William E. Hamilton CS50 CS/50 hamilton gmr.com +quot;Focus on the family+quot; discussion

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

William E. Hamilton CS50 CS/50 hamilton gmr.com ------------------------------ "Focus on the family" discussion with Hugh Ross and Duane Gish August 12, 13 1992 Jim Dobson, the host opened the program: Dobson: (addressing Mike Trout, the announcer) Well Mike, we're going to do something almost dangerous today. Dangerous in the sense that the topic we're gonna discuss today is a controversial one that could divide some members of the Christian community. We certainly don't want to do that. I've been urged to devote a program to the topic we're going to talk about today ... by many people including a board member of FOF. And that's what really brings us to this moment. The topic is the origin of the universe and the age of the earth, which may not on the face of it seem like a topic related to the family, but it certainly is relevant to our faith and to scripture and to our understanding of who we are and how we got here, and that's all of us, certainly, within the Christian community. And that's how it came to be that we did two previous topics on this subject and that kind of led to what we're going to do today. Let me explain. Astrophysics is a hobby with me - it's not something I consider myself terribly knowledgeable of, although I've been interested in the subject since I was in elementary school - been reading about it all that time. So we have done several programs on the vastness of the universe - what God has put out there and the beauty of His creation. The heavens declare the glory of God and it really strengthens my faith to take a look at what we know about the universe. So we have done several programs about that subject. On Dec 12 and 13, 1985 we did a program with Dr. Duane Gish and Dr. Richard Bliss, both from the ICR on the subject of creation and how it should be taught in the schools and we got into this broader subject in that program. In that program the guests expressed their firm conviction that the earth is no more than about 10,000 years old and that the Genesis account of creation refers to six 24 hour days, specifically meaning that the earth is very young and that after that God rested and there was no further creative activity. Then on April 17, 1991 Dr. Hugh Ross was our guest and he discussed his book, "The Fingerprint of God". Dr. Ross provided scientific evidence for the Biblical account of creation, but Dr. Ross believes that the earth is billions of years old and the Genesis account refers not to 6 24 hour days but to eons. That program was one of the most popular programs of the year 1991. We just got an overwhelming amount of mail - almost 10,000 requests for the tape of that interview and the mail was overwhelmingly positive, I might say. On the other hand there was a small - I think about 40 or 50 letters - but a very vociferous, angry response to that program from people who considered Dr. Ross' view of the earth as very very old as being unbiblical and even heretical, and there were some very emotional reactions to it - one Christian radio station threatened to take our broadcast off the air ... It was as though Dr. Ross was saying, "I don't believe the Bible," to those people, and so there are these different perspectives. And so I had a certain amount of mail from people asking me to deal with this issue further and to allow a discussion of the two sides. I tried to express in my reactions to that mail that the issue is one of Biblical interpretation, not deliberate contradiction of basic truths, and I neither challenged Dr. Ross when he was here or Dr. Gish when he and Dr. Bliss were here, because first of all I don't feel qualified in that area. I'm not a theologian, I'm not a physicist, I'm not a biochemist, I don't have expertise in these areas and furthermore, I don't know what's right. Some people feel like they absolutely know - I'm not one of them. And so I thought the best thing we could do was to bring the guests here again and allow them to discuss the subject... Trout: There is an aspect to this topic that just causes people to think and to study. That in and of itself is a healthy exercise... Dobson: Yeah, we can call it brain food. You know, if we just get people reading the Scriptures, we've accomplished what we wanted to do or part of it. I do believe that the Bible is the inspired Word and when all truth is known there will be no contradiction within it. That fact is not on the table today - we're not debating that. I also believe that Dr. Ross, Dr. Gish and Dr. Bliss are equally committed to the truth and to Jesus Christ and they simply come down on different sides of a very thorny issue, with differing perspectives on how important it is. So we have invited Dr. Gish and Dr. Ross here today to debate, or at least to discuss this matter of the age of the universe as it relates to our faith. I just ask for charity among those who are listening, because we are trying to do what is right here. Let me introduce the guests and then we will get on with the topic. Dr. Hugh Ross holds a Ph.D. in astronomy from the University of Toronto, he's the president and director of Reasons to Believe, located in LA. Dr. Ross, welcome back. Ross: Thank you, it's good to be here. Dobson: Dr. Gish holds a Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of California at Berkeley and he's Vice President of ICR, also located in Southern California... Well gentlemen, let's get to it. Duane, I'm going to give you the first shot. You strongly believe in the young earth theory, you don't believe in the big bang. You believe that creation occurred in six 24 hour days. Explain why and why this issue is so important to you. Gish: Well yes, Dr. Dobson. My concern is not so much with the age of things. We keep contrasting say the young age to the vastly old age that Hugh believes in and of course there is a difference there, but I'm more concerned about how the universe came into existence. I accept the Biblical account that we find in the Bible: God did create the heavens and the earth and we read in the Bible that on the fourth day God created the sun and the moon and the stars and that when that period of creation was over - six days creation was finished - it has not been continued for billions of years of time. It was not a natural process it had to be something that was supernaturally done by God. God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. Now Hugh in his view - in his big bang cosmology, big bang cosmology is a natural process that begins with this big bang, and following the big bang then as this hydrogen and helium distributed itself throughout the universe and as stars evolved and galaxies evolved and our solar system created itself and so on.. That's been going on for, say, 15, 16, 17, 18 billion years. Well in a process like that, you see, I don't see any difference between that view and that of any atheist cosmologist or any unbelieving cosmologist who believes in the big bang, I can't see the difference and I don't see the agreement between this natural evolutionary origin of the universe and the universe that God created in the book of Genesis. In other words certainly if creation is not finished - Hugh believes that stars are still forming today you see, so we still - evolutionary creation has been going on for 18 billion years. Dobson: Hugh, why is it necessary to remove God from the process of the big bang if you merely describe how He may have done what He did? Ross: Well that's my very point, that God's not at all removed. When you solve the equations of general relativity - and we can prove that those equations govern the universe - you discover that you are face to face with an ultimate origin for all matter and energy and even the dimensions of length width height and time that encompass the cosmos. There's only one holy book that teaches a doctrine that's consistent with that and that's the Bible. We believe in a God that's transcendent in bringing the universe into existence. As Hebrews 11:3 puts it, the universe that we can detect was made from that which we cannot detect. And that's why atheists in astronomy and physics have reacted so strongly to the big bang: because it establishes this ultimate creation event. Dobson: For those who have not read on this subject - they may be lost already - explain what the big bang theory is. Ross: Well the big bang theory is the theory that there's a beginning - a creation event, and that moreover this creation event was caused by a being that transcends matter energy length, width, height and time - that's what I mean by transcendent. If you go into Hinduism or Buddhism they say that time is eternal that the cosmos is eternal, that the cosmos oscillates. And what the big bang does for us is prove that these religions are false and that only the Christian interpretation of the cosmos is correct. Dobson: Which is that there was a definite point of beginning and that beginning was that all matter was together in an infinitely small space and it exploded throughout... Ross: The matter, energy, space and time were literally created out of nothing by this divine being. Dobson: Well Duane, why must God be removed from that theory? Why do you necessarily see that as a process a natural process without divine intervention? Gish: Well I'd reply in this way: That practically all unbelieving astronomers accept the big bang cosmology - not all of them - there are some very important astronomers who do not believe it. Now they don't see God there at all I mean it's a natural process. You have this cosmic egg, they don't know where it came from or how it got there, they don't know why it exploded... Dobson: But you don't believe Hugh believes that... Gish: Hugh believes that, yeah... Dobson: Believes that the cosmic egg got there and we don't know how it got there... Gish: Well that's the world of what we would call science, these, these astronomers... Dobson: But that's not what he... Gish: Well, you see, if Hugh could explain to me what is the difference between what he believes - what his theory it - and if I go talk to an atheist I can't if I talk to an atheist astronomer and tell him, "Would you explain to me the big bang cosmology and what took place" and ask Hugh the same thing, I don't detect any difference. You have the cosmic egg and it explodes and out of this gas somehow stars create themselves and galaxies create themselves and all that. And that's exactly what this atheist... Dobson: Wasn't the difference God versus no God? Gish: The difference is, Hugh says God's back there somewhere. But what did God do in this process? What did He do? How can Hugh say, "God did it, you see? How do we know that God did it? The atheist astronomer sitting right by him will say exactly what he did as far as this big bang cosmology is concerned. Ross: Well, let me complete the picture. What I'm saying is that God brought into existence miraculously all the energy, matter and all the dimensions of space and time that encompass the universe. He also very carefully designed the characteristics and the parameters of the universe so that it could sustain life. 19 characteristics of the universe had to be very highly fine-tuned in order for life to exist. More than that God must create the solar system. There are 40 characteristics of the solar system that must be very highly fine tuned for life to exist on the earth. So we're seeing the miracle of the big bang that brought all of matter, space and time into existence. There's another 19 miracles in terms of the design characteristics of the universe that we've discovered so far, and the list gets bigger every year and now there's 40 characteristic of the solar system that show the creator designing that. So it's not just God involved at the beginning of the cosmos - He's involved thereafter - regularly intervening into the system to create and shape. Now at the same time you have formation going on. Duane's right - I do believe that stars are forming today. But I also believe that raindrops form today. In fact raindrop formation is a whole lot easier naturally than star formation... Dobson: So that's the moving around of created matter... Gish: Well let me say this: Hugh, if what you say is true - all these very special things had to be, and you say God created all these very special things - well that's just what I'm saying: God created the universe. It didn't come about by some natural evolutionary process beginning with the big bang. You had to have all these very special conditions about the solar systems and about the universe and Hugh says that proves God made it. And I say, I agree 100 percent. I don't believe that you just start with some big bang and things just unroll and evolve. You can't hold to the big bang cosmology and believe what you just said, you see. If you say all these very special things just couldn't happen naturally... Ross: Duane, that's not how the astronomers interpret it. The astronomers reacted to it because of its theistic implications... Gish: Now wait a minute. They say, "All these things happened naturally - just some evolutionary process... Ross: The stars, the galaxies... Gish: God's not necessary, it was just a natural process. And you say stars are still forming today. Listen Hugh, forming a star is a vastly different thing than a raindrop forming. The raindrop forming had to have a little nucleus and moisture, and the raindrop will form. But a star! I have articles with me, Hugh, where these astronomers say, they do not have an adequate theory on stellar formation. They do not even have a satisfactory theory. And I think every physicist will agree how a raindrop forms - it's just a very simple thing. You cannot equate the formation of a raindrop to a star. Oh, no... Ross: Well, as I sent you in the mail, the equations that describe star formation are far simpler than those that describe raindrop formation. You're dealing with a gas. Moreover, we see star formation in real time. You can take your pair of binoculars out tonight and watch it. It's actually happening. Gish: You .. I have articles right here with me , Hugh, that documents the fact that these astronomers say they've never seen a star form and there may be areas where they think stars are forming, but the matter is not infalling, it's moving away from the nucleus, and I have articles here which document the fact - they've never seen stars form. No one even claims they've seen stars form. There may be areas of the sky where they say, "Well that's where stars are forming," but they never... well I know one article said, "well, it'll be 100,000 years from now there'll be a star there"... Ross: Well to correct the matter, we've been observing star formation at the longer wavelengths - at the infrared and radio, and just this week, published in the Astrophysical Journal, was the first time ever observation of star formation at optical wavelengths... Dobson: I'm sure... Ross: we've just about lost everybody... Dobson: That issue will certainly bless the homemaker out there. Dobson: Duane, tell me why you feel our understanding of Biblical accuracy rises or falls on this issue. Tell me why this is so central to ... Gish: Well for example, James Barr, who's professor at Oxford University, not a believer, not a Christian. He said this: He said he did not know of one Hebrew scholar at one world class university who did not believe that the Bible says everything was created in six ordinary days some thousands of years ago, and the Flood was a global flood. He didn't know of any scholar at any world class university who did not believe that's what the Bible says. Now there's no question that's what the Bible says. Now, in order to believe what Hugh believes we have to have some very questionable and absolutely erroneous interpretation of certain words in the Bible. And there's a number of examples that we could cite from Hugh's writings themselves where he has misinterpreted certain words to make them fit his cosmology, you see... Dobson: Focusing on the word for "day" I suppose... Gish: Well, that's just one, where the word "yom" used where it's modified by evening and morning, when those two modifiers are used it always without exception means a twenty four hour day, and when you say the third day or first day that always when used with a numeral refers to a twenty four hour day... Dobson: How could there be a twenty four hour day before the earth was revolving around the sun? Gish: Well, I just believe, Jim, that God had the ability, the power, to cause the earth to rotate at just the right speed to coincide with the first, second and third day. I don't think we have too hard a job for God to take care of. Uh, and He said a day and He put it that way. Someone has said that God could not have been more precise in His language if He wanted to denote a twenty four hour day... Dobson: Now, before we leave that issue, Hugh, let's hear the other side. I know from your writings I know you believe that word is used in other ways in scripture. Ross: Right, and the quote from James Barr is an ancient quote. I mean I've defended my view of long creation days in front of the faculty of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and not one of them was willing to dispute the conclusions. In fact they were enthusiastically endorsing the conclusions. This issue was also debated by the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy and again they refused to say that the Bible requires six consecutive twenty four hour days. Dobson: And so you see that word used in other places. Explain the documentation. Ross: Well, the thing I'd like to emphasize is that it's not enough to just take the Bible literally. We must take it literally and consistently, so all 66 books are agreeing with one another, not contradicting one another. And my problem with the six consecutive twenty-four hour day interpretation is that I can't remove the inconsistencies, but I can if I interpret them to be long periods of time. Dobson: You're referring to the scriptures that refer to the ancient earth... Ross: Well, the ancient earth, the fact that we're still in the seventh day of God's rest - I believe as Duane does that God's at rest now - He's not creating, but Hebrews and Psalms tell us that we're still in that sate of rest. God's not going to create again until the new creation that we see in Revelation 21, so that means the seventh day must be a long time period, and that's consistent with the first chapter where we see that there's no closure on the seventh day... Dobson: It never says there was a morning and an evening... Gish: Well, that wasn't necessary, because there was no particular act of creation on that day. Now the future day of rest, that's a future day. It has no reference to the past seventh day. There is a day of rest, but that does not have to do with the seventh day. I don't think you can influence interpretation of those six days by any reference to the day of rest... Ross: Well, it's called God's seventh day of rest... Gish: Well, if you can produce one example, Hugh, in the Bible, where the evening and the morning was a certain day or where it refers to the first day or the second day and it's more than twenty four hours, I don't think you can do that... Ross: But that doesn't mean it's a Hebrew rule of grammar. I mean the lexicons will bear that out... Gish: An example. No, lexicons do not, Hugh. Now, and then there's other problems. You say the word Nethan which says that God caused to appear the sun on the fourth day. That word nethan nowhere in any lexicon is described or defined as "to make or to appear". It means to set, to establish, or to place... Ross: It has 36 definitions... Gish: Not, n..., not in .... Ross: 36 definitions... Dobson: I'm lost now sure enough... Gish: You see, nethan... the command, concerning the sun, is the creative command, just the same ways as when God said, "Let there be light" and there was light.. Now on the fourth day God said "let there be the sun. Let there be the stars." It's the same command, it's a creative command Hugh. It's not saying "just made to appear"... Ross: Well no, I would dispute that. It's the verb hayah, let there be. As you're well aware, there are three verbs in the Hebrew that would connote God directly creating . Those verbs are not used for the first and fourth creation days. Rather the verb that was used was hayah, let there be. Dobson: Duane, do you draw any significance from II Peter 3:8 which says, "But do not ignore this one fact beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as one day" Gish: Well Jim, it's often said that a text without context is a pretext. And you see here, what the context is, Jim, it's referring to prophecy the apostle Peter says, "Ah but dear friends, these certain prophecies have not been fulfilled, but be patient because with God a thousand years is as a day or a day is as a thousand years". It has no reference to the days of creation. That is not intended to refer to those days of creation you see. The days of creation there in the book of Genesis as the text indicates were just ordinary days. I know it's difficult for some people to accept that and you see that's the problem, because it's some of these difficulties. Now Hugh wants billions of years. He's got to have billions of years. He can't evolve a universe in say less than 13, 14, 15 billion years... Ross: Can't evolve it in billions of years either... Gish: No, that's right... Dobson: Flat out, Hugh, you reject evolution, biological evolution. Ross: Absolutely. It's not going to happen in billions of years... Gish: But you do not reject astronomical evolution. Anybody who accepts big bang cosmology - that's evolution. There's no question about it. Ross: The big bang as a creation event at the origin. When you get back to those billions of years you're confronted with this transcendent creation event ... Gish: Well Hugh, I'm talking about the process, origin of stars, origin of galaxies, the origin of our solar system... Ross: Well when you get into the solar system it must be designed, it must be crafted ... Gish: Absolutely. The solar system gives every proof of being a created article - gives every evidence of design, not just coming out of some.. Ross: Well I agree with that, I'm not disputing that... Gish: Well then we agree then the solar system did not evolve. Is that right? It was created. God created the planets and the sun... Ross: He would have had to have designed the sun, the earth and the moon in order for life to be possible on this planet. He would have had to design the universe - ah the number of stars has to be precise. The age of the universe must be just right. If the universe it too young you can't have life, if it's too old you can't have life. In fact everything must be middle aged... Gish: You know, what you're saying it that the universe was created, I mean when you get through with all these statements what you're saying, Hugh, there's tremendous evidence for creation... Ross: Exactly... Gish: It was created, it was designed, and created and that's what I'm saying, but here in your material you say in order to get this universe we have today from the big bang we have to even invent something that's totally imaginary and that's cold dark matter. Now that's just exactly like believing in Santa Clause or believing in the tooth fairy, because you and I both know no one have ever seen or detected this cold dark matter... Ross: That's not true... Gish: That you must have . It is not seen. No one has ever seen it. No one has ever detected it. You can't detect it. Ross: Well, you need to read our next issue of "Facts and Faith" - we'll be describing five discovery made in the last eight weeks... Dobson: Gentlemen, we're out of time, but we're just getting going, we're really beginning to cook this issue. So I'm just going to ask you to stay right where you are and Mike will end the program today and tomorrow we'll hear what's about to occur.... You know, I uh just from my own perspective, I said at the top of the program, that I'm confused as to the truth within this issue and the two sides of it, and I don't know who's right. I haven't expressed my views, but I see problems in both perspectives, and I'd like to get into that a little bit next time. It reminds me in some ways of the first year that Shirley and I were married and we needed some life insurance, so I invited in about 7 or 8 life insurance salesmen and I figured I'd listen to all of them and then I'd know life insurance and make a decision... I got so confused that I wound up just saying, "You, tell me what to buy." And in some ways as we get into the original languages and the scientific theories it may not be possible for us ordinary folks to track you guys, but we're gonna try and we'll discuss it some more next time. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dobson: Well, gentlemen as we discussed last time apparently the existence of the big bang - the explosion of matter that some people think - I think Hugh identifies with this perspective - that began in an infinitely small space and sphere of time is at the heart of the controversy. Did God create the universe that way? Did He start it with a big bang or did He do it some other way? And, uh, let me share a couple of scriptures with you that sound to me like He did - that sound like the big bang was the mechanism by which He created it, and then you comment on it. Uh, the first is in Psalms 102 beginning with verse 25 says "Of old did thou lay the foundations of the earth and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They will perish, but thou dost endure. They will all wear out like a garment. Thou changest them like raiment and they pass away." So we have a specific beginning point that he laid them out. Now let me go to Isaiah 42:5: Thus says God the Lord who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread forth the earth and what comes from it. That sounds like it is moving. He stretched them out, and then there is that scripture that says the heavens will wax old like a garment and be rolled up like a scroll and there will be a new heavens and a new earth, which sounds to me like He exploded it outward and He plans to pull it all in to another beginning point and to explode it again. Does that not sound like the context of those scriptures? Gish: Well, God in His creation may in some way have stretched out things. We don't know just whether He ... where the stars are now. I've always assumed where the stars are and the galaxies are that's where God placed them... Dobson: That they're not moving apart from each other... Gish: Well, they may be. I don't know. Even there's a disagreement among astronomers on that point... Ross: So you don't believe the universe is expanding? Gish: I ... don't believe necessarily it is. Of course there are other astronomers, equally, quite well known who would disagree that the red shift is necessarily an indication that galaxies are moving away from us... Ross: (unintelligible) (probably asking him to name the astronomers who "would disagree that the red shift is necessarily an indication that galaxies are moving away from us") Gish: Anomalies. There's Geoffrey (sp?) Burbage and Hannes Althein and Halton Arp and many people like that... Dobson: Good old Halton Arp. Very good friend of mine... Ross: He *is* a friend of mine... Dobson: Is that right? Gish: Certainly not atheists, but they don't accept the current big bang cosmology. But I want to say that the Bible tells us that on the first day God created light. Now you take this big bang. And certainly a big flash. But when these gases expand out into the vast stretches of the universe I mean it's dark, I mean black, no light anywhere in the universe at that time, or very little of it, because it expands to where the temperature is about 100 degrees Kelvin about 100 degrees above absolute zero and these gases are tremendously expanded and I don't see that in the scriptures you see. What Hugh believes and what the big bang cosmologists believe that things started at one point. The thing exploded, these gases expanded out into the vast stretches of the universe. That's all there was, there's just hydrogen and helium there, vastly expanded. There were no stars, no galaxies, nothing like that. And then somehow from this vastly expanded gas at low temperatures stars created themselves, and then galaxies created themselves. Finally our solar system created itself. And then if you go along with biological evolution then life evolved and went from the first form... Dobson: But that's a big step that you wouldn't support, or even the phrase that they created themselves, Hugh, you wouldn't accept that... Ross: No, I'm not accepting that Gish: Well, okay. I just have to know: what is the difference, what is the difference that Hugh believes. I heard Hugh discuss this subject with Eric Lerner. Now Eric Lerner does not believe in the big bang. He is an evolutionist - totally - unbeliever and I heard the discussion and Dr. Dobson, I couldn't tell who was the Christian and who was the unbeliever, because they were just discussing two naturalistic theories, evolutionary theories of the origin of the universe and Hugh was defending the bib bang cosmology, Eric Lerner was defending the plasma theory and so forth and so on, back and forth and I couldn't - I wouldn't have known who... Ross: Well maybe you missed something, Duane. Eric Lerner supports the idea of an infinitely old universe cause he believes that with infinite time he doesn't need a creator, and he says so in his book. He's driven by his atheistic beliefs, and he's threatened by the big bang because it only gives him billions of years. Now let me throw out something that I think would be helpful for the layman. The universe is big, very big, and when you look at the amount of time it takes light to come from those distant sources to us, it's consistent not with infinite time - not with thousands of years, but billions of years. And that's very simple - just the very vastness of the cosmos. And this is why astronomers say it's easier for them to believe in a flat earth than a universe only thousands of years old - because they measure it to be so vast... Dobson: Duane, you would say that God created the light between us and those bodies, right? Gish: Well, the Bible does tell us this: That God created the sun and the stars and He created them to be for signs and seasons on the earth. Obviously we had to see them immediately - we couldn't wait - we couldn't wait for billions of years for the light to get here... Dobson: Well, if we weren't here we wouldn't be waiting. Gish: Well, that's right, if we weren't here. But I believe we were here, and God created those stars to be for signs and seasons on the earth. Now if I were God, I don't know how I would do it otherwise to make those things visible, you'd have to create the light in between. No atheist or unbeliever is going to accept that explanation obviously - he doesn't believe in God. But we have a God who is the Creator and if God wanted to create that stream of photons in place and so forth He could have done it... Ross: He could have done it, Duane, but we have measurements to prove that He didn't do it that way... Gish: No, I don't think you have measurements to prove anything... Ross: Well, let me... Gish: If you follow your cosmological theories, then... Ross: As a beam of light travels through space it changes as it travels through space. The spectral lines are broadened consistent with the amount of space it's traveled through... Dobson: Is that the Doppler effect? Ross: No, it's not the Doppler effect... Dobson: I'm showing my ignorance... Ross: Well, the lines from these objects are sharp, but because of intervening material that jostles back and forth in the line of sight, the lines get broadened out. Also the continuum radiation, which is the radiation between the spectral lines, becomes progressively redder and redder because of the intervening dust. (everyone tries to talk at once. Laughter) Ross: If you see a forest fire and the smoke from that fire will make the sun look red, it's the same effect, so if a beam of light traverses space, the continuum radiation gets redder and redder and the spectral lines get broader and broader, and as astronomers make these measurements on the stars and the galaxies, they establish that the light actually came from the source, not from some intermediate point. Dobson: Now Hugh, from my reading as a layman, and before you get sassy with me, tell me how to discipline a toddler, you know? Come over into my area! From my recent readings, especially the spring, of 1992, uh, there's a great deal of excitement in the scientific community, especially among astronomers, about the discoveries by COBE as related to the big bang. Put that into the simplest terms you can, and then Duane, I'd like you to give your reaction to it. Ross: Well, we're featuring a four page article on it in our next "Facts and Faith" newsletter, it's at the printer right now, and we're describing not just that discovery, but four others - five discoveries in the last two months, and these five discoveries are all consistent with a particular subclass of big bang models. Before these discoveries we knew it had to be a big bang because of this tremendous dissipation of heat that we observe in the universe, but we didn't know exactly what kind of big bang. Now we do, and because of that exact definition - more exact than we've ever had before, astronomers and physicists are coming out of the closet and saying we're looking at God - that the belief in God today is more credible than it's ever been in the past 100 years. Dobson: Dr. Steven Hawking, that I've talked about here on the program before, whom some people consider to be the brightest man on the face of the earth said, and this isn't a direct quote, but it's very close, that this may not only be the most important discovery of the century, but of all time... Ross: Right, that is the exact quote. You got it right. Dobson: You obviously don't agree, Duane. Gish: I certainly challenge the statement by Dr. Ross that there have been all these observations the last few weeks that's confirmed the existence of cold dark matter... Ross: Exotic matter, Duane... Gish ...no radiation, and gives off no heat, you can't see it, no light, no radiation, no way to detect it. I have an article right here in front of me, "The Race to Detect Dark Matter" and it says how tremendously difficult - these are particles - if it exists - not ordinary matter... Ross: Well let me give you ... Gish: How do you detect matter that is totally exotic, you don't even know what it is, you've never seen it, it gives off no radiation, it doesn't give off any light, it's just been postulated to exist because as you say in your article in one of your publications, "without cold dark matter we cannot get the universe we have today with the big bang cosmology". So what you have done is invent another theory to support your previous theory. It's like saying this: Santa Clause could not possibly reach all the points on earth in 24 hours. Now we believe in Santa Clause, we know he must have done it. Well then we invent another theory: that his reindeer can move at the speed of light. Therefore it's possible that Santa Clause reached all points in 24 hours. Now this cold dark matter is a reindeer that moved at the speed of light, it's something that is totally imaginary. No one has seen it, no one can detect it. It's just postulated you say it must be there.... Ross: Well, let me try to bring you up to date. It has been detected... Gish: Well, I, Look... Dobson: Let him give the answer. Gish: Those of us at ICR follow these things just as closely as anybody... Ross: Are you reading the astrophysical journals? Gish: Reading, astrophysical journals...[unintelligible] Ross: I've got papers right here with me. This stuff is newly published... Dobson: Is there any evidence that cold dark matter exists? Ross: Well, we're talking about exotic matter. There's three kinds of exotic matter: cold dark matter, warm dark matter and hot dark matter... Gish: 'Scuse me, what do you mean by, let's define exotic matter, what do you mean? Ross: Exotic matter is that kind of matter that does not strongly interact with radiation. Atoms and molecules, the protons and neutrons that we're used to - what we call ordinary matter - has the property that it strongly interacts with radiation. Exotic matter does not, and there are about 36 different kinds of particles that make up this exotic matter... Gish: Excuse me, is this exotic matter - is that hypothetical or is that something you've got in the laboratory... Ross: Let me finish, OK? Gish: Yeah. Ross: Because it doesn't strongly interact with radiation it's difficult to detect at electromagnetic wavelengths - using our telescopes with light observation, you can't detect it directly by the light. On the other hand exotic matter uh, exerts gravity. There's a gravitational tug that it exerts. And what the theory of general relativity tells us is that massive objects have the capacity of bending light that comes by them. That was the first proof we had of general relativity when we saw starlight being bent when it passes by the sun in a solar eclipse. Well it turns out that galaxies and giant, massive gas clouds will lense light the same way, and so if we look at the light of quasars that happened to have between them and us one of these massive objects we get a measure by measuring that bending of the total mass that's responsible for that bending. That includes the ordinary plus the exotic. Now those measurements have been made and coupled with the first accurate ever measurement of the ordinary mass of the universe - this was published just eight weeks ago - by the Hubble telescope, through measuring the deuterium line at ultraviolet wavelengths it gave us an accurate measure of the ordinary mass. So if you have an accurate measure of the total mass, you subtract the ordinary mass, that gives you the exotic mass... Dobson: Now you, you've gotten us off into very deep water... Ross: That's only one confirmation... Dobson: Give me the bottom line, the bottom line is that COBE has identified some radiation that seems to confirm... Ross: The bottom line is this: by five separate discoveries, all independent of one another, they're confirming that we're looking at a universe that has a few times more exotic matter than ordinary matter - somewhere between 3 to 10 times as much exotic matter as ordinary matter. Dobson: And that would have been necessary to have caused the galaxies and the... Ross: Well, if you don't get the ripples then you don't get the galaxy structure. Without that ratio of exotic we don't get the boron and beryllium in the universe. So that's why they're all so excited. Dobson: Without that the theory crumbles in your view. Is that right, Duane? Gish: Absolutely. Hugh himself has said that. He says that in one of his articles. He says here, "It is impossible for galaxies to clump the way they do without some kind and amount of cold dark matter playing a significant role in the dynamics of galaxy clustering. You gotta have cold dark matter... Dobson: I have a tough question for each of you and I would really like, cause I don't want this to get away from me without dealing with it. Hugh, my greatest problem with the perspective you come from, and it's very, uh, well it's almost arrogant for me to even debate you guys because I have so little information. But from my understanding of the Bible, my greatest problem is that I understand that sickness and death and sorrow and pain came into the world with Adam's sin. That was a perfect world, that the Garden of Eden was perfect, without flaw prior to Adam and Eve's sin, and at that moment sorrow and suffering came into the world. Well that was obviously very late in the scheme of things, and the way you describe the earth being billions of years old, means that that violent world of animals had to occur for eons prior to Adam's sin - that creates problems for me - one animal ripping apart and eating another one and all of that process - I don't understand how that's consistent with our understanding of the Genesis account of Adam and Eve. Ross: Well, I remember a Bible study at CalTech when we were studying Revelation 21, and several of us discovered in the text that the laws of physics radically change with the new creation. You have this universe removed from existence with its constants and laws of physics, and replaced by a brand new universe with different laws and constants of physics. And the question is, why? Well what happens at that transformation is that God has permanently conquered the problem of evil, suffering, pain and death, and with the removal of these things, there's no longer a need for this universe. Back to Romans 8:22: The entire creation groans waiting for the adoption of sons. Literally the whole universe is groaning. In other words I believe that God built into this universe those equations of physics and constants of physics so that once man chose to introduce evil into the system, God could very quickly, in a matter of just thousands of years, conquer that problem of evil and then take us into the universe He had planned for us all along. But He wants to wait until that problem is permanently conquered before He takes us in there. Dobson: Duane, the concern that I expressed is... Gish: I don't think Hugh answered your concern. I... I.... what you expressed a concern that there was death and pain and suffering before the sin of Adam, before man rebelled against God, and I don't think Hugh even attempted to answer that problem - I didn't find the answer there. There is a problem, of course. If there's always pain and suffering and you have these hominids, whatever they were, subhuman and uh, dying and uh, for billions of years or millions of years before Adam sinned, then death did not come into the world then by Adam's sin. It was here in abundance before that. Now, maybe, maybe Hugh would say that human death came in at that time, uh, I don't know whether he would say something lower than man was dying at that time and, you know I think... Ross: That's correct, I believe that that act brought about human death... Gish: Well, let me tell you another reason why we're concerned about this, and I want to bring in another person here - a person we're concerned about, a person whose views have evolved, I should use that word objectively, evolved considerably, and that's a man uh, Dr. Davis Young who's a geologist who started out believing in the Flood - by the way we haven't mentioned the Flood - Hugh did not mention the flood. Hugh does not believe in a global Flood. Now there's no way you can read that Scripture and get anything but a global flood. Now the Flood, I mean... Ross: How about a universal flood? Gish: A global flood... Ross: I believe in a universal flood... Gish: But you don't believe in a global flood... Ross: Well the two terms are not necessarily synonymous... they're only synonymous to twentieth century readers... Gish: Don't do it with semantics. Did the flood waters cover the earth? Ross: All of mankind was destroyed and all the animals associated with him... Gish: Ah, no, no, no... (everyone tries to talk at once) Dobson: We'll do well to settle the Young Earth theory without getting into the ... Gish: You know, Davis Young, and we're really concerned with this. Here's an article he published, entitled "Theology and natural science" and this was in The Reformed Journal, May of 1988, on page 15. Now here's a man who originally believed in the Flood and so forth and he got into geology and now he more or less believes in evolution and so forth and so on. He says this, he says, "Human antiquity does raise some interesting questions, " 'cause he said here that he believes that humans are possibly hundreds of thousands of years old - that is, they came on the earth hundreds of thousands of years ago. He says this, "Human antiquity does raise some interesting questions. One problem concerns the traditional view of the transmission of the creation, fall and Cain and Abel narratives. The older view is that these narratives are accounts that were handed down from early times and that the near eastern myths are corrupted versions of the truth. The antiquity of the race precludes written accounts dating back to the first humans, and it strains credulity to accept the idea that these narratives were transmitted verbally and without corruption for thousands of years until they were written down." Ross: But you know, Duane, I don't believe any of that. Gish: You see what he says? Here's a man... Ross: I don't believe that... Gish ... believe in these old ages and things like that and he says now, "we got a problem. It really strains credulity to believe that Cain and Abel, Garden of Eden, the Fall, could really be true. Ross: I believe they are true. Gish: Well good. I'm glad for that view - I'm - praise the Lord. Dobson: Duane, I said I was going to ask a tough question to each of you. Let me ask you the question that troubles me the most about the uh, position which you represent. Uh, it, it, doesn't seem to me that the process of trying to explain as scientifically as possible how God created the universe necessarily removes Him from it. It seems to me that you all ascribe positions to those who come from the other perspective - with all kinds of things that they deny - you know, belief in evolution and belief that these things were natural processes I don't - Hugh's not saying that. Uh, belief that God was removed from it. It seems to me that that's putting them in a position that they don't take for themselves. Gish: He's got God there, but his ... if you accept his big bang cosmology, you've got hundreds of people right around you, astronomers who don't believe in God... Dobson: Yeah, but that doesn't matter, if they don't believe that's their problem. He doesn't identify with all those people... Gish: When the Bible tells us that Christ raised Lazarus from the dead, there's a body been in the grave several days - in a state of decay. Now, there is no way to explain that biologically... Dobson: absolutely, or the water into wine or anything else. Those were supernatural events. Gish: That's right. Now why should we go out and try to find a natural explanation for the evolutionary cosmology, and it is evolutionary because we start with hydrogen gas and we get the stars and so on and so forth... Ross: I disagree... Dobson: God is the author of the natural processes, so it doesn't exclude Him to... Gish: You say He programmed matter to do that... Dobson: ...He's the King of the universe and He is breathing these things... Gish: If God really had to do something, you don't believe in evolution, because... Dobson: (frustrated) I don't believe in evolution... Gish: If God had to do something repeatedly and He had to design it, why don't you say He just created it? He created a full fledged universe, and if He did all these things and it had to be very special, seems to me, it ... Dobson: I don't know how that removes him. The tides come and go and come and go. He is the author of the tides. But He set in motion the natural processes and the tides function as the moon... Gish: Yes, that's very very different, Dr. Dobson than trying to get a star or a galaxy or get a universe. Very different.... Ross: It's a lot simpler. Gish: If you looked at rocks and pebbles I think you're quite naturally conclude they form naturally. Now you see an arrowhead lying among those rocks and pebbles. You'd immediately conclude from the fact that there's design and purpose there and the way it's deliberately shaped, that was created by an intelligent being. I think that's very logical, but now, just to start with those rocks and pebbles and you go through millions of years of natural processes and finally you get an arrowhead, you don't see any act of creation in that, but you do see the arrowhead, that was a special act, direct creation and I think that's what we see in nature... Dobson: It's impossible to look at any of God's creation and not see His handiwork. Gish: Amen. You see, here's ... the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament displays (?) his handiwork. Now the atheist looks out at this universe, takes the same theory that Hugh believes in, the big bang cosmology. How's he gonna see the hand of God - how's he going to see the glory of God in this space, when he says it just came about by some big bang natural evolutionary process? Ross: Let me read a brief quote from a non Christian astronomer, George Greenstein. He says this in his book, "The Symbiotic Universe", "As we survey all the evidence the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a supreme being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" I know of nine books in addition to mine that write about these new discoveries of the universe - I'm the only one who's a Christian. Dobson: One of them is "God and the Astronomers" by Robert Jastrow... Gish: I say if you see all of this you see that God did it - that God created - just like I see a Chevrolet automobile, I believe an automobile factory produced it. It just didn't evolve. Dobson: That's a given. The question only is how and how long ago. But you don't remove God from it simply by saying, "How did He do it?" and trying to figure it out. Gish: Well, if I try to figure out water changed into wine by some natural process I'm denying that Christ had anything to do with it - it could happen naturally. If I really believed that water could naturally change into wine, ahh, or that a dead body could come out of the grave after being there for three or four days ... how can I explain that naturally? You see? And that's what these people say. That's what I confront all the time in my lectures and my debates. People say, "Now, we cannot even consider the creation. That's a supernatural explanation." Dobson: But these people you're debating are not Hugh Ross... Gish: Well, I know... Ross: ... Not the astronomers either. The astronomers are using forensics because they look back in time, and they're discovering that it can't be natural, it's gotta be supernatural... Dobson: Well, we're down near the end of the program - the second program. Tell me where you guys agree. Bring us together, for Pete's sake. What are the substantive issues on which there is total agreement... Gish: Well, Hugh and I both agree that God uh, created - and I think there's a difference on what happened then - but God created us for a purpose, there's a relationship between the created and the creator, God controls our destiny, God not only created this universe, but He created as I said for a purpose and God not only created us, but He loved us and He provided for our salvation through the person of Jesus Christ. Ross: Well, I think we agree on a lot more. We both agree that the Bible is the error-free word of God - not just in faith and practice, but science and history. We both agree in a literal Adam and Eve. We agree in the same date for Adam and Eve - that it's recent. We agree on the Cain and Abel story. We agree that life ah must require many millions literally of divine interventions - miraculous hands to bring it about... Dobson: For you, Hugh, the the age of the universe is important scientifically, but not terribly important theologically? Ross: No, it's important for both, because I can't have the Bible consistent with a thousands of year old universe. Dobson: And for you, Duane, it is absolutely critical to the authenticity of the Bible? Gish: Well, I think it's important, very definitely is very important. You see a creationist does not need an immensely old universe. Now the evolutionist he's got to have an immensely old universe - or an immensely old earth - he cannot consider any evidence for a young earth... Ross: He needs infinite time, literally. Gish: He just can't do it, there's just no way he can consider that possibility... Dobson: You don't consider yourself an evolutionist, ah, Hugh? Ross: No, the evolutionist needs near-infinite time - billions of years are hopeless... Gish: No, no, no Hugh, that's not true. Because most of your fellow astronomers who are evolutionists believe the universe is somewhere between 7 and 13 billions years old. They don't need hundreds of billions of years. Now I agree with this: If a protein molecule evolved by chance, you certainly would need about a hundred billion years or more or 500 billion years... Ross: No, you need ten to the 100 billion years... Dobson: And you don't believe that happened... Ross: ... the time is absurdly great... Dobson: Well, I was bringing this into a landing and we're off again. Gentlemen, I ah, this subject fascinates me. I don't know if there's anybody else out there that followed it or is interested in the issue but I rather think they are. Both of your ministries are doing very well. You find a lot of interest Hugh, your "Reasons to Believe" is expanding and exciting things are happening there. Ross: That's true. Dobson: Institute of Creation Research, what's going on there? Gish: Yes, we're having anywhere from 1000 to 4, 5 or 6 thousand people to our weekend seminars and these are scheduled all through next year and ah, I've just returned from touring university campuses - West Point and places like that and there's a tremendous interest in the subject of origins, there's not question about it, it's very gripping subject today and very controversial even in some Christian circles, but mainly between those who look at things as having a naturalistic origin you see, versus a supernatural origin. And we, I'm convinced as a biochemist that life could never have created itself spontaneously and certainly I'm convinced this universe could not have created itself naturally. Dobson: I certainly agree on both those points, do you, Hugh? Ross: That's right. Dobson: Boy, we'd better quit while we're ahead. I appreciate you all coming to Colorado Springs to be with us and talk about this subject. We have a little over a minute left. Explain what you say to the person out there who is more confused than ever, and wants to do what's right. How do we, how do we give them some kind of closure? Hugh, first. Ross: Ah, you're catching me off guard, but ah, we've always recognized that the existence of God and particularly the God of the Bible are questions that people most want answered, so giving them those evidences is a starting point for getting them into the Bible as the error-free word of God. Gish: Romans 1:20 tells us that nobody has any excuse because in the things God has made you can very clearly and easily discern certain unseen attributes of God, and so I would urge these people to look at this universe and living world and see the handiwork of God - the evidences for His existence, and then ask themselves the question: Why did God create me, what is my relationship to my creator? Dobson: Duane would you find fault with me if I said to people who are out there, ah, regardless of which side you come down on, show a little charity to those who have come at it from the other side and honestly believe they're right? Gish: Well absolutely, that's why Hugh and I have a cordial relationship, you see, a friendly relationship, absolutely, I think we have to be humble, I think when we say we have the total answer, I think we have to be very careful, and I think we have to be very kind and thoughtful, even with those who profess to be atheists. There were a number of them at the debate I had the other evening at the university of Utah who showed up. And ah, I just ... Dobson: There's really no room for anger, especially for those who are honestly trying to find truth... Ross: Well yeah, I appreciate ... Dobson: ... a dark glass. You know we're up there with our hands up to the window and we're trying to see and it's sometimes kind of hard... Ross: You know, I appreciate Duane's perspective. I think one thing that's concerned me about your colleagues at the Institute for Creation Research is labeling me in print as "an apostate who has no heart for evangelism." And I think we need to be much more charitable... Gish: I don't know who would have said that. You might say some of your views today (unintelligible) heretical ... Ross: No they put this in print... Gish: But that would be ah, a little bit unkind, I believe. Ross: Well I know Duane does and I appreciate that. Dobson: Well, God bless you guys (wraps up the program)

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank