The Great Debate on Science and the Bible – Program 5

By: Dr. John Ankerberg, Ken Ham, Dr. Jason Lisle, Dr. Hugh Ross, Dr. Walter Kaiser, Jr.; ©2005

What Can We Learn About God from the Record of Nature?

Program 5: The Great Debate on Science and the Bible – What Can We Learn About God from the Record of Nature?

Introduction

Today on The John Ankerberg Show, The Great Debate on Science and the Bible. My guests are Ken Ham and astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle of Answers in Genesis, debating astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe, and Dr. Walter Kaiser, distinguished professor of Old Testament and President of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary.

Today, has science proven through astronomy, modern physics, and geology, that the universe and the earth are billions of years old? If this is true, are Christians who teach that the universe is only 6,000 years old erecting a hindrance to those looking for a factual Christian faith? Or is the opposite true: that Christians who teach the days of Genesis are six long periods of time are really the one’s not interpreting the Bible literally?

These four men model how Christians who strongly disagree can discuss their different views with love and respect.

Join us for this important debate and hear both sides present their case.

---

Dr. John Ankerberg: Welcome to our program. My guests today are Mr. Ken Ham, President and founder of Answers in Genesis; and astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross, from Reasons to Believe; and astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle from Answers in Genesis; and Dr. Walter Kaiser from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. Guys, we’re all glad that you’re here today. And I want to start off with, in talking about science, what does the Bible itself tell us about what God’s done in the record of nature? Can we trust that? And, Hugh, I want to start with a verse, okay? Psalm 19:1 says, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hand. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge.” What’s that saying? Can we trust the record of nature? Does God tell us that from Scripture?

Dr. Hugh Ross: I think He does. And He does that in many other passages of the Bible as well, that the record of nature is trustworthy; it’s reliable; it’s part of the revelation that God has given to us. It’s a God that can’t lie or deceive. So just like with the words of the Bible, what we see in the record of nature is completely trustworthy and reliable and true.

Ankerberg: Jason, do you believe that God tells us in Scripture that we can trust the record of nature?

Dr. Jason Lisle: Well, I would say it a little bit differently. I would say that, of course, there’s nature out there. And of course that testifies to God’s glory and His creative design. I think that’s what Psalm 19:1 is indicating. But at the same time, nature isn’t true or false, is it? It just is. And, now, a propositional statement, if I make a statement about something, that statement is true or false. But nature isn’t true or false, it simply is. It simply exists. And if we read on in Psalm 19, we find that it actually contrasts nature with the law of the Lord: “The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul.” [Psa. 19:7] So it actually contrasts God’s general revelation with His verbal, specific revelation given in the Bible.

Ankerberg: Alright, let me ask you this question, then. Did God create in such a way that no tools of science can ever yield real information on the age of the earth, the stars or the universe?

Lisle: Well, you know. Scientific evidence can certainly shed light on the age of things. But observational science can never prove the age of something, because observational science deals with the present. It deals with testable, repeatable processes in the present. You know, really, when you ask about the age of the something, you’re not asking a science question, you’re asking a history question, aren’t you? Because you’re asking when did something happen? When in the past? And the best way to answer a history question is to consult a history book. And that’s, of course, what we have in the Bible. We have the history book of the universe.

Ross: Well, I would agree with Jason that you can treat the Bible as a history book, but also argue that the record of nature is a history book. And in terms of astronomy, it’s a direct witness of history. I think you said it right: we astronomers don’t see the present; we only see the past, because it takes light time to travel from these astronomical objects to us. So the beauty of astronomy as a science is we can choose to observe any epoch of history literally back to the creation event of the universe, and watch the universe grow up with respect to time. So we have a direct witness there. And I would agree, too, that it’s a reliable witness. Now, maybe something that would clarify things here is, I do agree with both Ken and Jason that the Bible is the only authoritative revelation from God. And the distinction there is that authority rests on a person. The record of nature isn’t a person, per se. However, that does not mean that the record of nature is any the less trustworthy or reliable, compared to the Bible. And just like interpretation is an issue with the record of nature, interpretation is an issue when people come to the text of the Bible. Many people read the Bible and misinterpret it. And I think the reason why God gave us a multiplicity of revelations is that we can check these revelations against one another, and use those checks to ferret out the faulty interpretations that might exist on the theological side, or the scientific side.

Ken Ham: I think there’s a big difference there, though. Nature is cursed. And the Bible is not cursed. And we are fallible creatures. And the fact that we have a verbal revelation, which is obviously so much more superior than a nonverbal revelation; in fact, you know, the theologian Berkhof said you’ve got to view nature through the eyes of the Bible, because the Bible gives us the history of what’s happened. We know that there’s been a creation; we know that there’s been a Fall; we know there’s been a flood; we know the event of the Tower of Babel. That history connects the past to the present, and then we can look out at nature and understand it. I would say, and I’ll be interested in Jason’s comment, that when you’re looking out at the universe, you’re really not looking at the past, in one sense. We’re looking at the present, and there’s all sorts of assumptions that we have about what we’re looking at out there. But, Jason, how would you put it?

Ankerberg: But isn’t it true that when you’re looking at the sun, you’re looking at it as it was, what, eight minutes ago?

Ross: Eight minutes ago, right.

Ankerberg: So the fact is, you’re looking at it in the past. And if you keep on moving that back, in terms of the stars and the galaxies and so on, aren’t you looking at the past as it’s coming to you? And aren’t scientists able to tell, from their measurements, how far away those distances are?

Ross: They are, and that’s one reason why it’s astronomy that gives us the most potent evidences for the God of the Bible, because it’s in astronomy where we have a direct witness to what God has done in the past.

Ankerberg: Alright. Let me ask this question this way. We all believe in Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Hugh, start me off. What are the strongest scientific evidences you can present that support that verse.

Ross: Well, I could begin with two, which would be the reliability of general relativity to describe the dynamics of the universe, and the space-time theorems of general relativity. The first of those space-time theorems was published in 1970. We now have nearly 30 of those space-time theorems that have generalized their application. But in a nutshell, what they say is that if the dynamics of the universe is reliably described by general relativity, and if the universe contains mass, then there must be this beginning of space, time, matter, and energy in finite time. And there’s a corollary to the theorem which states that there must be a causal agent that exists beyond space and time that’s responsible for bringing into existence this universe of matter, energy, space and time.

Now, this all depends on two things: does the universe contain mass? And I don’t know of any skeptic that denies that the universe contains mass. All you’ve got to do is step on a bathroom scale. But the second one is not quite so trivial: Does the theory of general relativity reliably describe the dynamics of the universe? Well, when these theorems were first published, we could only prove that observationally to 1% precision. Today we can prove it to more than 14 places of the decimal, to better than a trillionth of a percent precision. And it is such today that the reliability of general relativity in describing the dynamics of the universe now ranks as the most experimentally tested and best-proven principle in all of physics.

Therefore, I have argued in several of my books that there really is no basis for doubting, based on just the astronomy alone, that this causal agent beyond space and time must exist. And theologically the important thing about that is that the Bible is really the only holy book that teaches that doctrine of creation. Other holy books talk about how God creates within space and time, but it’s the Bible that teaches this doctrine that God creates independent, or outside of, space and time.

Ankerberg: Okay, Jason, in terms of, do you agree with this or do you disagree with these measurements? Are these measurements wrong?

Lisle: Well, I wouldn’t use the Big Bang as an evidence for God creating; certainly not. I mean, that’s, after all, a secular alternative to the Bible, really. I mean, most of my professors, I didn’t see them in church on Sunday, and most of them were secular astronomers, and they believed in the Big Bang.

Ankerberg: But again, my doctor doesn’t go to church either, and the fact is, I still let them do surgery on me; I let them do, you know, dentistry and so on. The fact is, are people that are non-Christians, are they not allowed to look at evidence?

Lisle: Well, they can look at evidence. And in fact they, really, in order to do science, they have to borrow some Christian principles anyway, I would say. They have to assume that the universe is logical, and …

Ankerberg: But if they’re able to do that in medicine and other disciplines, why can’t they do it in astronomy?

Lisle: Well, they can do it in astronomy. But the thing is, when we talk about the Big Bang, we’re not talking about observational science, are we? We’re not talking about something that we can observe in the present. We can’t make a universe in a laboratory and see what happens when it expands and so on.

Ross: Well, we can observe it, Jason.

Lisle: Well, no, we can’t observe it. We can’t observe the Big Bang. I mean, I understand what you’re saying about looking, you know, out into space and a lot of astronomers would say, “Well, aren’t you looking back into time?” But the thing is, you know, even if we were to buy into that you’re looking into the past, you’re looking at the past over there, and not the past here, anyway. The point is, you’re only looking at one point in time. You don’t have a history by looking out into space. You don’t have a complete history. And that’s one of the limitations of observational science.

Ross: Well, here’s how you do have a complete history. I mean, you made the point that we can look at different epochs in time. But we can also test whether or not the universe is homogeneous and uniform, whether the laws of physics are constant over that entire period of time. And we observe that; which means we really do have a trustworthy history of everything from, say 380,000 years after the creation event right up to the present moment, 13.7 billion years later.

Lisle: Well, I would say that there are a lot of hidden assumptions, and you have to be very careful about that. One of the assumptions, for example, of the Big Bang, is that the universe is sort of infinitely distributed with galaxies. Let’s suppose instead that the galaxies ended beyond where we can see them. In other words, let’s suppose that we were roughly in the center, and then after a certain point that you don’t find any more galaxies, because that is what we see; we don’t see galaxies beyond a certain point. My Big Bang colleagues assume that galaxies continue beyond that point, and they have reasons why they believe we can’t see them, the cosmic horizon, and so on. But the Big Bang assumes that. We don’t know that it’s true, though. That’s one of the hidden assumptions. And in fact, any kind of argument that’s going to argue for the Big Bang or for the millions of years, relies on certain assumptions. And I’ll try to point those out throughout this forum.

Ankerberg: Alright, I want to come back to this discussion. How do you talk to a non-Christian who’s looking at the scientific evidence, if you hold to a young-universe perspective? And, Jason, let me ask you this question. What would you say to a scientist like Murray Gell-Mann, who sent, to the Supreme Court of the United States, testimony. He’s a Cal-Tech physicist and Nobel Laureate. And he said, “It would be easier to believe in a flat earth than to believe the universe is 6,000 years old or anything older than about 15 billion years old.” Or what would you say to Allen Hammond, and Lynn Margulis in a science article where they say, “Adoption of the young-earth creationist theory requires at a minimum the abandonment of essentially all of modern astronomy, much of modern physics, and most of the earth sciences. Much more than evolutionary biology is at stake.” So, what I’m saying is that, how do you talk to these people that are observing evidence. Can you use any of their evidence, any of their assumptions, or are they all wrong?

Lisle: You know, there are a couple of different ways I could answer that. First of all, you never give up biblical authority, because people will say, “Well, you have to leave the Bible out of it.” I say, “No, I don’t have to leave the Bible out of it. This is the Word of God. I know you don’t believe that,” is what I would say to these people. “I know you don’t believe that, but I do. And let me show you how the evidence is consistent with the Bible.” So that’s where I would start. I would never abandon the Bible. And I fully admit that one of the main reason why I believe in a young universe, probably the main reason, is because it’s what I believe the Bible clearly teaches.

Ankerberg: But do you then have to take them back and show them that your interpretation of the word day is that the universe is young, or what Scripture are you showing them?

Lisle: I could do that, but you know, I find most critics of Christianity don’t question that. They look at it and they would understand that it means day in a normal sense. I find that it’s a lot of Christians….

Ankerberg: But that’s the question. Should the church be teaching that it is young, in light of the record of nature and in the record of Scripture?

Lisle: Well, again, like I said, I believe it’s clear from what the Bible says, from what we’ve talked about on the previous programs. Now, there is a principle, you know, the Bible talks about “refute a fool according to his folly, or do not refute,” [Prov. 26:4-5] so it’s kind of a dilemma. And one of the things you can do is you can show how you can use the same evolutionary assumptions, and sometimes they lead into inconsistencies. I might do that, for example. And some of the assumptions that go into Big Bang and old earth kind of reasoning, one of them would be the assumption of naturalism: the idea that the universe was not supernaturally created.

Ankerberg: But none of us here believe in naturalism. And the fact is, what we’re talking about is using the laws that we found in general relativity, all of these theorems that are on the table. If they do point to a beginning, doesn’t that jibe with Genesis 1:1? Why not use that in terms of bringing them, I mean, to the very point that they’re talking about?

Ham: If I can just jump in and say one thing here.

Ankerberg: Sure.

Ham: John, I think it’s important to understand that philosophical naturalism really is at the basis of the old earth ideas and Big Bang and so on. I mean, you’ve got 18 centuries…

Ankerberg: Whoa, whoa, whoa. You’ve think that’s true, Hugh?

Ross: Not at all. I completely deny that.

Ham: You’ve got 18 centuries of Christian scholarship that stood on the authority of the Word of a young earth and six literal days, and so on. And you see, what has really happened here, and the difference between Hugh and us, and what’s really going on here, is that we’re starting with the Word of God, and this is what it clearly says, as scholarship shows…

Ankerberg: Wait, wait. Ken, that’s an assumption. And the fact is that, to say that Walter Kaiser and Hugh Ross are not starting with the Word of God is just not true, is it?

Ross: No.

Ham: I think it’s obvious that Dr. Ross believes in the secular view of the Big Bang. You were convinced of it even when you were a teenager, I believe, from testimony that I’ve heard. And…

Ankerberg: Well, let him answer the question. Is that true?

Ham: … and I believe that that’s driving your hermeneutic.

Ross: Okay. I in no way deny the authority of Scripture. I see the authority …

Ham: Oh, we all say the same things.

Ross: Right.

Ham: But one of us is not saying it; because we’re saying the same things, so one of us is not saying it.

Ross: No, no. One of us is wrong on our interpretation of the words of the Bible. That’s clear.

Ham: Yes. That’s true.

Ross: Okay.

Ham: You’re right.

Ross: And one of us is wrong on our interpretation of the record of nature.

Ham: So really the audience needs to judge, Who is it that is starting outside of Scripture to drive a hermeneutic to reinterpret what it’s saying?

Ross: Well, let me correct your revision of Big Bang history. The Big Bang theory was proposed shortly after Einstein developed this theory of general relativity. And we had the scientific community, from a naturalistic perspective, rejecting it because it spoke of a beginning and a beginner. They fought against the Big Bang, and it was only after 60 years that they finally said that the scientific evidence is so strong, in spite of the obvious Christian implications, we’re stuck with this. For example, there’s this book called God and the Astronomers written by Robert Jastrow of Harvard University. Not a Christian. He’s an agnostic. And yet he writes a faithful history where he talks about how astronomers fought the Big Bang tooth and nail because it spoke of God. And finally they were forced by the evidence to accept the fact, hey, this is the way reality is. If it’s got Christian implications, if it denies Hinduism and Buddhism and pantheism and atheism, so be it. We’re stuck.

Ankerberg: Okay, and I also want to bring up here the fact, Walter Kaiser, you haven’t said anything in this program, so this will be your one shot in this program. The fact is, did you start with naturalism, or did you start with naturalistic ideas that brought you to your views of Genesis? Goodness sakes!

Kaiser: No, it was in college that I first even ran into some of these ideas. I had actually begun as a Bible believer. I don’t think the word creation ought to be usurped by one side. If a person says that it’s by the word of God that all the acts came about, then that person’s a creationist. And then when I began teaching apologetics at the college level, I ran into, at that time steady-state and pulsating were really the great views over against anything of a Big Bang. The big views were steady-state,… Matter of fact, I think it was Nature, the prestigious Nature magazine, finally published a retraction on steady-state. And pulsating also fell out of favor. And that left them with the Big Bang. And whether the Big Bang is the ultimate or not, I think that again is an area of interpretation. The big point we’ve been making here is that there are two areas, a special revelation of God and a natural revelation; both come from the same Lord, see. Not one from the devil and one from…. It’s my heavenly Father that gave both. And both areas have interpreters in it. Now, the interpreters do disagree, yes. But the facts themselves, if we generally have our fingers and our hands on the facts, can’t, because they come from the same heavenly Father.

Ankerberg: How can you persuade Ken that you’re actually starting with the Bible?

Kaiser: He trusts people that try to speak with integrity and honesty. And I’ve told him that, I said I began with the biblical text, and I have read this biblical text, and as I have picked up the criteria of the way in which words are being used by the same writer, under the inspiration of God, then I am bound to bring all of that data into the argument here.

Ham: And we already talked about…

Ankerberg: Okay. I’ll give you the last comment here, and then we’ll pick it up next week. But, do you believe Dr. Kaiser when he says that?

Ham: Dr. Kaiser also said in one of the past sessions that we did that there’s others who have scholarship just like him who have a whole different way of looking at these words.

Ankerberg: But the thing is, do you believe him in terms of what he’s saying about his own views, that he’s getting them from the Bible?

Ham: I think that we… I believe that we all say that here,…

Ankerberg: But do you believe that he believes it?

Ham: I believe,…Well, Dr. Kaiser, do you believe in millions of years or billions of years for the age of the earth?

Kaiser: I believe that it goes all the way back to the beginning, yes.

Ham: But do you believe in millions of years or billions of years?

Kaiser: Ah, it’s a longer time than 6,000 years, by a good, good shot. How much more, I’m not a scientist, so I’m speaking as a layperson. So I can give you professional advice from the Bible. I can only give you lay advice on that.

Ham: I would still…

Kaiser: My hunch is that it is in terms of billions of years, which is different than the age of man.

Ankerberg: Alright, alright, now …

Ham: If I could say this…

Ankerberg: …we’re opening a door we haven’t got time for all this. Let’s hold it. We’ll pick it up right here next week, so hang in there with us.

Read Part 6