SCIENCE AND CREATION

Benjamin L. Clausen
Geoscience Research Institute

Geoscience Reports 31:1-4 (Spring 2001).

RELEVANCE

    The Geoscience Research Institute addresses the integration of science and faith. How relevant is the discussion?
    The 29 March 1999 issue of Time magazine gave the fourth in a series of the 100 most influential people of the century. It discussed the contributions of 25 scientists and thinkers and the major ways science has shaped life at the end of the century.
    For this issue of Time, Sir John Maddox, the former editor of Nature, wrote a concluding essay entitled "What’s Next?" After commenting that "The pace of discovery is likely to accelerate," Maddox enumerated some of the scientific and philosophical challenges for the century ahead: a theory of everything, life’s beginning, human evolution, human thinking, and understanding life. All seem to be at the interface between science and religion.
    Is it possible to integrate science and faith? to be a believer in God and a world-class scientist? The 3 April 1997 issue of Nature contains an article entitled "Scientists are Still Keeping the Faith." It found that 40% of American scientists believe in a personal God. (We must note, however, that another issue [23 July 1998] had an article by the same authors entitled, "Leading Scientists Still Reject God."
    Christian Leadership Ministries, a division of Campus Crusade for Christ, addresses Christian scholarship through their news journal The Real Issue. It contains a number of articles written by scientists who have integrated their science with their faith: Walter Bradley (mechanical engineer and former chair of that department at Texas A&M), Paul Chien (biologist and chair at the University of San Francisco), Michael Behe (biochemist at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and author of Darwin’s Black Box¹), Owen Gingerich (senior astronomer at the Smithsonian and Harvard), Fritz Schaefer (a quantum chemist at University of Georgia and several-time nominee for the Nobel Prize in Chemistry), and Phil Johnson (law professor at University of California, Berkeley and although not a scientist has written Darwin on Trial²).
    The news section in other journals has also emphasized the possibility of integrating science and faith. The Wall Street Journal (12 June 1998) contained an article, "Faith and Reason, Together Again: Who Says It’s Possible to Believe in Science and God? Scientists Do."
    The Newsweek cover story for July 20, 1998 was entitled "Science Finds God."³ It gave examples of several prominent scientists such as Allan Sandage, John Polkinghorne, S. Jocelyn Bell Burnell, and Charles Townes who are believers. The Newsweek editorial for November 9, 1998 was entitled, "The Gospel from Science" with a subheading of "The news from the cosmos is staggeringly improbable and theologically suggestive."
    Most of these articles emphasize the need for theism without mentioning a short chronology or a worldwide flood; however, one report did that as well. The 16 June 1997 issue of U.S. News & World Report printed an article entitled, "The Geophysics of God: A Scientist Embraces Plate Tectonics — and Noah’s Flood." The scientist is John Baumgardner, a scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, who is attempting to model plate tectonics in a short time frame.⁴
    Even scientific journals have joined the discussion about ways to integrate science and faith. "Science and God: A Warming Trend" appeared in the 15 August 1997 issue of Science. It stated, "Can rational inquiry and spiritual conviction be reconciled? Although some scientists contend that the two cannot coexist, others believe they have linked destinies."
    In "Where Science and Religion Meet," the February 1998 issue of Scientific American describes the U.S. head of the Human Genome Project, Francis S. Collins, who strives to keep his Christianity from interfering with his science and politics.⁵
    Another issue (August 1998) reports on renowned scientists who contemplate the evidence for God in "Beyond Physics." Again, these are scientists who believe in God, but not necessarily a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11.
    The American Scientist (March-April 1998) had an article that emphasizes this point: "Creationism’s Geologic Time Scale." It asks, "should the scientific community continue to fight rear-guard skirmishes with creationists, or insist that ‘young-earthers’ defend their model in toto?"
    In the 1990s several important conferences sought to understand the integration of science and faith. The C.S. Lewis Summer Institute, held at Cambridge in England in 1994, was such a conference. The Mere Creation Conference, emphasizing the evidence for design in nature, was held at Biola University in the Los Angeles area in 1996. The Program of Dialogue Between Science and Religion was sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the Templeton Foundation from 14-16 April 1999.

IMPORTANCE

    Why are the issues important, and what difference do they make? Shouldn’t a Christian just believe without the need for study? Doesn’t it imply a lack of faith to study?
    I believe that God wants us to be thinking Christians who study the issues and address the paradoxes. There are a wide range of views on how to integrate science and faith, and the various implications need to be discussed. Following are the issues I believe to be important in integrating science and faith.
    Reason. 1 Peter 3:15 says that we should "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh [us] a reason of the hope that is in [us] with meekness and fear." God created man with reason and the freedom of choice. Our faith must correspond to real-life experience and be reasonable; God does provide evidence, although not proof. There is the need to think and discuss. Both evolutionists and creationists have their problems, as is illustrated by Del Ratzsch in his book, The Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate.⁶
    Honesty. We must be honest with the data. God is a God of truth. He doesn’t deceive us in nature. We must look honestly at the data in the natural world, not ignoring data that don’t happen to fit our particular paradigm.
    Limitations. Human reason is important, but it has its limits. God is much greater than human reason can understand or imagine from studying nature — or even Scripture. This became obvious to Job after God’s long list of questions to him about nature.

    Humanity can only have a limited picture of God, as nicely outlined in the little book by J. B. Phillips, Your God Is Too Small.⁸ The human condition is insufficient to understand all God’s activities. Because of incomplete understanding, apparent paradoxes arise.
    From theology, we wonder how Christ can be both divine and human (Creator and creature) simultaneously, and how humanity can have free will if God is omniscient. From science, we wonder how light can be both wave and particle at the same time. And now the origins debate combines both theology and science into an apparent paradox between the revelations of nature and Scripture. Only our omniscient, omnipotent God knows all the answers.
    Time. Humanity is limited by time, unlike God who is eternal and timeless. Time for God doesn’t correspond to human time (Ps. 90:4; 2 Pet. 3:8); God knows the end from the beginning. Cannot God create time, exist outside of time, and move in time? Only for man is time a symbol of limitations.
    It is the creation, not the Creator, that must be concerned about time.

    Contingency. The universe is not an independent mechanism. God designed the universe and is in control. He interacts with His creation and at times intervenes in miraculous ways in the natural order of things.
    Love. The basic law of the universe is love. The God of Scripture is a God of love. He may use suffering and death at times to accomplish His purpose, but it is not his preferred method. A God who uses long ages of competition, survival of the fittest, pain, suffering, and death to accomplish His will, is not the God who knows when a sparrow falls or is creating a heaven where the wolf and lamb will dwell together.
    In his book A Remnant in Crisis,⁹ Jack W. Provonsha, a physician and theologian, says,

…to attribute the salient features of the theory of evolution to God is to come up with the wrong kind of God! The God of the evolutionary hypothesis, as it is commonly understood, would be Nietzsche’s god, not the Father of Jesus Christ.

PERSONAL STORY

    Several years ago I participated in a nuclear physics experiment at an accelerator in Russia. In the process I made friends with a lady who for many years has worked as a nuclear physicist at Moscow State University.
    On several occasions she had shown an interest in Seventh-day Adventism, had asked about Jacob Mittleider’s famous vegetable gardens at the Zaokski Seminary, had attended the SDA church in Moscow, and knew a little about Seventh-day Adventist beliefs.
    The last time we visited, she asked about the problem of suffering. I was ready to share the Great Controversy story: of God wanting free creatures to love him, of Lucifer choosing not to love, and the results. But before I could begin, she said, "I already know about the fallen angel." That story didn’t satisfy her.
    In reflecting on the incident, I realized that philosophy is excellent for academic debates and answering philosophical questions. This theoretical approach works well for me, because my life has been relatively free of hardships. For her who had lived through many years of oppression, and who, while I was there, was struggling with tending to her husband who was suffering needlessly because proper medical attention was unavailable, philosophy wasn’t good enough.
    What my friend needed was not a philosophical or logical explanation, but to know of a loving personal God, of a Christ who suffered along with us here on the earth, who knows our sorrows as well as our joys. She needed the personal touch of another who was hurting as she was. She needed to see a God who cared.
    We have continued to communicate through e-mail. She needed to see someone she could relate to as a scientist, someone with a reasonable faith and someone who cares and believes in a God who cares.

CONCLUSION

    The integration of science and faith is a relevant issue today and important to an understanding of God and the world. The Geoscience Research Institute as part of the Seventh-day Adventist Church is participating in the discussion. As we develop our understanding of origins, it must include reason based on evidence from both nature and Scripture, but also faith in a loving, omniscient, and eternal God.

ENDNOTES

1. Behe M. 1996. Darwin’s black box: the biochemical challenge to evolution. NY and London: The Free Press.
2. Johnson PE. 1991. Darwin on trial. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
3. This article was reprinted in the January/February 1999 issue of The Saturday Evening Post.
4. For a brief description of this model, see: Clausen B. 1998. Baumgardner’s modeling of rapid plate tectonic motion. Geoscience Reports 26:9-10.
5. See the "Men of Science and Faith in God" section in Geoscience Reports 30:8.
6. Ratzsch D. 1996. The battle of beginnings: why neither side is winning the creation-evolution debate. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
7. White EG. Letter 121, 1901. Published in Selected Messages, Vol. 1. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press Publishing Assn., p 22.
8. Phillips JB. 1953. Your God is too small. NY: The Macmillan Company.
9. Provonsha JW. 1993. A remnant in crisis. Hagerstown MD: Review & Herald Publishing Assn., p 75.
10. Provonsha, p 80.

Geoscience Reports 31:4 (Spring 2001).
    Related page — | ARTICLE |

EDITOR'S ANGLE

    In this column I usually highlight the main article, but in this issue it has been so excellently written by my colleague, Dr. Ben Clausen, that I felt it needed no comment.
    Instead, for those who might wonder about all the photos illustrating the research news, I would like to explain my choice. I wanted to give you a special sense of what it is like to work in the Grand Canyon, and I thought the best way would be through photos.
    Unfortunately, I have no photos of people actually working in the field. One of the Grand Canyon National Park’s research coordinators asked us to do just that, and it is my fault that there are none. The beauty of the Canyon was too overwhelming and I just couldn’t waste film on men working!
    We traveled by a 37' raft, and, for those who love to have their lives flash before their eyes as they enter the rapids in a comparatively "fragile little craft," the Colorado River is an incredibly exciting experience. We passed quiet waters with reflections of the Canyon walls all the way to the sky, but my contemplation time was cut short as I endured exhilarating moments of terror. Wildlife was abundant: bald eagles, great blue herons, many little brown birds on the water and in the bushes, bighorn sheep racing the boat, tracks and gnaw marks of beavers, lizards, fish and swarms of "no-see-ems" plus a few isolated mosquitoes. This was truly a once-in-a-lifetime experience that this editor will experience only once in her lifetime. The memories are fantastic: the courtesy of our boatman, laughing at ourselves every day, the feeling of success as we packed the samples for the trip home, the prayers of gratitude for the work.

Geoscience Reports 31:5-6 (Spring 2001).

NOTES FROM THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE

Anthropology

Leakey MG, Spoor F, Brown FH, Gathogo PN, Kiarie C, Leakey LN, McDougall I. 2001. New hominin genus from eastern Africa shows diverse middle Pliocene lineages. Nature 410:433-440.

    The term "hominins" is used for species that are considered to be more closely related to humans than to chimpanzees.
    Two skulls thought to be contemporaneous with Australopithecus afarensis have been named Kenyanthropus platyops. The researchers believe the skulls should be placed in a new genus because they have several characters that differentiate them from the australopithecine genus as well as Paranthropus and Homo. The species name comes from the Greek words, platus, which means "flat" and the word for "face," opis.
    Cranial capacity falls within the range for the australopithecines. The right molar, M², was the only molar that was preserved well enough for evaluation and was found to be significantly smaller than stratigraphically equivalent hominins.
    If the small molar size is accepted as a primitive character, Kenyanthropus would replace the australopithecines in the evolutionary tree.

Lieberman D. 2001. Another face in our family tree. Nature 410:419-420.

    The author proposes a new lineage for evolutionary relationships based on the discoveries by Leakey and colleagues and suggests that H. rudolfensis should be reclassified as Kenyanthropus rudolfensis. This proposal places the Kenyanthropus genus off-line from A. anamensis, leaving the australopithecines in the line to humans.
    Comment: Research on hominids has produced at least 9 different proposed lineages for ancestor-descendent relationships. These new skulls will only add to the complexity and confusion that already prevails over the current interpretations for the origin of humans.

Geology

Bourgeois J, Johnson S. 2001. Geologic evidence of earthquakes at the Snohomish delta, Washington, in the past 1200 yr. Geological Society of America Bulletin 113(4):482-494.

    Geologists measured 45 sections along the exposed channels of streams crossing the Snohomish delta in the Puget Lowland. A comparison of the sedimentary structures and relationships of these structures both vertically and laterally suggests three episodes of liquefaction, one abrupt subsidence event and a tsunami deposit. Radiocarbon ages from marsh plant rhizomes suggest that the timing of the tsunami may be related to a large earthquake along the Seattle fault 50 km to the south.
    Comment: Some have claimed that earthquake activity is increasing in frequency and intensity; however, studies such as this remind us that some areas have been impacted by multiple, strong seismic events in the past.

Weinberg R, Sial A, Pessoa R. 2001. Magma flow within the Tavares pluton, northeastern Brazil: compositional and thermal convection. Geological Society of America Bulletin 113(4):508-520.

    Documentation of complex structures in granites has been presented by these researchers in an attempt to describe crystallization, differentiation and convection processes. Granite plumes and diapirs are interpreted from ladder dikes, snail structures and schlieren. Schlieren are regions where it is thought that magma escaped into the postulated mush pores that probably surrounded it. Ladder dikes and snail structures are thought to be cross-sections of granite channels that may be feeding diapirs and plumes. The authors proposed a model of the magma system that explains all of the structures that they described.

McDowell F, Roldán-Quintana J, Connelly J. 2001. Duration of Late Cretaceous–Early Tertiary magmatism in east-central Sonora, Mexico. Geological Society of America Bulletin 113(4):521-531.

    In an effort to understand the magmatic activity in Sonora, Mexico, the authors obtained U-Pb radiometric dates from volcaniclastics associated with the Sonoran batholith. Four samples yielded 13 dates between 73 and 70 Ma; two samples provided 7 dates at 90 and 89 Ma with errors generally < 1 m.y. In five of the six dated samples, zircons gave Proterozoic ages (i.e., greater than 540 Ma). The authors interpreted these dates as representative of material that was incorporated into the magma prior to eruption.
    Comment: The complexity of granites and volcaniclastics as illustrated in these papers is interesting. One cannot help but wonder if this complexity has an impact on radiometric dates from bodies of rock such as this and the conclusions that are drawn from the information.

Burgess P, Wright V, Emery D. 2001. Numerical forward modeling of peritidal carbonate parasequence development: implications for outcrop interpretation. Basin Research 13:1-16.

    Parasequence (a sequence of related sedimentary layers) thicknesses is addressed using a numerical model. The authors produced both uniform and nonuniform thicknesses based on subsidence and sediment transport rates, independent of sea level. Ordered hierarchies were obtained from Fischer plots of their "data." The authors suggest that Fischer plots of outcrop data may not be reliable indicators of sea-level control.
    Comment: For many years Fischer plots have been used to help define stratigraphic sequences that may be controlled by sea-level rise and fall. In addition, much of the work has related these shallowing upward sequences to Milankovitch cycles (orbital forces affecting sea level). This paper is a refreshing change of pace encouraging researchers to reevaluate their assumptions.

Paleontology

Sutton M, Briggs D, Siveter D, Siveter D. 2001. An exceptionally preserved vermiform mollusc from the Silurian of England. Nature 410:461-463.

    The researchers ground a fossiliferous rock at 10µm increments coupled with computer methods to produce a series of 3-dimensional reconstructions. The organism has been named Acaenoplax hayae. The genus name is Greek for "spine or thorn plate." Due to similarities to Aplacophora, the newly discovered organism is thought to be a primitive mollusc.
    Comment: The photographs and description of the structure of this primitive mollusc reveal a very complex organism.

Dorsal view of Acaenoplax hayae, fragment OUM 29529. This photograph is one of the figures in the Nature article cited above and is reproduced with the permission of its authors.

Geoscience Reports 31:6-8 (Spring 2001).

GEOSCIENCE RESEARCH INSTITUTE NEWS

    For two "long" weeks in February, Drs. Arthur Chadwick, Elaine Kennedy, Ray Kablanow and Christopher Prince worked in the Grand Canyon, collecting samples from the lower Tapeats Sandstone unit for their research on the Cambrian/Precambrian contact in northern Arizona, U.S.A. The studies were conducted at Monadnock Amphitheater and Tapeats Creek. Transportation to and between sites was successfully negotiated by Steve Bledsoe, a well-known boatman from Flagstaff, AZ.
    This trip marked the end of the team’s seven-year research project in the Grand Canyon, and for Art Chadwick, concludes more than 20 years of research.
    This final excursion was not as wet and cold as the investigators had anticipated — which contributed significantly to the success of the field work. All four scientists plan to coauthor papers on this research over the next 2 to 3 years as laboratory analyses and results are completed.
    To illustrate the raft trip, we are including some of the photographs taken by Elaine Kennedy.

Ranger and Joel going over the checklist of equipment at Lee’s Ferry launch area. (Photo courtesy Elaine Kennedy)

Here’s the tree where John Wesley Powell tied his boat near the end of his historic trip through the Grand Canyon. (Photo courtesy Elaine Kennedy)

Deer Creek Falls. (Photo courtesy Elaine Kennedy)

Lost rapids, Lava Falls. (Photo courtesy Elaine Kennedy)

From l-r: Art Chadwick, Ray Kablanow, Steve Bledsoe, and Chris Prince. (Photo courtesy Elaine Kennedy)

See the wise owl gazing at us? (Photo courtesy Elaine Kennedy)

Bighorn sheep. (Photo courtesy Elaine Kennedy)

The Precambrian to Kaibab layers are visible here. (Photo courtesy Elaine Kennedy)

Camp setup. Ray and Steve tend the stove. (Photo courtesy Elaine Kennedy)

GRI Staff Transition: Clyde L. Webster

    Clyde Webster has been a senior research scientist at Geoscience Research Institute since July, 1983. In January, 2001, he resigned from the GRI for medical reasons and to spend more time with his family. His wife, Priscilla, is a registered nurse and nurse educator. They have two daughters.
    Dr. Webster received his BSc degree from Walla Walla College (College Place, Washington) in 1968, and continued his studies at Colorado State University (Fort Collins, Colorado). In 1972 he acquired his Ph.D. in Physical-Inorganic Geochemistry. His research topic was "Selenium isotope analysis and geochemical applications."
    During his graduate school years, Dr. Webster worked as a research chemist for the United States Geological Survey in Denver, Colorado. After graduation he was self-employed as the owner/director of C & L Laboratories in Denver, eventually selling his laboratory to Commercial Testing and Engineering in 1975.
    From the practical application of his training in chemistry through the analytical services laboratory, Dr. Webster moved into the academic world, teaching in the Chemistry department at the La Sierra campus of Loma Linda University, and then serving as chairman of the department from 1978-1980.
    Dr. Webster returned to his alma mater, Walla Walla College, to chair the Chemistry department from 1980-1983.
    Although much of his time was occupied with teaching and administrative responsibilities, Dr. Webster pursued research in the depositional geochemistry of uranium roll-front deposits in Shirley Basin, Wyoming. In 1982 the GRI sponsored his research on trace element profiles in historic lavas.
    After joining the GRI, Dr. Webster continued his research activities on the trace elements in Hawaiian lavas (a baseline study). He has conducted geochemical analyses of volcanic ash beds in the Sepulcher Formation near Specimen Creek in Yellowstone National Park as well as their possible sources. He has also done computer studies of geochemical stability fields of uranium, sulfur, selenium, iron, vanadium and polonium.
    More recently Dr. Webster studied and published in Origins an article on the Bridgewater fossil forest in Victoria, Australia. He also participated in another research project doing geochemical analyses on impact eject from the Chicxulub crater on Albion Island in Belize — a suggested end-Cretaceous boundary site. He was coauthor on a Geological Society of America abstract and on a paper published in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters for this research.
    While at GRI, Dr. Webster shared his understanding of the interface between science and religion worldwide. He edited and authored a supplemental high-school science textbook entitled The Earth: Origins and Early History, and a GRI booklet titled "A Scientist’s Perspective on Creation and the Flood" (a Spanish edition is also available). He edited Geoscience Reports from 1984 to 1987. He also served as research grant coordinator and safety officer.
    As impressive as his scholarly accomplishments may be, Clyde’s "curriculum vita" does not encompass his multiple interests and talents. The GRI staff knows Clyde to be a fun-loving person. He likes to put an occasional slide into someone else’s carousel to perk up the presentation. He is known to be both a patient racquetball teacher and a formidable opponent on the court.
    Clyde enjoys people, airplanes, gold mining, electronics, photography, bowling, World War II stories, attending ice hockey games, and finding bargains on gemstones. Some of us will never forget how he assisted the police in Utrecht by apprehending his own personal pickpocket. Most importantly, we know him to be a spiritual man, devoted to the Bible class he teaches at church and committed to his God.
    Thank you, Clyde, for 17 years of many wonderful, shared memories! We wish you God’s richest blessings for the future.

Clyde L. Webster