Science in the News: The Case for Creation Grows Stronger
By Hugh Ross
Science publications during the past few months have again been rife with news items of importance to Christian apologetics. In this article I would like to describe a couple of those items.
New Light on Early Plant Life
A new piece of soil-science research may shed light on the history of life on the earth's land masses, light which tends further support to the, Biblical sequence of creation events. Tyler Volk of New York University and David Schwartzman of Howard University, Washington, D.C., have been making detailed analyses of cryptogamic crusts (soils comprised of cyanobacteria, fungi, mosses, sand, and clay, existing symbiotically). Their findings lead them to conclude that such microbial soils may have dramatically transformed both the temperature and the chemistry of the earth's early land masses, thus preparing the way for introduction of more advanced vegetation.1,2 Biologists have long been puzzled by a lack of evidence for land vegetation prior to a half billion years ago.
Volk and Schwartzman envision the earth's early land masses as extremely hot and soil deficient. However, they have found that cryptogamic colonies can withstand these harsh conditions. What's more amazing, they serve effectively to limit erosion while at the same time 1) enhancing chemical conditioning of the soil, 2) cooling the environment, and 3) oxygenating the atmosphere. In other words, these microbes could have taken hold on the few pockets of loose rock that existed on the barren continental masses and transformed them over two or three billion years into large accumulations of stable, nutrient-rich soil, which the vascular plants require.
This scenario harmonizes beautifully with the events of the first four creation days as described in Genesis 1, events such as the transformation of the earth's atmosphere from opaque to translucent, then later, to transparent, etc. Much more work must be done, of course, to flesh out this theory and its connections with the Biblical account. I will include as much as possible on this topic in my forthcoming book, a kind of scientific commentary on the first two chapters of Genesis. Meanwhile, the brief pamphlet titled Genesis One: A Scientific Perspective (1983 revised edition) still is available.
Recent Refinements of the Big Bang
Some recent articles in the popular press have suggested that new discoveries put the big bang explanation of the universe in jeopardy. Actually, these discoveries relate specifically to galaxy formation. What has happened is that certain favored ideas concerning the way galaxies form have been ruled out, and in their place have come more definite, and surprisingly simple, theories. Though our understanding still remains far from complete, a clearer picture is emerging, a picture which provides even stronger support for the big bang model with all its implications for creation and a Creator.
Long-anticipated findings are now coming in from the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite, launched on November 18,1989. COBE is the first instrument capable of accurately measuring the background radiation of deep space at wavelengths ranging from one micron to one centimeter.
Before I discuss those findings, let me explain that the big bang model in its simplest form states that the universe expands from an extremely dense, extremely hot fireball to its present size and temperature. About 300,000 years after the moment in which the expansion began, the universe cooled enough for radiation and matter to separate permanently. That radiation, now greatly dissipated, is the sky-filling microwave background that COBE is now observing. The COBE data, far more accurate than any previously available, precisely fit the radiation curve of a black body (i.e. a perfect absorber and perfect emitter of all radiations)3 with a temperature of 2.735° K. One significance of this data lies in its verification of a hot, dense origin for the universe.
The confirmation, however, at first seemed too perfect. How could we reconcile this smooth, uniform background radiation with the "clumpiness" of the universe--dense galaxy clusters and huge voids? Further complications arose from a discovery by John Huchra and Margaret Geller. They found a "great wall" (a supercluster of galaxies) measuring 5OOx2OOxl5 million light years dividing the vast voids, and they proposed that such walls are the "fundamental structures" of the universe.4 Geller went on to proclaim that "something profound" must be missing from the standard theory,5 and this comment seems to have fired the imagination of reporters.
Geller's dramatic suggestion was refuted in just a month's time by a new computer model developed by Richard Gott and Changbom Park.6 The Gott and Park model is the only one simulating the universe over sufficient time and dimensions to track the development of small, random, quantum fluctuations (prominent at 10-35 seconds after the creation event) into super clusters of galaxies, or "great walls" (at 1010 years after the creation event). Specifically, the two researchers traced the influence of gravity upon 2 million chunks of ordinary matter (mostly protons and neutrons) and 2 million chunks of cold dark matter (mostly low-mass exotic particles) in a cube 2 billion light years across over the several-billion-year history of the universe. The results: galaxies tended to form at high density peaks in the distribution of cold dark matter, and the walled structures found by Huchra and Geller were nicely duplicated. Additionally, they found that the initial density fluctuations in their model had a negligible effect on the background microwave radiation.
In other words, the Gott and Park model of the big bang, referred to as the cold-dark-matter-dominated inflationary universe,7 is entirely consistent both with the COBE findings and with the Huchra and Geller discovery. Though the simulation now needs to be run with more chunks of matter in a larger cube, with different ratios of ordinary matter to cold dark matter, and with the addition of electromagnetic effects, still Gott and Park's work represents a giant step forward toward our understanding of the universe. To borrow a phrase from Mark Twain, let me say that reports of the demise of the big bang have been greatly exaggerated.
Evolution Loses Yet More Time
Finally, I would like to make an addendum to my article (in the last issue) on the time between the totally inorganic world and the organic one. That interval may have been much less than the 160 million years I reported. Crater erosion studies on Mars, Mercury, and Earth, as well as on the moons of Jupiter, Saturn, and Earth, suggest that our planet suffered intense bombardment by comets and asteroids from 4.5 billion to about 3.5 billion years ago. The larger blasts would have "sterilized" the entire planet, and the mean time between these mass exterminations was probably significantly less than 100 million years.8 Since evidence exists for life forms as old as 3.5 billion years, such life would have had to have been formed in much less than 100 million years.
References
- Volk, Tyler and Schwartzman, David. "Biotic Enhancement of Weathering and the Habitability of Earth," in Nature, 340. (1989), pp. 457-460.
- Monastersky, Richard. "Supersoil," in Science News, 135. (1989), pp. 376-377.
- Peterson, I. "Cosmic Evidence of a Smooth Beginning,: in Science News, 137. (1990), p. 36.
- Geller, Margaret, J. and Huchra, John P. "Mapping the Universe," in Science, 246. (1989), pp. 897-903.
- Peterson, I. "Cosmic Cartographers Find 'Great Wall,'" in Science News, 136 (1989), p. 340.
- Peterson, I. "Cold Dark Matter Builds a Great Wall," in Science News, 137. (1990), p. 68.
- Vittorio, Nicola, Matarrese, Sabino, and Lucchin, Francesco. "Cold Dark Matter Dominated Inflationary Universe with <1 and n<1," in Astrophysical Journal, 328. (1988), pp. 27-32.
- Maher, Kevin A. and Stevenson, David J. "Impact Frustration of the Origin of Life," in Nature, 331. (1988), pp. 612-614.
Special Feature: The Impact of Scientific Apologetics - A Personal Story
By Marj Harman
Can you imagine being bugged by a question for more than 20 years? If you can, then maybe you can relate to my story. I had many questions, but most of them centered around problems of consistency between what I saw in the Bible and what I saw or was taught about life and the universe. One of my primary concerns was this: if the God of the Bible created the universe, how could there be contradictions between the facts of science and the truth of scripture? It seemed obvious to me that if the same God was the origin of both, then the two must be in agreement.
I was surprised to discover that not everyone agreed with this reasoning. Many people saw major inconsistencies but instead of searching for answers, they simply rejected either science or the Bible as untrustworthy. For me such a response was not acceptable. It seemed unreasonable to distrust God's Word after I had seen it work in my life for many years. Nor did it seem reasonable to reject science. I felt there had to be a better solution.
There is one, and I found it in scientific apologetics. The intent of Christian apologetics is to provide answers for questions that are barriers to full faith and trust in God. One can have such questions as either a Christian or a non-Christian. My questions all came after I committed my life at the age of nine to Jesus Christ. Although I grew up with a foundation of trust in God, I still had questions. Unfortunately, those I approached with my questions were often unreceptive or lacking in understanding of my motive for asking. My search was for truth, but this search was often looked upon as merely a lack of trust.
In reality, my search often was based on a lack of trust, but it didn't originate with rejection of God. People such as I have learned that it isn't safe to trust because we have grown up in families that did not function as God intended (often referred to these days as dysfunctional families), families that failed to provide nurture and affirmation or that have been abusive. Those of us who have grown up in these families see a radical difference between the reality we live and feel, and what we are told we should think and feel. We learn not to trust our feelings, and especially we learn that it isn't safe to talk about our thoughts and feelings. If our home was considered a Christian home, we also encountered a confusing and painful disparity between the Biblical principles we were taught--principles in which we believed--and the experiences of our daily life. Some who grew up with this disparity have rejected everything that they perceive as being connected with this painful experience, including God, the church, and the Bible.
Others, and I am one, have tried to cling even more tightly to Biblical truth for fear that someone would tear it out of our hands. At times we felt that the truth we saw in the Bible about God and His love for us came close to being the only good thing in our lives. In the beginning we may have tried out a tentative question or two, but the response we received was so negative and the threat of rejection so real that it seemed safer to suppress our questions. Our need to know was genuine, but to acknowledge our questions was too dangerous. So, we sat quietly and pretended that everything was fine.
For me this suppression resulted in my becoming aggressive at studying the Bible. I was trying to banish every possible question, all by myself. But God did not design me or anyone else to live in isolation. He designed us for relationships. He designed us in such a way that many of our needs can only be met through human relationships. So there comes a time when the questions finally have to be exposed; we have to take the risk of being rejected and ask them anyway. I can understand why questions that have been pent up for years often burst forth in anger or belligerence.
My questions were rarely asked in anger, but sometimes they were met with anger. I now see that my questions reflected a search that came from the depths of who I am. My greatest longing has been to know the truth, to know the reality of a close relationship with God. I was never trying to tear down faith--not for myself or anyone else. I wanted to build up my faith and make it stronger.
It seems paradoxical, yet I am convinced that to fail to question may reflect a greater lack of trust than to question. When I was afraid of what the answers might be, I didn't express the questions. But when I began to realize that it is safe to acknowledge any question, and that the truth will always ultimately lead me closer to God, never away from Him, I was able to risk everything in my search for truth and ask my questions anyway. I have even come to believe that it is more honoring to God to ask than to keep silent. After all, Job, Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and many others in the Bible had the freedom to ask God about things that troubled them, and some of their questions bore great potential for personal disaster if the answers had been different.
Deep inside, my greatest desire and hope was that there were good answers and that my faith in God and the Bible was not misplaced. I wanted a solid foundation of truth on which I could confidently build a permanent, intimate relationship with God.
My quest led me to academic training in apologetics at the Simon Greenleaf School of Law. When I began, I thought I was trying to find answers for others. Eventually, I realized that I was really seeking answers for myself. And I began to find those answers. Then I came into contact with scientific apologetics, as taught by Hugh Ross and Reasons To Believe. I experienced an instantaneous paradigm shift. My experience was like taking apart a structure built with Legos and putting all the pieces back together in a different way. Pieces went together that I couldn't fit before. I leaped into my new studies and found the joy of seeking and finding, at last, answers to science-and-the-Bible questions I'd lived with for years... and I came to know and trust God more intimately than ever before. But the benefit wasn't limited to apologetics issues. I began to gain the freedom to look at anything and everything that had ever troubled me, even my unhealthy past.
Now that I've had such a positive experience in asking my hard questions, and since my major concern is to know truth, facile replies don't satisfy me. I find difficult to accept, for example, the inherent contradiction between a God who does not lie and a young universe that bears the appearance of age. I've heard many Christians brush this problem aside with, "God can do anything He wants." But God does not lie.
Picture a model house, complete in every respect. On the day it opens, everything is new and spotless. Visitors can easily see that it's new. Imagine that same model after six months and hundreds of people traipsing through. Stained pathways are worn in the carpet, a few light bulbs are burned out, and fingerprints show up on the windows. Even with a good cleaning, the wear and tear shows. The evidence clearly shows that this house did not open today, or yesterday, or even last week. If this were not the case, false evidence must have been set in place with the deliberate intent to deceive.
So it is with the universe. It bears unmistakable evidence of time and deterioration, not just in one part, such as the earth, but throughout, even in the light from the stars. One example is the sighting on February 23, 1987, of a supemova in the Large Magellanic Cloud. All the scientific evidence indicates that this star exploded 170,000 years ago. The methods for determining the explosion date are well-established and easily verifiable. Were the universe only a few thousand years old, the light would be lying, and the star never even existed. And, if God had created the universe with false indicators of time and wear and tear, the universe would be a deceptive witness.
Yet scripture proclaims a truthful God who provides truthful testimony about Himself. In Numbers 23:19 we read, "God is not a man, that He should lie." In Proverbs 14:5 we read, "A truthful witness does not deceive, but a false witness pours out lies." In Psalm 19:1-2 we read, "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge."
The only reasonable option I see is to believe that the universe does give a truthful witness, and it really is billions of years old. This belief in no way diminishes, but rather magnifies, my sense of awe and reverence for the Creator. I wish everyone could share the joy of discovery I have found in both the Bible and science, particularly physics, since being exposed to scientific apologetics. For me, each new finding serves as yet another revelation of the glory, the majesty, and the love of God, my Maker, my Redeemer, my Father.
Bible quotations are from the New International Version.
Let Us Reason: When Did God Create the Heavens and the Earth?
Part Five in a Series
By Hugh Ross
Our examination of frequently encountered objections to faith in Christ and His word focuses this time on an unnecessarily controversial issue--the age of the universe and the earth. The argument is often stated in this way: There is overwhelming evidence that the universe is much older than the 6000 years indicated by the Bible.
First, we want to express our view that it is pointless, even damaging, to make an issue out of something that is neither critical to the case against atheistic evolutionism nor critical to one's faith in Christ and confidence in the inerrancy of the Bible. Though the Bible is very specific about who created the universe and somewhat specific about how and why he created, it is less specific about when. Certainly, the who question is crucial to one's salvation, and the how and why questions, important. But the when question hardly matters.
As for its bearing on the evolution issue, whether the universe is billions of years old or only thousands of years old makes no difference in the case for or against life's evolving exclusively by random natural processes. According to our current understanding of the complexities of organic matter, at least 10100,000,000,000 years would be needed for even one virus to evolve from inorganic molecules. So the difference between 1010 years and 104 years pales by comparison.
More importantly, a literal reading of the Bible does not imply that God created the universe and the earth only a few thousand years ago in six consecutive 24-hour days. To support my exegesis I could cite the work of many evangelical Bible scholars, but I think it sufficient to note that the International Council for Biblical Inerrancy deliberated for many hours on this issue and concluded (as we published in our inaugural issue of Facts & Faith, spring/summer 1987) that no case can be made from the original languages to favor a young universe/earth interpretation.
So, what does the Bible say about when the universe was created? In Habakkuk 3:6 the mountains are declared to be "ancient" and the hills "age-old." In Proverbs 8:22-31 God compares His eternality to the length of time the oceans and mountains have been in place and to the span of time since He created the heavens. The figures of speech used in Psalm 90:2-6, Ecclesiastes 1:3-11 and Micah 6:2 all depict the immeasurable antiquity of God's presence upon (and plans for the earth. If you understand even a little about physics, you will see that the claim made in Genesis 22:17, Jeremiah 33:22, and Hebrews 11:12, namely that the stars are more numerous than the largest numbers used by the Hebrews and Greeks, implies a minimum age for the universe significantly in excess of that proposed in the 16th century by Archbishop Ussher.
Why, then, does Moses use the Hebrew word yowm, translated "day," for the six periods of creation? In English we would use words like "era," "age," or "epoch" to describe long periods of time. But, in Hebrew there are no such words. The word olam is often suggested, but it is defined as "forever," "perpetual," "lasting," "always," "of olden times," or "the remote past, future, or both." Its range of usage does not include a set period of time. Thus, yowm would be the most appropriate Hebrew word to refer to a specific, though lengthy, period of time. Even in English we sometimes use the word day for an epoch, as in "the day of the Romans" or "the day of the dinosaurs."
The Biblical evidence for an old universe, old earth, and long creation days is far more extensive than I can present here. If you are interested in examining it more closely, you may write or phone the RTB office to order a copy of my paper on the subject. Also, my recent book, The Fingerprint of God, includes a chapter on it. For convenience you may wish to use the response panel at the back of this newsletter.
Puzzles & Paradoxes
One clever F&F reader, Jim Dillon, took up the challenge to find more solutions to the Greek cross puzzle. The instructions were to make one straight vertical cut and one straight horizontal cut in a Greek cross and then to reassemble the four pieces into a square. In addition to solutions (a) and (b) presented in our last issue, Jim came up with these: (c) [graphic excluded] Make cuts and then put the pieces back together as they were before cutting. Next fold all four outer squares inward over the center square. (d) [graphic excluded] Make the cuts as desired. Take all the resulting pieces and place them on a larger square surface, keeping all areas of the cross within the area of the larger square. (e) [graphic excluded] Make the cuts as desired. Soak the pieces until they become pulp or burn them to ashes. Form the resulting pulp or ashes into a square.
Thanks, Jim, for these creative approaches. Let's see what you will do with our next puzzle: Below [graphic excluded] are two apparently contradictory drawings (made to the same scale) of a simple, symmetrical, three-dimensional object. On the left is a front view; on the right, a side view. Can you sketch the object, showing what it looks like in three dimensions?
Another F&F reader tackled the paradox presented in our last issue: The Bible tells us that Jesus' death on the cross paid the penalty for all our sins, and yet it also tells us that there is such a thing as an unpardonable sin.
How can that be? Phillip Tandy offers this resolution: "Matthew 12:31 seems to indicate that blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is not a sin covered by the blood of Jesus Christ. Were perdition included in Jesus' death on the cross, we would have seen forgiveness given to Satan and his one-third of the host of heaven; but Revelation 20:10 rules that out. With all due respect to the opinions of those who may think otherwise, I see God's grace as offered to, but never forced upon, anyone. Proverbs 3:34 says that God gives grace to the lowly. If it be our choice to accept the offer of Divine grace, then it would seem also reasonable that it is our choice to spurn than same grace--to walk away from it."
Phillip's reply, in other words, is that the only sin that is not covered by Christ's death on the cross is the sin of refusing to accept that covering. We at Reasons To Believe agree. Some Bible interpreters argue that even Christians can commit this sin. On that point we would disagree, and we would be happy to discuss our reasons with anyone who asks and to provide a list of relevant scripture passages.
Meet Our Board
By Philip Kassel
A physician and active Christian apologist, Alex Metherell serves as vice chairman of the RTB board of directors. Dr. Metherell has particular appreciation for a mathematical-scientific approach to evangelism because of his own background in engineering and science. In his words, "Science is the study of nature. Good science, then, executed openly and honestly, should reveal the existence of God." Alex puts a premium not only on good science, but on thorough, careful Biblical exegesis. Integrity in stating the findings from both nature and scripture is essential to effective ministry, in his view.
Alex completed his first doctorate, a Ph.D. in engineering, with emphasis in vibration analysis, at the University of Bristol in his native Great Britain. A few days later he married Pam, now his wife of more than twenty-five years.
Soon the Metherells moved to the colonies where Alex continued his research, working in the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics at the University of Minnesota. Deciding to leave the academic life, he accepted a position at Douglas Aircraft here on the West Coast and found himself in the company's Advanced Research Labs in Huntington Beach where he became interested in acoustic imaging.
By 1970 Alex was developing acoustic holography with a view toward medical applications. He was given an appointment at UC Irvine as an associate clinical professor in radiology, a position which further fueled his interest in medicine. Enrolling in the Ph.D. to M.D. program of the University of Miami, Alex completed his second doctorate in 1976.
In private practice since 1979, Alex has established and currently operates four magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) centers. MRI is a valuable tool for diagnosing a wide variety of ailments from cancer to torn ligaments. He has served on various professional committees, among them the Cardiology Advisory Committee of the National Institutes of Health.
The link between Alex and RTB was made before the ministry existed. Seven years ago Hugh spoke at an outreach held in the Metherell's Laguna Beach home. Later Alex arranged for Hugh to speak at his son's school. The Metherells have been friends and supporters of Hugh's work ever since.
Alex and Pam still reside in Laguna Beach. They have three children--Mark, a junior at Wheaton, Alison, a freshman at UCLA, and Caroline, an eighth-grader at St. Margaret's Episcopal School in San Juan Capistrano. The entire family is involved in outreach activities with the aim of introducing people to Jesus Christ.
Pray-ers' Closet
Everyone connected with Reasons to Believe gets excited over such answers to prayer as we have seen lately-five people at one meeting indicating their decision to give their life to Christ, an overflow turnout at the latest luncheon for skeptics, two grants awarded for the launching of our spot radio project-but the people who experience such joys most profoundly are those who serve on the prayer team. The miracles mentioned here and many others, too, represent specific answers to specific prayers. And once again we see that the pray-ers really are the front line of this ministry.
Mal Scharer, who handles much of the RTB correspondence on apologetics questions, now also heads up our regular prayer-and-praise meetings here in Sierra Madre. These meetings are held on the fourth Thursday of each month, 7:30 P.M., at 154 West Sierra Madre Boulevard (enter from the parking lot at the rear of the building). Any and all of you who live near enough to attend are wanted and welcome.
If distance or schedule prevents you from coming, you may participate with the prayer team anyway by requesting our monthly prayer bulletin and setting aside a regular time for intercession. Call our office at (818) 355-6058 to indicate your commitment to this vital aspect of the ministry.
As I See It: Much Ado About Evolution
Second in a Series
By Lynn Carta
A major concern of school officials and of most scientists who study evolution in, they say, keeping science and religion in their proper perspective, i.e. "separate." Many are careful to state that they have nothing against religion and ethics. However, I believe that many of them have trouble separating issues proper to the scientific method from issues relating specifically to the philosophy of materialism and ultimately of atheism.
Peter Bowler, in his comprehensive book Evolution: The History of an Idea, makes this comment: "The new earth creationists are quite right to oppose evolution if it is taught as the basis for a completely materialistic philosophy. The time is past when scientific experts could appeal to a spurious infallibility to back up their own moral preconceptions." Though a good many teachers and scientists would probably agree with Bowler's statement, applying it seems more difficult.
Two prominent researchers in molecular evolution and outspoken apologists for evolution have argued that since the scientific method is our way of knowing the material world and testing the truth of that knowledge, then "to seek a scientific answer means to seek a materialistic answer. If there is no material answer, it is not a scientific question..." (Fitch and Upper, 1988).
These individuals would not call themselves materialists because they accept the idea that the world is "partly non-material," to use their words. But it seems obvious to me that they have committed the old either-or fallacy. They are seeking a strictly materialistic answer to the question of the origin of life when the question can address both physical and metaphysical issues. An answer may be either physical or metaphysical or both after evaluating measurable probabilities for a hypothesis using the scientific method in the material world. If a Darwinian hypothesis is improbable today, then to anticipate its confirmation by as yet unknown physical process is as much an act of faith as belief in the Creator's intervention.
Here again we confront preconceived notions about the pattern and limits of the material world. These authors and many others seem to believe that the non-material world, including God, must be outside and isolated from the material world. In their over scrupulous attempt to practice good science, they overstep the requirements of the scientific method and slide into materialism.
This questionable world view leads to a common Deistic belief among scientists who believe in God, a belief that He simply created evolution and left it on autopilot. This position seems reasonable enough to those who have not seen a resolution to the paradoxes in Genesis 1 and 2. It also avoids controversy for shell-shocked or close-mouthed Christians.
However, the scientist loosened from the shackles of materialism finds the freedom to use science as one tool for discovering reality as both the seen and the unseen, the repeatable and the unrepeatable. He can appreciate the metaphysical realm of repeatable, ordered, natural laws-taken "on faith" by all scientists-and also the unrepeatable, ordered, special interventions (or creations) not as a paradox, but as a physical reflection of the unseen Creator.
References
- Bowler, P. J., Evolution: The History of an Idea, 2nd edition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989), p. 432.
- Fitch, W. M., and K. Upper, "The Evolution of Life-an overview of general problems and a specific study of the origin of the genetic code," in Evolutionary Processes and Metaphors, edited by M. W. Ho and S. W. Fox (London: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 1988), pp. 34-47.
Dr. Carta is a research fellow in biology at the California Institute of Technology. She earned her Ph.D. at UC Riverside in plant pathology, nematode (round worm) morphology and taxonomy. Her current research involves fine structure and genetics in the model system Caenorhabditis elegans, a free-living nematode.
From the President's Desk
Dear friends,
A few weeks ago Kathy and I took our sons to visit the La Brea tar pits. Within these few acres of downtown Los Angeles lies, according to the sign we read, the richest recovery of prehistoric mammals and birds in America. What struck me as my boys stared in amazement at the huge skeletons was how soon after the arrival of the first human migrants to the Americas these species of mammoths, horses, camels, sloths, lions, tigers, etc. disappeared. Coincidence, possibly, but if not then it seems faith to say that those descendents of Adam who roamed the Americas paid little, if any, heed to God's command (recorded in Genesis 1:28) to manage wisely the earth's resources. I am not saying that the Indians and the Eskimos did worse than others. Look at the impact of Caucasian colonizers on the passenger pigeon and the buffalo just a century ago.
This brings me to a question I am frequently asked at outreach events: "Is environmentalism a cause that Christians should embrace?" Based on Genesis 1:28, Isaiah 24, and many other Bible passages, I must conclude that God's people, of all people, bear a responsibility to be ecologically sensitive, to be protective of the environment. We can take that responsibility in both large matters, such as housing, transportation, and career choices; and in smaller matters, such as fixing leaky faucets, sweeping or raking rather than hosing, using biodegradable products, etc. Genuine reverence for God leads to respect for what He created, both the people and the planet.
One of the great ironies I see in the environmental movement is a tendency to substitute reverence for the planet for reverence for God. "Mother Earth" becomes a sacred altar of devotion rather than Exhibit A of the care and craftsmanship of a transcendent, personal Creator.
Of course, those who reject God must invest their spiritual resources somewhere, and it really is not too surprising that environmentalism, for many, has become a religion. More fundamentally, we need to be wary of the notion, common in the environmental movement, that we can fix people and cure the ills of our society by fixing up the external environment. The Bible clearly states that lasting change for the good starts within the heart of man when he submits himself fully to the authority of God. For all of us I pray that we will seriously own the responsibility to repair and maintain the environment, and that we will take even more seriously our God-given opportunity to lead others to the internal, eternal "clean-up" that is only possible through Jesus Christ (II Corinthians 5:20 and I Peter 3:15-16).
Sincerely,
Hugh Ross
Readers Write
"Thanks for providing me with evidence for my faith that is actually supported by science. During my first few years of college, my grades often suffered because my beliefs concerning creation would not allow me to accept the science my professors taught (the age of the earth, order of events, etc.). Now, however, I am able to accept the science and yet only feel sorry for their godless conclusions. Because of your organization, my faith is stronger and even my grades have improved. Praise God!"
--Scott, Fresno, CA
"I was so glad when I learned of your organization. We really need you.... The Bible and science ARE compatible. I'd like to be a regular contributor, but, since I'm unemployed and on a fixed income, I'll just make contributions when I can. Here's my first one.... I enjoy your newsletter. Since I'm totally blind, a friend records it on tape for me.
"Could you please tell me of any material you have on quantum physics and Christianity?"
--Gloria, La Puente, CA
"...I am very interested in your organization and would appreciate whatever information you have available. I am interested particularly in purchasing a copy of Dr. Ross's book The Fingerprint of God. I happened to listen to Dr. Ross on the radio on my way to a Christian bookstore in Bremerton, WA. When I arrived, I asked for a copy of the book. They checked and not only did not have a copy, but said their supplier did not have it either. Although they did say that not minutes before, someone else had phoned in asking for a copy."
--Vincent, Poulsbo, WA
Editor's note: We appreciate Vincent's (and many others') alerting us to a problem. Though we have sought to remedy it, we cannot be sure that it is fully resolved. Please let us know of any ongoing difficulty you encounter in obtaining The Fingerprint of God at your local Christian (or other) bookstore? We would be grateful. K.R.
"...My husband and I so appreciate the articulate statements of your doctrinal convictions as a staff in your winter publication [F&F, vol. 3, no. 4] They are free of clichés and fresh! They ring true to what we also believe, and we thank you (and God, for you and your work)!"
--Elizabeth, San Diego, CA
"I could write reams about points in F&F, v. 3, no. 4, but restrain. With the Lord's will and timing, we will compare notes personally. Your views as expressed in the President's letter and mine are remarkably similar. Consider a rewrite of 'We have said it before...'
"Science is man's endeavor to interpret the facts of nature. Theology [more accurately, Biblical hermeneutics] is man's endeavor to interpret the words of the Bible. The interpretation of the facts of nature and the words of the Bible, both products of God, are in conflict in the minds of some, but others consider them compatible and complementary. An historical view stretching over more than a century reveals that authorities with expertise in the two disciplines consider the interpretation of the two as consistent."
"This statement is more specific and positive than yours..."
--Gordon, London, Ontario
Editor's note: I agree, Gordon. And I hope you'll accept my little edits. K. R.
Field Report
REASONS TO BELIEVE has leaped into the Nineties with vigor and verve. Opportunities for ministry surround us, in familiar it places (such as schools, churches, conferences, etc.) and in new (such as radio spots, devotionals, and academies of science in politically "closed" countries).
Our final event of the Eighties was a set of workshops for internationals, part of a regional conference sponsored by International Students Incorporated. The students' and leaders' response, as indicated on their evaluation cards, was enthusiastic toward us, but more importantly, toward the Lord! That trend we want to see continued.
Campus Outreach - a noon lecture to USC medical students and a workshop on creation-and-evolution issues for teachers and administrators of the El Monte School District. Some Christians, some atheists, and many in-betweeners attended and participated in lively discussion.
Church Events - a men's fellowship at Pomona First Baptist, morning and evening services at Chino Valley Community, a Bible study in Chatsworth, Sunday morning and evening services at Montebello First Baptist, a Wednesday evening science-and-scripture series at Faith Community, West Covina, a weekend conference at First Baptist of Oxnard, and a Friday evening outreach at Bethany Church of Alhambra. What a delight for our team to talk to many individuals before and after the talks, to encourage and to be encouraged!
Radio - an interview over KBRT (Los Angeles) about the impact of recent governing-board decisions on the teaching of creation and evolution in the public schools; an interview on KVEN (Ventura) about the contents of The Fingerprint of God; another interview (station call letters unknown) at the Mayor's prayer breakfast in Redding, CA; also, initial steps toward the launching of our informative spot radio project. We are preparing the 90-second messages for taping, and an agency is contacting stations to establish broadcast contracts.
Publications - a new catalog of resources and a new brochure describing the ministry are at the printers and will be on their way to you very soon.
Other Activities - an annual meeting of the Ad Hoc Origins Committee, a consortium of scientists and Bible scholars, held this year in Portland, OR; breakfast and banquet outreaches for business men and women in Ventura, Chino, Pasadena, and Redding, CA. The latter event was attended by more than 500 people, despite a severe storm, and the response was heartwarming, to say the least.
This page, and all contents, are Copyright © 1990 by Reasons To Believe.
