease in the velocity of light provides just one illustration of the need to test. What a boost to Christian credibility we would see if every scientific argument for the Christian faith were examined according to these five criteria, at least:

  1. Does it focus on a significant issue for faith in Christ and His word?
  2. Does it treat fairly and faithfully the scope of relevant scientific data?
  3. Does it lead to plausible physical implications?
  4. Does it take into consideration all the relevant Biblical data?
  5. Is it defensible before both Christian and secular scholars and experts?

References

  1. Thaxton, Charles B., Bradley, Walter I., and Olsen Roger. The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories. (New York: Philosophical Library, 1984.)
  2. Hoyle, Fred, and Wickramasinghe, Chandra. Evolution From Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981).
  3. Shapiro, Robert. Origins: A Skeptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth. (New York: Summit Books, 1986).
  4. Ross. Hugh. Genesis One: A Scientific Perspective. (Pasadena, California: Reasons To Believe, 1983), pp.9-10.
  5. Yockey, Hubert P. "A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory," in Journal of Theoretical Biology, 67 (1977), pp.377-398.
  6. Ross, Hugh. Genesis One: A Scientific Perspective. (Pasadena, California: Reasons To Believe, 1983), pp.16-21.
  7. Ross, Hugh. Creation Days [audio tape]. (Pasadena, California: Reasons to Believe, 1987).
  8. Radmacher, Earl D. and Preus, Robert D. Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Academic Books, 1986). pp. 285-347, 901-903.

* one light year is the distance traveled by light in one year. According to the accepted value for the velocity of light, one light year equals about 5.9 trillion miles.

Science In The News: The Supreme Court Rules on Teaching Creationism

By Hugh Ross

"'Creation Science' Banned in Schools," screamed a Los Angeles Times headline. This banner, typical of hundreds that appeared in newspapers and newsmagazines across the nation, parroted by hundreds more radio and television announcers, gave the distinct impression that the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled against the presenting of any evidence for creation to students in public schools and universities. Unfortunately, few articles under those headlines did little to alter that impression as they reported the justices' decision that the 1981 Louisiana law mandating creation science instruction "violated the legal principle of separation of church and state."

The court was presented with prodigious testimony to the effect that no evidence for creation exists. A "friend of the court" brief was submitted by 72 Nobel Prize-winning scientists and 17 state academies of science. This brief dismissed the educational and scientific value of the "creationist" position, calling it a "sham," and accused the "creationists" of simply re-labeling religious dogma as [pseudo] science. One of the Nobel laureates, Caltech's Murray Gell-Mann described the "creationist" position as less defensible scientifically than the notion that the earth is flat. No wonder, then, that a majority of the justices were unwilling to rule in favor of the "creationists'" appeal.

However, Bible-believing Christians will find encouragement from the Supreme Court statement itself. Rather than banning the teaching of creationism, the Court chose instead to carefully designate the conditions under which creationism can be taught. According to the majority statement,

The Act does not grant teachers a flexibility that they did not already possess to supplant the present science curriculum with the presentation of theories besides evolution, about the origin of life. Indeed, the Court of Appeals found that no law prohibited Louisiana public school-

teachers from teaching any scientific theory. 765 F.2d, at 1257... As the president of the Louisiana Science Teachers Association testified, "[a]ny scientific concept that's based on established fact can be included in our curriculum already, and no legislation allowing this is necessary" 2 App. E6 (pg.8)... Teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction. (p. 14)

This majority statement actually leaves the door wide open for teaching about creation in public education. It is clear that the Supreme Court ruled on the basis of educational merit. Since the "creationists" involved could not refute the charges of the 72 Nobel laureates by providing any factual basis for their position, the court denied the appeal. However, in so doing, the court indicated that only—and any—theories on origins based on established facts could be made mandatory, or supplementary, in the teaching curriculum.

The emphasis on established facts for origins teaching gives Christians an unprecedented opportunity to teach publicly information leading to the conclusion that there must be a Creator and that the Creator must be the God of the Bible. To be sure, creationism founded upon Archbishop Ussher's interpretation of the Genesis chronology must go.1,2,3 But, the mandatory teaching of Darwinian evolution also has lost its legal footing, for now it can be shown to violate established facts.4,5,6,7 The same is true of deistic evolution, Carl Sagan's Encyclopedia Galactica, the Mormon doctrines of origins, Hindu cosmology, New Age humanism, etc.4 The data with which we are left perfectly matches the description of creation as found in the "rightly divided" words of the Bible.

References

  1. Ross, Hugh. Creation Days [audio tape]. (Pasadena, California: Reasons To Believe, 1987).
  2. Ross, Hugh. Colloquia and Discussion with the Institute for Creation Research. (Pasadena, California: Reasons To Believe, 1986).
  3. Ross, Hugh. Genesis One: A Scientific Perspective. (Pasadena, California: Reasons To Believe, 1983), pp.  16-21.
  4. Ross, Hugh. Cosmology Confronts the Creator: New Proofs for God's Existence. (Pasadena, California: Reasons To Believe, 1987).
  5. Thaxton, Charles B., Bradley, Walter L., and Olsen, Roger. The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories. (New York, Philosophical Library, 1984).
  6. Hoyle, Fred and Wickramasinghe, Chandra. Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism. (New York, Simon and Schuster, 1981), pp. 1-97.
  7. Shapiro, Robert. Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth. (New York: Summit Books, 1986).

From the President's Desk

I hope you won't get tired of references to my son, Joel. Through him God continues to give me illustrations of simple truths, truths that seem to bear repeating.

Joel is now two, and at this stage of development he seems deeply concerned with establishing ownership—what belongs to whom—and with rights of ownership—who controls the use of what’s "mine," "ours," and "yours," in that order. I can't help but notice how much more loudly and emphatically he says, "Mine," as compared with "Ours," and "Yours," not to mention how much more carefully he guards whatever falls into that first category.

Am I like that? Are you? Every one of us must answer, "Yes." And yet by God's grace, we are learning to grow in "letting go" and "sharing" as the Lord directs. When I ask Joel to share what's his with others, I hear God nudging me to do the same. And that sharing includes passing along the wonderfully encouraging, faith-building information I come across in my studies.

As my pastor, Dick Anderson, said in a recent sermon, "God did not intend for us to be reservoirs of all His wonderful blessings, but rather channels of those things to others." I want to say "thank you" to those who are channeling resources into this ministry so that we can spread the good news of the gospel to those who doubt it or misunderstand it or don't even know it exists. I want to say, too, how much I appreciate hearing stories of how you are sharing, personally, your "reasons for believing" and are sharing our materials with people you know.

Sincerely,

Hugh Ross

Puzzles & Paradoxes

Congratulations to those of you who took the time and care to solve the puzzle and the paradox presented in our spring/summer issue. For those who need some help or confirmation [for the paradox], here it is:

The seeming contradiction of Pharaoh's hardening of his heart and God's hardening of Pharaoh's heart may be resolved by applying Steps 1 and 4 from our list of tools from science.

Step 1 calls for identification of the frame of reference. In this case, the verses which speak of Pharaoh's part in the hardening process reflect the human point of view. Pharaoh did, indeed, freely exercise his choice. The verses which speak of God's part in the hardening process reflect His transcendent point of view. God did, indeed, freely exercise His choice.

Step 4, then, brings us through this upsetting contradiction to an understandable, though not picturable, resolution. The Bible makes clear in its description of various events and miracles, including the creation of time, space, matter, energy, and life, that God exists in dimensions beyond those we humans can visualize. In these extra dimensions of reality, many things become possible that lie beyond our human ability to picture but that are nonetheless true. One of those things is the simultaneous actuality of man's total freedom to make choices and of God's total freedom to make choices. Neither one negates or compromises the other. Hence God provides us with the essential stimulus to exercise our will and with the essential comfort in knowing that not even a sparrow falls to the ground apart from the will of our loving Heavenly Father (Matthew 10:29).

For a more thorough treatment of this paradox and its resolution, you may wish to order a set of tapes on the subject. If you need our catalog, simply write us or phone (800) 482-7836 and request one.

For our puzzle enthusiasts, draw a single line that passes through each side of this box once and only once. Remember that the line from a to b is one side, and the line from b to c is another side

[graphic excluded]

Look for the solution to this puzzle and the presentation of another paradox in our next issue of Facts and Faith.

Readers Ask

Q. In your article on supernovae, you said that hydrogen and helium are the primary fuel of a star. Since helium is inert, how can it serve as a fuel for stellar burning?

--E.T., Amity, AR

A. In my supernova article I used the word fuel to refer not to a chemical reaction, but rather to a nuclear one. In nuclear reactions, helium, though chemically inert, is just as subject to fusion as any other light element. Nuclear fusion in the core of large stars converts hydrogen into helium, then helium into carbon, oxygen, neon, magnesium, silicon, etc.

--H.R.

Q. How do you square Steve Scheele's statement that "faith is a method—taking established facts and making decisions based on their implications" with such scripture passages as 2 Cor. 5:7, "For we walk by faith, not by sight," and Heb. 11:1, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen," these among others?

--D.B., Shreveport, LA

A. Thank you for alerting us to a possible misunderstanding of Steve Scheele's words on "faith." As you realize, his statement was not to be taken as a complete definition, just one of many action definitions. Clearly, there is much more to be said on the subject in future articles. We are convinced from scripture, however, that our assurance of the unseen things, the things "hoped for", arises from God's revelation of his character and his power in the seen things. All through scripture we see God helping people to believe his warnings and promises by giving them tangible reasons.

--H.R.

Field Report

A team of faithful pray-ers continues to face the challenges and reap the blessings of communicating our praises and requests to God. Bruce and Charlotte Douglas will be happy to keep you posted so that you can participate in this essential part of the ministry. Feel free to write to them c/o our p.o. box. If possible, plan to join with others as they meet together on the third Monday evening of each month, 7:30 P.M., at 154 West Sierra Madre Boulevard, in Sierra Madre.

Here are some of the answers to prayer we have seen since our last issue of the newsletter:

  • [graphic excluded] Our first set of lecture series and children's outreaches was successfully carried off, thanks to a team of some forty volunteers. At each event we met people who were hungry for information that would help them to establish or to build upon their relationship to Jesus Christ and their confidence in His word.
  • Kathy Ross' seminar on "Choosing a life Partner" received an enthusiastic response from the delegates to the Mar Thoma Students/ Family Conference of North American, held this year at Biola University.
  • [graphic excluded] Dr. Walter Bradley gave able assistance to Hugh in a course on origins at the back-to-back Christian Congress for Excellence in Public Education and Christian Educators Association International Convention in Philadelphia. Out of the twenty plus papers submitted for college credit should come some valuable curriculum ideas and materials to assist educators of all levels, K through college. Write to us if you are interested.
  • God has been providing many opportunities for Hugh to speak on radio, particularly on call-in programs such as John Stewart's "Let's Talk About the Bible," "KKLA Magazine" with Jim Harris, and Michael Law's "Grapevine" talk show over KPRZ (San Diego). We wish we could let you know in advance about these broadcasts, but in each case thus far the lead time has been too short.
  • Hugh experienced great joy in seeing many familiar faces and many new faces at a set of early morning outreaches in Orange County, part of the "Straight Talk" series sponsored by Priority Living. The tape of his message, titled "Eighties Astronomy Points to God," is now available from our office.

Quarterly News

Accomplishments of the past quarter

In addition to our activities described in the field report, we have seen

  • an increase in the number of our pray-ers and volunteer workers, including God's provision of a highly qualified correspondence assistant,
  • completion of the text for a new children's book on Genesis One, Dinosaurs, and Cavemen, and
  • preliminary discussions with a promising publisher for the cosmology books (long and short versions) and other materials.

Objectives for next quarter

  • development of a workshop specifically designed for pastors to assist them in evaluating apologetics speakers and materials and in reaching out to non-church people,
  • publication of an attractive catalog of all our materials
  • further work on written outreach materials already in progress,
  • exploration of possibilities for a weekly radio broadcast, and
  • installation of new shelving in our offices.

A Word from the Editor

By Kathy Ross

Evolution. What an emotionally charged word for Christians-and for others, too! One atheistic biology professor from South Africa said, "I don't teach evolution. I preach it." Of course, he was

using the word to mean what most people think of when they hear it: the gradual development of complex life forms from simpler ones by strictly natural processes, or, as one popular textbook declares in its title, Molecules to Man.

Not all people—not all scientists, even—use the word with this definition in mind. Pick up your dictionary and see what you find. My Merriam-Webster cites, first, "a process of change in a particular direction." Next it says something about movements in a dance or military exercise (that's news to me). Thirdly it says, "the process by which through a series of steps something (as an organism) attains its distinctive character." Then, finally, comes the reference to "a theory that existent types of animals and plants have developed from previously existing kinds."

When astronomers, physicists (not mathematicians—they have their own specialized definition), geologists, meteorologists, sociologists, economists, and others use the word, usually they mean what the first and third entries suggest, simply a process of change through time, long or short. When Hugh (an astronomer) speaks of stellar evolution, for example, he means the physical process by which a cloud of gas and dust becomes a stable burning hydrogen bomb such as our sun. By the way, astronomers get as excited about this "birth" process as parents do about the birth and development of their own beautiful little baby boy or girl.

Neither developmental process (the star’s or the baby's) leads to the conclusion that a blind, random unfolding of godless, mechanistic forces can account for the origin of everything in the universe including life itself. Nor does natural selection, an observationally verified dimension of biological evolution. Peppered moths in industrialized England did indeed change from a light color to a dark. Even such a thing as mutational "advance" may be observed—among viruses, that is. Both processes fall hopelessly short of explaining the origin of the species.

We need not feel threatened by such so-called "concessions." They are not. They neither destroy nor weaken the case for the supernatural creation of life and for the reliability of the Biblical account of that creation, even though some irresponsibly written textbooks may have suggested so.

Let me share with you the experience of a friend. He recently discovered that his many years' disagreement with a loved one over evolution arose not from different beliefs, but (needlessly) from different definitions of the term. May I make this suggestion: When we run across the word in written or spoken communication, why not tame our emotional reaction by first considering the context and seeking clarification of the intended meaning. Then at least we'll know what issues to address and what arguments, if any, to present.

Meet Our Staff

[graphic excluded]]

Roberta Loutsenhizer

Pictured here is the lovely lady whose administrative expertise propels the offices of Reasons to Believe forward in the fight against entropy—not to mention the fight against the forces of darkness. Roberta Loutsenhizer moves with the grace and skill of a one-man band, orchestrating the efforts of our volunteers and part-timers, structuring space for present and future operations, communicating with pray-ers and other supporters, keeping track of our materials inventory, coordinating outreach events, and reminding everyone daily to keep praising the Lord.

Roberta brings to us a breadth and depth of management experience from large secular corporations and most recently from the burgeoning ministry of Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family.

Seeing people come into the warmth and joy and rest of an eternal relationship with Jesus Christ is the greatest thrill of Roberta's life. Participating in that process on a day-to-day basis may only be described as a privilege, she says. She can recall the pain of a few short/long years ago when daily survival meant an exhausting struggle to hide (at work) and to anesthetize (at home) a sense of futility, isolation, and despair.

Roberta tells her personal story in a brief paper titled "Hope for the Hopeless." You may write or phone her at the office if you would like a copy of this encouraging account for yourself or for a friend.

Materials Spotlight

  • A taped talk (by Hugh) entitled "Eighties Astronomy Points to God," from a recent outreach in Newport Beach, has been added to our catalog. Ask for item number A8724.
  • An announcement will come within a few days giving details of the tapes and tape albums from our recent triple-header lecture series on Science and the Bible.
  • Two scholarly—but readable—papers to which we want to draw your attention are "Thermodynamics and the Origin of Life," by Dr. Walter L. Bradley, and "DNA, Design, and the Origin of Life," by Dr. Charles B. Thaxton. Each paper provides powerful arguments for the necessity of an intelligent, transcendent creator of life and makes a useful aid to discussions with those who are yet undecided on this important issue.
  • Her are some excerpts from Dr. Bradley's paper:
    • ". . . If one wishes to restore a messy room to its original neat (low entropy) condition, one must do work on the system. While throwing a stick of dynamite into the room will provide a significant flow of energy through the system, it is doubtful that the configuration entropy of the room wil be lowered (or that the room will be restored to its original neat, low entropy state). The energy flow through the room needs to be directed to reduce the configurational entropy of the room; i.e. someone needs to do very specific kinds of work to restore it to a neat condition. For precisely the same reason it is insufficient to assume simply that solar energy is capable of generating the necessary information, or configurational entropy, to account for the firs living organism.

      "In this paper I will quantify the various kinds of work required to product a protein molecule and then evaluate what if any kinds of available energy might be capable of accomplishing these various components of work. The results of prebiotic simulation experiment will be reviewed in light of these calculations . . ."
  • Look for excerpts of Dr. Thaxton's paper in the next issue.
  • If you would like to order these or other materials, please write to Reasons To Believe, P.O. Box 5978, Pasadena, CA 91107, or phone us at (818) 335-6058.

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