EVIDENCE FOR THE CHRISTIAN FAITH
We here wish to consider whatevidences God has provided to help us in evangeliz­ing others. These can be useful for (1) removingstumbling blocks that keep people from Christ; (2) strength­eningChristians in their faith; and (3) stopping the mouths of opponents. We shall discuss Christianevidences under three major subdivisions, organized by the source of theevidence provided:

(1)General Revelation - evidence from nature

(2)Special Revelation - evidence from Scripture

(3)Redemption - evidence from regeneration

Regarding the question ofwhether evidences are valuable, conclusive, etc., we refer you to two quitedifferent works which make (I think) a strong case for Christian evidences:

David P. Hoover, TheDefeasiblePumpkin: An Epiphany ina Pumpkin Patch (IBRI, 1997).

Inthis delightful story, the now middle-aged characters of Charles SchultzÕswell-known comic strip Peanuts arereunited at the request of Charlie Brown to rescue Linus from his belief in theGreat Pumpkin. While Charlie is aChristian, he finds himself in a dilemma, for his method of defending theChristian faith is essentially identical to the method Linus uses to defend thePumpkin. They are both presuppositionalists of the Van Tillian sort, and infaithfulness to their common method, both find their views equallyvindicated. The setting of thedialogue is an all-night vigil in a pumpkin patch.

John Warwick Montgomery, TractatusLogico-Theologicus (Bonn:Verlag fr Kultur und Wissenschaft,2002). The culmination ofMontgomeryÕs many books during a long and productive apologetics career, thisshort book organizes his evidential apologetic under about 1800 propositions inlogical sequence, including logic, literature, history, myth, science,philosophy, jurisprudence, political theory, and theology.

I. Evidence from GeneralRevelation (GR)

What evidence has Godprovided from general revelation (whether external GR or internal GR) that wecan use to help others see that Xy is true?

Robert DunzweilerÕsdefinition of GR: ÒDivine self-disclosure in mediate, natural mode.Ó

How does God reveal himselfthrough what he has made, whether out there in nature, or insideourselves? We will here confineourselves to the evidence out there in nature.

C.S. LewisÕ MereChristianity, in its first section ÒRightand Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe,Ó does an excellent job onthe internal evidence of con­science.

Within our area of evidencefrom external GR, I suggest two further subdivisions for the evidence we willconsider:

(1)Created Universe

(2)Created Life (including Created Humanity)

We have suggested above thatwe will be using evidence Godhas provided. Since we are insidethe universe and fallible, we may sometimes be mistaken in using or identifyingthis evidence, but often only time will tell us this. Like all human endeavors, we need to recognize ourfallibilities and put the results in God's hands. However, if we have scriptur­al warrant for a particularline of evidence, we are less likely to go astray. We will thus try to present such warrant as we go along.

A. Created Universe

Theexistence and nature of the universe itself is evidence for the existence ofthe God of the Bible and indirectly for biblical Christianity.

1. Scriptural Warrant forSuch Evidence

Isthere Scriptural warrant to believe that the universe itself is evidence forthe truth of Christianity? Yes, consider:

Psalm 19:1‑4 - The heavens (astronomy,meteorology?) are telling us about God via the quality of his craftsman­ship;they are telling all the time and are not limited by language barriers.

Romans 1:18-20 - Humans are without excuse forignoring God, and in fact mishandle evidence to do so, for he has revealed hisdeity and eternal power in what he has made.

Acts 14:15‑18 - This witness extends even tonon-sophisti­cated people, since God does good to them in many ways,including good harvests and times of joy.

2. Some possible lines ofargumentation:

Generalrevelation differs from special revelation. We now have all the Bible we are going to have, at leastuntil the appearance of the two witnesses in Rev 11 and probably till thesecond coming. We have beenstudying it for nearly 2000 years. But much new informa­tion turns up from general revelation everytime we build a bigger telescope, a better microscope, or a device forinvestigating areas of nature we have never looked at before.

a. The existence of the universe itself: Since itdoes not seem to be eternal, something else must be. An induc­tive form ofthe cosmological argument.

b. Design in the inanimate universe: An induc­tiveform of the teleological (design) argument. This has been strongly resist­ed, but evidence hascontinued to accumu­late in this area, and has become quite overwhelming inthe past generation. We will give some detail on this also.

c. Design in the animate universe: SinceDarwin, it has generally been thought this argument was no good (RichardDawkins, ÒDarwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheistÓ),apparent design being explained by random changes naturally selected for sur­vival. Howev­er, serious problems forevolution are undermining this move and tending to re‑es­tab­lishthe valid­ity of the teleo­logi­cal argu­ment frombiology. We will look at thisunder ÒB. Created Life,Ó below.

3. The Origin of the Universe

Thereis strong evidence that our universe had an origin, thus pointing to aCreator. The argument is basicallyinductive, and looks like this:

a. The universe exists. (If the person you're arguingwith doesn't believe this, then he or she is not ready for this kind ofargument!)

-Showsneed for common ground in argument.

-We need to listen to unbelievers to find out wherethey are and show them the problems of their view.

-Help them to see the Bible is right about truthsuppres­sion.

b. But the visible matter of the universe has notalways existed. Most of thismatter is in stars where, as they burn, it is being converted from the lessstable to the more stable elements (from hydrogen and helium thru heavierelements to the elements in the vicinity of iron). Moreover 70‑80% of the observable matter is hydrogen,and nearly all the rest is helium.

Seereferences at end of this section: Schatz­man 94-­117; Sciama 1‑14; Motz 135‑63; Hoyle321‑43; J&T 151-203, 254‑65.

-Like coming upon burning campfire in woods: Has italways been burning? Look at fuel,ash, use know­ledge of how wood burns.

-Musteither say universe hasn't always been running,

orthat there is some sort of unknown recycling mechanism.

c. The universe is expanding. The light coming to us from othergalaxies, except the few in our own group, has its spectral lines shifted tothe red, for which the only known cause would be the recession of galaxies from one another.

SeeSchatzman 128‑32; Sciama 37‑48; Motz 28‑53; J&T 265‑67.

-This will rule out theories of a static universe,which were natural alternatives to creation in the 19th century.

d. Since World War II, the principal alternative cosmo­logiessatisfying items a‑c, above, have been:

(1) Big‑bang cosmologies: no creation atpresent; uni­verse expanding from com­pressed state, some 10‑20billion years ago, called Òbig bang.Ó

-So density decreasing, universe getting thinned out,with wider spacing between objects (gal­axies, etc.).

-First proposed by George Lemaitre, modified by Gamowand others.

(2) Steady‑state cosmologies: continual (non-super­nat­ural)creation; expansion of matter balanced by crea­tion to keep densityconstant.

-This process is assumed to follow a natural law, sothere is no need for God.

-First proposed by Herman Bondi, Thomas Gold, FredHoyle.

SeeSchatzman 225‑46; Sciama 98‑127; Motz 54‑72; Hoyle 675‑94;J&T 267‑82.

e. The steady‑state model (at least in itsoriginal, fairly simple form) has failed to fit recent findings:

(1) Galaxy counts suggest universe was more crowdedearlier in its history. [Schatzman 238; Sciama 83; Motz 63‑66; J&T273‑74]

(2) So do quasar counts, with less chance of er­ror.[Sciama 93; Motz 67‑70]

-Steady state theory expects the universe to look thesame (e.g., have same density) at all places and all times.

-Looking at galaxies and quasars far away (which wesee as they looked long ago) shows the universe to have been much more crowdedthen, when it was younger.

(3) Background radio radiation. To radio tele­scopes, the skyappears ÒgrayÓ at night instead of ÒblackÓ as for optical telescopes; thedetails of this radia­tion (almost perfect uniformity at a tempera­tureof 3o K) fit what is ex­pected for the remains of the big‑bangÒfireball.Ó [Schatzman 233,245; Sciama 176‑84; Motz 70‑72; Hoyle680‑81; J&T 274-75]

-This radiation is naturally explained (was even pre­dicted)by the big-bang theory long before it was discovered. The steady-state theory proposes nothing of the sort.

-So we turn to the various varieties of the big-bangtheory.

f.The principal varieties of the big‑bang model are:

(1)Lemaitre's No‑Bounce: universe created at big bang.

-Universe created at big-bang (10-20 bill yrs ago)

-Lemaitre was RC priest & astronomer; made thispropos­al in 1930s.

(2) Gamow's One‑Bounce: universe has alwaysexist­ed, but bounces once in its history (at big bang).

-Big-bangwas a bounce from a previous contraction.

-Universe was initially (at infinite time in past) auniform distribution of hydrogen gas which gradu­ally contracted to bouncejust once at the big bang.

(3) pik's Oscillating: universe has always exist­ed,expanding and contracting, with last bounce at (last) big bang. [Sciama 98‑127;Motz 307‑08; J&T 267‑82]

-Until just a few years ago, this was most popu­larview, favored by such science popularizers as Isaac Asimov and Carl Sagan.

-The universe has always existed, expanding and con­tractingevery 100 billion years or so forever.

-Rather close to Hindu view of cosmology, as Saganpoints out in Cosmos.

g.The oscillating model (3) faces several problems:

(1) Stopping expansion: as yet no evidence for suffi­cientmatter to overcome expansion and start nec­essary collapse. [J&T 278‑81]

-If universe is to oscillate, it must stop expand­ing.

-Model assumes there is enough matter for its grav­ityto overcome expan­sion energy.

-Current observations (including amount of heavy H pro­ducedin big bang) suggest there is only about 10% of amount need­ed.

-Even more recently, it appears that the universe isnow expanding faster than it was early in its history.

(2) Stopping collapse: present evidence indicates thatno known force could stop collapse from be­coming black hole instead of bigbang. [Dicke 66‑67; Jastrow 29]

-Recently Stephen Hawking showed theoretical­lythat universe would not bounce if it were to collapse.

(3) Oscillating eternally: all known physical systemshave tendency to lose usable energy, so oscilla­tion would become smallerand smaller, damping to zero in finite time. [Schatzman 245]

-Comparebehavior of bouncing ball.

h.The one‑bounce model faces at least two problems:

(1) How will an almost infinitely large universe col­lapseto one point?

-How does all of universe ÒknowÓ where to col­lapseto?

-Somethinglike behavior of ripples from pebble drop­ped in pond if you film and then run film backwards.

(2) Why would it take an infinite time to do so?

-Know of no natural forces that start out infi­nitelyslowly and build up in such a way as to take infi­nite time to accomplishfinite task.

(3)Problem g(2) above, stopping collapse.

-Since this model also must have a bounce at big bang.

i. At present, only Lemaitre's no‑bounce big‑bangmodel (suitably updated; a creation model) fits the data without assuming theexistence of unknown, specialized forces to solve these problems. [Jastrow 19‑38;Ross gives an excellent up-to-date treat­ment]

-Naturally Lemaitre's view must be updated to dealwith additional scientific knowledge since 1930s.

-But it is impressive that this theory (which wasprobably part­ly based on Genesis) has shot down its oppo­nents.

j. Current anti-theistic forces in cosmological contro­versyare looking at universes which pop into existence without a cause! [See Hawking, and Ross, below, and myIBRI Research Report #15 (available free on www.ibri.org)]

Good Books to HelpBelievers & Unbelievers re/ Origin of Universe:

Heeren, Fred.Show Me God: What the Message from Space Is Telling Us About God. Wheeling, IL: Searchlight Publications, 1995. An excellent lay-level presentation of the sorts of evidencethat Hugh Ross covers below in a more technical fashion. Heeren is or was a science reporter whohas become a Christian. Featuresinterviews with major figures in cosmology. Very readable. Highly recommended.

Ross, Hugh.The Fingerprint of God.2nd ed. Orange, CA: Promise Publishing,1991. The best available work onthe relation of biblical teaching about the cosmos to the latest scientificfindings. Ross has a PhD inastronomy from the University of Toronto, and he is a full-time evangelist tointellectuals. Topics coveredinclude a historical survey of cosmological theories; the recent evidence for acreated universe and the God behind it; biblical evidence for long creationdays; the Genesis creation account; the problem of suffering and evil; and theGospel according to creation. Extensive references, indices, and glossary.

Ross, Hugh.The Creator and the Cosmos: How the Greatest Scientific Discoveriesof the Century Reveal God. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress,1993. An excellent work onevidence of design in nature, both in the cosmos as a whole and in the enormousnumber of detailed features of the earth that are necessary for it to supportlife.

Ross, Hugh.AA Beginner=s B and Expert=s B Guide to the Big Bang,@ Facts for Faith (Quarter3, 2000): 14-32. This is the mostup-to-date presentation of the evidence by an evangelical, given in auser-friendly fashion, yet with extensive references.

Additional Bibliographyfor Origin of Universe:

Dicke, Robert E.Gravitation & the Universe.Philadelphia: American PhilosophicalSoc., 1970.

Hawking, Stephen.A Brief History of Time. New York:Bantam, 1988.

Hoyle, Fred.Astronomy & Cosmology: A Modern Course. SanFran­cisco: Freeman, 1975.

Jastrow, Robert.Until the Sun Dies.New York: Norton, 1977.

________ and Thompson, Malcolm H. Astronomy: Fundamentals &Frontiers, 3rd ed.New York: Wiley, 1977.

Motz, Lloyd.The Universe: Its Beginning & End. New York: Scrib­ners, 1975.

Newman, Robert C. ÒCritical Examination of Modern Cosmolog­ical Theories,ÓIBRI Research Report 15 (1982).The same article appears as chapter 2.3in J. W. Montgomery, ed., Evidence for Faith. Dallas:Probe/Word, 1991. Available for freedownload at www.ibri.org.

Ross, Hugh.The Fingerprint of God.Orange, CA: Promise, 1989.

________.The Creator and the Cosmos.Colorado Springs: Nav­Press, 1993.

Schatzman, E. L.The Structure of the Universe.New York: World University Library, 1968.

Sciama, Dennis W.Modern Cosmology.Cambridge: University Press, 1971.

****

Power-Point Talk: TheCosmos and the Bible: A Critical Examination of Modern CosmologicalTheories [Note: all thePowerPoint talks herein are at www.ibri.org.]

An earlier version of thetext of this talk can be found in IBRI Research Report 15 (1982) entitled ÒA Critical Examination of ModernCosmological Theories,Ó available in hardcopy from IBRI at $2.50 plus shipping,or downloadable free from www.ibri.org.

Cosmology: What is It?

Studyof the known parts of the universe to try to describe the whole universe.

Interpreting information presently reaching earth totry to reconstruct entire history of cosmos.

Importance of CosmologyPhilosophically

Awaste of time! - Hannes Alfven

Largevariety of cosmological models

Oneof the most basic questions we can ask

Tooimportant to be ignored

Importance of CosmologyBiblically

Theuniverse is created.

ItsCreator is a person.

TheCreator will one day call us to account for our every thought and action.

TheCreator has imbedded evidence in the cosmos that it is created.

Importance of CosmologyScientifically

Oneof the most basic questions of science

Since World War 2 (especially recently) the scientificevidence is more extensive than ever:

radiotelescopes

understandingnuclear & particle physics

artificialsatellites, esp COBE and Hubble space telescope

Thescientific evidence points to a created cosmos.

The Cosmos and the Bible:Overview

Scientificdata relevant to cosmology

Variouscosmological models

someproposed by secular scientists

someproposed by Bible believers

Proposea best model using both scientific and biblical data

The Nature of Stars: OurSun as a Sample

Massiveball of gas held together by own gravity

Temperature1000s of degrees at surface, millions in center

Heatproduced by nuclear reaction like hydrogen bomb, but controlled.

Enoughhydrogen in a star like sun to burn for ten billion years.

The Nature of Stars: Howdo we know that stars are suns?

Measuringdistances to nearby stars:

TheAjumping finger@

Usingparallax due to width of earth=s orbit

Apparentbrightness of objects decreases with the square of the distance.

So starsare as bright as the sun

Measuringmasses of stars

Theycover a range that includes our sun.

Starsvary in size, mass, color; the Main Sequence stars

A Miniature Universe: theCosmology of Harold Camping (Family Radio)

Thewhole universe is only a few light-years across.

The parallax method shows that the thousand neareststars are closer than the rest, but doesn=ttell us how far the background stars are.

All distancemeasurements used on the background stars are unreliable.

A Miniature Universe:Scientific Problems

Binarystars: compare speed in orbit with apparent size of orbit and time to make acircuit.

Dimmerstars would be too small to hold their gas.

Clustersof stars fit the main sequence:

samesort of pattern as in nearby stars

both clusters and nearby stars are explained by sameenergy mechanism if clusters are at great distances

Galaxies: Our Milky Wayand Other Galaxies

Hugecollection of stars, ranging up to many hundreds of billions of stars

Some shaped like pinwheels (spirals), most likespheres, footballs, M&Ms (ellipticals), a few rather shapeless (irregulars)

Theseappear to be at distances of millions to billions of light-years.

Distances to Galaxies:Various Measuring Techniques

Notby parallax, since all are too far away

Mostmethods depend on comparing the apparent and actual brightness of variousobjects:

Mainsequence stars of same color have same brightness

Variablestars whose actual brightness correlates with variation period

Brighteststars and brightest (globular) clusters tend to have a fixed brightness

Likewisefor brightest galaxies in a cluster

An Optically SmallUniverse: the Cosmology of Moon and Spencer

Some features of Einstein=s Theory of Relativity could be explained otherwise iflight travels in circles of radius 5 light-years instead of in straight lines.

So perhaps our universe is just a dozen or so starswithin this distance and their multiple images seen by us; compare pairedmirrors in clothing store.

View has attracted little interest in secular circles,but a good deal among yonug-earth creationists.

An Optically SmallUniverse: Biblical Problems

Bibleindicates a huge number of stars, like grains of sand on seashore.

This model doesn=tsolve the problem of light travel-time for young-earth model anyway, sincelight from objects that appear to be millions of light-years away must havemade many circuits and taken millions of years to do so.

An Optically Small Universe:Scientific Problems

Model claims all stars we see are multiple images of afew stars within a few light-years, like the images we see in paired mirrors inclothing stores or amusement parks.

Lookat our astronomical photos!

Toomuch variety in objects seen, even in stars

Toomany large objects with coherent structures

Galactic Red-shifts: AnExpanding Universe

Slipher and Hubble in 1920s found all but closestgalaxies have their light shifted to red, and shifted by a greater amount thegreater the distance.

Red-shift: dark or light lines in spectra from starsare found at longer wavelengths (redder color) than for same lines in lab onearth.

Sources of Red-shift

Gravity red-shift: light rising from gravitationalfield is shifted to red; stronger gravity gives more red-shift.

Motion red-shift: used in police radar to catchspeeders; motion toward police car is blue-shifted, motion away red-shifted;amount indicates speed.

Wehave more direct experience with red-shift of sound waves of auto coming or

Going.

Explanation of Red-shift

Gravity red-shift requires enormous gravitationalfield; sensible for specific large objects, but not for general light fromdistant stars.

Motion red-shift implies universe is expanding asthough from an explosion, though most cosmologists think it is space expandingrather than physical movement of galaxies.

Of these two explanations, latter seems more likely,yet it too involves a very far-reaching conclusion about the nature of theuniverse.

Thewhole thing (so much as we can see) is expanding like a balloon or soap bubble!

A Static ATired Light@ Universe

To avoid an expanding universe, some suggest that ourred-shift is due to some unknown mechanism by which light gets redder as ittravels longer distances.

Not impossible for a finite, created universe, but itpostulates an unknown mechanism without other evidence.

Problems for an EternalStatic ATired Light@ Universe

Gravityis attractive. How does theuniverse remain static?

Starsdon=t burn forever. How do they Arecycle@?

Ifuniverse infinite in size, then it violates Olbers= paradox:

Oursky is relatively dark at night.

Aneternal, infinite universe should have a very bright sky.

Olbers= Paradox: the Problem of a Dark Sky

Imaginethe universe divided up into concentric spheres, with us at center (like onion).

If the stars are (reasonably) uniformly distributed,then number of stars in each layer increases with the square of the radius.

But the apparent brightness of each star back here atearth decreases with the square of the radius, so each shell contributes anequal amount of light at earth.

Thus light reaching earth from infinite universeshould be infinite, or at least as bright as the surface of a star!

Olbers= Paradox: the Solution

Situation like that of seeing out of a forest. How deep must one go to see only treetrunks in all directions?

To have a dark sky, universe must not be deep enoughto see only star surfaces in all directions.

Thusthe universe is of finite size, or finite age (or average density of stars =zero).

A Young ACreated Light@ Universe

Mostcommon view among young-earth creationists

Universeis seen as very large, but only some 10,000 years old.

Since most objects visible in our large telescopes aremore than 10,000 light-years away, the light coming from them must have beencreated on the way.

A Young ACreated Light@ Universe: Problems

Astronomicalobjects are sending us a stream of information about their history.

For objects > 10,000 light-years away, this historymust be fictitious, since they did not exist so long ago.

Given that God cannot lie, this view seems to havemore problems than does the view that the Bible does not narrate a recentcreation.

Setterfield=s Changing Speed of Light Cosmology

To avoid these problems, suggested that speed of lightinfinite at creation, has recently settled down to current value.

ThusAdam and Eve could see the distant stars right away.

Noneed to accuse God of showing us fictitious history.

Changing Speed of Light:Problems

Einstein=s equation E = mc2 measures energy producedby nuclear reactions.

If humans existed when c was 100x larger, then c2was 10,000x larger, and sun would have vaporized earth!

If m is adjusted downward to keep E constant, thenmasses too small to keep air (or people) on earth=s surface!

The Isotropic RadioBackground

Discoveredin 1960s by Penzias and Wilson, who later received Nobel Prize for this.

Atradio wavelengths, sky is not black but gray (compare Olbers= Paradox).

This is very uniform, in all directions, times, andseasons, so does not come from our solar system, galaxy or cluster.

Therecent observations of the COBE satellite show a perfect fit to a 2.7 degree

Blackbody.

The Isotropic RadioBackground: Consequences

Such a background was predicted years in advance byGeorge Gamow as a natural consequence of a ABig-Bang@ cosmology.

In such a scheme, it would be the remains of a glowfrom the moment when the universe became cool enough to be transparent, about100,000 years after its creation.

Othercosmologies have no natural explanation for this phenomenon.

Quasars: Quasi-StellarRadio Sources

Looklike stars through (optical) telescopes

Unusuallybright in radio-telescopes

Haveenormous red-shifts, with most of them apparently billions of light-years away

The Steady-State Cosmologyof Bondi, Gold and Hoyle

Takesaccount of red-shifts and finite ages of stars

But seeks to preserve an infinite, eternal universe(i.e., no Creator) by having new matter pop into existence by natural causes atjust the rate to keep up with expansion.

Seen as philosophically more satisfying (to atheists)in that universe looks the same at all times in its history (PerfectCosmological Principle).

The Steady-StateCosmology: Problems

Violatesvirtually all known conservation laws

Doesn=t have any natural explanation for 3-degree blackbodyradiation

Nor for fact that quasars appear to be more common atgreater distances, i.e., earlier in history of universe

The Big-Bang Cosmology:Advantages

Fitsobservations of expanding universe and stars of finite age

Predicts isotropic radio radiation, giving itsfrequency dependence exactly and approxi­mate value of its temperature

Fitsobservation that quasars more frequent in early history of universe

The Big-Bang Cosmology:Varieties

No-bounceversion - universe begins at big-bang event

One-bounceversion - eternal universe, bounced once at big-bang event

Oscillatingversion - eternal universe, bounces every 100 billion years w/ a big-bang

event

No-Bounce Big-Bang: GeorgeLemaitre

Universehas not always existed

Cameinto existence at big-bang event

Mightexpand forever, might collapse back into black hole

One-Bounce Big-Bang:George Gamow

Universehas always existed

Farback in past, just a thin soup of hydrogen gas

Graduallypulled together by gravity, getting denser and hotter until it bounced at big-

bang.

Sincethen, it has formed galaxies, stars, planets, life.

Allthis will end with a whimper.

Oscillating Big-Bang:Popularized by Sagan and Gamow

Eternal,like Gamow=s cosmology.

Buthave a bounce every 100 billion years or so.

Maybe the bounce changes the basic physical constants,giving a different kind of universe each time; maybe not.

Foreach cycle, the universe ends with a bang.

Oscillating Big-Bang:Problems

Universe doesn=tappear to have enough matter density to stop expansion; in fact, it looks likeexpansion may even be speeding up

A contracting universe (as in oscillating just beforebounce) would collapse into a black hole instead of bouncing.

Even if neither of these were a problem, would auniverse be able to expand and contract forever without irreversible changes?

One-Bounce Big-Bang:Problems

Sharesproblem of bounce with oscillating version.

How would an infinitesimal rate of bounce eventuallyproduce a universe-wide big-bounce?

The Cosmos: CurrentSummary of Scientific Data

Stillcannot specify a single model, but

Theuniverse gives every evidence of being very large

Theuniverse certainly looks old, but of finite age

Theuniverse appears to be created

Someversion of the no-bounce big-bang model best fits the current data

The Cosmos and the Bible:Biblical Data

TheBible pictures the universe as immeasurably large, but apparently finite insize.

The Bible says the cosmos was created at a finite timein the past by the infinite, personal God of the Bible, and that it evidenceshis craftsmanship.

TheBible pictures the universe as running down.

Manysee the Bible as picturing the universe as only a few thousand years old.

The Universe asImmeasurably Large

AI will make the descendants of David... as countlessas the stars of the sky and as measureless as the sand on the seashore@ - Jer 33:22

AWhen I consider your heavens, the work of yourfingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is man thatyou are mindful of him?@ - Psalm 8:3-4

The Universe as Finite

AHe determines the number of the stars and calls themeach by name@ - Psalm 147:4

The Universe as Created

AIn the beginning God created the heavens and the earth@ - Gen 1:1

ABy faith we understand that the universe was formed atGod=s command, so that what is seen was not made out ofwhat is visible@ - Heb 11:3

The Universe as Designed

AThe heavens declare the glory of God, the skiesproclaim the work of his hands.@ - Ps 19:1

ASince the creation of the world God=s invisible qualities B his eternal power and divine nature B have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, sothat men are without excuse.@ - Rom 1:20

The Universe is RunningDown

AIn the beginning you laid the foundations of theearth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear outlike a garment. Like clothing youwill change them and they will be discarded.@ - Ps 102:25-27 (also Heb 1:10-12)

Is the Universe Young?

Thetraditional understanding of the Bible.

Mainreason for the strength of the young-earth creation movement among Bible-

Believers.

Bibledoes not teach the earth is young.

Bibledoes not say the days of Genesis were literal or consecutive.

Bibledoes not say genealogies of Gen 5 and 11 should be added up to get a

chronology.

Is the Universe Old?

See my arguments in Genesis One and Origin of Earth; those of Hugh Ross in Creation and Time; those of Alan Hayward in Creation and Evolution.

Seealso David Snoke=s book A Biblical Case for an Old Earth (IBRI, 1998).

An earth & universe billions of years old is nottaught explicitly in the Bible either, but it is not in disagreement with afair and reasonable interpretation of the biblical creation account.

An old earth & universe seems to harmonize thedata of nature and Scripture in such a way that we need not postulatefictitious history in either source.

**** end power-point talk

4. Inanimate Design in theUniverse

Thereis even stronger evidence for God in the marvelously precise and intricate fitbetween various features of the universe that make it possible for it tosupport life. See my chapter ÒInanimateDesign as a Problem for Nontheistic WorldviewÓ in Montgomery, Evidence forFaith and Hugh Ross, The Creatorand the Cosmos.

a. The Argument

(1) There are numerous features in our universe which,if very slightly different, life would impossible, either locally oruniversally.

(2) These features could not have been adjusted bymutation and natural selection since they involve inanimate rather than livingthings.

(3) Ifthese things just happened by chance, then our uni­verse is unbelievablyunlikely in very non‑trivial ways.

(4) If these things were designed, then our universe israther like one would expect, particularly if its Designer had intentionallyput evidence of his exis­tence in the structure of nature.

(5) Therefore, these features are natural consequencesof a created world, but unbelievably unlikely in a world without a designer.

b. The Details

****begin power-point talk

Cosmos and Contact:Discerning Signs of Intelligence in theUniverse

Introduction

Want to talk about the religion of Carl Sagan as it isrevealed in the two films and books Cosmos and Contact, making someuse also of Sagan=s last book The Demon-Haunted World.

Not just a survey of Sagan=s views, but an attempt to think through the wholequestion of how one should decide between one worldview and another

Sagan=s Opening Statement in Cosmos

The cosmos is all that is,

or ever was,

or ever will be

This is not a scientificstatement, but a religious one.

From this statement, itappears that Sagan believes nothing exists but the cosmos.

Does Carl Sagan have areligion?

What is AReligion@?

Webster=s New World Dictionary (1955)

Sagandoesn=t have a religion by first two meanings here, but considerthe 3rd:

AAnyspecific belief, worship, conduct, etc., often involving a code of ethics and aphilosophy.@

Roy Clouser, The Myth ofReligious Neutrality, 21-22:

AAreligious belief is any belief in something or other as divine.@

A>Divine= means having the status of not depending on anythingelse.@

Sagan has a religion in thissense, as we shall see that he believes the universe has always existed.

The Big Bang (Cosmos,246)

In thattitanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has neverceased. It is misleading todescribe the expansion of the universe as a sort of distending bubble viewedfrom the outside. By definition,nothing we can ever know about was outside.

Here Sagan seems to indicatethat he believes there is nothing outside the universe, or at least, that wecan never know about anything beyond our universe. Is this true? How could we learn about something that we cannot reach out to with ourtechnology? Sagan will try toaddress this in his sci-fi novel and film Contact.

How it all Began (Cosmos,257)

In manycultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe our ofnothing. But this is mere temporizing...if we decide [where God comes from] to be unanswerable, why not save a step anddecide that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say God has always existed,why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?

Here we see that Sagan isvery reluctant to allow the postulation of a God to help in understand­ingthe universe.

Sagan=s Methodology (Demon-Haunted World)

B Sagan is concerned about the rise of Asuperstitions,@e.g., New Age philosophies, belief in UFOs, belief in supernatural.

BSagan wants to be open to the evidence of nature.

B Hedoes not in principle rule out thesupernatural.

B He says he is not impressed by evidence for thesupernatural he has seen.

But is it really true that weare faced with a lack of evidence for God?

Origin of Life (Cosmos,39)

Sagan admits there is much wedon=t understand about the origin of life, including theorigin of the genetic code (the information stored in DNA molecules). He admits there are many majorquestions in science which have not been explained by purely naturalcauses. But Sagan thinks that allof these will eventually be explained without having to call in thesupernatural as a cause. [a sortof promissory materialism]

Complexity of Life (Article ALife@ in Encylopaedia Britannica [1970])

Theinformation content of a simple cell has been estimated as around 1012bits, comparable to about a hundred million pages of the Encyclopaed­iaBritannica. (13:1083B)

Sagan himself, in his articleALife@ which appearedin two editions of the EB, granted that the complexity of even the simplestknown life is staggering.

Recognizing a Message froman Extra-Terrestrial

In his science fiction novel Contact, made into a film just a few months before he died,Sagan imagined what it would be like to receive a message from higherintelligences.

How might we recognize such amessage?

BStrong signal

B Astring of a few dozen prime numbers would be decisive

B The whole message to build the transport machine isabout 50,000 pages

We want to look at a15-minute clip from this film.

Film Clip from Contact

Starts with Ellie Arroway=s arrival on the planet (or spaceship?) in Vega systemand her experi­ences there. When she returns, the powers that be on earth refuse to believe sheactually made the trip. Aninteresting exercise on how one could prove the existence of a higherintelligence than our own. Somevery strong parallels with evidence for God and for the resurrection of Jesus!

Contact: How the Novel Ended

For some reason, the bookends very differently than the film. In the book, the hero, Ellie Arroway, comes to believe in the existenceof God because she is confronted with what seems to her (and to Sagan?) incontrovertibleevidence.

Ellie finds that in theinfinite run of the digits of the number Api,@ there is a place where a picture of a circle isgiven.

The Film Doesn=t End This Way!

Why not? Did Sagan have second thoughts? Did Hollywood veto this ending? Did Sagan back away from Athe precipice of theism@ in the last years of his life? He comes closer to Christianity in this novel than in anything he wrotebefore or after.

I fear that part of thereason for this was that Sagan didn=tlike the idea of God sending messages. For if we seriously entertain this as apossibility, we may start looking for them. And if we look for them, we will indeed find them, and thiswould force us to reconsider our whole worldview and lifestyle.

Might God Send Such aMessage?

If God exists, he certainlymight!

Where would he put such amessage?

Christians claim he put onesuch message in the Bible.

But there is good evidencethat he has also put such a message in:

BThe structure of the universe itself

BLiving things

The Universe and God=s Message

Several books, dating back asearly as 1913, but most since the mid-1980s, have pointed to a marvelous Afine-tuning@ inthe structure of our universe:

BLawrence Henderson, The Fitness of the Environment

BPaul Davies, The Accidental Universe

BJohn Barrow & Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle

BHugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos

BMichael Denton, Nature=sDestiny

Fine-Tuning of theUniverse

There are four known basicforces in the universe:

BStrong Nuclear Force (strength = 1)

BElectromagnetic Force (strength = 1/100)

BWeak Nuclear Force (strength = 1/100,000)

BGravity (strength = 1/1039)

As divergent in strength asthese forces are, if their strengths were only very slightly different, theresults would be disastrous!

The Strong Force

The strong force isapparently the external appearance of the force that binds the so-called Aquarks@ together.It is the strongest we know about, andhas a very short range of influence, about the diameter of an atomicnucleus. Its most obvious influenceis to hold atomic nuclei together.

B50% weaker, no stable elements in the universe

B 5%weaker, deuterium not stable, stars won=tburn

B 5%stronger, diproton stable, stars explode!

The strong force is tuned to+ or - 5% for our universe to function!

The Weak Force

The weak force is some100,000 times weaker than the strong force, and of much shorter range. It is more obscure to the non-physicistthan the other forces, but is involved in the decay of neutrons.

- few% weaker:

* too little heliumformed in big bang, too few heavy elements

*heavy elements stay trapped inside stars

-few % stronger:

*too much helium formed in big bang, too many heavy elements

*heavy elements stay tapped inside stars

The weak force must befine-tuned to a few % to have any heavy elements (carbon and heavier) outsidestars where they can be used for planets and people!

Electromagnetic Force

The e-m force is veryfamiliar to us, being involved in all our electrical devices. It is also what makes solid objectssolid.

B number of + and - charges in the universe almostexactly equal, to better than one part in 1040

B protons and electrons are drastically different inmass, and Afroze out@ atvery different times in the history of the universe

If not for this equality of +and - charges, electromagnetism (being much stronger) would overwhelm gravity,with the result that there would be no universe of galaxies, stars andplanets. Electromagnetism isfine-tuned to one part in 1040!

Gravity

Gravity is also veryfamiliar, though it is the weakest of all these forces. It is the force that is mainlyresponsible for the movement of the galaxies, stars and planets through space.

There is a very close balancebetween gravity and the expansion of the cosmos:

B weaker by 1 part in 1060: universe expandstoo quickly, no galaxies or stars

B stronger by 1 part in 1060: universecollapses too quickly, no galaxies or stars

Gravity is fine-tuned tocosmic expansion at the big bang to one part in 1060!

Fine-Tuned Universe

Combining these cases givesfine-tuning to one part in 10100. How big is 10100? There are estimated to be 1080 elementaryparticles (protons, electrons, etc.) in our universe, so need 1020universes to get 10100 particles.

So to explain this fine-tuningby chance, we have to imagine marking one electron (say) in all the 1020universes and then trying to find it purely by guesswork! Would you want to stake your life on achance like that?

To make such a fine-tuneduniverse by chance, we something like 10100 universes formed bychance in order to expect that just one of them would turn out with this levelof fine-tuning. Do we reallyhave any evidence for another 10100 universes?

Besides the four cases weexamined above, Hugh Ross gives 22 more in his book Creator and the Cosmos. Theuniverse gives every evidence of being designed!

Sir Fred Hoyle on aDesigned Universe

A far more minor feature thanthe ones we have examined (the detailed spacing of nuclear energy levels forcarbon and oxygen) led former atheist Sir Fred Hoyle to make the followingstatement:

... asuperintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology

TheUniverse: Past and Present Reflection,16

Life and God=s Message

Living things are also astriking example of organized complexity. Those who believe that the cosmos is all there is have nothing butchance and survival to explain the level of order found in living things:

B Living things are by far the most complex objects yetfound in the universe

B RecallSagan=s remark about the E coli bacterium:

*info content = 1012 bits

* =100 million pages of the Encyclopaedia Britannica

B Human beings have trillions of cells, each of whichis more complex than an E colicells, and they are also coordinated

Sir Fred Hoyle and hisassociate Chandra Wickramasinghe spent a number of years investigating thecomplexity of living things. Theycame to the conclusion that life could not be understood in a worldview wherethere is no mind behind the universe. In an interview, Hoyle said:

Thechance that higher life forms might have emerged [by chance] is comparable withthe chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing747 from the materials therein.

Nature (12 Nov 81): 105

Recognizing an ET Message

If we go back to the scenariovisualized by Sagan in Contact, wefind a strong analogy between the message we find in the DNA of living thingsand the radio message detected by Ellie Arroway and her associates. Will we try to explain this away likethe villain Michael Kitz in Contact?

BStrong signal: seen in all living things

B Decisive: the information content is beyond theprobabilistic resources of the universe

B The whole message to build an E coli bacterium is about 100 million pages, but to buildthe Vegans= transporter was only 50 thousand pages.

The Religion of Carl Sagan

B Ifhe was really open to the universe

B Ifhe was really willing to consider the supernatural

Why didn=t Sagan respond to this sort of evidence?

Why did he draw back from Athe precipice of theism@?

Why indeed? Will you?

****end power-point talk

Attempts to Avoid Designer

Asseen above, universe looks very designed; as this has become apparent, somestrenuous attempts to avoid this:

WeakAnthropic Principle ‑ BrandonCarter

ifthese not balanced, we wouldn't be here; just acci­dent of observation: noobservers if not right

butthis is trivial response, not explanation:

ifmy parents hadn't met...

if1000 men in firing squad hadn't missed me...

StrongAnthropic Principle ‑ J.D.Barrow

futureevents cause past ones

butself‑contradictory

time‑machine paradox: imagine you have a time-ma­chine;then buy gold brick, multiply it by going back in time and picking it up andputt­ing in machine again and again

ManyWorlds Hypothesis ‑ HughEverett

at each moment, universe branching into many uni­verses;we are in one of few allowing life

butno evidence for such branching

OscillatingUniverse Hypothesis ‑ JohnWheeler

many worlds in succession rather than simulta­neously

but problems of bounce & infinite repetition (re­callour discussion under ÒOrigin of UniverseÓ)

Conclusions

Allof these make rather strong assumptions regarding the nature of unseen realitywithout any positive evidence.

Christianitypresents corroborating evidence for its world­view in historical evidenceof God's intervention, fulfilled prophecy, changed lives (which we look atlater in course).

Acreation model would expect that design of this sort would be present, but itis a great fluke in worldviews which have no mind behind the universe.

Good Books to HelpBelievers and Unbelievers re/ Design:

Denton, Michael J.Nature=s Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe. NewYork: Free Press, 1998. Probablythe best book available on evidence of design in both inanimate and animatenature. The author is a theisticevolutionist, but was formerly an agnostic, and was led to theism andChristianity through his studies of biology.

Ross, Hugh.The Creator and the Cosmos: How the Greatest Scientific Discoveriesof the Century Reveal God. Revised edition. Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1995.

Additional Bibliographyfor Design Argument

Adair, Robert K.The Great Design: Particles, Fields and Cre­ation. NewYork: Oxford Univ. Press, 1987.

Barrow, John D. and Frank J. Tipler. The Anthropic Cosmo­logicalPrinciple. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1986.

Carr, B.J. and M.J. Rees. ÒThe Anthropic Principle andthe Structure of the Physical World,ÓNature 278 (1979), 605‑12.

Davies, Paul C.W.The Accidental Universe. Cambridge: CambridgeUniv. Press, 1982.

________ and Brown, J., eds.The Ghost in the Atom: A Discussion of the Mysteries ofQuan­tum Physics.New York: Cam­bridge Univ. Press, 1986

Dyson, Freeman J. ÒEnergy in the Universe,Ó Scientific American 225(1971), 51‑59.

Hart, Michael. ÒHabitable Zones about Main Sequence Stars,Ó Icarus 37 (1979), 351‑57.

Leslie, John. ÒObservership in Cosmology: the Anthropic Princi­ple,ÓMind 92 (1983), 573‑79.

Ross, Hugh. The Fingerprint of God. Orange,CA: Promise Publ. Co., 1989.

B. Created Life

Asmentioned above, life itself (and humans in particular) are also evidence forthe existence of the God of the Bible and indirectly, for Christianity. This involves both a teleological-typeargument, the inability of evolution to craft the level of order seen in livingthings; and an anthropological-type argument (both regarding man's moral andintellectual equipment).

1. Scriptural Warrant forSuch Evidence

Besideswarrant under ÒCreated Universe,Ó above, is there Scrip­tural warrant tobelieve that life (particularly human life) is an evidence for the truth ofChristianity? Yes:

Mankindmarvelously made: Ps 139:13-16

-Psalmist gives thanks to God for being Òfearfully andwonderfully made,Ó Òskill­fully wroughtÓ

Mankind created in the image of God: Gen 1:26‑27; 9:6; 1 Cor 11:7; Jas3:9

-Someunspecified resemblance to God

-Stillretained to some degree after the Fall

Featuresof man as created: What is this ÒimageÓ?

-Seekingparallels supported by Scripture

Spiritualbeing: 1 Cor 2:11

-Ananalogy between God and man as spirits

-As we cannot see spirit of another human, so don'tknow what he/she is thinking unless re­vealed, so with God

-Philosopher Alvin Plantinga extends this concept asargument for exis­tence of God in God & Other Minds

Moralbeing: Rom 1:32‑2:1; 2:13‑15

-Not meaning we always act in accord with our moralstandards

-Butthat we have and use Òmoral machineryÓ

Madeto have dominion: Ps 8:3‑8

-Ties back into Gen 1:26-30, mankind's original design

-These 3 features also true of God: spirit, moral,ruling

Thesefeatures used as evidence for God:

Rom1:18‑19

-Depends on how we handle ¦v: ÒwithinÓ or ÒamongÓ?

-If ÒwithinÓ then conscience seen as evidence for God,as in moral argument; supported by Rom 2.

Acts17:29

-Paul speaking to educated Greeks

-Since we are made by God, ought not think divine na­tureis something we can make.

-Manis God-made rather than vice versa.

2. Some possible lines ofargumentation:

a. High level of order evidenced in life & inmankind vs. evo­lu­tion­aryproblem of explaining order by random processes (note Carl Sagan, Dragons ofEden, 46, 212).

-Thisis real dilemma even with simplest life forms.

-Great weakness in evolutionary model at this point.

b. Existence of ÒinitiativeÓ in mankind and other animals compared to cyber­netic problemof designing a machine that can turn itself on.

-Initiative here understood as ability to beginactions without any real external cause, to be the Òfirst causeÓ orself-starting.

-Cyberneticsis theory of control machinery.

-Example of control mechanism which responds tooutside influence: thermostat.

-Example of control mechanism which turns self off:novelty store Òcoffin.Ó

-Godis only absolute self-starter, first cause.

-But mankind, in limited sense, is also a creator;creator in realm of moral activity, apparently also art, etc.

-Relates to problem of whether humans just complexmachines or something more.

-See this problem in computers: a computer cannotdecide to do something itself (like write a new program) with­out humaninitiative being applied. SeeRoger Penrose, The Emperor's New Mind.

c. Level of intellect in mankind seems to be far above that necessary for man inprimitive conditions or even that necessary for most humans today; tension withman's competitors imagined during evolution (too much energy given to brain tocom­pete physically?).

-Tension in evolution: if some feature much betterthan necessary or useful for survival, organism should be beaten out bycompetitor which has used that energy for something else.

-Thus man's unneeded brain power would take away nutri­tionfrom muscles, coordination, eyesight, etc..

-Suggests mankind designed for something that requiresgreat intellect (ruling the earth), though this purpose not beingwell-fulfilled since the Fall.

Arthur Koestler, The Sleepwalkers: A History of ManÕs Changing Vision ofthe Universe (New York:Grosset & Dunlap, 1963), 514:

Thisis a very curious paradox indeed. The senses and organs of all species evolve (via mutation and selectionas we suppose), according to adaptive needs; and novelties in anatomicalstructure are by and large determined by those needsÉ. But it is entirely unprecedentedthat nature should endow a species with an extremely complex luxury organ farexceeding its actual and immediate needs, which the species will take millenniato learn to put to proper use – if it ever does. Evolution is supposed to cater foradaptive demands; in this case the goods delivered anticipated the demand by atime-stretch of geological magnitude. The habits and learning potentialities of all species are fixed withinthe narrow limits which the structure of its nervous system and organs permits;those of homo sapiens seemunlimited precisely because the possible uses of that evolutionary novelty inhis skull were quite out of proportion with the demands of his naturalenvironment.

d. Structure of rationality in mankind and universe. A strange fit between mankind and universe (seeSagan, Dragons of Eden, 216, 232‑33:Einstein: ÒMost incompre­hensiblething about universe is its comprehensi­bilityÓ). Yet humans don't al­ways obey their own logic!

-Man's logic appears well-designed to explain the uni­verse.

-Can deal with all sorts of things it could never havehad contact with during its supposed evolu­tion in a primitive environ­ment:e.g., mathemat­ics, atom­ic structure, poetry, music, art.

-Einstein was amazed that man's mind (developed bymuta­tion) should have these categories to handle all this.

-Xy can easily explain the match of mind with world asarising from a Creator who made both, designing human mind to function in andrule over nature.

-Evolution has only mutation and natural selection toexplain this.

e. Existence of moral standards in mankind. SeeLewis, ÒRight & Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the UniverseÓ in MereChristianity; also Abolition of Man

-Philosophically, we cannot derive an ÒoughtÓ from an ÒisÓ;so how do we explain the origin of this realm of human activi­ty?

-Abolition of Man shows parallel moral standards through­out world's cultures.

-This argues against independent development of morali­ty,and for a common source.

f. Existence of pleasure for mankind. See Loren Wilken­son's article ÒThe Problem ofPleasureÓ in J. W. Montgomery, Christianity for Tough‑Minded.

-Isall pleasure really biologically useful?

-Argues that Òbiologically usefulÓ explanation notsuffi­cient to explain variety and strength of human pleasures.

g. Existence of futility for mankind, esp. emphasized in OT book of Ecclesiastes.

-Lewis' concept of ÒjoyÓ in his Surprised by Joy deals with both this and previous item.

-Things after Fall are futile, as man was not designedto be what he is now (Òa ruin,Ó Buswell, Systematic Theology 1:255ff).

-This Òfrustrated designÓ is hard to explain by evolu­tion,since there is no apparent reason for de­sires which transcend the presentorder of things.

-This maybe the point of Eccl 3:11, ÒHe has put eternity in their hearts.Ó

Wewill not seek to work through all these in detail. The major opposition today to humanity and life as being evidenceof God is the claim that evolution explains all these phenomena with­outany need for God. We will attemptto sketch what is wrong with evolution scientifically, and how the biblicalpicture of a Creator God solves these problems.

3. The Problem of anEvolutionary Explanation of Mankind and Living Things

****begin power-point talk

Talk:The Creation-Evolution Debate: Recent Developments

Evolution is the ÒcreationmythÓ of secular humanism. It hashad a controlling influence on much of the basic outlook of our secular societytoday.

Favorable Evidence forEvolution:

It would be a mistake toassume that evolution is nothing but rebellion against God. There is a great deal of that in it,but it is also based on a number of discoveries made since about 1800, as newpages of general revelation have come to light. These discoveries put pressure on Xns to rethink how toharmonize science and Xy, and opened opportunities for those who wanted toescape the restraints of the lifestyle commanded by the Bible.

Oldearth, some billions of years

Initiallyno life

althoughperiod for this now seen to be very short

Thenjust simple life

firstprokaryotic, then eukaryotic cells

Thenexplosion of life at beginning of Cambrian period

allanimal phyla but bryozoans (Gould, Wonder­ful Life)

Thenfishes, followed by amphibians, reptiles,

birdsand mammals, then apes, then mankind

Similaritiesof biochemicals also looks favorable to evolution

Sodoes homology, similar structures, esp. in vertebrates

So why doesn=t everybody believe in evolution?

Avariety of reasons, depending on person's worldview:

Some have another source of information thanscientific which raises questions for them: (if one be­lieves this world is all there is, nothingbut natural forces, then something like evolution has to be true; if one be­lievesin a God behind everything, then he may have used some other method, assimilarities are a common feature of design also): e.g.,

Young-earthcreationists don't think earth old enough.

Old-earth creationists think earth old, but that cer­taindata doesn't favor evolution (more below).

Not all opponents to evolution object for religiousrea­sons e.g., Denton, Evolution, a Theory in Crisis; Hubert Yockey, Information Theory and MolecularBiology.

Not all who have religious reservations feel thatthese are the decisive problems; after all, there are many theis­ticevolutionists who think God did it via evolution. I think the decisive problemis scientific evidence.

Could so many scientists be wrong? Consider the case of conti­nentaldrift, with a sudden paradigm shift in the middle of the 20th century.

Want to look at scientific problems for evolution,partic­ularly evolution in the ÒBlind WatchmakerÓ form, that purely randomchanges are made into apparently designed structures merely by naturalselection, the model favored by Charles Darwin and especially emphasized byRichard Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker.

Some Scientific Problemsfor Evolution:

1. Problemswith generating order by random events merely selected for survival

2. Problemswith the fossil record

1. Problems withGenerating Order by Randomness & Survival

Originof life: Mutation and natural selection will not work until one has amechanism capable of replicating itself. The minimum complexity for this self-reproducing automaton seems beyondthe probability resources of our universe over its history.

Originof specific biochemicals: There are many thousands of examples(e.g., cyto­chrome c) which will not work until they have a certain levelof complexity that also seems out of range of what can be accom­plishedwith the number of atoms and length of time available.

Originof Chemical Processes and Organs:This relates to the problem that we find in living things many examples oflarge Aminimal complexity.@ How can one build a system by randomprocesses selected only for survival that requires many features workingtogether before it has any function?

Examples:

Rotarymotor in the bacterial flagellium

Bloodclotting mechanism

Intracelltransport

Vision

These are well discussed inMichael Behe, Darwin=sBlack Box and also in Michael Denton,Nature=s Destiny.

2. Problems with theFossil Record

The Relative Lack ofTransitional Fossils.

ÒTheextreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the tradesecret of paleontology.Ó

StephenJay Gould, Natural History 86(1977):14

ÒWell,we are now about 120 years after Darwin... ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had inDarwin=s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases... have had to bediscarded or modified.Ó

DavidRaup, Field Museum Bulletin 30(1979):25

Ò...despite the detailed study of the Pleistocene mammals of Europe, not a singlevalid example is known of phyletic (gradual) transition from one genus to an­other.Ó

StevenM. Stanley, Macrovolution: Pattern & Process (1979): 82

Notice we have said ÒrelativeÓlack. There is no need to arguethat there are no fossils that might be transitional. The problem is that Darwinian ÒBlind WatchmakerÓ evolutionhas only a random walk to cross the gaps between the major kinds of life.Instead the fossil record lacks transitional forms systemat­ically abovethe level of the couple lowest categories in the biological classifica­tionsystem. Evolutionists havecharacter­istically sought to explain this by pointing to the fragmen­tarynature of the fossil record; or by postulating that all signifi­cantevolution takes place in small isolated populations.

Fragmentary Fossil Record? Darwinand many since have argued that the lack of transitions in the fossil record isdue to the fragmentary nature of the fossil record. The fossil record doubtless is fragmen­tary, but is itreasonable to believe that this accounts for hiding all the importanttransitions, given that some quarter billion fossils have been collected,studied and stored in university museums? By analogy, one can make an awfully detailed graphics image with 1/4billion pixels!

The Shape of the FossilRecord.

The various forms ofDarwinism (original, Neo-Darwinian, Punctuated Equilibria) all predict aspreading, cone-shaped ÒtreeÓ for the development of life's variety on earth,i.e., that the tree of life will form by the divergence of species into genera,genera into families, .... and classes into phyla, by the accumulation of smallchanges. The actual shape is of asingle trunk suddenly joined by a large number of bushes! For instance, all the animal phylawere formed within 10 million years at the Cambrian explosion (over 500 millionyears ago) and none since then, the opposite of the prediction.

Biological ClassificationSystem for the common dog

Kingdom: Animals

Phylum: Chordates

Subphylum: Vertebrates

Class: Mammals

Order: Carnivores

Family: Canidae

Genus: Canus---------- Stanley: no gradual transitions above this level

Species: familiaris

Small populations: It istrue that any single mutation is more likely to become dominant in a small popu­lationthan in a large one, as the size of random fluctua­tions from average in asmall popula­tion is larger than in large ones. Compare tosses of coins for a small number of tosses vslarge. The number depen­dencyis N-1/2. This is usedby evolutionists today to argue that all the significant transitions took placein small populations, which we would not expect to show up in the fossilrecord.

Multiple mutations: However,to make any significant changes such as character­ize differences betweenhigher levels of the biological classification scheme, many mutations are neces­sary,probably hundreds or thousands for the higher levels. The relative chance of getting (say) 5 of the rightmutations in a given population varies with the size of the population as N5,so that a large population is much more likely to have the mutations than asmall one. This more than cancelsout the benefit of small populations.

Punctuation. AsGould, Eldridge, et al have pointed out, the fossil record typically shows suddentransitions to new forms ratherthan gradual transitions. Geneticists have not been able to figure out how such transitions couldoccur. This does not favorevolution as an undirected process.

Stasis: Thefossil record is also characterized by stasis, that is, each particular form of life appears in therecord suddenly, and does not change significantly over its history in therecord, either eventually becoming ex­tinct, or surviving till today. This suggests that mutation and naturalselection is basically a conservative mechanism, as confirmed by computersimulations.

Islands of function:Astudy of living organisms suggests that they are ÒislandsÓ of function in themidst of a ÒseaÓ of dysfunction Cthat around each living thing are a multitude of slightly different designsthat don't work. The standardtheory of evolution (in which life has gradually developed by a multi­tudeof small changes) must postulate that these are ÒisthmusesÓ of function ratherthan Òis­lands,Ó or that the islands are close enough together for singlemutations to be able to jump from one to another. But how does one get from two-chambered to 3-cham­beredto 4-chambered hearts? from push-pull lungs to flow-through lungs? from black& white vision to color vision? from legs to wings? from scales tofeathers? These things typically have no intermedi­ate forms and requirenumerous coordinated changes for each to work.

Conclusions:

Problems Generating Order

Originof Life

Originof Specific Biochemicals

Originof Processes and Organs

Problems with the FossilRecord

RelativeLack of Transitional Fossils

Shapeof Fossil Record

Inadequacyof Small Populations to Explain Large Changes

Punctuationand Stasis

Islandsof Function

Worldview: If youhold tenaciously that we live in a universe without a God, that there is nomind behind it all, then undirected evolution must be your explanation, and all appearances of design innature must be merely thedeceptive products of that Ôblind watchmaker,Õ no matter how badly the theoryworks. But of course, yourtenacity may be mis­placed. And how could you ever find that out, if you never look at thescientific problems facing a Òno-godÓ worldview?

If you admit that theseproblems indicate a Mind behind the universe, then that Mind may have worked bypurely natural means or by abrupt means or by some combination thereof. But having such a Mind (God!) raisesthe question of what life is all about and what I am going to do about it.

****end power-point talk

Good Books to HelpBelievers and Unbelievers re/ Darwinism:

Behe, Michael J.Darwin=s Black Box: the Biochemical Challenge toEvolution. New York: Free Press, 1996. This is a delightful user-friendly presentation of theproblem of irreducible complexity as a stumbling block to Darwinism.Behe is a professor of biochemistry atLehigh University in the USA.

Denton, Michael J.Nature=s Destiny. See full bibliography and comments inprevious section on design.

Newman, Robert C.; John L. Wiester; Janet and JonathanMoneymaker.What=s Darwin Got to Do with It? A Friendly Discussion about Evolution. DownersGrove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000. Itis not kosher to give rave reviews about one=sown books, but the diverse gifts of the authorship team has produced anexcellent cartoon book designed for high school biology students.

Wells, Jonathan.Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong. Washington, DC: Regnery, 2000. A nice tour of ten of the most standard ÒpicturesÓ we associate withevolution.

Additional Bibliography onDarwinism:

Battson, Arthur L.On the Origin of Stasis by Means of Natural Processes. Colorado Springs: Access Research Network, 1993.

Bird, W. R. The Origin ofSpecies Revisited. 2 vols. New York: Philosophical Library, 1989.

Davis, Percival and Dean H. Kenyon. Of Pandas andPeo­ple: The Central Questionof Biologi­cal Origins, 2nded. Dallas, TX:Haughton, 1993.

Dawkins, Richard.The Blind Watchmaker. NewYork: Norton, 1986.

Dembski, William, ed.Mere Creation: Science, Faith and Intelligent Design. DownersGrove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998.

Denton, Michael. Evolution: a Theory in Crisis. Bethesda, MD: Adler andAdler, 1986.

Hayward, Alan.Creation and Evolution: Rethinking the Evidence from Science and theBible. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1995.

Johnson, Phillip E.Darwinism on Trial.Video, 2 hrs., Pasadena, CA: Reasons to Believe, 1993.

_____.Defeating Darwinism by OpeningMinds. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997.

Pun, Pattle P.T.Evolution: Nature and Scripture in Conflict? Grand Rapids: Zondervan/ Academie, 1982. Available for free download from www.ibri.org.

Shapiro, Robert.Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth. NewYork: Bantam, 1987.

Sunderland, Luther D.Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Prob­lems. Santee,CA: Master Books, 1984.

Thaxton, Charles B., Walter L. Bradley, and Roger L.Olsen.The Mystery of Life'sOrigin: Reassessing CurrentTheories. Lewis and Stanley, 1984, 1992.

Wells, Jonathan.Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth. Washington, DC: Regnery, 2000.

Wiester, John L.The Genesis Connection.Hatfield, PA: IBRI, 1983, 1992.

In summary, we suggest thatthe above-mentioned evidence from General Revelation points strongly to aninfinite, eternal, personal God of the sort revealed in the Bible.

II. Evidence from SpecialRevelation (SR)

Weturn now to consider evidence from special revelation, basically evidenceprovided by the Bible for the existence of the God of the Bible, the truth ofChristianity, and the inspiration of Scripture. We will group our materials under three headings:

(1)Preknow­ledge of science;

(2)Fulfilled prophecy; and

(3)Jesus.

A. Preknowledge of Science

Theidea here is that the God who made and controls the universe obviously knows agreat deal more about how it works than did the people living at the timevarious parts of Scripture were revealed and written. Perhaps God put into Scripture hints that would come to berecognized later when our understanding of nature had advanced, thus provid­ingevidence that the Bible is not merely the work of an­cient peoples.

1. Scriptural Warrant forSuch Evidence

Isthere Scriptural warrant to believe that there are mate­rials in Scrip­turewhich indicate an unusual knowledge of sci­ence in advance of what wasotherwise known then, which therefore constitute a line of evidence for thetruth of Chris­tianity? Yes,though the warrant is not so strong as for our other areas of evidence in this course. Consider:

a. The author of Scripture is also Creator of thatwhich sci­ence studies, as claimed in Psalm 19, Genesis 1, etc. It would not therefore be surprisingthat he might reveal such things, if he chose to do so.

b. Scripture contains important knowledge, some ofwhich is otherwise unknown. Therefore God is capable of convey­ing new information to finite,sinful humans in their languages.

Jer33:3: ÒI will tell you... things which you do not knowÓ - context basically prophetic knowledge

Ps119:97‑100: through Scripture we can know more than own teachers and thosew/ experience (in context, this is probably basically spiritual knowledge)

Deut4:6: your obedience to God's law will demonstrate your wisdom to nations aroundyou; i.e., when they see how much better your society is.

Prov1:1‑6: proverbs contain wisdom for both young,inexperienced and wiseexperienced; includes at least moral & behavioral information

c. Some of this appears to be scientific knowledge (Òscien­tificÓby subject matter, rather than by method).

Job38‑41: God questions Job at Job's request; definit­ely scientific information here.

Ex15:26; Deut 7:12, 15: Israelites kept from diseases if they will obey God'slaws; definitely medicalknowledge, though nature of mediation unclear (freedom from disease as resultor as reward?).

2. Lines of Argumentation: (My thanks to Dr. JohnBloom, biophysicist and theologian, Professor of Physics at Biola Universityand head of their masters program in science and Christianity, for some of thismaterial.)

Evidencefor (1) the compatibilityof the Bible with sci­ence, and (2) its uniqueness, is hard for most people to see, as the Bible is theonly ancient text that they ever read.

a. Genetics. Two nice examples:

Sheep breeding. Gen 30:31-31:12. NoteJacob's mistaken means (putting speckled, spotted sticks in front of the ewes);the ancient Bible characters did not themselves know modern science. But note also God's correction in the later dream. God knows true science and is able to communicate what isneeded in terms Jacob can under­stand. It is the kind of ram that mates with the ewe, not thesticks she sees.

Fertility. Gen 30:14-18. God'sblessing of Leah counters Rachel's attempt to get preg­nant with the helpof mandrakes. The one that has thehusband gets pregnant, not the one with the fertility potion.

Notethat God is correcting the false notions of the patri­archs, his ownpeople!

b. Astronomy.

Size of the Universe. Jer 31:37. Theheavens are immea­surable.

Shape of the earth. Job 26:10. Circular boundary between light and darkness on the earth's surface (cf.Prov. 8:27).

Support for the earth. Job 26:7. Nothing, i.e., the earth's support is non-material.

Note: I suggest that Job 26:11 Òpillars ofheavenÓ are clouds. (only occurrence of this phrase; compare Exodus 14:24)

Contrastother religions, cultures: Theuniverse is finite, the earth flat, the sky a solid dome. The sun, moon, plan­ets and starsare deified, their movements used for divining the future.

SomeExamples of scientific problems from the Qur'an:

34 [Sheba], 9: ÒDrop a fragment of the sky upon themÓ[unbe­lievers]

67 [Kingdom], 5: ÒWe have adorned the sky with lamps,and made them missiles against the devils ....Ó Meteors are stars thrown at devils who try to sneak into theheavenly assembly. See Campbell,p. 175.

c. Hygiene and Medicine.

Quarantine. Lev. 13:46. McMillen, p.21ff; Barfield, ch. 3-5.

Sanitation. Deut. 23:12-13.

Washingafter touching unclean things. Lev. 11ff

Eighth-Day Circumcision. McMillen, p. 92.

PsychologicalWell-being. Most of McMillen.

Contrast medical beliefs of surrounding cultures: Sorcery, amulets, Òsewage pharmacology.Ó

EbersPapyrus, McMillen, p. 19.

Babylonianmedical texts have Òno modern medical signifi­cance at all.Ó (Roderick E. McGrew, ÒMedicine inMesopota­mia,Ó Encyclope­dia of Medical History [1985], p. 186; Barfield p.189)

d. Agriculture.

Fallow fields for curbing crop disease (Lev. 25:1-6;7th year sabbati­cal cycle). Cairney, in Evidence for Faith,p. 133f.

3. Problems in using internalevidence.

a. The Bible carries historicalbaggage from Òtraditional word­ingÓ associated with translations made inpre-scientific eras.

Firmament solid sky. Follows the Greek LXX and LatinVulgate.

Hebrewraqia is better translated as Òexpanse.Ó See Robert C. Newman, The Biblical

Firmament: Vault or Vapor (IBRI, 2000).

b. Poetic wording was/ismisunderstood to have scientific con­tent. For example:

Foundations of the earth cannot be moved (Ps. 93:1,96:10)

 geocentric universe.

Talkingabout justice and the Òworld orderÓ.

Thewicked say ÒI shall not be movedÓ Ps. 10:6.

ÒFoundationsÓ are that which support the land masses.Earth cannot be moved from its orbit (foun­da­tion).

Translatingand understanding a given passage have a sub­jec­tive element. Use cautiously, evaluate criticism.

4. Argument in Detail (apower-point talk)

Astronomy in the Bible

Introduction

Isreligion, like art, music or food, a matter of taste?

Eachreligion claims to tell us how things really are.

Only Christianity offers much evidence to support itsclaims.

Here we compare Biblical statements in 4 areas ofastronomy with those of ancients and modern science.

The Size of the Universe

Bible:

Ps8:3‑4: amazing to Psalmist that God cares about man

Jer31:37: heavens immeasurable

Qur'an:

Sura2:19-20 - earth a bed, sky a dome

Sura22: 64 - holds sky from falling down

Sura34: 9 - let a part fall

ComparingBible and Qur=an

Bible:

Immeasurablylarge universe

Amazingthat God cares about humans

Qur=an:

A AChicken Little@universe

Domesky, that might fall on people below

AncientGreek Science:

Anaximander, About Nature:

starsare wheel-shaped masses of air, full of fire

sunmost distant object

about28x size of earth away

Modern Science:

Don=t know how big universe is; we still have not beenable to measure it!

About25 trillion miles to the nearest star (besides our sun)

About2 million light-years (12 quintillion miles) to next large galaxy

Themost distant known objects are over 10 billion light years away

(1light year = 6 trillion miles)

Noend in sight

The Number of Stars

Bible:

Gen15:5: large number, able to count them?

Jer33:22, Gen 22:17: uncountable, like sand

GreekScience:

Hipparchus,Ptolemy: anc. catalogues, about 1000 stars

(only about 6000 visible without telescope)

Democritus:speculated an infinite number of worlds

ModernScience:

Witheven a moderate telescope, can see millions of stars

OurMilky Way galaxy has perhaps 200 billion stars

Estimatedto be some 100 billion galaxies inour universe

SirJames Jeans, The Stars in Their Courses, 137

Numberof stars like number of grains of sand on earth

The Earth's Support

Bible:

Job26:7: earth hangs on nothing

Hindu Vedas:

earthflat & triangular

7stages: honey, sugar, but­ter, wine, etc.

supportedby elephants

Greek mythology:

Atlasholds up the earth

Greek philosophers:

water(Thales)

air(Anaxagoras)

nothing(Anaximander, contra Aristotle)

Modern Science:

supportis non‑material, balance of gravity & inertia

The Earth's Shape

Bible:

Fourcorners? Rev 20:8

Liberalview:

Flatearth with round or angular edges

Domesky attached to earth at edges

Atticrooms for rain and snow

Earthfloats on water

Isa40:22

Circleof earth

Spreadsout heavens

Job26:10

boundarybetween light and darkness on earth's surface is a circle

Luke17:34‑36

differenttimes in different places

Greekphilosophers:

flat(Hecataios)

pillar‑shaped(Anaximander)

round(Pythagoras)

Conclusionson Earth=s Shape

prettygood approximation to a sphere

linedividing day from night is very nearly a circle

Astronomy and the Bible:Summary

Biblesees universe as enormous, in contrast with most ancient views.

Biblesays stars are uncountable, like the sand of the sea; also a rare view inantiquity.

Biblesays earth is supported by nothing, also rare.

Bibleseems to picture a round earth, which was rare and counter-intuitive.

Conclusions

Needvery lucky guesses to avoid Biblical evidence

Contrastancient Jewish attempts to write Scripture:

1Enoch 72:3‑7: sun's chariot, gates, winds

3Baruch 3:6‑8: bore thru heaven's dome

Bibliography onPreknowledge of Science:

Barfield, Kenny. Why the Bible is Number 1: TheWorld's Sacred Writings in the Light of Science. Baker,1988.

Campbell, William.The Qur'an and the Bible in the Light of History andScience. Middle East Resources, 1992.

McMillen, S.I. and David E. Stern. None of These Diseases. 2nd ed. Revell, 1984.

Morton, Jean S.Science in the Bible. Moody,1980.

Newman, Robert C.The Biblical Firmament: Vault orVapor? IBRI, 2000.

B. Fulfilled Prophecy

Thishas been an important line of evidence for the truth of Christianity throughoutchurch history, beginning in the New Testament. In fact, as we note below, it was also important in the OldTestament period.

Prophecyis not particularly mysterious. God simply tells people what He is going to do and then He does it. Of course, imagining how He does thiscan be a bit tricky!

Inprinciple it is no more complicated than our using turn signals on anautomobile, except that God has perfect con­trol of history and we don'thave perfect control even of our automabiles!

1. Scriptural Warrant

Isthere Scriptural warrant to believe that fulfilled proph­ecy is a line ofevidence for the truth of Christianity? Yes, consider:

a. The Nature of Prophecy:

Provision of theprophet: Deut 18:9‑22

note reason for provision & test fortrue prophet

God controlshistory:

Prov 19:21; 16:33,9,1 - contrast humansw/ God

Isa 43:12‑13 - challenge to idols(other religions)

God produces thefulfillments: Isa 44:24‑28

God makes other ÒprophetsÓ fail,confirms his own prophets.

b. The Evidential Value of Prophecy:

In general: Isa41:21‑24; 44:6‑8

God,as if in a debate or trial, challenges the idols to tell the future,

intervenein history, or even explain the significance of past events.

Messianic:

Used by Jesus: Luke 24:25‑27,44

Explainshow things his followers thought had disqualified him from being Messiahactually prove his Messiahship on basis of OT prophecy

Used by apostles:

Acts2:22‑31 - Peter at Pentecost

9:22- Paul at Damascus

13:23,27‑29- Paul at Pisidian Antioch

17:2-3Paul at Thessalonica

18:2‑8- Paul at Corinth

-Paulcustomarily argues with the Jews using OT

Messianic prophecy.

2. Lines of Argumentation:

(1) Detailed prophecy far in advance of fulfillment implies control of future by ultimateauthor of Scripture.

(2) Predictions about Israel and the surrounding nations show that God is concerned about his people, aboutthe Gentiles, and about the behavior even of those who don=t know or care about him.

(3) Predictions about Messiahnot only demonstrate God's control of history, but Messiah is himself the focusand turning point of history.

3. Some of the BetterExamples:

Asketch here. We give more detailon some of these below, in items ##5 and 6, or in the next section of evidence,C. Jesus.

a. Prophecies about the Messiah:

‑‑Time ofHis Coming:

(seeIBRI Research Report #9 or Evidence of Prophecy, ch 10)

Gen49:10: to come while still king of Jews

Hag2:6-9: while 2nd temple still standing

Dan9:24-27: after 69 weeks

‑‑Nature ofMessiah: (see Research Report #6 or Evidence of Prophecy, ch 9)

OTparadoxes re/ person of Messiah solved by NT;

contrastapocalyptic, Qumran, rabbinic models

‑‑Curse onJeconiah: Jer 22:30

descendantsnot to rule again; NT solution via

virginbirth, adoption by Joseph

‑‑Light toGentiles: Isa 42:6; 49:6

Jesusonly messianic claimant who has started world

religionamong Gentiles

‑‑Burial ofMessiah: Isa 53:9

(cfMacRae ÒWith Rich in His Death,Ó Moody Monthly [Sep76]) Jesus supposed to be buried with two crimi­nals, but waswith a rich man instead.

b. Prophecies about Israel:

‑‑Israel'sFuture: Hos 3:4‑5 (see Evidence of Prophecy, ch 7)

Manydays without king or prince, sacrifice or pillar, ephod or teraphim

‑‑Control ofJerusalem: Lk 21:24

Gentilecontrol until time of Gentiles comes to end.

‑‑GoldenGate: Ezk 44:1‑3

Shutup because God (Jesus, at triumphal entry) has passed through.

‑‑Status ofTemple: Mt 24:2; 2 Th 2:4

Thoroughdestruction, later rebuilding in time for end.

‑‑Fate ofCapernaum, Chorazin, Bethsaida: Mt 11:20‑24

Tobe destroyed for rejecting Jesus.

‑‑Israel'sRegathering: Isa 11:11‑16 (see Evidence of Prophecy, ch 8)

Latterdays, from specific countries as well as gener­ally, one nation

c. Prophecies about the Nations:

‑‑Tyre: Ezk26:4,12 (contrast Sidon)

Destructionby nations, scraped clean, debris thrown in sea, place for spreading nets

‑‑Idols ofMemphis: Ezk 30:13 (contrast Thebes)

Putan end to them

‑‑BabylonDeserted: Jer 51:42‑43 (contrast Nineveh)

Noone lives there, no sheep, stones not used

‑‑Edom: Ezk 25:12‑14;Mal 1:2‑4; Ob 1‑4

Continualdestruction, vengeance by Israel

‑‑Egypt: Ezk29:14‑15

Willbecome a lowly kingdom, not to rule over neighbors

d. Paired Cities:

Aspecial case of c. Nations (above)

Twin-cityprophecies function like experimental con­trols (e.g., use of placebo intesting medicines), because quite different pictures of their future desti­niesare portrayed. If the city namesare switched, the predictions would not be true.

1)Memphis/Thebes, capitals of Egypt.

Memphis: Ezk 30:13. Thebes: 30:14-16.

Idolsdestroyed Depopulated

2)Tyre/Sidon, Phoenician sea powers.

Tyre: Ezk 26:3-14. Sidon: Ezk 28:22-23.

Spreadingof fishnets Judgments

3)Babylon/Nineveh, capitals of international empires.

Babylon:Isa 13:19-22. Nineveh: Zeph 2:13-15.

Uninhabited,no grazing Desolate,but grazing flocks

Objections:

Lots of cities were destroyed. How are these prophe­cies special?

People wanted to have Bible prophecies come true. Maybe they fulfilled them, or wroteprophecy after event.

Responses:

Memphis:

Northerncapital of Egypt.

At time of Christ, Strabo (Greek historian) de­scribesthe large city and its many temples.

Islamarrives C 7th century AD.

Conquers Egypt, but ....

Leaders do not want water to come between them andtheir home­land.

Leaders do not want soldiers to own property or settlein Egypt (too pagan and pros­perous). They were forbidden to move into Alexandria or Mem­phis.

So conquerors remain on east side of Nile, at their en­camp­mentfor the siege against Mem­phis.

Over the centuries, the encampment becomes Cairo, themain city in the area of Memphis, drawing people and business to it.

Memphis is used as a quarry for stone to build newbuildings of Cairo.

Petrie (1910) found the site cultivated with noremains above the water table. Only one statue on/near the site today.

Thebes:

Southern capital of Egypt.

In92 BC, withstood a 3-year siege before falling.

City destroyed during reign of Augustus.

Thebes never recovered its population: Only a collec­tion of villages arein the area today, Luxor being the largest city.

Has Òthe greatest assemblage of monumental ruins inthe worldÓ.

Hordes Òcut offÓ but ruins (including tem­ples,idols) re­main.

Details from Bloom, in Evidence for Faith, p. 179ff.

4. Advantages of this Line ofEvidence:

a. Shortcutsearlier lines of evidence, pointing di­rectly to God of Bible.

b. Messianic prophecy connects OT with NT and points to Jesus as theMessiah.

c. Does notrequire as much technical knowledgeoutside the range that a Bible college or seminary graduate would likelyhave. You do need to study up onancient near eastern history.

5. PowerPoint Talk ÒProphecy:Ancient and ModernÓ

Contrastbiblical prophecy and fulfillment with extra-bibli­cal competitors

a. Testsfor Confirmed Prophecy:

Howcan we recognize real supernatural prediction so as to see its evidentialforce?

(1)Prophecy clear enough to recognize?

(2)Prophecy known to precede fulfillment?

(3)Prophecy not influenced by prophet?

(4) Prophecy sufficiently remote from fulfillmentand/or detailed enough to pre­clude guessing?

b. SomeExamples which Fail These Tests:

Contrastsome other ancient and modern prophets:

(1) Koran: only predicts last judgment; by then it willbe too late to change reli­gions!

(2) Book of Mormon: not clearly written before fulfill­ment;easy to ÒpredictÓ the past!

(3) Nostradamus: very ambiguous; impressive whenright, but hard to prove wrong!

(4) Oracle at Delphi to Croesus: ambiguous; danger­ousto stake life on unclear instructions!

c. Edom& Petra Prophecy (Ezk 25:12‑14;Mal 1:2‑4; Obad 1‑4)

Edomthe territory that Jacob's brother Esau wound up with; Petra comes to be one ofits major and best-fortified cities.

(1)Edom is to be desolated.

(2)Israel is going to take vengeance on Edom.

(3)Continual desolation; Edom unable to rebuild.

(4)Even though Edom secure, these things will happen.

Thesefulfilled in centuries following, beginning about 500 BC; Edomites driven intoPalestine by Arabs; con­quered & forced to become Jews by Maccabees;destruc­tion of Petra complete by Middle Ages.

d. JeaneDixon as a Prophet (cf. Montgomery, AGift of Prophecy)

Some successful predictions: deaths of Kennedy,Dulles, Nehru.

Some misses: Quemoy, Matsu invasion; Reuther for presi­dent.

Contrast Biblical principles re/ prophecy:

(1)Not all miraculous from God (2 Thess 2:8‑9).

(2)Test to see if from God (1 John 4:1).

(3)God's prophets can't miss (Deut 18:20‑22).

(4)Test the message (Gal 1:8).

Notethat Jeane Dixon fails ##3,4.

e. GoldenGate Prophecy (Ezk 44:1‑3)

Outer gate of temple complex facing East to be closedbe­cause the God of Israel has passed through.

This appears to be gate used by Jesus at his tri­umphalentry (based on Mark 11:1,11).

City later destroyed, rebuilt; new gate in this loca­tionwalled up by Suleiman the Magnificent to keep out Chris­­­tian pil­grims;still walled up today!

6. Power-Point Talk ÒIsrael:Evidence of God in HistoryÓ

Thehistory of the nation Israel is a detailed picture of fulfilled prophecy and ofthe truth of Christianity.

a. TheProphecies

(1)Blessing & Curse Passages (Lev 26; Deut 28)

disasterfor disobedience

yetnot destroyed (Lev 26:44‑45)

scattered,no rest among nations (Deut 28:64‑68)

(2)Regathering of Israel (Isa 11:11‑15)

secondtime (11)

namesplaces (11)

(3) Israel w/o Sinai Covenant & w/o Idolatry (Hos3:4‑5)

without king or prince (Davidic king or governmentoffi­cial)

w/osacrifice or sacred pillar

w/oephod or idol

(4)Israel & Messiahs (John 5:43)

notaccepting JesusÕ coming in Father's name

willaccept another coming in own name

b. TheFulfillments

(1) Scattering begins for No. Kingdom 722 BC, for So.King. in 587; So. people return after 537 BC, but never ma­jori­ty ofJews in land since 587; yet people remain to this day undestroyed; history onproblems from Romans thru Cru­saders to Arabs & Hitler shows littlerest.

(2) Regathering of Southern exiles in 537 and afterdoes not show pattern of Isa 11:11, but modern regathering (19th‑20thcen) does; Jews essentially cleared out of named coun­tries right after WW2, except for Iran, which has more recently cleared due to Kou­meini.

(3) Fulfillment very striking: no Davidic king since587, though Maccabeans and Herodians in 2nd cen BC‑1st AD; no state fromAD 70 until 1948; Israel w/o sacrifice and priest since temple destroyed in AD70; yet has not turned to pagan idolatry that was problem in OT times; lookslike Hos 3:5 return may be beginning.

(4) Jewish people followed revolt in AD 70 which mayhave in­volved Messianic pretenders; Bar Kochba revolt def­inite­lydid (135); other such include Shabbati Zvi in 1600s, who still has some follow­erstoday.

Bibliography on FulfilledProphecy:

Barfield, Kenny.The Prophet Motive: Examining the Reliability of the BiblicalProphets. Gospel Advocate, 1995.

Montgomery, John W., ed.Evidence for Faith: Deciding the GodQuestion. Probe/Word,

1991.

Newman, Robert C., ed.The Evidence of Prophecy. IBRI,1988.

Newman, Robert C., AFulfilledProphecy as Miracle,@ In Defense of Miracles, ed. R. D. Geivett and G. R. Habermas. InterVarsity, 1997.

Newman, Robert C., John A. Bloom, and Hugh G. Gauch,Jr. ÒPublic Theology and Prophecy Data: Factual Evidence That Counts for the Biblical Worldview,Ó Journal ETS 46/1 (March 2003): 79-100. On IBRI website

Payne, J. Barton.Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy. Harperand Row, 1973.

C. Jesus

Jesusis the center of Christianity, the one mediator be­tween God and man, theunique being who is both eternal God and mortal man. It would naturally be surprising (and a serious problem forthe truth of Christianity) if the phenomena sur­rounding Jesus' life andministry were not important evidence.

1. Scriptural Warrant

Isthere Scriptural warrant to believe that materials about Jesus include lines ofevidence for the truth of Xy?

Jesus fulfills Messianic prophecy: See warrant under ÒFul­filledProphecyÓ above.

Jesus'ministry in general is warrant for the truth of Xy:

Itis central to the Gospel: 1 Cor 2:2

Ithas historical certainty: Luke 1:1‑4

Itbrings conviction: John 20:30‑31

Jesus'resurrection in particular is warrant for Xy:

Itis necessary to Christianity: 1 Cor 15:12‑20

Itis regularly used as evidence:

Pentecost: Acts 2:22‑24,32,36 (with tongues, OTfulfillment)

Solomon's Portico: Acts 3:15ff (with healing, OTfulfillment)

Cornelius' house: Acts 10:36‑43 (with news ofJesus' ministry, OT fulfill­ment)

Pisidian Antioch: Acts 13:16‑41 (with preachingof John Baptist, OT fulfillment)

Athens: Acts 17:22‑31 (with general revelationonly)

2. Lines of Argumentation

a. TheUniqueness of Jesus

seeEdwin Yamauchi, Jesus, Zoroaster...and below

b. TheFulfillment of Prophecy in Jesus

see Newman, Evidence of Prophecy, chs 9-11, Evi­dence for Faith, ch 4.4, and below

c. Corroborationby Historical Tests

see McDowell, More Than a Carpenter, and his re­cent He Walked Among Us; Blomberg, Historical Reli­ability of Gospels; Newman, Evidence for Faith, ch 5.3., discussed below

d. Resurrectionof Jesus

see bibliography: Buell/Hyder, McDowell, Morison, Wen­ham,and discussion below

3. The Uniqueness of Jesus

Source:Edwin M. Yamauchi, Jesus, Zoroaster, Buddha, Socrates, Muhammad (InterVarsity, 1972). Dr. Yamauchi is an evangelical Christian and Professor ofHistory at Miami University in Ohio.

The five famous founders ofworld religions listed in the title are compared in five areas:

1.Historical sources available to learn about them;

2.Birth and family background;

3.Life and teachings;

4.Death of each;

5.Claimed relationship to deity.

Certain similarities arefound among the five:

1. Each preached against the corruption of contem­poraryreligion.

2.Each perceived keenly the needs of fellowmen.

3. Each was so gripped by personal convictions that hetried to transmit to others what he believed to be true, even though this oftenaroused opposition and led to suffer­ing.

4. Each man's deeds and words have attracted admirersand followers who have extended his impact over many conti­nents andthrough many centuries.

Yet the uniqueness of Jesusshows up very clearly in several very significant points:

1.Only Jesus came out of a culture which was already mono­theistic.

2. His death by crucifixion is unique.

3. Excluding later legendary and apologetic accounts,we find that early accounts attribute miracles to Jesus only.

4. Only Jesus spoke on his own unquestionedauthority.

5. Only Jesus predicted he would be resurrected afterhis death, and only his followers rest their faith on such an event.

6. Only Jesus claimed equality with a sole, supremedeity.

4. The Fulfillment ofProphecy in Jesus

PowerPoint Talk, ÒJesus, theTestimony of Prophecy and HistoryÓ

Thisargumentation follows that of Newman, ÒThe Tes­timony of MessianicProphecy,Ó in Montgomery, Evidence for Faith, ch 4.4.

If the Messiah has come, heis Jesus:

1. A Light to the Gentiles: Isa 42:6‑7; 49:5‑6.

Thisis just what Jesus has done, the only Jew claiming to be the Messiah who everstarted a world religion.

2. Born yet Pre‑existent: Micah 5:2; Isa9:6‑7.

Thisis nicely explained by NT picture of Jesus, but a real problem for Judaism andtheolog­ical liberalism.

3. Humbleyet exalted: Dan 7:13‑14; Zech 9:9.

Jewishexplanations:

miraculousdonkey!

alternativecomings rather than successive

ButNT view fits nicely:

humblecoming 1st (as child)

exaltedcoming 2nd (as adult)

4. Suffering yet reigning: Ps 22; Zech 12:10;Isa 53.

Jewishexplanation: two Messiahs

Messiahben‑Joseph to suffer

Messiahben‑David to reign

But sufferer is pierced, rejected by Israel

FitsNT picture of Jesus beautifully!

5. King yet priest: Ps 110.

Jewish Essenes (those who copied Dead Sea Scrolls):king Messiah, priest Messiah are two different persons, since OT carefullykeeps office of king and priest separate.

But NT picture fits better: one individual is bothking and priest.

The Messiah has come

1. To come while Judah had its own rulers: Gen 49:10.

Lastking of Jews was Herod Agrippa 1 (AD 41‑44).

Jesuscame just before this.

2. To come while the 2nd temple still stood: Hag 2:3‑9

2ndtemple destroyed AD 70.

Jesuscame just before this.

3. To be Òcut offÓ after 69th sabbath cycle starts:Dan 9:25‑26.

1stcycle spans 445 BC; 69th cycle is AD 28‑35.

Jesusministry ends with his crucifixion AD 30‑33.

Conclusion: Jesus is God'spromised Messiah!

****do another power-pointtalk here, Fulfilled Prophecy: Nostradamus and the Bible

5. The Resurrection of Jesus

a.Some Preliminary Comments on the Shroud of Turin

Nearly all the evidence seems to point to authenticityexcept radiocarbon dating, which suggests it was made in 1300's.

Looks like a case of fraud, but not sure whether medi­eval(14th cen) by propo­nents of shroud or modern by opponents (20th cen).

Meanwhile, should not be used as evidence since itraises more questions than it solves.

In any case, truth of resurrection does not depend on authenticityof shroud.

b.The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Gospel Accounts

see my ÒMiracles and the Historicity of the EasterWeek NarrativesÓ in Montgom­ery, Evidence for Faith, ch 5.3.

also Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability ofthe Gospels (IVP, 1987); and JoshMcDowell, He Walked Among Us: Evidence for the Histori­cal Jesus (Here's Life, 1988). An excellent recent and popular-level work is Lee Strobel, TheCase for Christ (Zondervan, 1998).

Blomberg'sconclusions:

Even using modern NT critical approach, if miracle notrejected a priori, Gospels look very good.

Using secular historical methods, if miracle not re­jecteda priori, Gospels look very good.

c.The Alternatives Don't Look Very Good

(1)Coma Theory (Paulus, 1828)

Jesuswent into coma on cross, revived in tomb; but unconsciousness on cross would be fatal; walk­ingon nail‑pierced feet a good trick! Jesus did not make Òwalking woundedÓ impres­sion on disciples.

(2)Hallucination Theory (Strauss, 1835; Lake, 1907)

Jesusdied, but women/disciples had grief‑induced hallucinations in which theythought they saw him alive; but hallucinations do not produce long-term, multiple witness, multiplesense appearanc­es; authorities would have checked tomb as soon as story began to be uncomfortable forthem.

(3) Fraud Theory (Priesthood, AD 30; Reimaurus, 1775;Schonfield, 1965)

Jesusor apostles or other disciples removed body from tomb; but Schonfield'sview of Jesus setting up fraud has same problems as coma theory; other versionshave to ignore soldiers at tomb, willing­ness of disciples to die forbelief, nature of disciples' conduct (see Littelton, Observations on theConversion & Apostleship of St. Paul);lack of fit with the phenomena of Jesus' ministry.

(4)Nothing Happened

Evidencefor existence of Jesus about as strong as for anyone in antiquity. If we knowanything about him, we know he was crucified. If tomb not empty, au­thori­tieshad perfect means to smash early Xy.

d. It is possible, but dangerous, to rule outresurrection because evidence for it is merely historical rather than deductiveor scientific. We cannot afford todemand that God do things our way, when in fact our problem is rebellionagainst Him and He is graciously offering us an opportunity for pardon.

****power-point talk Evidencefor the Resurrection from Prophecy & History

Importance of Jesus= Resurrection (according to the New Testament)

Itvalidates Jesus= personal claims over against the charge for which hewas put to

death

It indicates that God accepted Jesus= death as a sacrifice to pay for the sins of those whotrust in him

Itpoints to a life beyond this one

It reminds us that we live in a world and in a courseof history created and directed by One who can intervene decisively to bringabout events which otherwise would never have happened

Alternative Theories (rejecting the miraculous)

StolenBody Theory

ComaTheory

HallucinationTheory

Stolen Body Theory

Theoldest alternative, just a few hours after the event

Thedisciples stole the body

Earliest version has problem of soldiers guardingtomb, who must testify to events which happened while they were asleep!

Laterversions invariably try to get rid of the soldiers

Thesetheories cannot explain:

Tacticsof the apostles

Careerof Paul

Contentof the New Testament

Coma Theory

Variousversions, but all agree:

Jesusbecomes unconscious

Takenfrom cross alive

Revivesin tomb

Problems:

Howdoes Jesus get out of the tomb?

Howget past the soldiers?

Howconvince the disciples he has conquered death?

Fatalproblem: physiology of crucifixion

Anunconscious person on a cross will strangle to death

Hallucination Theory

Womengo to wrong tomb, mistake gardener for angel.

Disciplesbegin to have hallucinations of risen Jesus.

Problems:

Howavoid authorities producing body when disciples begin preaching?

Howmistake tomb in broad daylight?

Grief-induced(even drug-induced) hallucinations do not produce appearances:

Lastingan hour or more.

Involvingmultiple senses (vision, hearing, touch, messages, food).

Involvingmultiple witnesses.

Evidence for Jesus= Resurrection

FromHistory

Historical evidence points strongly to Jesus= resurrection as an event which really happened.

Alternativeexplanations must do funny things with the data.

FromProphecy

OldTestament passages predict something of this sort for the Messiah.

Thesepassages were written centuries in advance.

Evidence from History

Can=t go back in time to see what really happened, but wedo have several significant lines of evidence:

Existenceof the Church

Existenceof the New Testament

Testimonyof the New Testament

Existence of the Church

Lots of religions have arisenbased on false beliefs, but:

The men and women who had followed Jesus were completely demoralized by his death.

Within a few months they were boldly preaching Jesus in the city where he was crucified.

Most of the apostles died as martyrs, not willing to retract their claims to have seen the risen Jesus.

The church expanded to fill the Empire without use of military evangelism.

Existence of the NewTestament

Several religions have holybooks, but:

The NT records spectacular events and comes from within a century of the events it records.

External evidence of authorship points to two apostles and two associates as authors of the Gospels, and to a former enemy of Christianity for most of the NT letters.

The uniform testimony of the NT is to multiple eyewitnesses, extended appearances, multiple senses for the post-resurrection appearances.

The evidence for the reliability of the NT is as good as for any ancient history.

Testimony of the NewTestament

Accounts of post-resurrectionappearances occur in:

1Corinthians 15:1-9

Mark16:1-8 (9-20)

Matthew28

Luke24

Acts1:1-12

John20-21

Acts9, 22, 26

Questions to Consider re/NT Accounts & Alternative Theories

Howmany appearances were there?

Howlong did they last?

Whendid they occur?

Wheredid they occur?

Whatform did Jesus take in these appearances?

Towhom did he appear?

Whatwas the chronological order of the appearances?

Suggested Scenario forPost-Resurrection Appearances

Conclusions on NT Accounts

TheNT accounts are harmonizable.

Theydon=t look