Creationism that Scientists Can Accept
Copyright (c) 2015 by Edwin L. Kerr. This invited paper was published in the Second Edition of The Search for Humanity's Roots, Gabriel DeCicco, Editor.
Copyright (c) 2015 by Edwin L. Kerr. This invited paper was published in the Second Edition of The Search for Humanity's Roots, Gabriel DeCicco, Editor.
Two Areas of Contention
The Bible begins with a creation narrative that makes two remarkable claims: (A) In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth, and (B) He first formed them in three days and then filled them in the following three days.
Random Physical Causes or Divine Intervention
People who oppose Claim (A) have thought up several ways for the universe to exist without beginning.
When Albert Einstein (German-born American physicist, 1879–1955) published his Theory of General Relativity in 1915 he saw that the equations permitted the universe to expand from a small size like an explosive shock wave. Realizing that such a solution favored the Biblical idea of divine initiation, Einstein added a patch he called the “cosmological constant” to his equations. He then chose that the “constant” would assume for each galaxy the value required to stay in place against the pull of the gravity of all the other galaxies. In 1929 Edwin Hubble (American astronomer, 1889–1953) showed that the universe is indeed expanding. Galaxies move away from each other at speeds proportional to their distance from each other. After some grumbling Einstein renounced his oxymoronic choice of the variable “constant” and called it the “biggest blunder” of his career.
Before 1950 Hermann Bondi (Austrian-British mathematician, 1919–2005) and Thomas Gold (Austrian-American astronomer, 1920–2004), though accepting the expanding universe, nevertheless proposed an idea that makes the universe in the large always the same. They said that matter is continuously created spontaneously and fills in the expanding spaces between galaxies with new galaxies. Fred Hoyle (English astronomer, 1915–2001) had a similar proposal for continuous creation. In Hoyle’s version a new hydrogen atom pops into existence in each cubic meter of space only once every 300,000 years, making the process unobservable in practice. The continuous creationists preferred many little pops instead of one big bang, perhaps because Darwinists have observed that small random changes in a species are more probable than a single, all-encompassing change. However, powerful modern telescopes disproved this idea. With continuous creation all regions of the universe would have the same distribution of ages for their population of galaxies but the farther away we look the younger galaxies look until they disappear altogether. If we could see the distant galaxies as they are now instead of as they were when they emitted the light we observe, they would all have the same age. Therefore our universe did have a sudden beginning.
If the universe is expanding now might not gravity slow it to a stop and then make it contract? Then, if some unknown physical laws came into play when the universe was crunched down into a compact mass, a new bang might make it expand again. (The unknown physical laws would have to defeat the second law of thermodynamics and produce order out of disorder.) What if the universe recycled itself continuously? Would it not therefore be uncreated? The crunch-bang-crunch-bang idea was laid to rest in 1997 when Saul Perlmutter (American astrophysicist, 1959–), Brian Paul Schmidt (Australian astrophysicist, 1967–), and Adam Guy Riess (American astrophysicist, 1969–) discovered that the rate of expansion is not slowing down but rather speeding up. Physicists call the energy that produces the acceleration “dark” because to date there is no generally accepted explanation of it.
The “multiverse” is a postulated infinite collection of universes, each having its own laws of physics. We can only observe one of these universes, the one we inhabit. The interactions or collisions between these unobservable universes occasionally spin off new universes. Multiverse proponents say that if some of the startup universes happen to have laws of physics that make them suitable for life, observers may arise in them and think that a benevolent creator prepared a home for them. Against the multiverse we adduce the reasoning of William of Ockham (English philosopher, c. 1287–1347). He argued that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected, provided that the hypothesis fits all the facts. However, some atheists prefer the multiverse, an unlimited multiplication of hypotheses, to the benevolent creator idea. A possible reason for this preference is that universes make no demands, but the God of the Bible says that He will track every life lived in the universe and afterward will call people to accounts.
The Bible begins with a creation narrative that makes two remarkable claims: (A) In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth, and (B) He first formed them in three days and then filled them in the following three days.
Random Physical Causes or Divine Intervention
People who oppose Claim (A) have thought up several ways for the universe to exist without beginning.
When Albert Einstein (German-born American physicist, 1879–1955) published his Theory of General Relativity in 1915 he saw that the equations permitted the universe to expand from a small size like an explosive shock wave. Realizing that such a solution favored the Biblical idea of divine initiation, Einstein added a patch he called the “cosmological constant” to his equations. He then chose that the “constant” would assume for each galaxy the value required to stay in place against the pull of the gravity of all the other galaxies. In 1929 Edwin Hubble (American astronomer, 1889–1953) showed that the universe is indeed expanding. Galaxies move away from each other at speeds proportional to their distance from each other. After some grumbling Einstein renounced his oxymoronic choice of the variable “constant” and called it the “biggest blunder” of his career.
Before 1950 Hermann Bondi (Austrian-British mathematician, 1919–2005) and Thomas Gold (Austrian-American astronomer, 1920–2004), though accepting the expanding universe, nevertheless proposed an idea that makes the universe in the large always the same. They said that matter is continuously created spontaneously and fills in the expanding spaces between galaxies with new galaxies. Fred Hoyle (English astronomer, 1915–2001) had a similar proposal for continuous creation. In Hoyle’s version a new hydrogen atom pops into existence in each cubic meter of space only once every 300,000 years, making the process unobservable in practice. The continuous creationists preferred many little pops instead of one big bang, perhaps because Darwinists have observed that small random changes in a species are more probable than a single, all-encompassing change. However, powerful modern telescopes disproved this idea. With continuous creation all regions of the universe would have the same distribution of ages for their population of galaxies but the farther away we look the younger galaxies look until they disappear altogether. If we could see the distant galaxies as they are now instead of as they were when they emitted the light we observe, they would all have the same age. Therefore our universe did have a sudden beginning.
If the universe is expanding now might not gravity slow it to a stop and then make it contract? Then, if some unknown physical laws came into play when the universe was crunched down into a compact mass, a new bang might make it expand again. (The unknown physical laws would have to defeat the second law of thermodynamics and produce order out of disorder.) What if the universe recycled itself continuously? Would it not therefore be uncreated? The crunch-bang-crunch-bang idea was laid to rest in 1997 when Saul Perlmutter (American astrophysicist, 1959–), Brian Paul Schmidt (Australian astrophysicist, 1967–), and Adam Guy Riess (American astrophysicist, 1969–) discovered that the rate of expansion is not slowing down but rather speeding up. Physicists call the energy that produces the acceleration “dark” because to date there is no generally accepted explanation of it.
The “multiverse” is a postulated infinite collection of universes, each having its own laws of physics. We can only observe one of these universes, the one we inhabit. The interactions or collisions between these unobservable universes occasionally spin off new universes. Multiverse proponents say that if some of the startup universes happen to have laws of physics that make them suitable for life, observers may arise in them and think that a benevolent creator prepared a home for them. Against the multiverse we adduce the reasoning of William of Ockham (English philosopher, c. 1287–1347). He argued that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected, provided that the hypothesis fits all the facts. However, some atheists prefer the multiverse, an unlimited multiplication of hypotheses, to the benevolent creator idea. A possible reason for this preference is that universes make no demands, but the God of the Bible says that He will track every life lived in the universe and afterward will call people to accounts.
Old Earth or Young Earth
Scientists and Bible believers agree that Homo sapiens appeared relatively recently. Astrophysicists currently date the sudden beginning of the observable universe at 13,820 million years ago. Bible chronology extended backwards from a rather firm date for the reign of King Solomon has the first human couple appearing some 6,000 years before the present, on the sixth day of the creation narrative. The days of creation have been interpreted many ways, ranging from symbolic days, days that represent geologically long ages, to six consecutive 24-hour days. Conflict over the second area of contention mentioned in the first paragraph of this paper, Claim (B), arises because insistence on creation in 144 consecutive hours makes the first moment of creation almost as recent as humankind.
For many Bible believers the great appeal of this interpretation is the answer it gives to Darwinism. If all the terrestrial animals and the human couple appeared on the sixth day, and if that day was only 24 hours long, then the apes did not have time to reproduce even once before there were people.
With this interpretation go several other ideas: (1) there was no death before Adam and Eve disobeyed God’s command and ate the forbidden fruit, (2) the great majority of fossils were buried in the waters of a world-wide flood, (3) the sole survivors were Noah and his immediate family, and (4) Noah saved pairs of all species of animals by obeying God’s command to build an ark and take refuge in it during the flood.
The 144-hour creationists hold that all dating methods—cosmological, astrophysical, radioactive decay, geological, and index fossils—are simply wrong. Creationists vary in the extent to which they rebel. The most extreme hold that most scientists are participating in a world-wide conspiracy to suppress the truth. Curiously some 144-hour creationists do not challenge historical and archaeological dating, those who say that the beginning was not 6,000 years but 10,000 years ago. The latter figure is an estimate that appears in The Genesis Flood (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Philadelphia PA, 1961) by John Clement Whitcomb, Jr. (American theologian, 1924–) and Henry Madison Morris (American civil and hydraulics engineer, 1918–2006). Whitcomb and Morris hold that the Bible is divinely inspired and therefore true in all its affirmations. But in Appendix II they claim that the chronological genealogies of Genesis chapters 5 and 11 are not to be taken literally; the time period they cover is much longer than one would suppose from the numbers in the sacred text, because the genealogies are compressed, omitting many generations. They say that the expression “became the father of” is to be taken to mean “became the ancestor of.”
The reason for this departure from strict literalism is apparently as follows. Strict Bible chronology would put the flood at about 4,500 years before the present. If only one family survived then history was seriously interrupted. Whitcomb and Morris found no break in history 4,500 years ago, so they moved the flood back to 8,500 years ago and creation to 10,000 years ago, where archaeological dating is more uncertain.
The popularity of the 144-hour creationist view is very impressive. Gallup poll results, stable over 30 years, in 3-6 May 2012 had 46% of the US population stating that “God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.” “Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process,” said 32%. Only 15% believe that “Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process.”
Films and books depicting how Bible stories may have played out gross millions of dollars. Scientists who show that the Bible is wrong remain mostly unable to share in this wealth. The only notable recent exception is the reported 9 million plus sales of A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking. What can scientists do to appeal to the masses?
Scientists and Bible believers agree that Homo sapiens appeared relatively recently. Astrophysicists currently date the sudden beginning of the observable universe at 13,820 million years ago. Bible chronology extended backwards from a rather firm date for the reign of King Solomon has the first human couple appearing some 6,000 years before the present, on the sixth day of the creation narrative. The days of creation have been interpreted many ways, ranging from symbolic days, days that represent geologically long ages, to six consecutive 24-hour days. Conflict over the second area of contention mentioned in the first paragraph of this paper, Claim (B), arises because insistence on creation in 144 consecutive hours makes the first moment of creation almost as recent as humankind.
For many Bible believers the great appeal of this interpretation is the answer it gives to Darwinism. If all the terrestrial animals and the human couple appeared on the sixth day, and if that day was only 24 hours long, then the apes did not have time to reproduce even once before there were people.
With this interpretation go several other ideas: (1) there was no death before Adam and Eve disobeyed God’s command and ate the forbidden fruit, (2) the great majority of fossils were buried in the waters of a world-wide flood, (3) the sole survivors were Noah and his immediate family, and (4) Noah saved pairs of all species of animals by obeying God’s command to build an ark and take refuge in it during the flood.
The 144-hour creationists hold that all dating methods—cosmological, astrophysical, radioactive decay, geological, and index fossils—are simply wrong. Creationists vary in the extent to which they rebel. The most extreme hold that most scientists are participating in a world-wide conspiracy to suppress the truth. Curiously some 144-hour creationists do not challenge historical and archaeological dating, those who say that the beginning was not 6,000 years but 10,000 years ago. The latter figure is an estimate that appears in The Genesis Flood (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Philadelphia PA, 1961) by John Clement Whitcomb, Jr. (American theologian, 1924–) and Henry Madison Morris (American civil and hydraulics engineer, 1918–2006). Whitcomb and Morris hold that the Bible is divinely inspired and therefore true in all its affirmations. But in Appendix II they claim that the chronological genealogies of Genesis chapters 5 and 11 are not to be taken literally; the time period they cover is much longer than one would suppose from the numbers in the sacred text, because the genealogies are compressed, omitting many generations. They say that the expression “became the father of” is to be taken to mean “became the ancestor of.”
The reason for this departure from strict literalism is apparently as follows. Strict Bible chronology would put the flood at about 4,500 years before the present. If only one family survived then history was seriously interrupted. Whitcomb and Morris found no break in history 4,500 years ago, so they moved the flood back to 8,500 years ago and creation to 10,000 years ago, where archaeological dating is more uncertain.
The popularity of the 144-hour creationist view is very impressive. Gallup poll results, stable over 30 years, in 3-6 May 2012 had 46% of the US population stating that “God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.” “Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process,” said 32%. Only 15% believe that “Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process.”
Films and books depicting how Bible stories may have played out gross millions of dollars. Scientists who show that the Bible is wrong remain mostly unable to share in this wealth. The only notable recent exception is the reported 9 million plus sales of A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking. What can scientists do to appeal to the masses?
The Bad Manners of Some Scientists Antagonize Thinking People
Since the publication of The Genesis Flood there has been a steady erosion of public appreciation and respect for science. Two improprieties that scientists often commit while combating creationism have antagonized reasonable people: (1) insulting Bible believers for their faith and (2) refusing to acknowledge weaknesses and errors in the scientific position.
Insulting Bible Believers for Their Faith
In 1982 creationists obtained the consent of some state legislatures and school boards to devote “equal time” to presenting “creation science” as an alternative to evolution in public schools. The American Physical Society registered its opposition to this trend in a declaration that “scientific inquiry and religious beliefs are two distinct elements of the human experience” (Physics Today, pp. 53-55, February 1982). Others have not been so respectful. Leon Lederman, Director of Fermilab, in his books The God Particle and Beyond the God Particle, blatantly ridiculed creationists. His attitude may have been a factor in the loss of public support for his Superconducting Supercollider project. In any case, ridiculing creationists is counterproductive. They conclude that they are blessed because they have been “persecuted because of righteousness” (Matthew 5:10) and they rejoice because they have “been counted worth of suffering disgrace for the Name” (Acts 5:41).
Debating creationists is an exercise in futility. The scientist seldom knows enough Bible to discomfit the creationist. In a recent debate, Bill Nye blamed Ken Ham for “holding back the progress” of the country or of science by misleading talented young people with his 144-hour creationism. Creationists are immune to such charges. Since when do we determine what is true by what would be useful if it were true?
Suggesting that times of stress send many people to seek simple answers such as those in the Biblical Genesis story is a putdown. Another is to identify “Biblically inspired premises” as “central to the medieval world view.” Was there only one medieval world view? Limiting only to theologians the examples of those who were deceived by hoaxes, or who made demonstrable misidentifications, is an extreme bias. Examples of disproved scientific ideas about the uncreated universe are presented in this paper to redress the balance.
Scientists want to be respected; to obtain respect they need to be respectful. If there is ever to be an end to the Bible-science wars scientists will have to learn not to win arguments but to win over people. Scientists should realize that they cannot recover at the “negotiating table” what they have lost in “battle.” Conceding to the Bible believers that they may be right about some of the ideals they hold reaps great rewards for scientists. Instead of being villains who destroy the childhood faith of young people, why can’t scientists be heroes who confirm faith in the Bible?
Atheists who think that all Bible believers are wrong should examine their own beliefs. Many Bible believers actually agree with many atheists in the following sense. If the god of the concepts of the atheists really existed, most believers would hate that god as much as the atheists do. This applies even when talking about the God of the Bible. Many atheists think the God of the Bible plays favorites with a chosen few and is harsh with others, but many Bible believers find God to be the One Who helps them overcome problems and enjoy life.
In 1982 creationists obtained the consent of some state legislatures and school boards to devote “equal time” to presenting “creation science” as an alternative to evolution in public schools. The American Physical Society registered its opposition to this trend in a declaration that “scientific inquiry and religious beliefs are two distinct elements of the human experience” (Physics Today, pp. 53-55, February 1982). Others have not been so respectful. Leon Lederman, Director of Fermilab, in his books The God Particle and Beyond the God Particle, blatantly ridiculed creationists. His attitude may have been a factor in the loss of public support for his Superconducting Supercollider project. In any case, ridiculing creationists is counterproductive. They conclude that they are blessed because they have been “persecuted because of righteousness” (Matthew 5:10) and they rejoice because they have “been counted worth of suffering disgrace for the Name” (Acts 5:41).
Debating creationists is an exercise in futility. The scientist seldom knows enough Bible to discomfit the creationist. In a recent debate, Bill Nye blamed Ken Ham for “holding back the progress” of the country or of science by misleading talented young people with his 144-hour creationism. Creationists are immune to such charges. Since when do we determine what is true by what would be useful if it were true?
Suggesting that times of stress send many people to seek simple answers such as those in the Biblical Genesis story is a putdown. Another is to identify “Biblically inspired premises” as “central to the medieval world view.” Was there only one medieval world view? Limiting only to theologians the examples of those who were deceived by hoaxes, or who made demonstrable misidentifications, is an extreme bias. Examples of disproved scientific ideas about the uncreated universe are presented in this paper to redress the balance.
Scientists want to be respected; to obtain respect they need to be respectful. If there is ever to be an end to the Bible-science wars scientists will have to learn not to win arguments but to win over people. Scientists should realize that they cannot recover at the “negotiating table” what they have lost in “battle.” Conceding to the Bible believers that they may be right about some of the ideals they hold reaps great rewards for scientists. Instead of being villains who destroy the childhood faith of young people, why can’t scientists be heroes who confirm faith in the Bible?
Atheists who think that all Bible believers are wrong should examine their own beliefs. Many Bible believers actually agree with many atheists in the following sense. If the god of the concepts of the atheists really existed, most believers would hate that god as much as the atheists do. This applies even when talking about the God of the Bible. Many atheists think the God of the Bible plays favorites with a chosen few and is harsh with others, but many Bible believers find God to be the One Who helps them overcome problems and enjoy life.
Refusing to Acknowledge Weaknesses and Failures
Creationists are right when they argue that all physical processes maximize entropy (tend toward disorder according to the second law of thermodynamics), contrary to the evolutionary claim of producing highly organized beings from random chemical reactions. Darwinists often give several false arguments in support of their claim. These arguments do nothing but betray a serious lack of understanding of thermodynamics. For years evolutionists have said that, since the Earth receives energy from the Sun, therefore a great increase of entropy far away can compensate a local decrease in entropy. This is false because there is no such thing as a flow of entropy. Entropy is a state variable, that is, it describes the state of things in a local region. Energy can flow from one region to another, and material can move from one region to another. Heat is highly disorganized energy. If heat flows out of a region then the region will be better organized and its entropy will be reduced. If highly disorganized material like garbage is taken out of a region then conditions in the region will be improved; the entropy of the region is reduced. However, the heat and the garbage have to go somewhere. Therefore the overall state of entropy of the universe remains the same if the local cleanup is done very smoothly and quietly; if the process of improving order in one place involves any waste then the entropy of the universe increases by that much. For instance, the garbage truck may carry away several tons of garbage, but its diesel engine may leave a little pollution in the air. Ilya Prigogine (Russian-born Belgian chemist, 1917–2003, winner of the 1977 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work applying the second law to the thermodynamics of biological systems) disproved this common but erroneous evolutionist argument.
A few people who favor Darwinism point out the truth that “the equilibrium state of a system is determined by seeking, not the maximum entropy but the minimum free energy.” Since this statement includes the word “minimum” instead of “maximum” a few writers have wrongly concluded that the second law of thermodynamics doesn’t apply to the crystallization of ice. Enrico Fermi (Italian-born American physicist, 1901–1954, winner of the 1938 Nobel Prize in Physics and author of the classic textbook Thermodynamics, New York: Dover, 1936) clearly disproved this evolutionist argument.
We now know how the second law applies to evolution, because we know how DNA encodes genetic information. Claude Elwood Shannon (American applied mathematician and electrical engineer, 1916–2001) prefixed a minus sign to Boltzmann’s formula for entropy and used it to measure information. Information theory developed from this insight. We need information to restore order, so information is the negative of entropy. Since we normally consider order and information to be a positive, desirable quantity, it is best to think of entropy as negative information. The clearest statement of the second law is simply this: Information does not arise spontaneously.
It is an error to think that natural selection produces information. Besides, Darwinian natural selection does not apply to the initial reactions of lifeless chemicals. We still do not know how life began.
Here is another example of refusing to acknowledge failure. In the past evolutionists developed a consensus about the order of appearance of different phenotypes: single-cell organisms, multi-cell invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, humans. The 21st century, however, has seen the analysis of the complete genome of various species. The emerging sequence of genotypes differs significantly from the old sequence of phenotypes. Certain parts of the human genome are more similar to the corresponding parts in the genomes of rats or even fungi than they are to the genome of chimpanzees. The old consensus was simply wrong.
Similarity of phenotypes is not an argument against creation. If an elegant solution (like the circulation of blood) to a particular problem (like supplying food, water, and oxygen to all cells and removing waste) is a feature of one species, why should it not be reutilized in many succeeding organisms if they have that need? Engineering design does the same thing.
Creationists are right when they argue that all physical processes maximize entropy (tend toward disorder according to the second law of thermodynamics), contrary to the evolutionary claim of producing highly organized beings from random chemical reactions. Darwinists often give several false arguments in support of their claim. These arguments do nothing but betray a serious lack of understanding of thermodynamics. For years evolutionists have said that, since the Earth receives energy from the Sun, therefore a great increase of entropy far away can compensate a local decrease in entropy. This is false because there is no such thing as a flow of entropy. Entropy is a state variable, that is, it describes the state of things in a local region. Energy can flow from one region to another, and material can move from one region to another. Heat is highly disorganized energy. If heat flows out of a region then the region will be better organized and its entropy will be reduced. If highly disorganized material like garbage is taken out of a region then conditions in the region will be improved; the entropy of the region is reduced. However, the heat and the garbage have to go somewhere. Therefore the overall state of entropy of the universe remains the same if the local cleanup is done very smoothly and quietly; if the process of improving order in one place involves any waste then the entropy of the universe increases by that much. For instance, the garbage truck may carry away several tons of garbage, but its diesel engine may leave a little pollution in the air. Ilya Prigogine (Russian-born Belgian chemist, 1917–2003, winner of the 1977 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work applying the second law to the thermodynamics of biological systems) disproved this common but erroneous evolutionist argument.
A few people who favor Darwinism point out the truth that “the equilibrium state of a system is determined by seeking, not the maximum entropy but the minimum free energy.” Since this statement includes the word “minimum” instead of “maximum” a few writers have wrongly concluded that the second law of thermodynamics doesn’t apply to the crystallization of ice. Enrico Fermi (Italian-born American physicist, 1901–1954, winner of the 1938 Nobel Prize in Physics and author of the classic textbook Thermodynamics, New York: Dover, 1936) clearly disproved this evolutionist argument.
We now know how the second law applies to evolution, because we know how DNA encodes genetic information. Claude Elwood Shannon (American applied mathematician and electrical engineer, 1916–2001) prefixed a minus sign to Boltzmann’s formula for entropy and used it to measure information. Information theory developed from this insight. We need information to restore order, so information is the negative of entropy. Since we normally consider order and information to be a positive, desirable quantity, it is best to think of entropy as negative information. The clearest statement of the second law is simply this: Information does not arise spontaneously.
It is an error to think that natural selection produces information. Besides, Darwinian natural selection does not apply to the initial reactions of lifeless chemicals. We still do not know how life began.
Here is another example of refusing to acknowledge failure. In the past evolutionists developed a consensus about the order of appearance of different phenotypes: single-cell organisms, multi-cell invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, humans. The 21st century, however, has seen the analysis of the complete genome of various species. The emerging sequence of genotypes differs significantly from the old sequence of phenotypes. Certain parts of the human genome are more similar to the corresponding parts in the genomes of rats or even fungi than they are to the genome of chimpanzees. The old consensus was simply wrong.
Similarity of phenotypes is not an argument against creation. If an elegant solution (like the circulation of blood) to a particular problem (like supplying food, water, and oxygen to all cells and removing waste) is a feature of one species, why should it not be reutilized in many succeeding organisms if they have that need? Engineering design does the same thing.
A Scientifically Acceptable Bible Interpretation
Experimentally Confirmed, Precision Science
There is no such thing as an exact science. Bertram Schwarzschild, a writer for Physics Today, is credited for a criterion for identifying a “precision science.”
Schwarzschild said that cosmology became a precision science on 12 February 2003. On that date NASA project scientists released the first data set from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). These data permitted calculating the Hubble constant (the rate of expansion of the universe) to within a precision of 1 percent.
Although the percentage is arbitrary, it marks an epoch in the maturing of a science. At present only physics and chemistry are able to make their theories and experimental results agree to within 1 percent. Genetics is approaching this precision because DNA reproduces itself digitally. However, a Darwinian misunderstanding about the role of small variations in the human genome is delaying the advent of the cures Francis Collins promised for various genetically based diseases.
Darwinism after almost a century and a half is certainly not a precision science. It works too slowly for definitive observation. It is still supported merely by a set of plausibility arguments. Saying that “evolution is no longer a theory but a proven fact” is simply not true.
There is no such thing as an exact science. Bertram Schwarzschild, a writer for Physics Today, is credited for a criterion for identifying a “precision science.”
Schwarzschild said that cosmology became a precision science on 12 February 2003. On that date NASA project scientists released the first data set from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). These data permitted calculating the Hubble constant (the rate of expansion of the universe) to within a precision of 1 percent.
Although the percentage is arbitrary, it marks an epoch in the maturing of a science. At present only physics and chemistry are able to make their theories and experimental results agree to within 1 percent. Genetics is approaching this precision because DNA reproduces itself digitally. However, a Darwinian misunderstanding about the role of small variations in the human genome is delaying the advent of the cures Francis Collins promised for various genetically based diseases.
Darwinism after almost a century and a half is certainly not a precision science. It works too slowly for definitive observation. It is still supported merely by a set of plausibility arguments. Saying that “evolution is no longer a theory but a proven fact” is simply not true.
Where Precision Science and the Bible Agree
Many Bible believers hold two fundamental doctrines: (a) the Bible is inspired by God and (b) God can only tell us the truth. We note that Bible believers do not have to defend every part of the Bible. There is evidence for divine inspiration if any parts of the Bible are in detailed agreement with precision science.
Many Bible believers hold two fundamental doctrines: (a) the Bible is inspired by God and (b) God can only tell us the truth. We note that Bible believers do not have to defend every part of the Bible. There is evidence for divine inspiration if any parts of the Bible are in detailed agreement with precision science.
Taking Literal Bible Interpretation to an Extreme
Before we can demonstrate detailed agreement between the Genesis creation narrative and precision science, we must clear away a common misunderstanding about the word “day” as used in the narrative.
According to Genesis chapter 1, verses 11–12, on the third day vegetation covered the Earth. Animals do not appear until the fifth and sixth days according to verses 20–25. This agrees in general with the evolutionary sequence that plants came before animals, and with the finding that green plants had to condition the Earth atmosphere by releasing oxygen before animals could subsist on the Earth. The time scale in Genesis is measured in days, however, while plants must have needed tens of millions of years to provide free oxygen. The problem with the time scales vanishes when we eliminate all interpretations that people bring to the Bible and take the Bible completely literally.
Genesis chapter one describes the creation, forming, and filling of the heavens and Earth in six consecutive days, but the Bible never uses the phrase “twenty-four hours.” The interpretation of the 144-hour creationists is therefore only partly based on the Bible. Another part is a parochial, provincial idea that a day is always 24 hours.
A day on Mars lasts 24 hours and a little less than 40 minutes, because Mars rotates more slowly than the Earth. A day on the Moon lasts a month. A day at the North Pole or at the South Pole of the Earth lasts a year, because there are six months of darkness when the Sun never rises, and six months of daylight when the Sun never sets.
It is circular reasoning to define a literal day as 24 hours, because the definition of an hour is any of 24 equal parts of a day.
According to the Genesis creation narrative, God was first to use the word “day.” Therefore the word means what He means by it. When the Earth was created it was dark and God called the darkness “night.” Then God formed the light, saw that it was “good,” separated the light from the darkness in space (darkness and light were already separated in time), and called the light “day.” The original Hebrew of verse 5 is translated incorrectly in many English versions. It does not say, “There was evening and there was morning, the first day” but rather “There was evening and there was morning, one day,” thus defining the word “day.” One complete cycle of alternation starting with a dark phase followed by a lighted phase constitutes one day. The Bible repeatedly says “evening and morning” because the darkness was first and then the light.
Under this definition any sighted person can observe the passing of a day, whether that person is a scientist or an ancient person with no instruments at all. When the Bible was written, accurate artifacts for measuring the passing of time did not exist.
In Genesis the passing of a day is an observable event, not the duration of a certain amount of time. But since animals and humans do not appear in the creation narrative until days five and six, the only observer of the events of the first four days was God. On the fourth day God commissioned the Sun to govern the day. The Sun at present governs the day on the Earth in the temperate and torrid zones, marking off 24-hour days. But by default God governed the first three days.
How old is the Earth? According to the Bible it is about six thousand years plus three days. The Bible does not say how long the first three days lasted, but scientists have looked with modern instruments and have determined that the first three days lasted 13,820 million years. With this understanding there are two areas of detailed agreement between the Genesis account of the first three days and precision science.
Before we can demonstrate detailed agreement between the Genesis creation narrative and precision science, we must clear away a common misunderstanding about the word “day” as used in the narrative.
According to Genesis chapter 1, verses 11–12, on the third day vegetation covered the Earth. Animals do not appear until the fifth and sixth days according to verses 20–25. This agrees in general with the evolutionary sequence that plants came before animals, and with the finding that green plants had to condition the Earth atmosphere by releasing oxygen before animals could subsist on the Earth. The time scale in Genesis is measured in days, however, while plants must have needed tens of millions of years to provide free oxygen. The problem with the time scales vanishes when we eliminate all interpretations that people bring to the Bible and take the Bible completely literally.
Genesis chapter one describes the creation, forming, and filling of the heavens and Earth in six consecutive days, but the Bible never uses the phrase “twenty-four hours.” The interpretation of the 144-hour creationists is therefore only partly based on the Bible. Another part is a parochial, provincial idea that a day is always 24 hours.
A day on Mars lasts 24 hours and a little less than 40 minutes, because Mars rotates more slowly than the Earth. A day on the Moon lasts a month. A day at the North Pole or at the South Pole of the Earth lasts a year, because there are six months of darkness when the Sun never rises, and six months of daylight when the Sun never sets.
It is circular reasoning to define a literal day as 24 hours, because the definition of an hour is any of 24 equal parts of a day.
According to the Genesis creation narrative, God was first to use the word “day.” Therefore the word means what He means by it. When the Earth was created it was dark and God called the darkness “night.” Then God formed the light, saw that it was “good,” separated the light from the darkness in space (darkness and light were already separated in time), and called the light “day.” The original Hebrew of verse 5 is translated incorrectly in many English versions. It does not say, “There was evening and there was morning, the first day” but rather “There was evening and there was morning, one day,” thus defining the word “day.” One complete cycle of alternation starting with a dark phase followed by a lighted phase constitutes one day. The Bible repeatedly says “evening and morning” because the darkness was first and then the light.
Under this definition any sighted person can observe the passing of a day, whether that person is a scientist or an ancient person with no instruments at all. When the Bible was written, accurate artifacts for measuring the passing of time did not exist.
In Genesis the passing of a day is an observable event, not the duration of a certain amount of time. But since animals and humans do not appear in the creation narrative until days five and six, the only observer of the events of the first four days was God. On the fourth day God commissioned the Sun to govern the day. The Sun at present governs the day on the Earth in the temperate and torrid zones, marking off 24-hour days. But by default God governed the first three days.
How old is the Earth? According to the Bible it is about six thousand years plus three days. The Bible does not say how long the first three days lasted, but scientists have looked with modern instruments and have determined that the first three days lasted 13,820 million years. With this understanding there are two areas of detailed agreement between the Genesis account of the first three days and precision science.
The Bible Account of the Frist Three Days Agrees in Detail with Precision Science
Modern cosmology has determined that there were exactly three cycles of darkness and night from the sudden beginning of the observable universe to the time when the Earth began to support vegetation.
In the beginning the universe was dark but seething with gamma rays all heading in random directions. These are like light rays but they are too highly energetic for our eyes to see. The gamma rays had enough energy to collide with one another and materialize as subatomic particles like protons, neutrons, electrons, and others. Some of the particles would later form the Earth. The Earth, just after creation, matched the Biblical description of being empty, formless, and dark. The leftover energy of the photons became light and heat; the first evening ended and it was morning. Under tremendous pressure and temperatures exceeding billions of degrees the particles collided with one another and formed the simplest elements, those that have one, two, or three protons, namely hydrogen, helium, and a trace of lithium. Toward the end of the first morning there were two tendencies operating with opposite effects. Overall the universe was expanding and cooling and becoming dark again. However there were “hot spots” where many gamma rays had collided. The hot spots had excess mass and gravity that made them contract and heat up as their gravity pulled them together. As the Bible says, in this way God was separating the light from the darkness. However the universe was not ready for life because three elements are not enough to make complex molecules or long chains like DNA.
In the darkness of the second evening the hot spots grew denser and hotter until they reached the temperature of thermonuclear ignition and became the first stars. Their light again illuminated the universe and it was the second morning. The sustained high temperature and pressure in the interiors of the first stars manufactured the remaining 89 elements. With all 92 elements present in the universe, life was possible, but first the elements had to cool enough to form molecules.
At the end of the second morning the stars that were larger than a certain size burst as supernovas and spewed out their insides as glowing dust. This dust, rich in all the chemical elements needed for life, quickly cooled and became dark. The darkness was the third evening, in which God said, “Let that which is dry appear.” The dust drifted through the galaxies until newly formed stars illuminated it and rolled it up into planets. When the Sun began to illuminate the Earth almost 5 billion years ago that was the third morning for our planet.
All of the details given in the Genesis narrative fit beautifully with the story we have come to know through precision science.
Modern cosmology has determined that there were exactly three cycles of darkness and night from the sudden beginning of the observable universe to the time when the Earth began to support vegetation.
In the beginning the universe was dark but seething with gamma rays all heading in random directions. These are like light rays but they are too highly energetic for our eyes to see. The gamma rays had enough energy to collide with one another and materialize as subatomic particles like protons, neutrons, electrons, and others. Some of the particles would later form the Earth. The Earth, just after creation, matched the Biblical description of being empty, formless, and dark. The leftover energy of the photons became light and heat; the first evening ended and it was morning. Under tremendous pressure and temperatures exceeding billions of degrees the particles collided with one another and formed the simplest elements, those that have one, two, or three protons, namely hydrogen, helium, and a trace of lithium. Toward the end of the first morning there were two tendencies operating with opposite effects. Overall the universe was expanding and cooling and becoming dark again. However there were “hot spots” where many gamma rays had collided. The hot spots had excess mass and gravity that made them contract and heat up as their gravity pulled them together. As the Bible says, in this way God was separating the light from the darkness. However the universe was not ready for life because three elements are not enough to make complex molecules or long chains like DNA.
In the darkness of the second evening the hot spots grew denser and hotter until they reached the temperature of thermonuclear ignition and became the first stars. Their light again illuminated the universe and it was the second morning. The sustained high temperature and pressure in the interiors of the first stars manufactured the remaining 89 elements. With all 92 elements present in the universe, life was possible, but first the elements had to cool enough to form molecules.
At the end of the second morning the stars that were larger than a certain size burst as supernovas and spewed out their insides as glowing dust. This dust, rich in all the chemical elements needed for life, quickly cooled and became dark. The darkness was the third evening, in which God said, “Let that which is dry appear.” The dust drifted through the galaxies until newly formed stars illuminated it and rolled it up into planets. When the Sun began to illuminate the Earth almost 5 billion years ago that was the third morning for our planet.
All of the details given in the Genesis narrative fit beautifully with the story we have come to know through precision science.
Genesis Prefigures Three Major Discoveries of the 20th Century
Three major discoveries of the 20th century have shaped cosmology.
(1) Einstein’s special theory of relativity showed that matter can materialize from energy. According to the Bible, God did the work necessary to produce random high energy gamma rays in the vacuum of space, and these collided to make the matter, light, and heat of the universe.
(2) Genesis chapter 1 verse 6 can be translated from the original Hebrew to say that God put expansion in the heavens, in accordance with Hubble’s discovery.
(3) God commanded the darkness He had created to shine and then said that it was “good.” In 1964 Arno Allan Penzias (American radio astronomer, 1933–) and Robert Woodrow Wilson (American radio astronomer, 1936–) detected that same light, still coming in from the most distant visible regions of the universe. Various detectors including three satellites have shown that the first light is the most perfect light science has ever analyzed. Photos of the first light show it separating from the darkness by gravity as the Bible says.
Thus, the three major cosmological discoveries are all prefigured in the first eight verses of Genesis.
Three major discoveries of the 20th century have shaped cosmology.
(1) Einstein’s special theory of relativity showed that matter can materialize from energy. According to the Bible, God did the work necessary to produce random high energy gamma rays in the vacuum of space, and these collided to make the matter, light, and heat of the universe.
(2) Genesis chapter 1 verse 6 can be translated from the original Hebrew to say that God put expansion in the heavens, in accordance with Hubble’s discovery.
(3) God commanded the darkness He had created to shine and then said that it was “good.” In 1964 Arno Allan Penzias (American radio astronomer, 1933–) and Robert Woodrow Wilson (American radio astronomer, 1936–) detected that same light, still coming in from the most distant visible regions of the universe. Various detectors including three satellites have shown that the first light is the most perfect light science has ever analyzed. Photos of the first light show it separating from the darkness by gravity as the Bible says.
Thus, the three major cosmological discoveries are all prefigured in the first eight verses of Genesis.
Agreement Demands an Explanation
The observable universe had a beginning. All ideas about physical causes that went before are mere speculations,
and are unlikely ever to be supported by evidence.
One may find gleams of insight embedded in certain ancient stories, but almost always those stories make other affirmations that science has long since disproved. Only one ancient creation narrative avoids disproved ideas and fully agrees with precision science. Both in allusions to modern discoveries and in the sequence of observable events the Bible account of creation is unique. The fidelity of the Biblical creation story to modern findings requires an explanation.
The Bible claims to be inspired by God. Skeptics say that great pretentions require great evidence. The Genesis creation narrative has the required evidence.
The observable universe had a beginning. All ideas about physical causes that went before are mere speculations,
and are unlikely ever to be supported by evidence.
One may find gleams of insight embedded in certain ancient stories, but almost always those stories make other affirmations that science has long since disproved. Only one ancient creation narrative avoids disproved ideas and fully agrees with precision science. Both in allusions to modern discoveries and in the sequence of observable events the Bible account of creation is unique. The fidelity of the Biblical creation story to modern findings requires an explanation.
The Bible claims to be inspired by God. Skeptics say that great pretentions require great evidence. The Genesis creation narrative has the required evidence.