What Conflict Did Science Lose To Scripture?

WERE WE CREATED? Or did we evolve? These are questions of truly cosmic proportions. The reason is that they affect each one of us personally.

   The labels "creation" and "evolution" have become household words. Why? Because they deal with where we came from, and where we are going. They focus on the question of origins. If our origins are in God, then the question of destiny is also raised.

   More and more lives are being touched by these questions. Debates are springing up all over the country. "Old-time religion" is being tested as never before.¹ Cherished beliefs are being challenged and battle lines are being drawn. Each side is sure that the other side is wrong. But who or what is right?

   This new look into origins is viewed with mixed emotions.² Some welcome the issue as long overdue, while others regard it as a threat to human progress. The motive behind defending creation on the one hand, or evolution on the other, is not always apparent.

   Many people take the Bible seriously and are sure that God cannot be wrong. Nor would he lie. Thus, they defend creation because they're sure that it's taught in the Bible.

   Others, however, are convinced that evolution is true. They are sure that science is not wrong, and that scientists would not lie. Thus, they defend evolution because they think that ample evidence has proved that it's true.

   Seminaries and churches are also divided on the issue. In the home, children are asking difficult questions, and parents are searching for whatever answers they can find. Parents and young people alike, however, soon learn that many high-school teachers are not sure which way to go. Things seem unsettled because they are unsettled.

Page 4

   Many Orthodox Jews as well as evangelical Christians believe that the Bible has a stake in the creation-evolution argument. Yet they are bewildered as to what the facts actually teach. Many have expressed the view that both sides of the issue ought to be taught in the public schools.

The Legal Question

   In March, 1981, the governor of Arkansas signed into law the Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act. Its essential purpose was to ensure balanced treatment of creation and evolution in the Arkansas public schools. Two months later, the constitutional validity of the law was challenged on the grounds that it violated the First Amendment to the Constitution, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the right to academic freedom for students and teachers.

   The nine-day court trial ended with a ruling in January 1982 that the Arkansas Balanced Treatment Act was a violation of the constitutional separation of church and state.³ Although the decision was not unexpected, the differing reports of what occurred at the trial were somewhat of a surprise.

   One well-known theologian wrote that creationism suffered defeat due in part to a biased judge and secular humanism.⁴ Elsewhere, a school teacher published a different view.⁵ He said that creation was religion in disguise, was unscientific, and, therefore, did not belong in the public schools. He also said that the judge was correct in his decision. Whom do we believe?

   Thirty-five days before the Arkansas judge made his decision known, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court in Baton Rouge asking that the Louisiana Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act be declared constitutional. These plaintiffs described themselves as legislators, scientists, public school teachers, students and parents, and religious spokesmen who believe in separation of church and state, and in academic freedom in public schools for students and teachers. Surprisingly, some were reported as evolutionists who did not necessarily believe in creation-science, but who did believe in an open-minded approach including both the creation and evolution sides of the question.

   In July 1982, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the Louisiana Balanced Treatment Act was unconstitutional on the grounds that creation-science was a religious belief. Two months later, a massive 630-page brief with over 1,700 footnotes was filed under an appeal authorized by the Louisiana attorney general. And in October 1983, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the Balanced Treatment Act was constitutional under the Louisiana Constitution. The case was then scheduled to be taken to the U.S. District Court under a motion for summary judgment filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of critics of the law. Although the Louisiana State Senate voted in May 1984 to repeal the law, the House of Representatives rejected the motion one month later. The result was another trial, and in January 1985, Federal Judge Adrian

Page 5

Duplantier ruled in New Orleans that the Louisiana Balanced Treatment Act was unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds.

The Social Question

   As a result of these and other similar actions in other states, creationists feel frustrated, and evolutionists feel threatened. For example, the legal battles nurtured a trend to deemphasize, or at least qualify, descriptions of evolution in public school textbooks. In response to public pressure, as well as the threat of litigation, the Texas Board of Education, which represents 10 percent of the nation's textbook market, voted as early as April 1984 to repeal the state's antievolution rules. By the end of 1985, at least five textbook publishers had agreed to revise the junior high school books to increase their emphasis on evolution. This was apparently done to promote the approval of the California state school board so that local school districts could receive state money to purchase the texts. California public schools are reported to be the largest textbook market in the nation.

   Although the court and school board decisions have favored the evolutionists, they are not at peace because they feel that another creationist offensive is in the making. For example, a list of articles and books on creationism was announced in 1984 for readers of a magazine specializing in geological education. The magazine's purpose is to keep geologists informed — and fore-armed — for the next creationist offensive. Creationist materials were grouped into six categories, including one that allows study of the original works of creationists, rather than quotations.⁶

   At an earlier time when legal matters were not as prominent, the man on the street was asked to voice his opinion on the creation-evolution question. In an Associated Press-NBC News poll that was reported to have been conducted in October 1981, 76 percent said that both theories should be taught in the public schools. A study reported earlier that year of almost two thousand school superintendents, officials, and librarians revealed that efforts are made to censor books in about 20 percent of our nation's schools each year. Many of these are started by teachers or school officials seeking to avoid criticism, and about half of them succeed.

   It seems clear that although the creation-evolution issue affects large numbers of people, it is not an easy one to resolve. But it also seems clear that if we are to seek an answer to this question, we must leave the legal quarrels and look elsewhere for a solution. It is doubtful that we can learn the truth about creation and evolution, the origin of life, and whether man evolved from apes, or was created by God, from a court of law. While it is true that testimony from different people can be interesting, it is also true that even the experts disagree.⁷

   The truth about origins must come from knowledge that is based upon facts obtained by studying the physical world. Since science is a quest for such truth, it seems reasonable that science ought to be the starting point

Page 6

in our inquiry rather than law. Yet many people who have sought the truth about origins appear to be divided. Those who believe the Bible is true feel that they have found the truth there. For them, the answer is that God created. Others have turned to science for the answer. Here, the situation seems less settled because a number of people seem able to trust science and yet still believe that God created. They are convinced that the two are compatible and that there is no problem. They feel sure that their beliefs are in harmony with the truths of Scripture and the facts of science.

   Others, however, are not so sure. Some in this latter group hold that there is no God. Therefore the answer for them cannot be that God created. Furthermore, they argue, "Even if God exists, why is it necessary for him to have created the world?" When asked who did, they answer, "No one." Their reason is that they believe that the world had no beginning. This belief was once common on university campuses where searching minds believed that the world could not have been created by a "God." They said that God didn't create the world simply because the world did not have a beginning. Why did they say this? Because they felt that a very basic scientific law prohibited creation.

The First Law

   This law is called the First Law of Thermodynamics, from thermo, meaning heat, and dynamics, meaning motion. The First Law teaches that a natural process cannot bring something into existence from nothing.⁸ Since there are things all about us, the conclusion is that they must have been here forever. Thus it is said that the First Law forbids creation.

   Why can't the world have had a beginning? Because it's impossible for things to just "pop" into existence and remain there. According to the First Law, no natural process can bring into existence something from nothing. Thus, everything in the world must be eternally existing. Although the form of things may have changed, the "basic stuff" of which they are composed is said to have been here forever.

   For example, water can be seen as a liquid, a gas (steam), or solid (ice). But no matter how it appears, it is said that the atomic building blocks of water must have always existed in some way or another because the First Law implies that everything is eternally existing.

   Another example is found in the belief that billions of years ago the universe contained very hot gases. Although these gases were in the form of a "plasma" in eternity past, it is said that they later condensed into rocks. Of course in our ordinary experience rocks appear to us as solid objects. Nonetheless, it is believed that billions of years ago their basic "stuff" was in the form of a gas.

   No matter what we see or touch, the First Law would appear to teach that it is eternal. At least that's what many understand the law to say. Why? Because a natural process can't make something from nothing. Since there are "somethings" all about us, they must have been here forever.

Page 7

Why Do We Care?

   If the "atomic stuff" that makes up water or rocks has always existed, then this "stuff" could not have had a beginning. And if there were no beginning, then there was no creation. And if there were no creation, then God could not have "created the heavens and the earth," as the Bible says. But do the facts of science support the idea that the world is eternal?

   Science has unveiled significant new knowledge over the past several decades,⁹ and many are convinced that this knowledge sheds considerable light on the question of origins.¹⁰ Thus, all that we need to do is objectively look at what has been learned. But make no mistake — the Bible is on trial. In this case, however, the verdict will not come from theologians, but instead from an international jury of scientists whose work and conclusions build upon the experience and knowledge of past generations.

   For the most part, scientists as a group have one common goal. Their aim is to uncover truth regarding the physical world. The Bible also claims to be true. It identifies everything in the world as coming from a Creator, and claims that the Supreme Intelligence who brought the world into existence used human writers as instruments to pen its pages. If this is true, then what it says and what scientists find ought to be consistent. Is it? What is the verdict from science? What are the facts?

   The answer to this question impacts many lives. The Bible is on the line.¹¹ If there were no beginning, then the opening verse of every Bible is wrong! If this were to prove true, the consequences would be staggering. Millions of people all over the world regard the Bible as divine revelation from God himself. If the opening words of the book of Genesis are wrong, how could anyone bring himself or herself to trust the other words in the Bible?

   The question of whether or not the world had a beginning is, in this sense, a watershed issue. Many people believe that the truth of the Bible rests on it. If there were no beginning, then clearly "God did not create."

   Virtually everyone agrees that the Bible takes a clear stand on the question of whether or not creation occurred. Thus, there seems to be a genuine basis for agreement on at least two things:

   First, the Bible unambiguously states that there was a beginning. Secondly, the question has only a yes-or-no answer. The importance of this particular inquiry thus lies in the definitive yes-or-no answer that the question implies.

   The stakes are high and question is clear. The challenge is to find the answer. Although scientific discovery can give rise to wrong speculations, its facts are usually trustworthy. What are the facts in this matter? And where can we go to find them?

Was There a Beginning?

   What does modern science teach regarding origins? In other words, what are the actual data and their interpretations? Do the latest scientific results

Page 8

show that the world can be traced back into eternity past? Or do they say that it was created? Has the universe truly been here forever? Or did it have a beginning? Are the things that we touch really made of "stuff" that's eternal? Or did this "stuff" somehow pop into existence?

   To answer these questions, we should first understand that scientists have taught different things at different times. Some have taught that the world had a beginning;¹² others that it is eternal.¹³ But what do the facts teach? Today we have many new facts, and, in the last thirty years, knowledge has increased sixfold. What does the new knowledge teach concerning origins?

   For many decades a number of scientists believed, as we have noted, that the First Law of Thermodynamics leads to a "steady state" theory of the universe. They felt that the world is eternal, and that everything in it has existed in some form or other forever.¹⁴ They argued that a natural process cannot bring into existence something out of nothing. Today, there's a problem with this idea because the beginning of the universe has actually been measured. Although the measurement is indirect, it nonetheless teaches that there actually was a beginning!

   To give an example of the kind of measurement we are speaking of, suppose someone fired a shotgun in another room. If we walked into the room one minute later, we would see the smoke still drifting out from the end of the barrel. In much the same way, the "smoke" from the "Big Bang" is still drifting throughout the universe. And this smoke shows that there was a beginning.

   This "smoke" is in the form of microwave radiation, and scientists have measured its lingering presence from a Big Bang, which according to three independent ways of measuring the age of the universe¹⁵ occurred between thirteen and fifteen billion years ago.¹⁶ At that time, it seems the universe mysteriously exploded into existence.¹⁷ This smoke is known as the background radiation of the universe,¹⁸ and it was measured in 1965 by two scientists who, ten years later, received the Nobel Prize for their work.¹⁹ Thus, the older idea of an eternally existing world is now known to have a problem. These measurements of what scientists call the background radiation that fills the universe tell us that the world is not eternal, but that it actually had a beginning.²⁰

   The measured values of the radiation also agree with the predictions of certain theoretical models.²¹ These models can be thought of as mathematical pictures that describe how the world unfolded after it came into being. For example, the universe is 25 percent helium –4, the exact number predicted by the Big Bang Theory. The mathematical models can be cross-checked because they also make precise predictions about the behavior of atomic particles. Measurements from the field of science called particle physics have

Page 9

confirmed many of these predictions.²² For example, experiments have been designed in particle physics that measure the neutron-decay half life; and astrophysical models of the universe have used this number to predict abundances of helium –3, deuterium, and lithium –7. The measured numbers are found to agree with the predicted values.

   Today, virtually every scientist working in the fields of cosmology or particle physics is convinced that the world had a beginning. And, as a practical matter, this conviction is now shared by scientists in other disciplines. In other words, there has been a growing confidence over the past several decades in the scientific community that the world actually had a beginning.

   In conclusion, it seems that the trial is over and the verdict is in. The Bible was correct all the time — the world has not been here forever. What new trial looms in the future we cannot say. But this much is sure: Based on today's knowledge and data, "In the beginning" has become scientific truth — there was a beginning.

Chapter Two  ||  Table of Contents

1. Lubbock: ISD v. CLU, (1982) U.S. Supreme Court No. 82-805 Oct.

2. Bird W. Creation Science Defense to ACLU Tufts U. (1981) Jun 8.

3. Lewin R. Science (1982) 215:381 Jan 22. Keith W. CSLDF Release (1983) Shreveport, La. Jan 31 & Oct. 17.

4. Geisler N. Eternity (1982): 22 May.

5. Ruse M. World Press Review (1982) :32 Aug.

6. Shea J. Jour. Geol. Ed. (1984) 32(1):43 Jan.

7. McLean vs. Arkansas Bd. of Ed. Science (1982) 215:934 Feb 19.

8. Laszlo T. Generalized Thermodynamics (1978) MIT Press.

9. Newton J. & Teece P.  The Cambridge Deep-Sky Album (1984) Press. 

10. Trefil J. Space Time Infinity (1985) Pantheon / Smithsonian Bks.

11. Radmacher E. & Preus R. Hermeneutics, Inerrancy & The Bible. Papers from ICBI (1984) Academie Books.

12. Alpher R. Proc. Am Phil Soc. (1975) 119:325 Oct Rees M. New Scientist (1981) :270 Jan 29.

13. Good I. Physics Today (1972) :15 Jul. Narlikar J. New Scientist (1981) :19 Jul 2.  

14. Bondi H. & Gold T. (1948) Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 108:252.

15. Globular clusters, nucleochronology, and doppler red shift in a Friedmann universe (Weinberg S. Gravitation & Cosmology (1972) Wiley, New York).

16. Kanzanas D. & Schramm D. Nature (1978) 274:672 Aug 17.

17. Weinberg S. The First Three Minutes (1977) Basic Books. Harvard Univ. & Smithsonian Astrophysical Observ.

18. Penzias A. & Wilson R. Astrophys. Jour. (1965) 142:419. Wilson R. Science (1979) 205:866 Aug 31. Henry P. Science (1980) 207:939 Feb. 29.

19. Penzias A. & Wilson R. Nobel Prize (Physics) (1978) Dec 8.

20. Schramm D. Tenth Texas Symposium On Relativistic Astrophysics Ann. NY Acad. Sci. Ramaty R. & Johnes F. ed. (1980) 375:54.

21. Silk J. Tenth Texas Symposium 375:188.

22. Trefil J. (1985) also Schramm D. (1980) ibid. Doroshkevich A. et. al. Tenth Texas Symposium 375:32. Sato H. Tenth Texas Symposium 375:43. 

Chapter Two  ||  Table of Contents