note: In June 1990 The John Ankerberg Show taped a series of
interviews with men from several branches of the sciences regarding
the evidence for creation. For technical reasons we were unable to air
these interview. Nevertheless, we have decided to release portions of
these interviews in a series of articles so you could read the
arguments that were being made at that timeómore than a decade ago.
effort has been made to quote the gentlemen correctly. We have
attempted to find the correct spelling of the scientific terms used.
However, the reader should keep in mind that this is a transcription
of oral interviews. Mistakes in spelling and in the technical language
should be laid at the feet of the editor.]
Gish: Don, Iíve read a couple of articles,
one by a physicist who claimed that if the universe did eventually
contract, that you would just have a final crunch. It wouldnít keep
oscillating at all. And he suggested that it couldnít bounce back.
Then thereís another paper I read, in which these scientists said that
with each oscillation the entropy increases so if you go back in time,
you eventually come to a beginning, it could not have been doing this
You know, I
heard Carl Sagan say, as a matter of fact, he was talking about this
possibility of an oscillating universe, and he said, but how many
times has it oscillated? Then, where did it come from in the
beginning? He said, well, perhaps it came into being miraculously from
nowhere. And I thought that was a really strange statement from a man
who claims to be an agnostic or an atheist.
point, Don, is it not true that the second law of thermodynamics which
says if you start with an isolated system, that system can never
increase in ordered complexity and organization. It will, with time,
inevitably run down and deteriorate. And yet, evolutionists believe
that the universe is an isolated system. It started with this big
bang, so it started in a state of chaos and disorder, and the
simplicity of hydrogen gas, and then according to evolutionists, it
transformed itself into the present universe, which is obviously
vastly more complex and organized than a disbursed cloud of hydrogen
that a violation of the second law of thermodynamics? If the cloud of
gas, for example, that supposedly originated, had expanded forever,
and thatís the only thing that ever happened, obviously weíd have no
problem with the second law of thermodynamics, wouldnít even be here
to discuss it. But, of course, after the Big Bang of hydrogen gas,
then that hydrogen gas converted itself into everything we have today,
which seems to me, vastly more organized and complex than a disbursed
cloud of hydrogen gas.
DeYoung: Well, with thermodynamics, again it
goes back to how you want to look at it in the Big Bang scenario, this
initial concentration of mass energy. Again if it really is a black
hole, and energy canít get out of it, then thereís no energy there,
itís a high entropy state, like youíre talking. But if you do allow it
to explode, then it is a concentration of energy; itís like a lump of
coal that youíre getting at. And so in that case, with the Big Bang
story as they describe it, they would begin with an area of
Yes, yes, thatís at low entropy then. But then it forms hydrogen gas
and expands out into the entire reaches of the universe. Now, from
that point, then, to this point, it required a decrease of entropy.
But it seems to me that the present universe is vastly more highly
organized, than a disbursed cloud of hydrogen gas.
Wise: Yes, but I thought the Big Bang
represented the whole universe. That kernel that you talk about,
wasnít it the whole universe, all of space, time and matter,
So it filled all of space right there. All that happened was that
space expanded. Am I misunderstanding?
No. The opinion on how big that kernel was varies in something the
size of an electron to the size of the solar system, to other sizes.
Ankerberg: But regardless of the size, are
we still talking that right now the scientists cannot get away from
that start? In other words, that time, space, matter and energy, all
of that was together and it started at a point?
Thatís correct. They tried to get away from that with the steady-state
theory, with the oscillating theory, but they came up dry on those.
And secondly, they have nothing that postulates how that happened.
Thatís just sheer speculation on everybodyís part, as Jastrow said, we
donít know, we might never know.
Well, thereís lots of speculation there. We are mentioning Steve
Hawking who talks about perhaps some kind of a quantum mechanical
fluctuation of a vacuum. In other words, somehow you start with
nothing and get something and at a future instant, it might go back to
a vacuum again, and weíd all be lost. This kind of goes off the deep
end, and I think it becomes rather metaphysical, and thatís out of my
But right now, if we have a start and then we have this complexity and
design that comes out of this start. When they talk about the Big
Bang, theyíre really talking about a start that, for whatever reason,
seems to have been smoothly undertaken so that out through the
universe, energy is disbursed evenly it seems in terms of the
radiation. And we have these laws. We have a stable universe in some
places. Now, with that, one of the books that you wrote has to do with
the moon. And I think a scientist at M.I.T. a geophysicist, Naphe
Taksos, said, "Itís far easier to explain why the moon shouldnít be
there, than to explain its existence." How come?
Well, the moon is a good place to think about for a moment. Of course,
thatís our nearest neighbor in the sky, and weíve spent a lot of money
in this country investigating the moon. Weíve been there trying to
find out its origin. The main reason is the moon, since it has no air,
itís like a museum up there. Itís thought to hold a good record of
what the past might have been.
is our record over the last few decades of studying the moon and
bringing rocks back home? Have we discovered the origin? Again, much
time and investigation has gone in on this. And as the quote that you
gave turns out, no, we have not been able to figure out where the moon
came from. And itís kind of humorousówe talk about the origin of the
universe and faraway galaxies and all these details and we really
donít understand our nearest neighbor in the sky. Thereís been no
shortage of theories on where the moon could have come from.
Way back in
the 1800s they talked about the fission theoryóthat the moon broke off
from the earth, and there are some chemicals similarities that would
be in agreement with that, but there are dynamics problems. The earth
would have to be spinning too fast. It would still be going around too
rapidly and itís not that way. So fission has been put aside.
origin theory would be captureóthat the moon just drifted close to the
earth one day, and we reached out with our gravity and captured it,
and its been going around us ever since. Those chemical similarities
are a problem in that case. The moon does kind of look too much like
the earth to have come from somewhere else. And by the way thatís
really not an origin theory again. Thatís like the Big Bang, where you
start with something and then you bring it in from the outside.
Capture. A popular one today is the Nebula Theoryóthat big dust
clouds, one for the earth and one for the moon, those clouds just
condensed and formed side-by-side and thatís how the early solar
system was formed. But that does not hold up to the mechanics and the
dynamics of the situation either. There are dust clouds in space and
we can see those and observe them over time, and the dust clouds that
we look at are not condensing into new planets and stars and moons,
theyíre dissipating, theyíre spreading out. Now, gravity is a very
real force and it keeps the sun stable which is a small concentrated
gas ball, but the big clouds we see in the Nebula theory, they would
spread out and when you run through these theories, thatís again where
you get that quote, where they say, it would be easy to explain why
there was no moon in the sky, but there it is and that is an
embarrassment to them.
view just from the last couple years is maybe called the Collision
Theoryóthat a long time ago, some Mars-sized object crashed into the
earth and that knocked off a big piece and made the moon. Well, there
are problems with that one as well. And there we go as the time go by,
one theory after another is set up, and is knocked down again. And
frankly, that makes some of us want to speak up after awhile and say
"Well, why not creation? If the best that computers and thought can
come up with in our day canít explain the moon, maybe thereís a little
message for us there, that the moon is a testimony to the creation?"
All right summarize all of this in terms of the case for creation.
Whatís the positive evidence then, as you see it, that stands out?
I began talking about the Big Bang Theory and giving some negatives, I
guess, that we donít know where the original kernel of mass energy
came from, or why would it explode, and Duaneís idea was correct. How
can you get beautiful planets and galaxies to form from that kind of
explosion? So there are fundamental problems with these kind of
secular origin theories.
But I think
we can go on then in positive sense. We mentioned the Anthropic
Principle, that there is an intriguing design on all sides. We
mentioned gravity, the mass of microscopic particles, we mentioned the
earthís position. And there are hundreds of other design arguments
like that that you can come up with. I think that each is a testimony
to an intelligent planning and we find more of those every day.
think that I can explain to you the details of the creation and just
how it happened. I believe that the creation was supernatural and itís
beyond explanation. I think that it happened quickly, in six days. In
fact, Genesis tells us that the sun, moon and stars were all made on
the fourth day. I believe that the creation was planned. I believe
that it was made for us as Scripture indicates.
You know, Don, in listening to what youíve been saying, I can kind of
understand what Robert Jastrow meant in his famous quote, "Astronomers
now find that they have painted themselves into a corner, because they
have proven by their own methods that the world began abruptly in an
act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every
planet, every living thing in this cosmos, and on the earth. And they
have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot
hope to discover."
Yes. In summary, I think the best evolutionary model up to today, it
does postulate a singularity at the beginning of space, time and
matter, everything, but with an unknown cause. And it produces the
current complexity in design that we can see along unknown pathways.
In contrast, the creation model postulates again, a beginning point, a
singularity, but with a known cause. The creation view also predicts
the kind of man-centered design we see every place we look.