Facts & Faith

1990 Volume 4, No. 4
Winter

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

Science in the News: Why Big Bang Opponents Never Say Die

By Hugh Ross

One thing non-theistic scientists and young-earth creationists share in common is their loathing of the big bang theory for the origin of the universe. Why? In the case of the scientists, I believe it's because they do understand it and its implications. In the case of the young-earth creationists, I believe it's because they do not.

This past August, five prominent astrophysicists trotted out again, in slightly revised form, the same arguments they presented some twenty-five years ago against the big bang. Just as they did in the 60's, when quasars had just been discovered, they hypothesize that quasars are not at cosmological distances but rather are ejected from the nuclei of relatively nearby galaxies.1 They assert that the big bang theory is in jeopardy and (here's their agenda) suggest that it be replaced with the defunct steady state theory. Their article, published in the British journal, Nature, was summarized in several newspaper reports and by at least one popular news magazine.2 However, the editors of Nature did not allow the paper to appear as a regular article. They framed each page under the heading, HYPOTHESIS.

This framing was done for good reason. The vast majority of astronomers and astrophysicists (I would venture to say none besides these five) consider the steady state theory dead. I summarized nine refutations of the steady state model in my book, The Fingerprint of God.3 Nothing in the Nature article would cause me to withdraw any of the arguments I presented.

The five authors point out that the spectra of a few galaxies (thus, they hope, of a few quasars) "may possibly" indicate that these bodies are younger than previously thought, a finding that would be consistent with steady state cosmology. Ironically, such a finding--if it were made, and it lies within the remotest realm of possibility-would not contradict the big bang. What these men have again overlooked is the fact that the steady state theory demands the existence of countless stars and galaxies as ancient as 80 billion years and older. No star or galaxy older than 16 billion years has ever been discovered.

The five authors argue that the COBE satellite measurements on the smoothness of the cosmic background radiation also cast doubt on the big bang theory. Indeed this is true for the standard big bang model. However, as I mentioned in a recent Facts & Faith article, the introduction of a significant fraction of cold dark matter (probably low mass neutrinos) into an inflationary big bang model predicts with amazing accuracy both the new background radiation measurements and the observed distribution of galaxy clusters.4 The steady model fails utterly to predict either of these features.

The underlying motive of the five authors is hinted at in their insistence on capitalizing the word universe. Fred Hoyle, one of the five, has for years held to a pantheistic interpretation of the cosmos. In the final paragraph of their paper they declare their bias: "It is undesirable to depend crucially on what is unobservable to explain what is observable, as happens frequently in Big Bang cosmology."5 Such a limitation permits only atheistic or pantheistic interpretations of the cosmos. Hence, the big bang and Christianity, from their perspective, must be rejected regardless of the quantity and quality of supporting evidence.

What some perceive as a more potent challenge to the big bang comes from Hans Alfven's plasma theory (plasma refers to high energy charged particles distributed in such a way as to form a neutral gaseous medium). Alfven's work has been featured in a number of popular periodicals recently. Its main point is that gravitational theories alone are inadequate to explain the structure an dynamics of stellar systems, galaxies, galaxy clusters, and even the cosmos itself. According to Alfven, electromagnetic effects must play an important role. His point was proven correct for the solar system as far back as the early 60's. At that time it was demonstrated that strictly gravitational treatments could not possibly explain the development of the planets in our solar system However, the combination of gravity and electromagnetism, as formulated Alfven, provided the missing answer.

A guiding principle in astronomy research is to develop explanations with the simplest possible theories. All astronomers acknowledge that magnetic fields are present in galaxies and quasars and that these fields play significant role in non-thermal radiation. My own research at Caltech and at the University of Toronto involved the building of plasma models to explain certain observed phenomena So far, strictly gravitational theories have been adequate to explain all the observed cosmological phenomena. Nowhere in cosmology has the need yet arisen to introduce electromagnetic effects. My belief, however, is that the need will arise someday, perhaps soon. When our observations become sufficiently detailed, electromagnetic refinements to our gravitational theories should provide a closer fit to the real universe. Let me emphasize that what I am predicting is an eventual electromagnetic refinement of our best gravitational big bang models. Plasma without some kind of big bang meets with the same failure to predict the observables as does the steady state model.

A very recent challenge to the big bang from young-universe creationists came in a review of my book, The Fingerprint of God. The review appeared in the Bible-Science Newsletter.6 Besides presenting some serious misquotations and misrepresentations of my views, the reviewer, Don DeYoung, claims that "all naturalistic origin theories [including the big bang] are temporary and invalid." DeYoung believes that the big bang is a strictly naturalistic theory and therefore should be opposed by Christians regardless of supporting evidence. Ironically, as I have pointed out both here and very extensively in my book, the very basis for the rejection of the big bang by some non-Christian cosmologists is precisely that it is a non-naturalistic theory. The big bang, in its correct form, is the ally of the Christian apologist, not the enemy.

References

  1. Arp, H. C., G. Burbidge, F. Hoyle, J. V. Narlikar, and N. C. Wickramasinghe, "The Extragalactic Universe: an alternative view," Nature, 346 (1990), pp. 807-12.
  2. Lipkin, Richard, "The Creation of Big Bang Bickering," Insight on the News(October 15,1990), p. 56.
  3. Ross, Hugh, The Fingerprint of God (Orange, CA: Promise Publishing, 1989), pp. 95-96.
  4. Ross, Hugh, "The Case for Creation Grows Stronger," Facts & Faith (v. 4, n. 1, winter 1989), pp. 1-3.
  5. Arp et al., p. 812.
  6. DeYoung, Don B., "The Fingerprint of God?" Bible-Science Newsletter (October 1990), pp. 1-6.

More Science in the News: The Controversy over Environmentally-directed Mutation

By Lynn Carta

[graphic excluded]

A photo of an Eschericbia Coli (E. Coli) cell with hair-life appendages, called fimbriae and pili, projecting from its surface. The average E. Coli is about 5 microns in length. Fifty such cells lined up end to end would just reach across the period at the end of this sentence. The fimbriae and pili were not detected by even the best optical equipment. The were first viewed through electron microscopes which became commonly available to researchers in the 1940s.

Many evolutionists are agitated about recent evidence for a phenomenon called "environmentally-directed mutation." Why? Perhaps it is because people such as Australian molecular biologist (and skeptic) Michael Denton believe that directed evolution drives another nail in the coffin of neo-Darwinian evolutions This article offers an outline and commentary on the literature events. For technical details one should consult the references cited.

In late 1988 two papers by respected scientists appeared, one in Nature1 and one in Genetics,5 papers which threatened to undermine the dogma of purely chance mutations in the blind process of neo-Darwinian evolution. Cairns and Hall independently showed that a strain of the human gut bacterium E. coli can significantly increase the incidence of adaptive mutations in response to the stress of a previously unusable food source.1,5 The motivation for these studies was not religious; rather, it came from the strength of the directed-mutation phenomenon observed by many researchers. Such observations are not readily discussed in the literature apparently because of researchers' bias toward chance. 9

In particular, John Cairns' work at Harvard with cancer-causing mutations made him suspect that more than spontaneous mutations were involved. Cairns suggests that some mechanism for an organism's "testing a phenotype before adopting a new genotype" is in operation. He surmises that this amazing mechanism has simply evolved.2

The first objection to these studies was that they promoted Lamarckism, i.e. the erroneous notion that organisms pass on superficially acquired characteristics to their progeny. This criticism was leveled by geneticists Levin (quoted in Moffat9) and Strickberger.16 Hall's reply (again, according to Moffat) is that the issue has to do with a shifting mutation rate, not with acquired characteristics.9 Other charges have been raised, some about the "unrepresentative" nature of the specific bacterial strains and specific kinds of mutations used in both Cairns' and Hall's studies,2,9,13 but these have been answered in Hall's newest paper.6

Hall distinguishes two levels of environmentally-directed mutations. "Cairnsian mutations" are those that "occur more often when they are advantageous than neutral." This level is called by Shapiro the "weak form of the directed mutation hypothesis."11 The second level, called the "strong form" (also Shapiro), is still under study. It asks whether cells can actually "choose" or specifically retain advantageous mutations.6' The "weak form" is well established; the "strong form" is being contended, sometimes hotly, because of its non-random nature.

Hall's paper discusses three theoretical mechanisms by which directed mutations may occur. A fourth molecular mechanism was published a month after Hall's paper by Shapiro and Leach.11 The latter paper addresses recent antagonistic findings by Lenskil7 and Mittler,8 suggesting that these findings do not exclude environ mental direction in certain steps of the molecular process.

A yet more recent--and more mellow--antagonism to Hall's latest paper comes from molecular biologist Stahl.14 He acknowledges that those alleging Lamarckism are overstating the case. He concludes, however, that although the environment can influence the mutation rate, it is of no major consequence for neo-Darwinian evolution. He suggests that the accident v. design controversy is a non-issue trumped up by non-scientific journalists.12,14

Hall, acting the role of the dedicated, unbiased researcher, is unemotional about the impact and ramifications that a shifting mutation rate will bring to other branches of biology. He says, "If it does turn out that Cairnsian mutations are common, we will face the challenge of trying to estimate how much adaptive variation in natural populations derives from random mutations and how much from selectively driven mutations."6

Others are more direct in asserting that molecular taxonomy (classification) is in serious trouble if genes can be variably affected by the environment.9 Already, distinguishing analogy from homology, i.e. distinguishing parallel evolution (e.g. mimicry) from direct inheritance of characters between taxonomic groups, is one of the shakiest conceptual aspects of evolutionary theory.3,17

Despite the initial response of disdainful skepticism,18 the "weak form" of environmentally-directed mutation has been given grudging acceptance.14,15 In the literature, the controversy is slowing from a boil to a simmer. Beneath the surface, though, evolutionary theorists still fear the "strong form" of directed mutation. Hall reminds his peers, "We should be cautious ... about rejecting the notion of 'directed' mutations simply because it makes us more comfortable to do so."6

Directed mutation may yet be found in higher organisms, possibly within the next five years. If or when the "strong" hypothesis is confirmed, this phenomenon will disturb the basic mechanism of natural selection which is central to neo-Darwinian evolution.

References

  1. Cairns, J., J. Overbaugh and S. Miller. Nature, 335 (1988), p. 142.
  2. Charlesworth, D., et al. Nature, 336 (1988), pp. 525-28.
  3. Denton, M. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Bethesda: Adler & Adler, 1985.
  4. Goodenough, U. Genetics. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1978.
  5. Hall, B. Genetics, 120 (1988), pp. 887-97.
  6. Hall, B. Genetics, 126 (1990), pp. 5-16.
  7. Lenski, R. E. Trends Ecol. Evol., 4 (1989), pp. 148-50.
  8. Mittler, J. and R. E. Lenski. Nature, 344 (1990), pp. 173-75.
  9. Moffat, A. S. American Scientist, 77 (1988), pp. 224-26.
  10. Patterson, C., ed. Molecules and Morphology in Evolution: Conflict or Compromise. Cambridge Univ. Press, 1987.
  11. Shapiro, J. A., and D. Leach. Genetics, 126 (1990), pp. 293-99.
  12. Smith, J. M. Nature, 336 (1988), pp. 107-108.
  13. Stahl, F. W. Nature, 336 (1988), pp. 112-13.
  14. Stahl, F. W. Nature, 346 (1990), p. 791.
  15. Stolzenburg, W. Science News, June 23, 1990, p. 391.
  16. Strickberger, M. W. Evolution. Boston: Jones and Bartlett, 1990.
  17. Thulborn, T. Nature, 345 (1990), p. 487.
  18. Weiss, R. Science News, March 10, 1990, p. 149.

From the President's Desk

Dear friends,

This fall I had the opportunity to return to the country of my birth, Canada, and there give lectures at two universities, lectures on the scientific evidences for God. Canadian campuses have always been difficult places for Christian ministry. But, I was amazed at how much more difficult they have become since I left. In all my travels, even to Marxist countries, I have never run into such aggressive and vehement verbal assault from atheists as I encountered in Winnipeg, nor have I met atheists so unwilling to deal with the evidences.

Two professors chose to attack not the lecture I had just presented but the conclusions they presumed I would draw in the lecture I was scheduled to give the following day. Neither of them showed up at that subsequent lecture. Other professors tried to intimidate me with research, findings which they claimed negated my conclusions. When they discovered that I was familiar with the findings and that I was able to use such findings to strengthen my case, they resorted to reliance on statistical absurdities or to demands for absolute proof.

The level of abusive ridicule towards Christians (not just me) on those campuses was so high that I gained some sympathy for those students and faculty wanting more than reasonable proof. Who would be bold enough to stick out his/her neck for Christ if His word could not be firmly defended against such attacks?

I was glad I could tell these people that as a sophomore at the University of British Columbia I was too timid to declare a commitment to Jesus Christ until I first became confident that the reliability of the Bible's message exceeded the reliability of the second law of thermodynamics--and now I know that it exceeds the reliability of protons' existence, or my wife's existence, for that matter.

Well, such statements did draw attention, enough that larger-than-expected crowds attended my talks. More importantly, many asked to be followed up by the Campus Crusade ministry team, so many as to keep them busy for weeks. I was encouraged by these results and also by the commitment of two Christian professors to come out of the closet and make a public stand for Christ.

Another great blessing was to see the quality of the Campus Crusade ministry teams on those tough campuses. These missionaries had taken the time to educate themselves in science, engineering, and math. They were active in challenging the atheistic professors and in giving public lectures. Their attitude was consistently gracious toward those who opposed their work. They refused to be discouraged by the paucity of results. On any American campus, I am convinced, they would have sparked open revival. Please join me in praying for them.

Sincerely,

Hugh Ross

P.S. Anyone interested in developing a response to those who rely on statistical absurdities, please see the accompanying comments.

Special Feature: Confronting Statistical Absurdities

By Hugh Ross

In response to the now overwhelming evidence that both the universe and the earth must have been exquisitely designed for the support of life, some atheists dredge up the old notion that our universe may be but one of an infinite number. With an infinite number of universes, they reason, there exists a statistical possibility that one of those universes would have, by chance, just the right conditions.

My reply: there is no evidence whatever, and there never will be (because our universe is thermodynamically closed), for the existence of even a second universe, let alone an infinite number of universes. So, the atheist here is resting his case on a fantasy, totally disconnected from reality. Second, this argument represents a version of the gambler's fallacy. What is that fallacy? Suppose a gambler sees the roll of a hundred dice and all one hundred come up sixes. He would be committing the gambler's fallacy if he assumed that, therefore, there must have been 6100 previous rolls of the dice. Possible previous rolls have no affect on the result of each new roll. Likewise, other universes, if they did exist could have no possible bearing on results in our universe. A rational gambler would bet that the dice had been fixed.

Another response by atheists is to concede that we must work within the context of just one universe, but that our existence is simply testimony to the fact that the extremely unlikely did, indeed, take place by chance. In other words, we would not be here to report the event unless that highly unlikely actually took place.

One of the best replies I have seen to this argument was developed by the philosopher Bill Craig, a good friend mentioned in the Field Report column: Suppose a dozen sharpshooters are sent to execute a prisoner by firing squad and the prisoner survives. The prisoner could conclude, since he is alive, that all the sharpshooters missed by some extremely unlikely chance. He may wish to attribute his survival to an incredible bit of good luck, but he would be far more rational to conclude that the guns were loaded with blanks or that the sharpshooters all deliberately missed.

An analogy for the origin of life is a flipped coin coming up heads one million times in a row. One could say that it was a fantastic chance coincidence. Or, one could suspect that the coin is fixed.

The atheist, of course, is free to choose where to place his bet. But, we would be kind to remind him that he is making an irrational choice in sticking with chance. If he really does understand the evidence against his position, and still persists, he may be willing to admit that his problem is something other than an intellectual one, usually (in my experience) an emotional or moral one, or both. If no such admission is forthcoming, Titus 3:9-11 would encourage us to look for a more receptive audience.

Let Us Reason: The Waters of the Flood

Part Eight in a Series

By Hugh Ross

Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the Genesis Flood is its geographical extent. Part of the basis for the controversy is that Genesis addresses the geophysics, geology, and geography of the flood only secondarily. Its main message is that God was compelled to cleanse the earth of the wickedness of man. The message of God's judgment against rampant evil is very clearly stated and understood in any translation. However, in order to comprehend the geological details concerning the flood, it is helpful, perhaps in this case essential, to read the Genesis text in the original Hebrew, and even then the text is not always as specific as one might like.

A good rule of Biblical interpretation is to analyze that which is less specific in the light of that which is more specific. As I mentioned in part seven of this series, the Bible is very specific about the extent of the defilement of man's sin and about God's response. The defilement is limited to the sinners, their progeny for several generations, birds and mammals which are part of their livelihood, their material possessions, and their agricultural land. Nowhere in the Bible do we see God's meting out judgment beyond those limits. Hence, we can expect that if mankind had never visited Antarctica, God would not have struck that territory. The extent of the Genesis flood would be limited to the extent of the defilement of man's sin. This interpretation is supported by the Genesis author's choice of the Hebrew words for "creatures" destroyed by the flood, namely basar and nephesh. Part seven gives further details.

In Genesis 7:4-12 we are told that the flood arose from the earth's troposphere and from underground aquifers (not from some unknown place in outer space). These water resources are considerable, to be sure, but fall short of what verse 19 seems to require. According to Genesis 7:19, the waters "rose greatly ... and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered." The English translation seems to imply that even Mt. Everest was submerged under the flood waters. The Hebrew word for "high," however, simply means "elevated" and for "mountain," means anything from "a small hillock" to "a towering peak." The Hebrew verb for "covered" allows three alternatives: (1) inundated, (2) rained upon, or (3) washed over as by a rush of water. In any of these cases, 15 cubits of standing water, 15 cubits of sudden rainfall, or a 15-cubit rush of water, there would be no human or animal survivors.

Genesis 8 gives us the most significant evidence for a universal (with respect to man and his animals and lands), but not global, flood. The four different Hebrew verbs used in Genesis 8:1-8 to describe the receding of the flood waters indicate that these waters returned to their original sources. In other words, the waters of the flood are still to be found within the aquifers and troposphere and oceans of planet Earth. Since the total water content of the earth is only 22 percent of what would be needed for a global flood, it appears that the Genesis flood could not have been global.

The argument I have heard most frequently against this conclusion is that before the flood, there were no high mountains or deep oceans. The present day relief of the earth's surface is said to have been generated in a period of just a few months. I see several major problems with such a suggestion: 1) it contradicts a vast body of geological data; 2) it contradicts a vast body of geophysical data, at the same time requiring such cataclysmic effects as to render highly unlikely Noah's survival in an ark; 3) it overlooks the geophysical difficulties of a planet with a smooth surface; and 4) it contradicts our observations of the tectonics. The mechanisms that drive tectonic plate movements have extremely long time constants, so long that the effects of such a catastrophe would easily be measurable to this day. Since they are not, I conclude that the flood cannot be global.

As for the reference, "under the entire heavens," such expressions must always be understood in their context. What would constitute under the entire heavens for the people of Noah's time? The extent of their view from the entire region in which they existed or operated. Perhaps a verse from the New Testament will clarify my point. In Romans 1:8 the Apostle Paul declares that the faith of the Christians in Rome was being "reported all over the world." Since "all over the world" to the Romans meant the entire Roman Empire (and not the entire globe), we would not interpret Paul's words as an indication that the Eskimos and Incas were familiar at that time with the activities of the church at Rome.

Further support for a regional, rather than global, cataclysm comes from consideration of God's command to Noah after the flood, the same command He had given to Adam and later gave to the people who built the tower of Babel: "Fill the earth." The fact that God repeated this command to Noah (and intervened dramatically to disperse the people of Babel's day) implies that the people of Noah's generation had not filled the earth. This view is consistent with the geographical place names recorded in the first nine chapters of Genesis. They all refer to localities either in or very close to Mesopotamia.

What does the geological data tell us about massive floods in the earth's history? The evidence shows that the only place in the world where massive flooding has occurred since the advent of modem man is the region of Mesopotamia. The Genesis account of the great flood is not an embarrassment for the Christian. We are not saddled with a contradiction between the established facts of science and the words of the Bible. Rather, we have one more set of objective evidences that the Bible is indeed inerrant, not just in matters of faith and practice, but in all disciplines including geology and history.

Does all this evidence for a regional flood mean that the Genesis flood was not universal? Not at all. Let me reiterate: the Genesis flood certainly was universal in that it destroyed all mankind and the animals associated with his livelihood except those on board Noah's ark. Only in the twentieth century has "universal" been synonymous with "global." Global citizens, global corporations, and global wars are unique to this century.

My discussion here by no means exhausts the issues surrounding the account of the Flood. If you would like to pursue some of these further, you may order our two-tape set, The Flood, using the order panel at the back of this newsletter. In Part Nine of this series on objections to the Christian faith and to the reliability of the Bible I will discuss the long life-spans of the pre-flood people, and in a later issue, rain and the rainbow.

Puzzles & Paradoxes

The puzzle presented in our last issue was submitted by Dr. David Carta of Pasadena. Here it is for those readers who may be new subscribers or who passed along that newsletter to someone else. Dave's solutions follow.

The facts are these: I am standing on the earth. I travel (on the surface of the earth) according to the following instructions:

A. I face south and walk one mile.
B. I turn 90 degrees, and walk east one mile.
C. I turn again, face north, and walk one mile.
Puzzle One: I am back where I started. I am not at the north pole. Where am I?

Solution:, I am slightly more than one mile from the south pole. A typical solution is shown in Figure 1 [graphic excluded]. Any other starting point at the same distance from the south pole is also a solution; thus the number of solutions is infinite.

[graphic excluded]

Puzzle Two: Instructions A and B remain the same. In instruction C, I face south instead of north. The sequence of directions is now south, east, and south, and again I am back where I started. Where am I?

Solution:, Again, I am near the south pole, this time slightly less than a mile from the pole. Figure 2 [graphic excluded] gives the path of a solution. As in the first puzzle, any other point at the same distance from the south pole will serve equally well.

[graphic excluded]

Dave's comments: Observe that in Puzzle Two, Instruction A prescribed an initial condition (or direction) only; thus, the first one-mile leg of the walk can include a portion in which, after crossing the south pole, our travel is actually in a northerly direction. This puzzle illustrates a problem we may encounter in biblical interpretation: we sometimes try to extract more meaning from the words than is actually there. Notice, too, the illusions present in Figures 1 and 2. All distances are drawn to scale, and yet the one-mile straight legs appear much longer than the one-mile circular legs; also, the undissected straight legs in Figure 1 look longer than the dissected straight legs in Figure 2. Finally, there are more solutions to Puzzles One and Two than those described in Figures 1 and 2. What are they?

After you've taken some time to savor these solutions and observations, let your mind go to work an the solution to the following paradox (which many Bible teachers have discussed and exposited, but how thoroughly?): Matthew 24:34 records Jesus' statement that "this generation" would not pass away until all the signs of His return had been fulfilled. If He meant His generation, historical facts seem to contradict His prediction. How can the seeming contradiction be resolved? Is more than one resolution possible?

Field Report

The door to the Soviet Union remains open, and Hugh had the joy of walking through it once more. This time he went to the "Moscow Congress on Evangelization" attended by more than a thousand pastors and lay leaders from all regions of the USSR. Many "surprise" delegates arrived from remote corners where no Christians were previously known to dwell. What a blessing to hear their stories!

Hugh addressed a bright and dedicated group of pastors who are eager to win the so-far virtually unreached educated and professional people and to incorporate them into the church. Since no translator appeared at Hugh's workshops, three men from the audience came to his aid and worked as a team. The response of the entire group was soul-stirring, to say the least.

Other opportunities that materialized during this trip were a lecture at the Institute for Engineering Physics (made possible by Dr. Bill Craig, a philosopher-theologian now serving the Lord among academics in Europe, who graciously chose to share his scheduled lecture time with Hugh) and a dinner meeting in the home of a Canadian Embassy official, attended by a top Russian physicist and his wife, among other guests. At both these events, Hugh had the joy of seeing God move mightily in turning people's hearts to Christ.

In addition to such far-flung adventures, the RTB ministry team participated in events with

  • Businessmen and Professionals - Newport Beach and Santa Clarita CBMC breakfasts, Arcadia Kiwanis luncheon, and a Mission Viejo dinner outreach,
  • Churches - Sierra Madre Congregational Church evening services and a missions banquet, an evening outreach at First Baptist of La Crescenta, a southern California regional Baptist men's retreat, morning and evening services at Christ's Church of the Valley in West Covina--a tremendous turnout of young people there and also at a youth meeting sponsored by four different churches (four different denominations!) in Santa Rosa,
  • Internationals - a lecture-discussion session with Bob Culver's International Students Inc. (ISI) national parks tour group as they swung through southern California, and an ISI retreat north of Phoenix for students and scholars from several Arizona universities.
  • Campuses - First Lutheran School of Monrovia (the kindergarten class), also Rancho Santiago College, Westmont College, Santa Rosa Junior College, Sonoma State, MIT, Harvard, St. Anselm's, University of Manitoba, and University of Winnipeg (good attendance and lively interaction at all of these campuses--for details on the Canada trip see President's Desk," p. 10),
  • Radio and Television - KBRT "Table Talk" and Talk from the Heart"; KLXL and KVMV (Texas) and KAJN (Louisiana), interviews and some interaction with callers; Cablevison "Economically Speaking;" "100 Huntley Street" (taped in Toronto); also 40 new spot radio messages.
  • GLASS - gave two workshops and sponsored a booth at the annual convention of Greater Los Angeles Sunday Schools held in the Pasadena Convention Center.

News from Africa

David and Liz Block have arrived home after a year's global travel, research, and ministry, including two months of service this past spring with RTB. David has returned to his professorship at the University of Witwatersrand, in Johannesburg, and Liz has accepted a faculty position at Vista University in Soweto. The two are working with Jim Robinson to make arrangements for more effectively and actively distributing RTB materials throughout Africa and for conducting apologetics/evangelistic outreaches, as well.

News from Australia

Bruce Ogden continues to oversee the development of RTB on his home continent. Right now he is preparing to launch a Facts & Faith newsletter geared specifically for Australia. With his unique gifts and many years' experience in leadership with such organizations as World Vision International Bruce is heading up the effort to establish RTB International. Its purpose will be to facilitate global ministry--projects which go beyond the borders of the national RTBs or involve more than one of the national RTBs.

Reasons To Believe in Print

Within the past year, and especially within the past few months, God has opened the way--through the print media--for RTB to minister to many more people than before and to spread the word that we exist. The successor to Eternity magazine, called World magazine, recently published an article by Hugh about the Hubble telescope. Issues, a magazine published by Jews for Jesus, featured testimony-interviews with David Block and Hugh, also descriptions of David's book, Star Watching, and of Hugh's book, The Fingerprint of God. The editors even added a word about Reasons To Believe.

An article by David Block appeared in the October 4 issue of the prestigious British journal, Nature. His stunning photo of the Rosette nebula made the front cover. In the article David expressed appreciation to those who helped and encouraged him in his research, including Reasons To Believe. The editor phoned him to inquire about "this new observatory called Reasons To Believe." David had a good laugh, and so did we.

Epiphany, a journal of the Greek orthodox denomination, published Hugh's article on Design and the Anthropic Principle. In New Wine, a Christian newspaper emanating from Orange County, the lead article of the September 1990 issue described Hugh's trip to Kiev. A few Sundays ago, a member of Hugh's Sunday class brought in a Swedish newspaper which included an article about Reasons To Believe. No one in the class knew enough Swedish to tell if the article was favorable or not.

One more story we want to share with you tells of the vigilance of one of our supporters, Bob Weir. Bob read in the San Bernardino Sun a two-page article by a Cal State University biology professor lamenting creationist attacks on the public education curricula covering the theory of evolution and ridiculing as unscientific any attempt to invoke the supernatural to explain changes, including origins, observed in nature. Bob called the newspaper and gained permission from the appropriate editor for Hugh to write an 800-word response. Hugh titled it "The Shell Game of Evolution and Creation in Public Education," and for brevity's sake confined his remarks to the abuse of terms and definitions. The editor liked it, and it appeared in the "Perspective" section the following Sunday. If you would like a copy of that article, you may order one by phoning our office or requesting it via the response panel.

Pray-ers' Closet

If you are intrigued by unsolved mysteries, keep reading. We have one for you. We'll call it "The Case of the Disappearing Prayer Letters." Perhaps you are one of the many who signed up to praise and pray regularly for the RTB ministry and are wondering whether or not we took your commitment seriously. The answer is yes, we certainly did. We need your help now more than ever.

The reason why you heard nothing from us for a long time is not that we didn't write. We mailed each of you a monthly list of our praises and requests as usual, but the lists were not delivered to you--at least not to more than a few. We circumvented the problem (we hope!) last month by mailing them first class rather than bulk rate. The postal officials offer no explanation. They just shrug their shoulders, shake their heads, and say that some things "just get lost." Ironically, they lost that particular batch of letters three months in a row. "That's strange," they say, when we ask them what's happening. We agree.

Because we hate waste (postage, paper, printing, etc.), and more importantly because we need the faith and wisdom expressed in many people's prayers for us, please stop for a moment right now as you read and ask God to break through whatever barrier is blocking us from communicating by bulk mail with our prayer team. We, have laid the matter before Him at our recent day of prayer and fasting, and we invite you to join your voice and heart with ours.

Here is another invitation: We would love to have you participate in person at our monthly praise and prayer sessions held at our office in Sierra Madre (just east of Pasadena). These meetings are held at 7:30 P.M. on the fourth Thursday of February, March, May, June, August, September, and November (no meeting in December). In January, April, July, and October we meet on the fourth Saturday for a full day of fasting and prayer together, capped by a time of songs and communion, food and fellowship.  Location: 154 West Sierra Madre Boulevard (east of Michillinda, west of Baldwin), Sierra Madre. For more details, please call our office at (818) 335-6058.

Readers Write

"...When I signed up for my Contemporary Science class, I had no idea what I was getting into. My first day of class I was overwhelmed by what the professor was saying. He didn't make me doubt my faith, but he did make me doubt my ability to back it up. That evening I heard Dr. Ross on 'Table Talk.' I knew God was giving me my answer. I now have a place I can go for facts to back up my beliefs (the truth)..."

--Pam, Williamsville, NY

"...Hugh Ross was so interesting (on KBRT radio, 'Table Talk') I called my husband and son to be sure they would listen. What a delightful 'breeze' he wafted over the airwaves compared with the [sad subjects] we usually hear. Don't take me wrongly. I'm in favor of problem solving, but a new breeze is refreshing!"

--Jane, Whittier, CA

"It is with mixed emotions that I inform you of the death of my wife, Barbara Conway--'mixed' as I know that she has been taken home to be with our Lord and that she has had the most exciting tour of the universe that anyone can imagine, but with regret as her family certainly does miss her very much. Barbara and I were introduced to the ministry of Dr. Ross at Peninsula Bible Church in Palo Alto, CA. We became fascinated at the depth of understanding that this exposure brought to our faith. Barbara was excited to learn about the universe and its origins and history. Now she can view all the multi-dimensional space and time references that God works with first hand. She has seen into the secret archives of His creation. We are comforted that we know of this blessing through your ministry, and that we can claim victory over death in the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.

"...Those of us who have heard and understood the testimony of Dr. Ross enjoy a new perspective on the universe. How refreshing to know that preachers and scientists no longer have to be adversaries..."

--Don, Mountain View, CA

"...It has been a difficult few months since my father's sudden death. We rejoice, though, that he is now with the Savior he loved and desired to know. My family designated Reasons To Believe as a recipient of donations in my father's memory...

"I just wanted to let you know how much your ministry meant to a man that I loved very much. God bless you and everyone who works with you."

--Sandy, Arcadia, CA

Meet Our Staff

Some people upon hearing Hugh Ross's personal story express amazement that he chose his astronomy career as early as age 8. Our new office manager, Bonnie Fisher, has bested him in this regard: she actually began her public ministry at age 7. That's when she first stood before an audience to tell the story--with pictures--of Fred the Purple Frog.

Drama, including puppetry, plays, and story telling, remains one of Bonnie's major interests. She comes to her new position at Reasons To Believe from a combination administrative and performing role with Master Potter, a Christian drama ministry based here in southern California. When that ministry underwent transition, Bonnie began to seek a new place of service in which she could continue to use her talents to touch people's lives with the good news of salvation in Jesus Christ. Administration, pulling together people and myriad details, is one of those talents and has become her vocation, while dramatic performance remains a delightful avocation.

Bonnie's boyfriend, Paul, an amateur astronomer whom Bonnie introduced to RTB after hearing Hugh on KBRT, encouraged her to apply for the position Lisa Nehring left at the coming of baby Kendra Elizabeth (see cover photo). The timing and qualifications matched up perfectly, and Bonnie started to work on September 18.

A couple of the specific goals Bonnie has set for her work with RTB include mobilizing a large team of volunteers, enhancing communications, and streamlining various office procedures. (See "A Call to Action.")

One senses right away upon meeting Bonnie that her vivacity and warmth are genuine, not an act. Her own "reasons to believe" developed through painful trials and God's gracious response. Bonnie loves to tell stories, true and dramatic stories, of God's miraculous provision for her own and others' needs for housing, transportation, employment, and even relationships where nothing was in sight and the situation looked impossible. "He even replaces shattered dreams with new and wonderful ones," she adds.

Recently, Bonnie's long lost "Fred the Purple Frog" illustrations were found by her father and returned to her. Seeing them again was like being reunited with a childhood friend, she says. Better yet, she has had the nostalgic opportunity to use them again at a number of outreaches for children. We look forward to scheduling her for an event with the RTB kids.

Word from the Editor

By Kathy Ross

The word dialogue combines the Greek prefix dia-, meaning "across," 'between," or "through," with the stem logos, for "word(s)" or "speech." My "Living Webster Encyclopedic Dictionary" (not quite the Living Bible, but ...) defines dialogue as "a frank exchange of ideas or views on a specific issue in an effort to attain mutual understanding."

By that definition, dialogue is a rare commodity, no matter what the specific subject under discussion, rarer still when the subject is an emotionally- charged one such as creation or evolution.

What thwarts dialogue is a commitment to defend the "rightness" of one's own view and to attack or discredit in some way the other's view, often with a motive to persuade. Add an audience to the discussion and the motive to defend, attack, and persuade grows stronger still. Debate replaces dialogue in such cases, and the purpose of debate is to win, rather than to understand and to promote understanding. For this reason I abhor debates and wish that Christians would be brave enough and secure enough to seek alternative ways to express their views.

I use the words brave and secure because I think that the underlying enemy to dialogue and, in many cases, the fuel for debate is fear, fear that truth will be trampled and will not be vindicated, fear that some important information will come to light and force a change of view, fear that a change of view will result in public embarrassment. I can empathize with fear of such things, for they all bring pain. But what are we willing to sacrifice to avoid pain? Isn't the pain of living with a gnawing fear ultimately far worse than any of these other pains?

Jesus Christ, who is truth and who will triumph, is the one who inspired John the Apostle to write, "...perfect love drives out fear..." (I John 4:17). My prayer is that we Christians would love the truth and each other enough to cease from debating and to enter into dialogue on many issues that needlessly divide us. I think we would see a dramatic enhancement of our effectiveness in drawing others to the Savior.

Current Events Commentary

By Hugh Ross, November 1, 1990

The inaugural of this column last issue drew a large number of comments, all of them encouraging us to continue. Thanks to those of you who took the trouble to note the error in my reference to the book of Daniel. It is Daniel 7:23-25 (not Daniel 8) that predicts the coming together of all the world's nations into a global confederacy of ten nations. Most of the questions we received had to do with this predicted confederacy, and I would like to address some of the most frequently-asked ones.

Q. Some verses of scripture indicate that the coming ten-nation confederacy will be a revival of the Roman Empire. How can this be?
A. My studies suggest that these passages, including several in the book of Daniel, do not necessarily limit this Roman Empire rebirth to the exact geographical boundaries and peoples that made up the ancient Empire. What they do specify is that the coming ten-nation confederacy will (at least) arise out of the strategies and resources of the descendents of the ancient Roman Empire peoples. These descendents now populate the entire Western Hemisphere, Australia, New Zealand, Europe, and significant portions of Africa and Asia. Passages in Revelation 17 give considerable basis for concluding that the city of Rome will serve as headquarters for the political and economic management of the confederacy.

Q. Could the European Common Market be a possible fulfillment of this prophecy?
A. Only partially. Daniel 7:23-25, as well as passages in Revelation 12, 13, and 17, make clear that the ten-nation confederacy must include the nations, provinces, territories, and peoples of the whole planet. It seems reasonable to conclude that the European Common Market or some similar European organization will form one, at most two, of the nations in the confederacy.

Q. Is anti-Christ the one who pulls together the ten-nation confederacy?
A. Daniel 7:24 very clearly states that the anti-Christ arises after the ten nations and the ten leaders of those nations are in place. He will not be one of the ten leaders.

Q. How soon could this ten-nation confederacy form?
A. I interpret Daniel and Revelation as indicating that the ten-nation confederacy comes together about seven years previous to the second coming of Jesus Christ. Jesus himself said (Matthew 24:14) that He would not return until His followers had taken His message of salvation to all the peoples of the whole world. Therefore, the ten-nation confederacy will come together when the Great Commission is within a few years of being fulfilled. I commented in our last issue that such a goal could feasibly be attained within a decade or two, but not without a much greater commitment of resources by evangelicals.

Some indication that the ten-nation confederacy may be at hand is that for the first time in history such a plan is under serious consideration by people in power. An international "think tank" of some 4,000 influential scientists and economists, calling themselves the Club of Rome, published a book in 1974 giving both a plan and a map for organizing all the current nations of the world into ten nations. The plan called for the implementation of a global economic system to be managed through a master computer program which would coordinate ten smaller programs, each managing the economy of one of the ten nations. Subsequent reports of the Club of Rome have discussed strategies for amassing worldwide support for the plan, strategies involving politicians, scientists, technocrats, and religious leaders.

President George Bush in his late-September message to the American people about the Iraq-Kuwait crisis spoke eloquently of his personal desire to see a New International Order arise out of the resolution of the current crisis. In that speech he was (knowingly or not) parroting the words of the third report of the Club of Rome.

Q. Should we oppose or support the coming ten-nation confederacy?
A. To support or oppose is a matter of conscience. Personally, I am committed to oppose the confederacy on the basis of Zechariah 1 and John 9:4.

According to Zechariah 1, there will be no peace for God's people when the unbelieving Gentile nations are at peace with one another. Genesis 11 and Daniel 10 tell of God's opposing powerful empires to prevent the evil that would result from such unification. The coming world unity, according to Daniel 7:25, will lead to the oppression of believers. As Jesus himself warned, true world peace is not possible until people first make their peace with God through Him. In John 9:4 Jesus exhorts His disciples to work while it is still day for the night (of oppression) comes when no one can work.

I believe that the coming ten-nation confederacy is inevitable, for the Bible clearly predicts it. However, I am convinced that when this ten-nation confederacy comes, Christian ministry and particularly Christian evangelism will become enormously more difficult. If I can in some small way forestall the coming confederacy, the delay will give me just that much more time to bring others to Jesus Christ, and thus closer to real world peace. What this commitment means, however, is that my efforts to delay the coming confederacy must be accompanied by even greater efforts toward fulfillment of the Great Commission in as short a time as possible. I pray that you may be mightily encouraged to join me.

If you would be interested in a one-hour tape by Hugh discussing the current Iraq-Kuwait crisis and how it fits with Bible prophecy concerning the future of the Middle East, see the resources section and the order panel.

As I See It: A Directed Exhortation

By Lynn Carta

Most biologists seem ignorant of the serious problems which exist today in evolutionary theory. Will any of them grasp the improbability that directed mutation (see "More Science in the News," p. 6) is generated by chance? As long as they disdainfully dismiss intelligent cause as an alternative to chaotic cause, and as long as they misunderstand the role of the scientific method,1 many will remain unaware that the evolutionary barn is on fire.

Other scientists may miss the importance of these findings because of the poor example of "scientific" creationists. Creationists who insist that plants are "non-living"2 and that the earth is "young" have caused many scientists to dismiss even the creationists' good arguments and to consider these people beyond the reach of rational discussion. No wonder, then, that the typical biologist, narrowly focused in his/her specialization, is ill-prepared to argue threats to orthodox neo-Darwinism. Furthermore, why would s/he bother to address creationist misconceptions if s/he doesn't know any creationists personally?

Perhaps the apathy of the everyday scientist toward debate has given us a window of opportunity ("...in all things God works for the good of those who love him..." Romans 8:28a, NIV). Now that the theory of evolution by purely natural process has become even less defensible, we have an opportunity to prepare ourselves with an understanding of the arguments of skeptical scientists.3-6 At the same time, we must become aware of the positions and arguments of the defenders of neo-Darwinism, such as Kitcher (1982),7 and of the young-earth creationists. Extensive references to both positions (though not to the views of the skeptics) are given in the Dictionary of Science and Creationism,8 and references to both skeptics' and creationists' arguments are given in The Origin of the Species Revisited, .9

Last but not least, we would do well to prepare ourselves with a servant's heart:

Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings. I Corinthians 9:19-23 NIV

These verses have made some Christians uneasy, fearful of the danger of compromising principles and deceiving people into the Kingdom of God--in effect, the ends' justifying the means. Just as early Christians feared eating meat sacrificed to idols, some Christians today fear partaking of science because some humanists have made science their god. Hugh Ross has reminded the modern Christian community that God laid out the scientific method in the Bible and that He is not a deceiving God, as some creationists seem to forget, but a self-revealing One.

I would also like to remind creationists that asserting unscientific positions may not affect their own salvation but could affect the salvation of many of my relatives and friends. I pray that creationists will ease up on defending their untenable spiritual hothouse and enter the fields with well-honed tools.

I also pray that we Christians will arm ourselves with knowledge and maturity rather than letting Dr. Ross fight so many battles alone.

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.

References

  1. Carta, Lynn, "Much Ado About Evolution," Facts & Faith (v. 4, n. 1, Winter 1989), p. 6.
  2. Ecker, Ronald L., Dictionary of Science and Creationism (Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1990), pp. 151-52.
  3. Denton, Michael. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Bethesda: Adler & Adler, 1985.
  4. Shapiro, Robert. Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth. New York: Bantam Books, 1986.
  5. Shute, E. Flaws in the Theory of Evolution. Nutley: Craig Press, 1961.
  6. Thaxton, Charles B., Walter L. Bradley, and Roger L. Olsen. The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories New York: Philosophical Library, 1984.
  7. Kitcher, P. Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism.Cambridge: MIT Press, 1982.
  8. Ecker, 1990.
  9. Bird, W. R. The Origin of the Species Revisited, I. New York: Philosophical Library, 1989.

Special Feature: Christmas Reverie

There will be less someday--
much less,
and there will be More:
less to distract
and amuse,
More, to adore;
less to burden
and confuse;
More, to undo
the cluttering of centuries,
that we may view
again, That which star
and angels
pointed to;
we shall be poorer —
and richer;
stripped—and free:
for always there will be a Gift,
always, a Tree!

from SITTING BY MY LAUGHING FIRE
by Ruth Bell Graham
(C) 1977 by Ruth Bell Graham

This page, and all contents, are Copyright © 1990 by Reasons To Believe.