A few Reflectorites have asked for the Gish/Ross debate, which
was an original transcript of a tape by Bill Hamilton, that I
found on the Australian fidonet Creation v Evolutioin echo. Bill
has indicated it is partially incomplete.
Here they are in two parts:
==========================================================
Author: William E. Hamilton
Title: Gish/Ross Focus on the Family Interview
==========================================================
Focus on the family discussion with Hugh Ross and Duane Gish
August 12, 13 1992
Jim Dobson, the host opened the program:
Dobson: (addressing Mike Trout, the announcer) Well Mike, we're going
to do something almost dangerous today. Dangerous in the sense that
the topic we're gonna discuss today is a controversial one that could
divide some members of the Christian community. We certainly don't
want to do that. I've been urged to devote a program to the topic
we're going to talk about today ... by many people including a board
member of FOF. And that's what really brings us to this moment. The
topic is the origin of the universe and the age of the earth, which
may not on the face of it seem like a topic related to the family, but
it certainly is relevant to our faith and to scripture and to our
understanding of who we are and how we got here, and that's all of us,
certainly, within the Christian community. And that's how it came to
be that we did two previous topics on this subject and that kind of
led to what we're going to do today. Let me explain. Astrophysics is
a hobby with me - it's not something I consider myself terribly
knowledgeable of, although I've been interested in the subject since I
was in elementary school - been reading about it all that time. So we
have done several programs on the vastness of the universe - what God
has put out there and the beauty of His creation. The heavens declare
the glory of God and it really strengthens my faith to take a look at
what we know about the universe. So we have done several programs
about that subject. On Dec 12 and 13, 1985 we did a program with Dr.
Duane Gish and Dr. Richard Bliss, both from the ICR on the subject of
creation and how it should be taught in the schools and we got into
this broader subject in that program. In that program the guests
expressed their firm conviction that the earth is no more than about
10,000 years old and that the Genesis account of creation refers to
six 24 hour days, specifically meaning that the earth is very young
and that after that God rested and there was no further creative
activity. Then on April 17, 1991 Dr. Hugh Ross was our guest and he
discussed his book, "The Fingerprint of God". Dr. Ross provided
scientific evidence for the Biblical account of creation, but Dr. Ross
believes that the earth is billions of years old and the Genesis
account refers not to 6 24 hour days but to eons. That program was one
of the most popular programs of the year 1991. We just got an
overwhelming amount of mail - almost 10000 requests for the tape of
that interview and the mail was overwhelmingly positive, I might say.
On the other hand there was a small - I think about 40 or 50 letters -
but a very vociferous, angry response to that program from people who
considered Dr. Ross' view of the earth as very very old as being
unbiblical and even heretical, and there were some very emotional
reactions to it - one Christian radio station threatened to take our
broadcast off the air ... It was as though Dr. Ross was saying, "I
don't believe the Bible," to those people, and so there are these
different perspectives. And so I had a certain amount of mail from
people asking me to deal with this issue further and to allow a
discussion of the two sides. I tried to express in my reactions to
that mail that the issue is one of Biblical interpretation, not
deliberate contradiction of basic truths, and I neither challenged Dr.
Ross when he was here or Dr. Gish when he and Dr. Bliss were here,
because first of all I don't feel qualified in that area. I'm not a
theologian, I'm not a physicist, I'm not a biochemist, I don't have
expertise in these areas and furthermore, I don't know what's right.
Some people feel like they absolutely know - I'm not one of them. And
so I thought the best thing we could do was to bring the guests here
again and allow them to discuss the subject...
Trout: There is an aspect to this topic that just causes people to
think and to study. That in and of itself is a healthy exercise...
Dobson: Yeah, we can call it brain food. You know, if we just get
people reading the Scriptures, we've accomplished what we wanted to do
or part of it. I do believe that the Bible is the inspired Word and
when all truth is known there will be no contradiction within it. That
fact is not on the table today - we're not debating that. I also
believe that Dr. Ross, Dr. Gish and Dr. Bliss are equally committed to
the truth and to Jesus Christ and they simply come down on different
sides of A very thorny issue, with differing perspectives on how
important it is. So we have invited Dr. Gish and Dr. Ross here today
to debate, or at least to discuss this matter of the age of the
universe as it relates to our faith. I just ask for charity among
those who are listening, because we are trying to do what is right
here. Let me introduce the guests and then we will get on with the
topic. Dr. Hugh Ross holds a Ph.D. in astronomy from the University
of Toronto, he's the president and director of Reasons to Believe,
located in LA. Dr. Ross, welcome back.
Ross: Thank you, it's good to be here.
Dobson: Dr. Gish holds a Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of
California at Berkeley and he's Vice President of ICR, also located in
Southern California...
Well gentlemen, let's get to it. Duane, I'm going to give you the
first shot. You strongly believe in the young earth theory, you don't
believe in the big bang. You believe that creation occurred in six 24
hour days. Explain why and why this issue is so important to you.
Gish: Well yes, Dr. Dobson. My concern is not so much with the age of
things. We keep contrasting say the young age to the vastly old age
that Hugh believes in and of course there is a difference there, but
I'm more concerned about how the universe came into existence. I
accept the Biblical account that we find in the Bible: God did create
the heavens and the earth and we read in the Bible that on the fourth
day God created the sun and the moon and the starts and that when that
period of creation was over - six days creation was finished - it has
not been continued for billions of years of time. It was not a natural
process it had to be something that was supernaturally done by God.
God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. Now Hugh in his
view - in his big bang cosmology, big bang cosmology is a natural
process that begins with this big bang, and following the big bang
then as this hydrogen and helium distributed itself throughout the
universe and as stars evolved and galaxies evolved and our solar
system created itself and so on.. That's been going on for, say, 15,
16, 17, 18 billion years. Well in a process like that, you see, I
don't see any difference between that view and that of any atheist
cosmologist or any unbelieving cosmologist who believes in the big
bang, I can't see the difference and I don't see the agreement between
this natural evolutionary origin of the universe and the universe that
God created in the book of Genesis. In other words certainly if
creation is not finished - Hugh believes that stars are still forming
today you see, so we still - evolutionary creation has been going on
for 18 billion years.
Dobson: Hugh, why is it necessary to remove God from the process of
the big bang if you merely describe how He may have done what He did?
Ross: Well that's my very point, that God's not at all removed. When
you solve the equations of general relativity - and we can prove that
those equations govern the universe - you discover that you are face
to face with an ultimate origin for all matter and energy and even the
dimensions of length width height and time that encompass the cosmos.
There's only one holy book that teaches a doctrine that's consistent
with that and that's the Bible. We believe in a God that's
transcendent in bringing the universe into existence. As Hebrews 11:3
puts it, the universe that we can detect was made from that which we
cannot detect. And that's why atheists in astronomy and physics have
reacted so strongly to the big bang: because it establishes this
ultimate creation event.
Dobson: For those who have not read on this subject - they may be lost
already - explain what the big bang theory is.
Ross: Well the big bang theory is the theory that there's a beginning
- a creation event, and that moreover this creation event was caused
by a being that transcends matter energy length, width, height and
time - that's what I mean by transcendent. If you go into Hinduism or
Buddhism they say that time is eternal that the cosmos is eternal,
that the cosmos oscillates. And what the big bang does for us is prove
that these religions are false and that only the Christian
interpretation of the cosmos is correct.
Dobson: Which is that there was a definite point of beginning and that
beginning was that all matter was together in an infinitely small
space and it exploded throughout...
Ross: The matter, energy, space and time were literally created out of
nothing by this divine being.
Dobson: Well Duane, why must God be removed from that theory? Why do
you necessarily see that as a process a natural process without divine
intervention?
Gish: Well I'd reply in this way: That practically all unbelieving
astronomers accept the big bang cosmology - not all of them - there
are some very important astronomers who do not believe it. Now they
don't see God there at all I mean it's a natural process. You have
this cosmic egg, they don't know where it came from or how it got
there, they don't know why it exploded...
Dobson: But you don't believe Hugh believes that...
Gish: Hugh believes that, yeah...
Dobson: Believes that the cosmic egg got there and we don't know how
it got there...
Gish: Well that's the world of what we would call science, these,
these astronomers...
Dobson: But that's not what he...
Gish: Well, you see, if Hugh could explain to me what is the
difference between what he believes - what his theory it - and if I go
talk to an atheist I can't if I talk to an atheist astronomer and tell
him, "Would you explain to me the big bang cosmology and what took
place" and ask Hugh the same thing, I don't detect any difference. You
have the cosmic egg and it explodes and out of this gas somehow stars
create themselves and galaxies create themselves and all that. And
that's exactly what this atheist...
Dobson: Wasn't the difference God versus no God?
Gish: The difference is, Hugh says God's back there somewhere. But
what did God do in this process? What did He do? How can Hugh say,
"God did it, you see? How do we know that God did it? The atheist
astronomer sitting right by him will say exactly what he did as far as
this big bang cosmology is concerned.
Ross: Well, let me complete the picture. What I'm saying is that God
brought into existence miraculously all the energy, matter and all the
dimensions of space and time that encompass the universe. He also very
carefully designed the characteristics and the parameters of the
universe so that it could sustain life. 19 characteristics of the
universe had to be very highly fine-tuned in order for life to exist.
More than that God must create the solar system. There are 40
characteristics of the solar system that must be very highly fine
tuned for life to exist on the earth. So we're seeing the miracle of
the big bang that brought all of matter, space and time into
existence. There's another 19 miracles in terms of the design
characteristics of the universe that we' discovered so far, and the
list gets bigger every year and now there's 40 characteristic of the
solar system that show the creator designing that. So it's not just
God involved at the beginning of the cosmos - He's involved thereafter
- regularly intervening into the system to create and shape. Now at
the same time you have formation going on. Duane's right - I do
believe that stars are forming today. But I also believe that
raindrops form today. In fact raindrop formation is a whole lot easier
naturally than star formation...
Dobson: So that's the moving around of created matter...
Gish: Well let me say this: Hugh, if what you say is true - all these
very special things had to be, and you say God created all these very
special things - well that's just what I'm saying: God created the
universe. It didn't come about by some natural evolutionary process
beginning with the big bang. You had to have all these very special
conditions about the solar systems and about the universe and Hugh
says that proves God made it. And I say, I agree 100 percent. I don't
believe that you just start with some big bang and things just unroll
and evolve. You can't hold to the big bang cosmology and believe what
you just said, you see. If you say all these very special things just
couldn't happen naturally...
Ross: Duane, that's not how the astronomers interpret it. The
astronomers reacted to it because of its theistic implications...
Gish: Now wait a minute. They say, "All these things happened
naturally - just some evolutionary process...
Ross: The stars, the galaxies...
Gish: God's not necessary, it was just a natural process. And you say
stars are still forming today. Listen Hugh, forming a star is a
vastly different thing than a raindrop forming. The raindrop forming
had to have a little nucleus and moisture, and the raindrop will form.
But a star! I have articles with me, Hugh, where these astronomers
say, they do not have an adequate theory on stellar formation. They do
not even have a satisfactory theory. And I think every physicist will
agree how a raindrop forms - it's just a very simple thing. You
cannot equate the formation of a raindrop to a star. Oh, no...
Ross: Well, as I sent you in the mail, the equations that describe
star formation are far simpler than those that describe raindrop
formation. You're dealing with a gas. Moreover, we see star formation
in real time. You can take your pair of binoculars out tonight and
watch it. It's actually happening.
Gish: You .. I have articles right here with me , Hugh, that documents
the fact that these astronomers say they've never seen a star form and
there may be areas where they think stars are forming, but the matter
is not infalling, it's moving away from the nucleus, and I have
articles here which document the fact - they've never seen stars form.
No one even claims they've seen stars form. There may be areas of the
sky where they say, "Well that's where stars are forming," but they
never... well I know one article said, "well, it'll be 100,000 years
from now there'll be a star there"...
Ross: Well to correct the matter, we've been observing star formation
at the longer wavelengths - at the infrared and radio, and just this
week, published in the Astrophysical Journal, was the first time ever
observation of star formation at optical wavelengths...
Dobson: I'm sure...
Ross: we've just about lost everybody...
Dobson: That issue will certainly bless the homemaker out there.
Dobson: Duane, tell me why you feel our understanding of Biblical
accuracy rises or falls on this issue. Tell me why this is so central
to ...
Gish: Well for example, James Barr, who's professor at Oxford
University, not a believer, not a Christian. He said this: He said he
did not know of one Hebrew scholar at one world class university who
did not believe that the Bible says everything was created in six
ordinary days some thousands of years ago, and the Flood was a global
flood. He didn't know of any scholar at any world class university
who did not believe that's what the Bible says. Now there's no
question that's what the Bible says. Now, in order to believe what
Hugh believes we have to have some very questionable and absolutely
erroneous interpretation of certain words in the Bible. And there's a
number of examples that we could cite from Hugh's writings themselves
where he has misinterpreted certain words to make them fit his
cosmology, you see...
Dobson: Focusing on the word for "day" I suppose...
Gish: Well, that's just one, where the word "yom" used where it's
modified by evening and morning, when those two modifiers are used it
always without exception means a twenty four hour day, and when you
say the third day or first day that always when used with a numeral
refers to a twenty four hour day...
Dobson: How could there be a twenty four hour day before the earth was
revolving around the sun?
Gish: Well, I just believe, Jim, that God had the ability, the power,
to cause the earth to rotate at just the right speed to coincide with
the first, second and third day. I don't think we have too hard a job
for God to take care of. Uh, and He said a day and He put it that way.
Someone has said that God could not have been more precise in His
language if He wanted to denote a twenty four hour day...
Dobson: Now, before we leave that issue, Hugh, let's hear the other
side. I know from your writings I know you believe that word is used
in other ways in scripture.
Ross: Right, and the quote from James Barr is an ancient quote. I mean
I've defended my view of long creation days in front of the faculty of
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and not one of them was willing
to dispute the conclusions. In fact they were enthusiastically
endorsing the conclusions. This issue was also debated by the
International Council of Biblical Inerrancy and again they refused to
say that the Bible requires six consecutive twenty four hour days.
Dobson: And so you see that word used in other places. Explain the
documentation.
Ross: Well, the thing I'd like to emphasize is that it's not enough to
just take the Bible literally. We must take it literally and
consistently, so all 66 books are agreeing with one another, not
contradicting one another. And my problem with the six consecutive
twenty-four hour day interpretation is that I can't remove the
inconsistencies, but I can if I interpret them to be long periods of
time.
Dobson: You're referring to the scriptures that refer to the ancient
earth...
Ross: Well, the ancient earth, the fact that we're still in the
seventh day of God's rest - I believe as Duane does that God's at rest
now - He's not creating, but Hebrews and Psalms tell us that we're
still in that sate of rest. God's not going to create again until the
new creation that we see in Revelation 21, so that means the seventh
day must be a long time period, and that's consistent with the first
chapter where we see that there's no closure on the seventh day...
Dobson: It never says there was a morning and an evening...
Gish: Well, that wasn't necessary, because there was no particular act
of creation on that day. Now the future day of rest, that's a future
day. It has no reference to the past seventh day. There is a day of
rest, but that does not have to do with the seventh day. I don't think
you can influence interpretation of those six days by any reference to
the day of rest...
Ross: Well, it's called God's seventh day of rest...
Gish: Well, if you can produce one example, Hugh, in the Bible, where
the evening and the morning was a certain day or where it refers to
the first day or the second day and it's more than twenty four hours,
I don't think you can do that...
Ross: But that doesn't mean it's a Hebrew rule of grammar. I mean the
lexicons will bear that out...
Gish: An example. No, lexicons do not, Hugh. Now, and then there's
other problems. You say the word Nethan which says that God caused to
appear the sun on the fourth day. That word nethan nowhere in any
lexicon is described or defined as "to make or to appear". It means to
set, to establish, or to place...
Ross: It has 36 definitions...
Gish: Not, n..., not in ....
Ross: 36 definitions...
Dobson: I'm lost now sure enough...
Gish: You see, nethan... the command, concerning the sun, is the
creative command, just the same ways as when God said, "Let there be
light" and there was light.. Now on the fourth day God said "let there
be the sun. Let there be the stars." It's the same command, it's a
creative command Hugh. It's not saying "just made to appear"...
Ross: Well no, I would dispute that. It's the verb hayah, let there
be. As you're well aware, there are three verbs in the Hebrew that
would connote God directly creating . Those verbs are not used for the
first and fourth creation days. Rather the verb that was used was
hayah, let there be.
Dobson: Duane, do you draw any significance from II Peter 3:8 which
says, "But do not ignore this one fact beloved, that with the Lord one
day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as one day"
Gish: Well Jim, it's often said that a text without context is a
pretext. And you see here, what the context is, Jim, it's referring to
prophecy the apostle Peter says, "Ah but dear friends, these certain
prophecies have not been fulfilled, but be patient because with God a
thousand years is as a day or a day is as a thousand years". It has no
reference to the days of creation. That is not intended to refer to
those days of creation you see. The days of creation there in the book
of Genesis as the text indicates were just ordinary days. I know it's
difficult for some people to accept that and you see that's the
problem, because it's some of these difficulties. Now Hugh wants
billions of years. He's got to have billions of years. He can't evolve
a universe in say less than 13, 14, 15 billion years...
Ross: Can't evolve it in billions of years either...
Gish: No, that's right...
Dobson: Flat out, Hugh, you reject evolution, biological evolution.
Ross: Absolutely. It's not going to happen in billions of years...
Gish: But you do not reject astronomical evolution. Anybody who
accepts big bang cosmology - that's evolution. There's no question
about it.
Ross: The big bang as a creation event at the origin. When you get
back to those billions of years you're confronted with this
transcendent creation event ...
Gish: Well Hugh, I'm talking about the process, origin of stars,
origin of galaxies, the origin of our solar system...
Ross: Well when you get into the solar system it must be designed, it
must be crafted ...
Gish: Absolutely. The solar system gives every proof of being a
created article - gives every evidence of design, not just coming out
of some..
Ross: Well I agree with that, I'm not disputing that...
Gish: Well then we agree then the solar system did not evolve. Is
that right,? It was created. God created the planets and the sun...
Ross: He would have had to have designed the sun, the earth and the
moon in order for life to be possible on this planet. He would have
had to design the universe - ah the number of stars has to be precise.
The age of the universe must be just right. If the universe it too
young you can't have life, if it's too old you can't have life. In
fact everything must be middle aged...
Gish: You know, what you're saying it that the universe was created, I
mean when you get through with all these statements what you're
saying, Hugh, there's tremendous evidence for creation...
Ross: Exactly...
Gish: It was created, it was designed, and created and that's what I'm
saying, but here in your material you say in order to get this
universe we have today from the big bang we have to even invent
something that's totally imaginary and that's cold dark matter. Now
that's just exactly like believing in Santa Clause or believing in the
tooth fairy, because you and I both know no one have ever seen or
detected this cold dark matter...
Ross: That's not true...
Gish: That you must have . It is not seen. No one has ever seen it.
No one has ever detected it. You can't detect it.
Ross: Well, you need to read our next issue of "Facts and Faith" -
we'll be describing five discovery made in the last eight weeks...
Dobson: Gentlemen, we're out of time, but we're just getting going,
we're really beginning to cook this issue. So I'm just going to ask
you to stay right where you are and Mike will end the program today
and tomorrow we'll hear what's about to occur.... You know, I uh just
from my own perspective, I said at the top of the program, that I'm
confused as to the truth within this issue and the two sides of it,
and I don't know who's right. I haven't expressed my views, but I see
problems in both perspectives, and I'd like to get into that a little
bit next time. It reminds me in some ways of the first year that
Shirley and I were married and we needed some life insurance, so I
invited in about 7 or 8 life insurance salesmen and I figured I'd
listen to all of them and then I'd know life insurance and make a
decision... I got so confused that I wound up just saying, "You, tell
me what to buy." And in some ways as we get into the original
languages and the scientific theories it may not be possible for us
ordinary folks to track you guys, but we're gonna try and we'll
discuss it some more next time.
.. /continued
==========================================================
Happy New Year!
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
----------------------------------------------------------------