EVANGELICALS AND MODERN SCIENCE

RobertC. Newman

 

Asiron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.

                                                                                                (Prov27:17 NIV)

 

            Aproverb about individuals – but true, I believe, of Christianity andscience as well.  Each is achallenge to the other, for better or worse.  We evangelicals who train pas­tors, lead congregations,teach, or do scientific research can help make these challenges work for thebetterment of science and Christian­ity.  To see how this is so, let us con­sider some of thethings going on in modern science. 

 

What'sHappening in Science

 

            Manydo not classify mathematicsas a science, since it studies ideas inside us rather than objects out innature.  Yet there is a strangecorrelation between mind and universe, between math and science.  As Einstein once noted: "The mostincom­prehe­nsible thing about the universe is that it is so compre­hen­sible."1

 

            Strangethings have been happening within mathematics, too.  The assured results of Euclid's geometry, which stood forover 2000 years, were challenged in the last century.  Not, indeed, by claims that Euclid was mistaken; rather thathis paral­lel lines axiom was not the only possibility.2  Other alterna­tives, whendeveloped, gave geometries of curved spaces.  These turn out to have numerous applications to the realworld.  So do geometries of manydimensions – whether or not our universe has three, four, eleven or moredimensions it­self.3 Perhaps the universe is a kind of exhibi­tionhall, where God has used all sorts of mathematics somewhere in itsconstruction. 

 

            Inthis century, Kurt Gšdel proved that logical systems such as arithmetic areincomplete, astounding mathematicians and philosophers alike.4  If such a system is logically con­sis­tent,then it is not fully demonstrable. If it is demon­stra­ble, it cannot be proved consistent.  This may be fatal to  deductivist hopes that our universeitself is one great self-consistent logical system, with all its features deriv­ablefrom first principles. 

 

            Withthe advent of computers, mathematics has become more and more experimental(mathematicians would prefer to say "numerical" or"applied").  Not thatlogical proof has been repla­ced by trial and error, but electroniccalculations allow us to go far beyond anything feasible by hand.  And with today's video technology,computers can display objects of higher‑dim­ension­al geometrythat far surpass the visualizing ability of our brains.5  Thus, computers have become an ex­ploratorytool to suggest what theorems may be worth trying to prove.  Mathematics, like the sciences, isturning out to be a vast ocean, and we are just getting into its depths. 

 

            Acentury ago, many thought physicspretty well complete.  The onlywork left was to determine more decimal places for its basic constants.  But the search for these decimals soonshattered this opinion with dis­coveries leading to relativity and quan­tummechanics. 

            Einstein'stheories of relativity, strange as they may be, have been impressivelyverified.6  His specialtheory has an absolute "speed limit" in the universe, approachingwhich an object's mass increases to infinity, its length goes to zero, and itstime comes to a standstill. Measurements of time and space are relative, varying with the motion of theone making the observations.7 His general theory of relativi­ty restores absolute time to theuniverse, but locally time and space are distorted by gravitationalfields.  In ex­treme cases,parts of the universe may nearly pinch off from the rest and become "blackholes."8

 

            Relativitydoes not extrapolate into ethics, however.  The attempt to justify moral relativity from physics isunwar­ranted.  We could equallywell argue that an absolute speed limit in the universe implies moralabsolutes.  Opposi­tion tomodern physics by evangelicals for this reason is certainly ill‑advised. 

 

            Quantummechanics has been more troubling. It has often been represented as replacing determinism with chance asthe basic reality, which cer­tainly disagrees with the biblical world­view.  But there are actually severalcompeting interpre­tations of quantum phenom­ena,9 and weneed not opt for a random, acausal universe. 

 

            Nevertheless,the phenomena of quantum mechanics are real, and (like relativity) they oftenseem to mock at common sense.  Themore accurately we pin down the location of an electron (say), the lessdefinite its motion is.  The betterwe know its motion, the less we know about where it is.  In some observations, electrons behavelike particles; in others, like waves. What are they, really?  Thefamous double‑slit experi­ment shows that we are not just talkingabout groups of par­ticles which collectively behave like waves.  An individual particle which passesthrough one slit apparently "knows" whether the other slit is open orclosed!10  And when twoparticles, originally together, move miles apart, one of them somehow"knows" the result of a measurement on the other instantane­ously,even though a signal from one to the other cannot travel faster than the speedof light!11  This lastfeature, however – assuming it stands up under further test­ing –would seem more of a problem for a mechan­istic universe of localinteractions than for one con­trol­led by a God who is everywherepresent.

 

            Physicistscontinue to seek one unifying force behind the four basic forces currentlyknown – gravity, electromag­net­ism, the strong and weak nuclearinteractions.  In view of Maxwell'searlier success combining electricity and mag­netism, and the recent workof Glashow, Weinberg and Salaam uniting these with the weak interaction, manyhope to succeed where Ein­stein failed.12  Evangelicals may feel threatened by re­searchof this sort, since we believe God is the unifier of the cosmos.  But in fact God has not told us whetherhe has reserved all unification to himself (so that such searches will provefutile) or whether he has mediated some unity through a created force. 

 

            Amongthe branches of astronomy,cosmology is especially interesting to evangelicals.  Is the cosmos "all that is, or ever was, or ever willbe,"13 or is it just a part of what exists, and only one act ina greater drama produced and directed by the Creator?

            Duringthe so‑called Enlightenment, many abandoned the biblical cosmology of anabsolute beginning, but in recent years observation and theory have moved backin this direc­tion.  Thestatic, eternal universe favored by nineteenth century atheism was replaced inthis century by various dyna­mic models when it became apparent that thestars were running down and the universe expanding.14  Then the discoveries of the three‑degreeblackbody radiation and quasars revealed that our universe was hotter and morecrowded earlier than it is now, and most investigators abandoned the steady‑statecosmol­ogy for some form of the big‑bang theo­ry.15  Currently it looks like our universebegan absolutely at the big‑bang, in con­trast to the formerlypopular oscillating versions.16  The main alternative, that the universe is just a three‑dimen­sionalbubble in an infinite, eternal universe of unbelievably high temperature anddensity,17 has little evidence for it compared with biblicaltheism. 

 

            Ifthe universe began at the big bang, did it just happen or was it created?  Evidence that looks like design in theuni­verse has recently been found in the "fine‑tuning"which exists between its basic forces. If these forces differed ever so slightly from what they are, life ofany chemical sort could not exist. The non‑theistic models proposed to explain this seem rather far‑fetched.18

 

            Inchemistry (aside frompressing environ­men­tal con­cerns), the main inter­est forevangelicals has been the chemi­stry of life.  The classic experiment of Miller and Urey in 1952 showedthat amino acids could be produced in an atmos­phere devoid of oxygen,which seemed reasonable for the early earth. The optimism this generated forlife arising spon­tane­ously has since been dampened.  There is grow­ing evidence that theearly atmosphere contained too much oxygen.  Miller‑Urey type ex­periments after 35 years stillcannot produce the full set of amino acids found in life.  Competing reactions would destroyintermediate mole­cules needed for synthesis of DNA, RNA and proteins.  The simplest system which willreproduce itself is apparently far too complex to form by random pro­cesses(with­out the interven­tion of an intelligent being) even in a uni­verseas large and old as ours is.19

 

            Inthe past two centuries geologyhas moved from viewing the earth as only a few thousand years to severalbillion years old. This shift began well before Darwin made evolution scien­tificallyrespectable.  It was initiallybased on the dis­covery of miles‑thick geologic formations, whichseemed impos­sible to produce in just a few thousand years, even with thehelp of Noah's flood.20 Though opposed by Kelvin because he calculated that the sun could not beso old, his objections were later overcome by the discovery of radioac­tivity,which led to both a mechanism for a long‑lived sun and a technique fordating geologic formations.21

 

            Sincethen, theologians have split over whether the Bible allows for an old earth ornot.  Among those who think not,some have rejected the idea that the Bible teaches anything scientific, othershave rejected geologic dating.22 Those who feel the Bible allows anold earth have sought to harmonize the biblical and geological data.23

 

            Takingthe geologic strata as trustworthy records of an old earth, the fossils revealan early earth devoid of life. Later on, simple life appears, which remains alone for many millions ofyears.  Then comes the"Cambrian explo­sion" in which nearly all the animal phyla appearrather suddenly.  Later comes thesuccessive appearance of fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, and lastof all, man.24  Thisfossil succession is understood by evolutionists as the natural development oflife from simple beginnings.  Old‑earthcrea­tionists see it as evidence for God's successive interven­tion tocreate new life forms as the environment is prepared to support each inturn.  Young‑earthcreationists reject the idea that the geologic column is a historicalsequence.  Instead, the fossilsuccession is seen as a result of ecologi­cal zoning and the differingability of various animals to escape the waters of Noah's flood, though boththese ideas face severe problems.25

 

            Thefossils also revealed that plants and animals dif­fered from one region ofthe earth to another.  Darwin'sstudy of such differences among living finches and turtles on the variousGalapagos Islands led him to propose his theory of evolution.  Such differences also raised questionsregarding a universal flood.  DidGod bring polar bears from the arctic, penguins from the antarctic, kangaroosfrom Australia and sloths from South America to the ark before the flood (sincethey appear in the fossil record in these places) and get them back afterward(since they are there now)? Clearly God could havemiraculously transported them, but nothing like this is mentioned in Genesis.Young‑earth creationists have sometimes tried to solve this bypostulating a (problematic) rapid continental drift after the flood.  Old‑earth creation­ists andtheistic evolutionists have often opted for a local or region­al flood sothat transportation from outside the flood zone would be unnecessary.26

 

            Biology has been dominated by an evolutionaryparadigm since Darwin's time. There have been ups and downs in its accep­tance, and modificationssuch as the new synthesis and punc­tuated equilibrium model.  Yet some have always rejected it forscientific rather than theological reasons.27  Among scien­tific objections, geolo­gicalinvestigation has continued to sharpen the gaps be­tween major biologicalcategories in the fossil record rather than making them disappear.28  Attempts to model muta­tion andnatural selection mathematically have not produced increasing organization.29  Many biological sys­tems do notlook like they can be reached from simpler systems by a sequence of favora­ble,single mutations.30 Complex or­gans like the eye would not form by random mutation inthe time avail­able, even though evolutionists assume sight devel­opedseveral times in the history of life.31  Nevertheless, the sequence of life-forms in the fossilrecord, plus a pref­erence in the scien­tific community (followingHume) for any natural explana­tion over any supernatural one, means thatscience will not likely abandon evolu­tion any time soon.32

 

            Withthe rise of microbiology, evidence for the complexi­ty of living things hasrisen dramatically,33 putting even more pressure on the claim thatlife developed by un­guided proces­ses.  At the same time, similarities of biochemi­cals acrossspecies boundaries have streng­thened many in their conviction that all lifedeveloped from a single original lifeform.34

 

            BeforeDarwin, arguments for a Designer from organiza­tion in living things was amajor apologetic for Chris­tianity. But evolution, many feel, des­troy­ed this ap­proach.35  In recent years, though, the argumenthas been revived as the complexity of organs and biochemical systems has becomemore obvious.36  Mu­tationand natural selec­tion do not seem to be able to produce such order, yetour own ex­peri­ence shows us that a mind can do so.

 

            Anthropology has often held center stage in thecreation-evolution controversy, doubtless because of the clash between definitestatements on human origins from Genesis two and various anthropologists.  Inter­pret­ers of both natureand Scripture have frequently aggravated the situation by unfoun­dedclaims,37 yet a number of troubling facts remain.  Numer­ous fossils seem to beanatomically intermediate bet­ween human and ape.38  The bio­chemistry of modern man iscloser to that of the apes than to the other animals, and (in some cases) isvirtu­al­ly the same for chimp and man.39  On the other hand, the mentaldifference between man and ape is vast, even though apes are apparently themost "intelligent" of non­human ani­mals.40  Can unguided evolution really explain theorigin of the human mind, or even the origin of animal brains?

 

            Withthis brief summary, we see that modern science has made a number of discoverieswhich challenge evangelicals.  Ithas also made others which challenge the "methodological atheism" of thescientific community. 

 

EvangelicalResponses to Modern Science

 

            Biblebelievers have reacted to these challenges in various ways.  Three broad approaches have developedto ques­tions regarding the age of the earth and evolution:  young­-earth creation, old‑earthcreation, and theistic evolution. Each of these includes some diversity, but can be roughly described asfollows. 

 

            Young‑earthcreationists believe theuniverse, earth and mankind were created just a few thousand years ago.  Living things were created more or lessinstantaneously and have changed very little since then.  Scientists are thus fundamen­tallywrong in believing in an old earth or in evolution.  The Genesis account is our basic source of information onorigins, and all scientific data are to be interpreted in agreement with thesimplest reading of Scripture. Typically, Noah's flood is seen as the source of most geologic strata.41  A few young-earth creationists rejectquantum mechanics and relativ­ity.42  Some of these even reject a sun‑cent­ered solarsystem, claim­ing science went astray in the sixteenth century with Coper­nicus.43

 

            Old‑earthcreationists accept auniverse and earth some billions of years old, believing that scientists areproperly interpreting substantial evidence here.44  They also believe that mutation andnatural selection account for small‑scale changes (microevolution) inplant and animal life, allowing organisms to adapt in a limited way to changesin climate and environment, but producing no new organs or systems.45  They part company with evolutionists bynoting that the fossil record gives no evidence of gradual transitions betweenthe larger divisions of the biological classification, thus rejec­tingmacroevolution.  They interpret theGenesis account and scien­tific data so as to harmonize, often taking thedays of Gene­sis to be long periods of time.46  Some hold to a geo­graph­ical­lyuniversal flood, others to a regional flood.  Mankind is seen as a special creation of God, some seeingour crea­tion hundreds of thousands of years back, others making it muchmore recent.47

 

            Theisticevolutionists accept themain lines of modern scientific thought on origins, but reject any non‑the­isticim­plications.48 All life is typically viewed as develop­ing from one initial lifeform, perhaps created by God's intervention, perhaps by his providentialguidance.49  Thedevelopment of various forms from this original life was also providentiallyguided.  There is some divergenceon human origins.  Most commonly, awhole population of apes is thought to have evol­ved into humanity, with nooriginal pair having ever exist­ed.50  Some, however, believe God breathed into an ape to providehim with a soul, thus producing Adam, the first man.  From his side comes Eve, as Genesis 2 says.  In this scheme, there was an originalpair, and mankind's fall into sin was a specific historical event.51 

 

            Unfortunately,then, evangel­icals have not found as much common ground as we would likefor a unified response to modern sci­ence.  Yet all can agree that God is Creator, that unguidedevolution will not work, that man has a special place of responsibility overGod's creation, that the universe really does­n't make sense without God,and that it is crucial for people to recognize this. These are basic andcentral mat­ters which should not be over­looked in the midst of our in­tramuraldisputes.  

 

            However,there is no agreement on a detailed alternative model to unguidedevolution.  Young‑earth andold‑earth crea­tionists agree that macroevolution is mistaken, andare often united on what its problems are.  Old‑earth creationists and theistic evolutionistsagree that the earth is old, and gener­ally see similar problems with young‑earthcreationism.  Young‑earthcreationists and many theistic evolutionists agree that the Bible takenliterally does not fit with the modern scientific consensus and generally feelthat harmonization is not the right strategy. 

 

            Weshould not be surprised to find such disagreement.  After all, evangelicals are not united in a number of areasof biblical interpretation ‑‑ baptism, church government, es­chatology,miraculous gifts today ‑‑ so why should we expect better agreementwhen it comes to the inter­pretation and harmonization of Bible and science?  Yet in spite of this we should not giveup but should continue to seek solu­tions in all these areas.  In what follows, I give some sug­gestionsas an old‑earth creationist for making progress in relating Bible andscience. 

 

Science asExegesis

 

            Weare discussing what is commonly called the relation of "Bible andscience."  In spite of popularuse, this pair­ing of terms is not ideal.  Science is basically a method; the Bible basicallydata.  The pair "science andreligion" is even worse; religion is such a generic term that almostnothing can be said that is true of all religions.  For instance, is atheism a religion?  Some better pairs are "Bible and nature"(both data), "theoretical science and theology" (both theoriz­ingfrom the data), "experimental science and ex­egesis" (bothobserving and trying to understand the data).  Perhaps reli­gion – like engineering – isapplication.  In any case, considerthe parallels between science and ex­egesis, which seem to be especiallyfruitful. 

 

            Froma biblical perspective, it makes sense to view science as the interpretation ofGod's general (or natural) revela­tion, just as exegesis is theinterpretation of God's special revel­ation in the Bible.  For an evangelical, both nature andScripture are inerrant sources of information from God.  Both have fallible humaninterpreters.  Exegetes (ideal­ly)study the Bible to see what is there, rather than to defend their own theologyor denominational tradition.  Scien­tists(also ideally) study nature to see what is there, rather than to defend theirown pet theories or the status quoin their field.  Both disciplinesfavor a priority of data over theory. Both use beauty, simplicity, cogency, and correspon­dence withestablished theories as aids to their own theoriz­ing. 

 

            Ofcourse, there are differences.  Asevangelicals we believe that we have all of the Bible now – a writtentext of finite length – though we would not claim it contains all thereis to know about our infinite God. Nature, on the other hand, though presumably finite, is continuallyopening up new pages of its text to our view as we build new devices which lookfurther or probe deeper.  Inaddition, the Bible is already given in human languages; nature is not. 

 

            Ifwe as evangelicals feel warranted in harmonizing bibli­cal passages whichwe believe refer to the same histori­cal event, should we not alsoharmonize the data of nature and Scrip­ture on the origins of the universe,life and ourselves?  If we ac­ceptMatthew's account that there were two demon­iacs whose deliverance caused aherd of pigs to stampede into the Sea of Galilee, though Mark and Luke mentiononly one demoni­ac; if we accept Matthew's account of the flight of Mary,Joseph and Jesus into Egypt, though nothing is said about this in Luke; then weshould not be surprised that nature may give us infor­mation about whichScripture is silent and vice versa. 

 

            Manyscientists, of course, don't think they are exe­geting God's revelation innature when they do science, but that doesn't mean they aren't.  After all, many liberal theo­logiansdon't think they are exegeting God's revelation when they interpret the Bible;but if biblical Christianity is true, that is what they are doing all thesame.  Surely any activity which ig­noresGod is going to be defective in impor­tant ways.  If science as practiced by secularists has no concern forthe universe as a natural revelation, it is up to us as evangeli­calstrained in science to try to fill this gap. 

 


The RelativeMerits of Various Evangelical Options

 

            Thethree options listed earlier as evangelical responses to modern science seem todiffer substantially in how they handle data from nature and Scripture. Young‑earthcreation­ists try to construct the simplest model of origins possible usingonly the biblical data.  Thescientific data are then interpreted to conform with this model, whether or notthis is a straight­for­ward way to understand them.  The idea of cre­ation with apparentage is frequently employed to handle difficulties. 

 

            Atthe other end of the spectrum, theistic evolutionists construct the simplestmodel of origins from the scientific data, and then interpret the biblicalmaterial to conform.  Forevangelicals this may result in reading Genesis two and three as parabolic orallegorical, and in denying that Genesis one was intended to answer anyscientific questions about how God worked. 

 

            Old‑earthcreationists, by contrast, use the data from both nature and Scripture indevising their original models, seek­ing a construct that does justice toboth.  Naturally, these models willbe more complex than the minimum necessary to fit either set of data alone, butthis does not mean we should force a harmonization.

 

            Someevangelicals have noted that science often functions dif­ferently indealing with present‑day phenomena than it does when investigatingorigins.  Geisler has distinguishedbetween "origins‑science" and "operations‑science."52  From a differ­ent perspective, VanTill has suggested a distinction between "formative history," thosefeatures of origins which science can investigate, and "ultimateorigins," those which transcend science.53  Both of these suggestions have somemerit.  Ap­parently two factorsare at work.  One is our close­nessto the data; the other is the question of immanence vs. trans­cen­dence,or providence vs. miracle. 

 

            Theextent to which we have a "hands on" relation with particularscientific data forms a continuum. Some phenomena are accessible to the laboratory and repeatable almost atwill.  Other phenomena cannot bebrought into the laboratory.  Ofthese latter, some are beyond our control but repeat at frequent intervals(e.g., periodic phenomena on the sun). Other phenomena repeat at rare intervals beyond our life span (e.g., thelife cycle of a star).  Somephenomena occur only once in the history of our universe (e.g., the big‑bang).  Clearly, the reliability of ourtheorizing decreases as the phenomena are less under our control and lessfrequently repeated.54 

 

            God'sactivity in our world has traditionally been divid­ed into providence andmiracle.  Evangelicals agree thatboth occur, though Howard Van Till would apparently like to limit mira­cleto redemption.55 Evangeli­cals disagree on the amount and location of miracleinvolved – young‑earth creationists postulating the mostintervention and theistic evolutionists the least.

            Theisticevolutionists have sometimes charged young‑earth and old‑earthcreationists with appealing to a "God of the gaps" in postulatingdivine intervention at one point or another in creation.56  Granted.  Creationists, however, have usually appealed to gaps in thefossil record or in scientific mechanisms as warrant for such suggestions.  We should remem­ber, however, thatevolutionists, theistic or not, also employ a "god of the gaps" –natural law – which is plugged in even when there seems to be realdiscontinuity in fossil record or mechanism! 

 

            Lastly,a complaint against both young‑earth creationists and theisticevolutionists:  both resort tofictitious history in their treatment of origins.  Young‑earth creationists admit using "appearanceof age" to explain scientific phenomena which otherwise suggest an oldearth or universe.  But since thelight from stars, galaxies and quasars tells us something of what was happeningon those objects when the light left them, so light from objects more than afew thousand light years away must be, in their view, telling us what wouldhave been happening there if the objects had existed then (which they didn't) –fictitious history.  Those theisticevolution­ists who deny a real Adam interpret Genesis two and three as para­bolicor allegorical – the accounts look historical but they aren't.  Again, fictitious history.  One sees fictitious history in nature,the other in Scripture. It would be much better, if possible, to handle thedata without invoking the concept of fictitious history. 

 

            Thisis not to say that the old‑earth creation viewpoint has solved all theproblems of relating biblical and scientif­ic data.  Further investigation and reflectionare certainly needed in this area, and input from young-earth creationists andtheistic evolutionists should continue to be helpful. 

 

Conclusions

 

            Evangelicalshave been challenged in numerous areas by science.  We should not fear that real discoveries will over­throwbiblical Christianity, nor should we treat science as an enemy.  Instead we should realize that scienceis in the process of study­ing general revelation.  God will continue to reveal himself toscientists as long as they do not overextend their metho­dology so as torule out God or refuse to consider the possibility that he has inter­venedmiraculously into nature. 

 

            Weas evangelicals need to continue working on harmoniz­ing God's revelationin his Word and his world.  Weshould not be satisfied with superficial answers or forced exegesis.  We should remember that at any giventime, we may not have suffi­cient information to solve a particular problemor construct a proper harmonization. Therefore, we must carefully scrutinize each new page of generalrevelation as it comes to light and consider how it may influence our proposedsyntheses. 

 

            Modernscience has also been challenged in numerous areas, not so much by evangelicalsas by our God in his gener­al revelation.  We as evangelicals need to cooperate with God in helping non‑believingscientists (and others) to see these things and to turn to Jesus as theirredeemer.  We need to be cautiousyet faithful in our handling of scientific data, lest we put unnecessarystumbling blocks before others that would hinder their coming to God.57

 

                                                                   Copyright1989, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

 

References

 

            1.Cited without reference in Carl Sagan, The Dragons of Eden (New York: Random House, 1977), 233; asimilar statement occurs in Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions (New York: Crown, 1982), 292: "theeternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibil­ity."

            2.P. LeCorbeiller, "The Curvature of Space," Scientific American (November, 1954), 80‑86; ReneTaton, ed., Science in the Nineteenth Century (New York: Basic Books, 1965), 25‑28.

            3.Heinz R. Pagels, Perfect Symmetry(New York: Simon and Schuster, 1985), 310‑15.

            4.Ernest Nagel and James R. Newman, Gšdel's Proof (New York: University Press, 1958);Douglas R. Hofstadter, Gšdel, Escher, Bach (New York: Basic Books, 1979).

            5.Ivars Peterson, "Twists of Space," Science News 132 (October 24, 1987), 264‑66.

            6.Clifford M. Will, Was Einstein Right? Putting General Relativity to the Test (New York: Basic Books, 1986); Hugh Ross, CosmologyConfronts the Creator(Pasadena: Reasons to Believe, 1987), 11‑13.

            7.A. Shadowitz, Special Relativity(Philadelphia: Saunders, 1969); Martin Gardner, Relativity for the Million (New York: Macmillan, 1962).

            8.Ronald S. Adler, "Relativity, Special Theory" in McGraw‑HillEncyclopedia of Physics(1983); William J. Kaufmann, III, Relativity and Cosmology, 2nd ed.  (New York: Harper and Row, 1977).

            9.Paul Davies and J. Brown, eds., The Ghost in the Atom: A Discussion of theMysteries of Quantum Physics(New York: Cambridge, 1986), 31‑39; Nick Herbert, Quantum Reality (New York: Doubleday, 1985), 16‑29,41‑53.

            10.Davies and Brown, Ghost in the Atom,8‑11; Herbert, Quantum Reality, 65‑66.

            11.Herbert, Quantum Reality,211‑31; Davies and Brown, Ghost in the Atom, 11‑19.

            12.Paul Davies, Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1984).

            13.Carl Sagan, Cosmos(New York: Random House, 1980), 4. For evangelical responses, see Robert C. Newman, "A Critique ofCarl Sagan's TV Series and Book 'Cosmos'," IBRI Research Report 19 (Hatfield, PA: IBRI, 1984); JohnWiester, "Carl Sagan's 'Cos­mos'," Christians in Education 2, nos. 1 and 2 (1985); R. C. Sproul, Tabletalk 12, no. 4 (August, 1988); Howard J. VanTill, "Sagan's Cosmos: Science Education or Religious Theatre?" inHoward J. Van Till, Davis A. Young and Clarence Menninga, Science HeldHostage: What's Wrong with Creation Science AND Evolutionism (Downers Grove, IL: InterVar­sity,1988), 155‑68.

            14.Elske V. P. Smith and Kenneth C. Jacobs, Introductory Astronomy andAstrophysics(Philadelphia: Saunders, 1973), 509‑10.

            15.Robert Jastrow and Malcolm H. Thompson, Astronomy: Fundamen­tals andFrontiers, 3rd ed.  (New York: Wiley, 1977), 265‑76;Lawrence W. Frederick and Robert H. Baker, An Introduction to Astronomy, 9th ed.  (New York: Van Nostrand, 1981), 452‑57.

            16.Frederick and Baker, Astronomy,457‑59; Jastrow and Thomp­son, Astronomy, 276‑81; Ross, Cosomology, 18‑19.

            17.D. E. Thomsen, "Cosmic Cauldron Bubbles Up Universe," Science News 121 (1982), 116; M. Mitchell Waldrop,"Bubbles Upon the River of Time," Science 215 (1982), 1082‑83.

            18.P. C. W. Davies, Accidental Universe (Cambridge: University Press, 1982); John D. Barrow andFrank J. Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (New York: Oxford, 1986); forevangelical treatments, see Ross, Cosmology; Alan Hayward, God Is (Nash­ville: Nelson, 1980); RobertC. Newman, "A Designed Universe" (Hatfield, PA: IBRI, 1988); JohnJefferson Davis, "The Design Argument, Cosmic 'Fine Tuning,' and theAnthropic Principle" (So. Hamil­ton, MA: Gordon‑Conwell, 1986).

            19.Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley and Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery ofLife's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (New York: Philosophical Library, 1984); Robert Shapiro, Origins:A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth (New York: Summit, 1986); Robert C.Newman, "Self‑Replicating Automata and the Origin of Life," Perspectiveson Science and Christian Faith40 (1988), 24‑31.

            20.Davis A. Young, Christianity and the Age of the Earth (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982); CharlesCoulston Gillispie, Genesis and Geology (New York: Harper and Row, 1959).

            21.Taton, Science in the Nineteenth Century, 333; Don L. Eicher, Geologic Time (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice‑Hall,1968), 16‑18.

            22.Bruce Vawter, "Creationism: Creative Misuse of the Bible" in IsGod a Creationist? ed.Roland Mushat Frye (New York: Scrib­ners, 1983), 72‑77; LangdonGilkey, Maker of Heaven and Earth(Garden City: Doubleday Anchor, 1965), 25‑26; Henry Morris, BiblicalCosmology and Modern Science(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1970); Paul M. Steidl, The Earth, the Stars and theBible (Phillipsburg, NJ:Presbyterian and Reformed, 1979); John C. Whitcomb, Jr., The Early Earth (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1972).

            23.Alan Hayward, Creation and Evolution: The Facts and the Fallacies (London: Triangle, 1985); Robert C.Newman and Herman J. Eckelmann, Jr., Genesis One and the Origin of the Earth, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981);Pattle P. T. Pun, Evolution: Nature and Scripture in Conflict? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982); Young, Christianityand the Age of the Earth.

            24.Steven M. Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable (New York: Basic Books, 1981).

            25.Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb, Jr., The Genesis Flood (Philadelphia: Presbyterian andReformed, 1961), 270‑81. But see Hayward, Creation and Evolution, 131‑34; Daniel E. Wonderly, Neglectof Geologic Data(Hatfield, PA: IBRI, 1987), 59-70.

            26.Frederick A. Filby, The Flood Reconsidered (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971).

            27.See W. R. Thompson's introduction to the Everyman ed. of Darwin's Origin ofSpecies (New York:Dutton, 1956), reprinted in Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 12 (1960), 2‑9; Gordon RattrayTaylor, The Great Evolution Mystery(New York: Harper and Row, 1983), 4‑12.

            28.George Gaylord Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (New York: Columbia University, 1984reprint of 1944 ed.), 105‑24; Michael Denton, Evolution, a Theory inCrisis (Bethesda, MD:Adler and Adler, 1986), ch 8.

            29.M. Kaplan, ed., Mathematical Challenges to the Neo‑DarwinianInterpretation of Evolution(Philadelphia: Wistar Institute, 1967).

            30.Denton, Theory in Crisis,ch 9; Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery, 5.

            31.Murray Eden, "The Inadequacy of Neo‑Darwinian Evolution as aScientific Theory" in Kaplan, Mathematical Challenges; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (London: Rider, 1984), 218.

            32.David Hume, Concerning Human Understanding, section X; see Van Till's comments on the methodologicalatheism of science in Science Held Hostage, 133, 135, 139, 143, 147.

            33.Carl Sagan, "Life" in Encyclopaedia Brittanica (1970), 13:1083B; Renato Dulbecco, TheDesign of Life (NewHaven: Yale, 1987); Maya Pines, Inside the Cell (Washington, DC: Dept of Health,Education and Welfare, 1978).

            34.Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: Norton, 1986), ch 10; Pamela K. Mulligan,"Proteins, Evolution of," McGraw‑Hill Encyclopedia ofScience and Technology(1987), 14:412‑17.; Emilie Zuckerandl, "The Evolution ofHaemoglobin," Scientific American 213 (1965), 1012‑20; Francisco J. Alaya, ed.  Molecular Evolution (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer, 1976). SeeDenton, Theory in Crisis,ch 12 for a typological perspective. 

            35.Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1957), 9-10; Dawkins, BlindWatchmaker, ch 1; Barrowand Tipler, Anthropic Cosmological Principle, 83‑87.

            36.Denton, Theory in Crisis,26‑29, 214‑27; Hayward, Creation and Evolution, ch 4; Robert Gange, Origins andDestiny (Waco, TX: Word,1986), 33‑40, 105‑09.

            37.Pitman, Adam and Evolution,91‑94; Roger Lewin, Bones of Contention (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987), 54‑55,60‑75; Glen J. Kuban, "The Taylor Site 'Man Tracks,'" OriginsResearch 9:1 (1986), 1;Committee for Integrity in Science Education, Teaching Science in a Climateof Controversy (Ips­wich,MA: American Scientific Affiliation, 1986), 18‑21.

            38.W. E. LeGros Clark, Antecedents of Man (New York: Harper and Row, 1963); Henri Blocher, In theBeginning (DownersGrove, IL: InterVarsity, 1984), 229‑30; but see also John Wiester, TheGenesis Connection(Nashville: Nelson, 1983), 158‑90.

            39.Eldon J. Gardner, Principles of Genetics, 4th ed.  (NewYork: Wiley, 1972), 305‑08. But blood transfusions and organ transplants have not worked well.

            40.Pitman, Adam and Evolution,240‑46; Gange, Origins and Destiny, 104, 121‑36.

            41.Morris and Whitcomb, Genesis Flood;Whitcomb, Early Earth.

            42.Thomas G. Barnes, Physics of the Future (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1983).  See also articles by Barnes, Akridge,Slusher and Bouw in the Creation Research Society Quarterly.

            43.W. van der Kamp, "The Heart of the Matter" (Burnaby, BC: the author,1967). See also the Bulletin of the Tychonian Society, 4527 Wetzel Ave., Cleveland, OH 44109.

            44.Davis A. Young, Creation and the Flood (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977); Young, Christianity and theAge of the Earth; DanielE. Wonderly, God's Time Records in Ancient Sediments (Flint, MI: Crystal Press, 1977);Wonderly, Neglect of Geologic Data;Newman and Eckelmann, Genesis One;Hayward, Creation and Evolu­tion, chs 5‑9.

            45.Except as could plausibly have arisen from random mutations. See, e.g., Pun, Evolution, 191‑230.

            46.Ibid., 251‑71; Newman and Eckelmann, Genesis One, 67‑88.

            47.Wiester, Genesis Connection,187‑90; Robert Brow, "The Late‑Date Genesis Man," ChristianityToday 16 (1972), 1128‑1129;William J. Kornfield, "The Early‑Date Genesis Man," Chris­tianityToday, 17 (1973), 931‑34.

            48.F. Donald Eckelmann, "Geology," in The Encounter BetweenChristianity and Science,ed.  Richard H. Bube (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1968), 135‑70; Walter R. Hearn, "Biological Science,"in Ibid., 199‑223; Howard J. Van Till, The Fourth Day (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 188, 227‑31,264‑65.

            49.Richard H. Bube, "Creation (B): Understanding Creation andEvolution," Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 32 (1980), 177.

            50.Richard H. Bube, "Biblical Evolutionism?" Journal of the AmericanScientific Affiliation23 (1971), 140‑44.

            51.David L. Dye, Faith and the Physical World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966), 136‑50; James M.Houston, "The Origin of Man," Journal of the American ScientificAffiliation 34 (1982), 1‑5.

            52.Norman L. Geisler and J. Kerby Anderson, Origins Science (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987).

            53.Van Till et al, Science Held Hostage, 15‑25.

            54.Fortunately, marks of frequently repeated phenomena indicat­ing an old earthare abundant in the earth's crust. Large areas of North America are covered by fossil-bearing sedimentarysequences, often with a thickness of several miles.  Many of the layer units in these sedimentary columns arerock-types which cannot form rapidly, but require thousands of years to makeeven 50 feet of thickness.  A largepercentage of lime­stones and shales fall into this category.  Limestone layers deep in U.S. andCanadian oil fields sometimes include large surfaces showing extensive erosion features,even potholes and steep-walled canyons, which indicate the surface had hardenedinto rock beforeadditional thousands of feet of rock were formed on top of them.  These buried surfaces often includefossil sea-shells, which were first securely cemented into the rock surface andthen partially worn off by erosion before their final burial took place.  Other limestone deposits frequentlycontain organically formed structures, such as algal mats and coral reefs,which still show the growth patterns of the organisms which produced them,usually with recognizable fossils of these organisms, some in their normalgrowth positions, others moved downslope by wave action or sediment flow beforefinal burial took place.  SeeWonderly, Neglect of Geologic Datafor abundant documentation of this.

            55.Van Till, Fourth Day,224‑27.

            56.Richard H. Bube, "The Failure of the God‑of‑the‑Gaps,"in Horizons of Science,ed. Carl F. H. Henry (New York: Harper and Row, 1978), 21‑35.

            57.My thanks to IBRI colleagues John Bloom, David Bossard, Bob Dunzweiler, PerryPhillips, John Studenroth and Dan Wonderly for helpful discussions.