Интервјуи научника антиеволуциониста

[Guest Alefshin]

An Interview With Michael Denton

The following is an excerpt from an ARN video interview with Michael Denton. Some of the answers have been condensed. The tape is the first in a series of interviews with noted scientists and educators entitled Focus on Darwinism. The series is produced by ARN in conjunction with the University of California and has been designed for use in high school and college classrooms.

Dr. Denton is a Senior Research Fellow at the University of Otago in New Zealand and the author of the book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.

The entire interview is available on VHS video cassette from ARN for $19.95, plus $2 shipping. See the ARN Video Tape Information page for ordering information.

What was your motivation for writing Evolution: A Theory in Crisis?

Very simply, I think the current Darwinian picture is insufficient. I don't think it gives a credible and comprehensive explanation of how the pattern of life on earth emerged.

Why should students be exposed to problems in evolutionary theory?

People should be exposed to problems, particularly when the theory is very important. The theory of evolution permeates much of our thinking now in the Western world. I think there are problems with the current Darwinian world, and they should be discussed.

What have been the major objections to your book?

Most of the objections have been vague and philosophical. In the many reviews that I've read very carefully I don't find many specific objections. Most of the objections are that this guy is a creationist or he doesn't believe in Darwinism, he's outside the mainstream of biology, and so forth.

Does Darwinian theory adequately explain the pervasive patterns of natural history?

Well, the basic pattern it fails to explain is the apparent uniqueness and isolation of major types of organisms. My fundamental problem with the theory is that there are so many highly complicated organs, systems and structures, from the nature of the lung of a bird, to the eye of the rock lobster, for which I cannot conceive of how these things have come about in terms of a gradual accumulation of random changes.

It strikes me as being a flagrant denial of common sense to swallow that all these things were built up by accumulative small random changes. This is simply a nonsensical claim, especially for the great majority of cases, where nobody can think of any credible explanation of how it came about. And this is a very profound question which everybody skirts, everybody brushes over, everybody tries to sweep under the carpet.

The fact is that the majority of these com-plex adaptations in nature cannot be ade-quately explained by a series of intermediate forms. And this is a fundamental problem. Common sense tells me there must be something wrong.

What in your judgment are the most serious objections to Darwinian theory?

The most serious objection I have is with the nature of mutation. Darwinism is based on the B) that all the mutations which have been selected during the course of evolution were, when they initially occurred, entirely random. Mutations are random, and when an organism has a mutation which in fact is advantageous to it, that's purely fortuitous. This is the essential bedrock of Darwinism. The mutational input into living things is, as it were, at random.

Now, the problem with this doctrine is that we simply don't know much about mutations. My own field is human genetics, and while I certainly accept that the deleterious mutations which occur in humans and cause human disease are random, what I don't know about is the vast undercurrent of mutations (which we really don't see) that may be neutral, may have no particular deleterious effect and may not be particularly advantageous.

Darwinism is claiming that all the adaptive structures in nature, all the organisms which have existed throughout history were generated by the accumulation of entirely undirected mutations. That is an entirely unsubstantiated belief for which there is not the slightest evidence whatsoever. Maybe there will never be that evidence because those mutations occurred in the distant past and have now disappeared forever, perhaps, from the view of man.

So the first claim, that random mutations are selected and create different forms of life, is unsustained. The second problem is that there are a vast number of complex systems in nature, and no matter how unglamorous this problem is, no matter how people try to look the other way, the fact is that a huge number of highly complex systems in nature cannot be plausibly accounted for in terms of a gradual build-up of small random mutations.

Indeed, in many cases there does not exist in the biological literature even an attempt to explain how these things have come about. A classic example would be the lung of the bird, and I could mention some other ones, but everybody knows the lung of the bird is unique in being a circulatory lung rather than a bellows lung. I think it doesn't require a great deal of profound knowledge of biology to see that an organ, which is so central to the physiology of any higher organism, its drastic modification in that way by a series of small events is almost inconceivable. This is something we can't throw under the carpet again because, basically, as Darwin said, if any organ can be shown to be incapable of being achieved gradually in little steps, his theory would be totally overthrown.

The fact is that, in common-sense terms, if you have no axe to grind, there are a vast number of such cases in nature. So the two serious objections are the assumption of randomness unsubstantiated that claim that gradualism can generate the sorts of complex systems we see throughout the biosphere is not only unsubstantiated, but in many cases, it is actually beyond the realm of common sense that such things would ever happen.

What do you feel are the strengths of Darwinian theory?

Its major strength is that smaller-scale biological change can be adequately accounted for by Darwinian mechanisms. You have the case of the peppered moth, where it is demonstrated to be true that natural selection has created a biological change. The transitions in the history of life, early horse -- five-toed to one-toed -- can perhaps be adequately explained in terms of gradual evolutionary change, so that Darwinism does explain a certain degree of biological change.

I certainly believe that natural selection is capable of generating change in nature; after all, artificial selection at the hands of man has generated considerable change in domestic animals and plants. So I don't think there's any doubt that a small degree of evolutionary change can and does occur. Natural selection could be the major factor involving these changes. This is a great strength of Darwinism, compared with its other explanations. But if you're going to reject natural selection as the major cause of evolution, you've got to find an alternative.

There are various forms of teleological theories, extending from Creationist intervention theories to nature mysticism. But these theories are (I don't want to be derogatory) an occultist type of theory. You can't really find any evidence that such phenomena are operating in nature, but you can see that natural selection can operate. This is a great strength of Darwinism. Although I think it is totally incapable of accounting for the broad picture, the complex adaptations required by the tree of life, it's certainly capable of generating a certain degree of evolutionary change. That is its great strength.

http://www.arn.org/docs/orpages/or152/dent.htm

[Guest Alefshin]

Michael Behe on The Edge of Evolution

by Paul Comstock

September 24th, 2007

Michael Behe is a Professor of Biological Science at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. He argued in his 1996 book, Darwin’s Black Box that the cell structures of living organisms are “irreducibly complex” and cannot be explained by Darwin’s Theory of natural selection. This concept launched the intelligent design movement. His latest book is The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism.

Can you summarize the thesis of your new book?

    The book is called The Edge of Evolution and the gist is to find reasonable estimates for the limits of what Darwin’s theory — natural selection acting on random mutations — can actually accomplish. Clearly Darwin’s process can account for some small changes in biological systems, such as antibiotic resistance. But can it account for more complex systems, such as the intricate molecular machinery that science has discovered in the cell? Up until recently that question was impossible to answer because the molecular mutations underlying biological changes were unknown, and also because we couldn’t examine really vast numbers of organisms.

    But in the past ten years all that has changed. As I detail in the book, the molecular changes underlying resistance to malaria by humans, resistance to antibiotics by the malarial parasite, and other well-studied systems show that random mutation is incoherent — that is, a series of mutations usually has little to do with each other, and doesn’t add up to a new molecular machine. What’s more, most evolutionary changes are ones which either break or degrade genes — and these are the helpful mutations! But you can’t build new molecular machinery by breaking genes. I conclude that Darwinian processes account for little of the machinery of life, and that most positive evolution must be nonrandom — guided somehow — and I argue that result fits well with the fine-tuning of the universe discovered by physics.

In Richard Dawkins’ review of your book in the New York Times, he points to the hundreds of very different dog breeds that have evolved in a relatively short period of time. And although this was done through controlled breeding, he claims that your theory would not allow for such variation in so few generations - it would be mathematically impossible. How do you respond to that?

    I would suggest that Richard Dawkins re-read my book. In it I clearly state that random evolution works well up to the species level, perhaps to the genus and family level too. But at the level of vertebrate classes (birds, fish, etc), the molecular developmental programs needed would be beyond the edge of evolution. Darwinian evolution works well when a single small change in an organism’s DNA produces a notable effect. That’s what happens to give the various breeds of dogs. But when multiple, coordinated changes are needed for an effect, chance mutation loses its power.

Have you published this theory in a peer-reviewed journal? Have other scientists put forth a challenge to this quantitative argument?

    No, no journal these days would touch a paper which investigates intelligent design with a ten foot pole (unless the paper aims to debunk ID). However, all the science I rely upon for my argument in the book is indeed peer-reviewed, from the best, most relevant journals. My conclusions are rather straightforward deductions from data in the literature. As you might expect for such a controversial topic, some scientists have stumbled over each other to challenge my argument. I’ve examined their writings closely and think none of them touch the heart of my argument.

Is there any way to test the concept of a designer? Is there any evidence of his or her actions interceding in the development of life on earth?

    Well, it depends on what you mean by “test” and “evidence”. If you and a friend walked by Mount Rushmore, even if you had never heard of it before, you would immediately realize that the faces on the mountain were designed. Not for a moment would you think they were the result of random forces such as wind and erosion. Your conclusion of design would be certain, because you would see how well the pieces of the mountain fit the purpose of portraying an image.

    Whenever we perceive a “purposeful arrangement of parts” we suspect design. The more parts there are, and the more clearly they fit the purpose, the more confident our conclusion of design becomes. In the past fifty years science has discovered a very purposeful arrangement of parts in the cell’s molecular machinery. That is the evidence for the involvement of a designer in life on earth.

Do you believe a designer only set the universe in motion, or do you think a designer intercedes occasionally?

    Well, as a Christian I think God has intervened in human history. But in order to set up the general universe — including the design apparent in cells — I think God could have done that in a single instant, which unfolded over time.

Why is intelligent design science? Isn’t it just giving up on finding a scientific explanation for something that we don’t yet fully understand?

    Intelligent design is science because it is based completely on physical data — the molecular machinery of cells — plus ordinary logic. Whenever we see systems in our everyday world of a certain degree and kind of complexity (like clocks), we always have found them to be designed. Now, much to our surprise, science has discovered similar systems in the cell. I see no reason to withhold the conclusion of design for cellular components. So the design of cellular machinery is an inductive argument based on physical evidence — a scientific conclusion.

    When the motions of the galaxies away from the earth was first observed in the 1930s, that led to the Big Bang hypothesis. Many scientists of that time hated the dobrodosli of a beginning to nature, because it seemed to have theistic overtones. What if they had said that the Big Bang hypothesis was simply giving up on finding a scientific explanation for something that we don’t fully understand yet? If they had, physics would have missed out on a lot of progress. Science has to follow the evidence wherever it leads, or it ceases to be science. Right now the biological evidence is leading to the conclusion of design.

But that’s how they might have phrased it - “a beginning to nature” not “a designer got things started.” Do you appreciate the concern that many people have about introducing a “designer” into science textbooks?

    Yes, I do appreciate people’s concerns about explicitly talking of a “designer” in textbooks. Nonetheless, science is supposed to be a no-holds-barred search for the truth. Throughout the history of science we’ve had to get used to a lot of ideas that people thought were odd. There’s no reason to shy away from the concept of a designer just because it makes some people uneasy.

Where do your Christian beliefs diverge from a literal interpretation of the Bible? I’m thinking of those areas that might conflict with our current understanding of the universe.

    I’m a Roman Catholic; I never was taught a literal interpretation of the Bible. In fact, I was taught Darwin’s theory of evolution in parochial school. As far as I’m concerned, the universe and earth are as old as most physicists say they are, and life developed over immense ages. My main point of disagreement with the standard scientific story is that I think most of the development of the universe and life was set up; little was left to chance.

I’m curious if you’ve ever read mystics such as Sri Aurobindo or Ken Wilber, who take a spiritual, purposeful, but non-Christian view of evolution.

    Gee, no, I haven’t. I’ll have to look them up.

Do you have any second thoughts about irreducible complexity, the theme of your first book? Do you consider this quantitative approach a better challenge to Darwinism?

    I think irreducible complexity is a swell concept, which easily gets across the problem for Darwinian evolution to a general audience. It shows us quickly that Darwin’s theory is the wrong answer for much of life. However, the more quantitative approach in The Edge of Evolution actually builds on the concept of irreducible complexity, and allows us to put numbers on the likelihood of random processes building a coherent structure. It can show us that design reaches much deeper into life than we otherwise would have thought.

http://calitreview.com/260

[Guest Alefshin]

John M. Cimbala, mechanical engineering

Dr. Cimbala is professor of mechanical engineering, Pennsylvania State University. He holds a B.S. in aerospace engineering with highest distinction from Pennsylvania State University, an M.S. in aeronautics from the California Institute of Technology, and a Ph.D. in aeronautics from the California Institute of Technology. As well as publishing a number of research papers in the area of fluid dynamics, Dr. Cimbala served as a visiting senior research scientist at the NASA Langley Research Center. He was a pioneer in the development of the internet for teaching enhancement and, in 1997, received the George W. Atherton Award for Excellence in Teaching at Pennsylvania State University.

I was raised in a Christian home, believing in God and His creation. However, I was taught evolution while attending high school, and began to doubt the authority of the Bible. If evolution is true, I reasoned, the Bible cannot also be true. I eventually rejected the entire Bible and believed that we descended from lower creatures; there was no afterlife and no purpose in life but to enjoy the short time we have on this earth. My college years at Penn State were spent as an atheist, or at best as an agnostic.

Fortunately, and by the grace of God, I began to read articles and listen to tapes about scientific evidence for creation. Over a period of a couple of years, it became apparent to me that the theory of evolution has no legitimate factual evidence, and that scientific data from the fossil record, geology, etc. could be better explained by a recent creation, followed by a global Flood. Suddenly I realized that the Bible might actually be true! It wasn’t until I could believe the first page of the Bible that I could believe the rest of it. Once I accepted the fact that there is a creator God, it was an easy step for me to accept His plan of salvation through Jesus Christ as well. I became a follower of Christ during my first year of graduate school at Cal Tech.

Since then, I have devoted much time to studying the evidence for creation and a global Flood. The more I study, the more convinced I become that there is a loving God, who created this universe and all living things. God revealed some details about His creation in the Book of Genesis, which I now believe literally—six days, a young earth and a global Flood.

There are many pieces of evidence about which I could write; here I choose one: The Second Law of Thermodynamics. A formal definition of The Second Law of Thermodynamics is: “In any closed system, a process proceeds in a direction such that the unavailable energy (the entropy) increases.” In other words, in any closed system, the amount of disorder always increases with time. Things progress naturally from order to disorder, or from an available energy state to one where energy is more unavailable. A good example: a hot cup of coffee cools off in an insulated room. The total amount of energy in the room remains the same (which satisfies the first law of thermodynamics). Energy is not lost, it is simply transferred (in the form of heat) from the hot coffee to the cool air, warming up the air slightly. When the coffee is hot, there is available energy because of the temperature difference between the coffee and the air. As the coffee cools down, the available energy is slowly turned to unavailable energy. At last, when the coffee is room temperature, there is no temperature difference between the coffee and the air, i.e., the energy is in an unavailable state. The closed system (consisting of the room and the coffee) has suffered what is technically called a “heat death.” The system is “dead” because no further work can be done, since there is no more available energy. The second law says that the reverse cannot happen! Room temperature coffee will not get hot all by itself, because this would require turning unavailable energy into available energy.

Now consider the entire universe as one giant closed system. Stars are hot, just like the cup of coffee, and are cooling down, losing energy into space. The hot stars in cooler space represent a state of available energy, just like the hot coffee in the room. However, The Second Law of Thermodynamics requires that this available energy constantly change to unavailable energy. In another analogy, the entire universe is winding down like a giant wind-up clock, ticking down and losing available energy. Since energy is continually changing from available to unavailable, someone had to give it available energy in the beginning! (In other words, someone had to wind up the clock of the universe at the beginning.) Who or what could have produced energy in an available state in the first place? Only someone or something not bound by The Second Law of Thermodynamics. Only the Creator of The Second Law of Thermodynamics could violate it and create energy in a state of availability in the first place.

As time goes forward (assuming things continue as they are), the available energy in the universe will eventually turn into unavailable energy. At this point, the universe will be said to have suffered a heat death, just like the coffee in the room. The present universe, as we know it, cannot last forever. Furthermore, imagine going backwards in time. Since the energy of the universe is constantly changing from a state of availability to one of less availability, the further back in time one goes, the more available the energy of the universe. Using the clock analogy again, the further back in time, the more wound up the clock. Far enough back in time, the clock was completely wound up. The universe therefore cannot be infinitely old. One can only conclude that the universe had a beginning, and that beginning had to have been caused by someone or something operating outside of the known laws of thermodynamics. Is this scientific proof for the existence of a creator God? I think so. Evolutionary theories of the universe cannot counteract the above arguments for the existence of God.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/isd/cimbala.asp

[Guest Alefshin]

Interview

Lee Spetner

Dr. Spetner has been active for more than forty years in

militarysystems development, about 20 years with the Applied Physics

Laboratory of the Johns Hopkins University and about 20 years with

Elbit Systems, Ltd. in Israel. He received a degree in mechanical

engineering from Washington University in 1945 and the Ph.D. in physics

from MIT in 1950. In the course of his career he has taught graduate

courses in engineering, physics, and mathematics. For many years he

taught statistical communication theory at the Johns Hopkins University

and later at the Weizman Institute of Science. He developed an interest

in biology and evolution when he spent a year in the biophysics

department of the Johns Hopkins University in 1963-64. In 1997 he

published a book Not By Chance! that shows why neoDarwinian theory

cannot explain the development of life. He is retired and living in

Jerusalem, but he is still active, doing research in biology and

evolution.

4 SHABBAT SHALOM / Spring 2000

habbat Shalom: Dr. Spetner, what initially kindled your interest in

creation? . Spetner: There was no one thing that "kindled" my interest

in creation. It is a subject that I was brought up on at an early age.

Shabbat Shalom: Is creation a relevant topic today in the twenty-first

century? Why? Spetner: I think that there is a lot of misunderstanding

about creation, both in the scientific . camps and in the religious

camps. With the rapid movement of science today, I think we can look

forward to a continuation of the convergence of the theological and the

scientific understandings of creation.

Shabbat Shalom: Why is creation important in Jewish tradition? What

role does creation play? Spetner: Creation is important because it

informs us that the entire universe belongs to the One who created it

and that we, both Jew and non-Jew, have obligations to Him. We are

responsible to find out what those obligations are and to carry them

out. The obligations of the Jew are more than those of the non-Jew, but

the responsibilities are equally strict in both cases. If the universe

were not created, but rather were the product of pure chance, none of

us would have any absolute obligations. Our obligations would be only

those we impose on ourselves.

Shabbat Shalom: What does the Jewish faith in creation imply for a

Jewish understanding of God, man, and life? Spetner: I don't know what

is meant by "faith in creation." Creation is something we have

knowledge of. We have, however, only a limited understanding of

creation, because not everything has been revealed to us. There have

been special scholars in each generation who have had the ability and

the merit to understand more than others. It is not possible to

understand creation from the text of Genesis alone. The account is too

brief, and it was not the purpose of Genesis to give us those details.

For m o re d e t a i l e d i n f o r m a t i o n about creation one has

to study the Oral Torah. I think that science has a contribution to

make here, but one must be careful to temper the scientific

understanding with a measure of humility. Many people tend to think

that present-day cosmological theories give us the correct (and only

legitimate) picture of the universe and its origin. But we have seen

scientific theories change radically in a matter of decades. I think

that there will eventually be a synthesis of science and revelation in

these matters, but we are at present far from this goal. Shabbat

Shalom: Do you think that creation really happened? If yes, how?

Spetner: Yes, I believe creation happened. I think almost everyone,

believer and atheist alike, believes that, mainly from the evidence of

the "Big Bang." I don't know how the "Big Bang" was triggered, and I

don't think anyone else professes to know either. But I am confident

that I know who was

If the universe were not created, but rather . were the product of pure

chance, none of us would have any absolute obligations.

responsible for that trigger. Cosmologists cannot observe anything

before the universe became transparent to radiation. They cannot even

theorize with any reliability about anyyears old. The Genesis story is

n o t t h e f i r s t c re a t i o n . T h e w o r l d w a s c re a t e

d a n d d e stroyed many times before that. A careful reading of

Genesis indicates that at the time of the creation of Adam (which,

according to tradition, was 5760 years ago) the earth already existed.

Jewish tradition has usually shied away from discussing events that

occurred before the Genesis account. But there are good reasons for

investigating them. Shabbat Shalom: Your recent book Not by Chance! is

subtitled Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution. Could you briefly

summarize for our readers the main argument(s) by which you shattered

the modern theory of evolution? Spetner: My main argument is that the

mechanism of random mutation and natural selection, which is assumed by

evolutionists to be responsible for all of evolution, cannot account

for the development of life from some simple beginning to all the

complexity we see today. Random mutation with natural selection cannot

account for macroevolution. It cannot account for the appearance of

small modifications that could build up over long periods of time to

produce the kinds of changes that would cause a fish to evolve into an

amphibian. The power of natural selection is only to reject the

modifications that are unfit and to enhance the numbers of those that

are fit. The book presents two arguments showing

We see science today converging on some of the details of creation in

Torah tradition.

thing that happened until after 10 -35 seconds after the big bang.

Whatever references we have in the Oral Torah to the actual creation

are sufficiently obscure that they are difficult for us to interpret

reliably. Nevertheless, we see science today converging on some of the

details of creation in Torah tradition. The "how" is something that

science is busy trying to answer. Shabbat Shalom: When did creation

take place in history? Spetner: That is an interesting question. All

scientific evidence points to about 15 billion years ago. I cannot say

yet whether this is or is not consistent with Torah tradition because,

as I said, the meaning of some of the traditional statements on this

issue are obscure. But it seems to be clear that the actual creation of

the universe occurred before the "First Day" of creation as recorded in

Genesis. Rabbi Isaac of Acco (12501350) taught that at the time of the

creation of Adam the universe was 15.3405 billion

that the long sequence of evolutionary steps required by neoDarwinian

theory cannot be built on random mutations. First, calculations show

that the probability of getting a long

Shabbat Shalom: Do you see other scientific arguments against

evolution? Spetner: There are other arguments against evolution, but

the above are the strongest and

The long sequence of evolutionary steps required by neo-Darwinian

theory cannot be built on random mutations.

sequence of adaptive mutations is too low to account for speciation. If

a theory is forced to say that observable events have had to happen

with very small probability, then that theory cannot be said to account

for those observables. Second, of all the many mutations that have been

studied on the molecular level, there is not one that could serve as a

prototype for the billions of mutations postulated by evolutionary

theory to be responsible for the evolution of new species, new genera,

and new phyla. The lack of such an observation does not only represent

a lack of evidence for evolution; it is actually evidence against

neo-Darwinian theory. For all of life to have evolved from a primitive

form like a single cell, a large amount of information would have had

to evolve in the process, simply because the complex life of today

contains much more information that that single primitive cell could

have contained. Neo-Darwinian theory postulates that all that

information was built up slowly through random mutations culled by

natural selection. There is no evidence or any argument in favor of

that postulate. Moreover, both theory and evidence are against it.

least subject to rebuttal by evolutionists. Sh a b b a t S h a l o m :

W h a t would you regard as scientific arguments against creation?

Spetner: I know of no scientific arguments against creation, whether

the creation of the universe or the creation of life. What are offered

as "scientific" arguments against the

creation. In chapter 7 of my book, I discuss how the ability to change

is built in to living organisms. Creation does not exclude this kind of

evolution, and there is good evidence that such evolution has occurred.

In principle, creation could include the evolutionary process, as some

theologians think. But I am not of that opinion. Shabbat Shalom: Does

the biblical story of creation in Genesis 1 have something to say about

the scientific process of creation? Spetner: The story in Genesis is,

in itself, too brief to shed much light on the process of creation in

the kind of detail that would have meaning for science. Additional

details in the Oral Torah shed more

What are offered as "scientific" arguments against the creation of life

are nothing more than an assumption that supernatural intervention must

be ruled out.

creation of life are nothing more than an assumption that supernatural

intervention must be ruled out. That, of course, is not an argument.

Shabbat Shalom: Do you think that creation excludes evolution? Spetner:

The word "evolution" is used in a slippery way by evolutionists. In

selling their philosophy to the public, "evolution" means the

development of all life from a simple beginning. When giving evidence

for evolution, the word is watered down to mean simply that there has

been change. "Evolution" in the sense of change is of course not

incompatible with light on the subject, and these details can, in some

instances, correlate with the origin of the universe as presently

understood by cosmologists. But we must remember that the present

picture offered by cosmologists is not their final word; it will very

likely change in the next decade or less.

[Guest Alefshin]

Interview

Ariel A. Roth

Dr. Ariel A. Roth was born in Geneva, Switzerland, and grew up in Europe, the Caribbean and North America. Holding a Ph.D. degree in zoology from the University of Michigan, he has been chairman of the Biolog y Departments at Andrews and Loma Linda Universities, and from 1980 to 1994 was director of the Geoscience Research Institute at Loma Linda, California. For 23 years he has been editor of the journal Origins. Dr. Roth has been active in the evolution-creation controversy in the United States, testifying before many educational and legal groups, and has conducted numerous geological and paleontological field trips in Australia, New Zealand, Europe and North America. He has published over a hundred and fifty articles in both scientific and popular journals, and has given many hundreds of lectures throughout the world. His book Origins: Linking Science and Scripture presents scientific evidence that confirms the Bible.

habbat Shalom: Dr. Roth, what initially kindled your interest in creation? Roth: Early in my childhood, I remember my father discussing the controversy between evolutionary and biblical views. Geological interpretations were very important as they related to the Genesis flood and the proposed long geologic ages for the rocks. Especially significant was the question of whether we as human beings had descended from apelike creatures as proposed by evolution, or whether we were created in God's image as depicted in the Bible. My interest increased dramatically when, as a graduate student, so many of my science classes emphasized evolution as the only reasonable alternative, and some of my profes-

S

sors expressed concern about my views. Shabbat Shalom: Is creation a relevant topic today in the twenty-first century? Why? Roth: The concept of creation is sometimes dismissed as archaic and irrelevant. But this is not the thinking of many. A 1997 Gallup poll of adults in the United States indicates that only 10% believe that humnas originated by a purely evolutionary process; 39% believed that God guided in a process of development over millions of years; while 44% believed that God created humans in the last 10,000 years. The question of our origin has profound implications regarding the meaning of life, our purpose, duty, and our ultimate destiny. These are not questions that we can dismiss now any more easily than we

Spring 2000 / SHABBAT SHALOM 7

could fifty or one hundred years ago. In 1916, 40% of scientists

The question of our origin has profound implications regarding the meaning of life, our purpose, duty, and our ultimate destiny.

indicated that they believed in a personal God that answers prayer. A similar survey in 1996 indicated that about 40% of scientists still believed in a personal God that answers prayer. There has not been much change over the last century. While many scientists believe in God, the concept of God is excluded from current scientific explanations. To include God is considered unscientific. The great controversy between science and the Bible that started two centuries ago still rages in 2000 C.E. Shabbat Shalom: Why is creation important in Christian tradition? What role does creation play? Roth: One of the things we humans puzzle about is how the natural world that we see all about us came to be. The Bible tells us that God was involved in the original creation of the world and the things we find therein. We are not left in the dark about this, although we do not have all the details we would like. If God is the Creator of the universe, this establishes His authority above all others. None is greater, and that greatness commands its due respect. Shabbat Shalom: How different is the Jewish understanding

8 SHABBAT SHALOM / Spring 2000

of creation from the Christian understanding of creation? Roth: In general there is remarkable similarity. The only major difference is that Christianity includes Christ as creator. This is supported by some passages of the New Testament of the Bible. Both Judaism and Christianity entertain a variety of interpretations about creation, but when it comes to the inspired accounts of God's creative acts in the beginning, there is little difference. At the beginning of both the Jewish Torah and the Christian Bible we have the same account of creation in the book of Genesis. In that account God prepares the Earth and creates the various forms of life in six days and rests on the seventh day, the Sabbath. Some, in attempting to reconcile evolutionary views with the Torah or the Bible, have proposed views of the gradual development of life forms by God over

While many scientists believe in God, the concept of God is excluded from current scientific explanations.

millions or billions of years. One model called theistic evolution suggests that God used the evolutionary process and He helped whenever evolution had major problems. Another model called progressive creation proposes that God gradually created more advanced forms of life during many creation episodes spread over

many millions of years. Both these models face serious scientific and theological problems. Shabbat Shalom: It appears that Christian tradition has emphasized salvation at the expense of creation whereas Jewish tradition has emphasized the value of creation. Do you have any comments on this antithesis? Roth: Tradition is important but varies with time and place. I personally appreciate any emphasis that the Jewish tradition places on creation since this has been my area of special interest. On the other hand, life is so meaningful to us, that I suspect that salvation is probably a more important question. Shabbat Shalom: What are the practical implications of the biblical idea of creation? Roth: The Bible tells us that God created in six days. Then He rested on the seventh day. He asked humans to keep the seventh day holy as a memorial of His creatorship and His creation. The biblical creation week implies the keeping of the holy Sabbath as a memorial of that creation. This Sabbath-keeping is a help to people to keep them from forgetting their Creator. Scholars who suggest that creation took a very long time propose that the account given in Genesis is mythology and not history. However, later on that part of the Bible that is accepted as historical also speaks of God's creating in six days. Probably the most authoritative part of the Bible and the Torah is the Ten Commandments, given after the exodus of the Children of Israel from Egypt. These commandments were written by God's own hand, and there in Exodus 20:11 He asks us to keep the Sabbath holy because He created in six days. It would be a strange kind

of God who would create over millions of years and then ask us to keep the seventh-day Sabbath holy because He created in six days. Furthermore, other leading biblical authorities including Peter, Paul, and Christ consider the account of beginnings given in the Bible to be factual. I think of passages like 2 Peter 3:3-6, Romans 5:12-14 or Matthew 19:4-6. Shabbat Shalom: What does the Christian faith in creation imply for a Christian understanding of God, humans, and life? Roth: Let me start answering by asking some different questions. Why are we here on Earth? What is the meaning of existence? It is hard to think that the meaningfulness of our existence is just an accident. These deep questions find satisfying and valid answers in the context of creation. The Bible and the Torah tell us that God is the Creator. We are also told that we were created in God's image, and this implies a special relationship. On the one hand, we are responsible to God our Creator. On the other hand, we are special and God is doing all He can to help us in the great conflict between good and evil. Thus creation provides reasonable and meaningful answers to questions about our origin and purpose. Shabbat Shalom: If you could single out the most meaningful lesson of the creation story in Genesis, what would it be? Roth: The most important lesson we can learn from cre-

Sabbath-keeping is a help to people to keep them from forgetting their Creator.

ation is that God is in charge. While He gives us the power of choice, including freedom to choose good and evil, it is good to know that our powerful and good Creator is in ultimate control. This means that since He was powerful enough to create us, He is powerful enough to recreate us now and in the life to come. Shabbat Shalom: Do you think that creation really happened? If yes, how? Roth: Yes, I think creation really happened. The universe is too marvelous, life is far too complex, and our existence too meaningful, for me to think that there is not some mastermind behind it all. Furthermore, I would expect that any creator who designed our minds would communicate with his creatures. As I look at the various possibilities for that communication, the Bible seems the most reasonable. Many historical, archaeological, and scientific facts--yes I said scientific facts--authenticate the Bible. In that Bible I find that God is the Creator of all. Many details of how He did it are not given, but He is such a powerful Creator that it did not take Him long to do it. Shabbat Shalom: In your recent book Origins you attempt to link science and Scripture, and in the process you propose the biblical model of a recent creation by God. So when did creation take place in history? Roth: Both the Bible and the Torah suggest that the creation of life on Earth took place a few

The most important lesson we can learn from creation is that God is in charge.

thousand years ago. No specific exact time is given, and the genealogies and various manuscripts permit different interpretations, but these documents are not talking about millions of years. We are probably speaking of around 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. This immediately raises the question about the current scientific interpretations that life has been evolving on Earth for billions of years. Which is correct: science or the Bible? There is not very much scientific data that points to only a few thousand years since creation, but it is impressive that the firm evidence for humans on Earth suggests only a few thousand years of existence. I am speaking of the findings of archaeology, history and written languages. These all suggest only a few thousand years. If humans have been around for at least half a million years as proposed by many anthropologists, where are all the ancient cities and other evidences such as cemeteries or burial places for the vast population that would have developed over half a million years? Our rare examples about ancient fossil man are often disputed, but recent archaeological and historical findings about recent man are abundant and unquestionably human. There are several geologic processes that are so fast that they severely challenge the concept of the billions of years proposed for the evolution of life-forms on Earth. For instance, the rate of erosion of our continents goes on so rapidly that in the proposed eons of geologic time they would have been eroded to sea level over 100 times, but they are still here. The suggestion by some geologists that the continents have been renewed from below to reSpring 2000 / SHABBAT SHALOM 9

The universe is too marvelous, life is far too complex, and our existence too meaningful, for me to think that there is not some mastermind behind it all.

place the eroded portions is not an answer, because many of the proposed young to old layers are still right here on the continents. We have not gone through even one complete cycle of erosion and replacement. Another significant feature that challenges long ages for the geologic layers of the crust of the Earth is that these layers seem very flat as they lie one on top of the other. In contrast, the present surface of the Earth is well carved by irregular erosion forming gullies, valleys and canyons. If there had been lots of time in the past, we would expect the same irregularities of erosion in the older layers. We would especially expect this where major parts of the layers are missing. Sometimes hundreds of millions of years are postulated by geologists to be missing between layers. Yet when we look at those layers we see virtually no erosion during those assumed immense time periods. It looks more like these layers were laid down rapidly during the Genesis flood (see Figure 1). In the great question about the age of the geologic layers it is helpful to note that the worldwide flood described in Genesis is crucial to the biblical concept of a recent creation. The great Genesis flood is the cause of the geologic layers; and the fascinating fossils we find in them represent organisms that perished in that event. Shabbat Shalom: What correspondence between science and Scripture is for you most breathtaking?

10 SHABBAT SHALOM / Spring 2000

Roth: I personally get most interested in the evidence found in the geologic layers. This is crucial to the question of a recent creation versus a long evolution-

cepted as a normal part of Earth's history. The proposed impact of a large meteor that caused the death of dinosaurs is an example. Geologists are not turning to the biblical model of Earth's history, but many of their new rapid catastrophic interpretations fit nicely with the biblical model of the Genesis flood as the major geologic event since the creation of life.

Geologists used to think only in terms of slow, gradual changes. That has changed. Major rapid catastrophic changes are now accepted as a normal part of Earth's history.

ary process. It is of interest that in the last decades there has been a major philosophical breakthrough in geologic thinking towards major catastrophic interpretations. Geologists used to think only in terms of slow, gradual changes. That has changed. Major rapid catastrophic changes are now acShabbat Shalom: What would you regard as the most important scientific arguments against evolution? Roth: Probably the most baffling problem evolution faces is the question of the origin of life. It turns out that the simplest form of independent life that we know of is extremely complex.

View of the Grand Canyon of the Colorado River in Arizona. The arrows from top to bottom point to three assumed gaps (missing layers) of about 6, 14, and 100 million years. One would expect a lot of irregular erosion during these long periods of time, but the contacts at these gaps are neatly flat, indicating that these long periods of time did not take place.

[Guest Alefshin]

Figure 1

How could many thousands of delicate and complicated molecules come together at the right time and place so to form the first living organism? And after you have simple life, you then need to evolve it into more complex advanced organisms like fishes and orchids. Almost all biological systems are complex, consisting of many interdependent parts. However, the search for an evolutionary mechanism that would produce complex systems has been futile. Darwin's idea of natural selection actually interferes with the gradual development of complexity. Of course, there are a number of other important arguments. If evolution is for real, why don't we see newly evolving organs? Evolution proposes that life developed over billions of years. But when mathematically evaluated, these billions of years are far too short for the highly improbable events postulated. Further, it appears that geologic events such as erosion proceed much faster than can be accounted for over the eons of proposed time. Another serious problem is the almost total absence of fossil evolutionary intermediates between major kinds of organisms. Many scientists who do not believe in the biblical account of creation have

Roth: The word evolution means many different things. If you think of the usual meaning, which is the gradual development of life from simple to complex over eons of time (macroevolution), then creation by God in six days as described in the Bible cannot be reconciled with evolution. On the other hand, if by evolution you mean only the small changes we see in succeeding generations of living organisms, as some germs show when they adjust to various antibiotics (microevolution), then this type of evolution easily fits with creation. In a creation context this limited variability is interpreted as a degree of adaptability created by God so as to permit organisms to adjust and survive under varied conditions. Under these circumstances creation does not exclude the microevolutionary type of evolution. Shabbat Shalom: Do biologists and other scientists still regard it to be "the ultimate scientific sin" to involve purpose and design in questions about origins? Roth: At present science is not adopting the concept of some kind of purpose or meaning to existence into its explanatory menu. Many scientists feel that these concepts are not part of sci-

found implications about whether or not science can arrive at truth, especially the truth about whether there is any meaning to human existence. Furthermore, if

Probably the most baffling problem evolution faces is the question of the origin of life.

God does exist, science will never find Him as long as it insists on excluding Him from any acceptable explanations. Science would not be facing the apparently insurmountable problems evolution now faces, if it allowed for alternatives such as creation. Evolution is the best model science can come up with for the origin of life-forms as it tries to stay within the confines of a purely naturalistic philosophy; but it falls far short of scientific plausibility in spite of the claims of many evolutionists to the contrary. Evolution may turn out to be the greatest intellectual delusion of all time. Shabbat Shalom: Does the biblical story of creation in Genesis 1 have something to say about the scientific process of creation? Roth: Some, in attempting resolve the conflict between scientific evolutionary interpretations and the Bible, suggest that the Bible is not a textbook of science. The implication is that the Genesis account of beginnings is not a factual account. It is true that the Bible is not a textbook of science; it is much more than that, but this does not mean that the Bible does not give factual information. The Bible provides all kinds of information about history, geography, culture, and also some scien-

Creation does not exclude the microevolutionary type of evolution.

written books criticizing the evolutionar y model. Evolution remains scientifically undemonstrated. There is good science and there is bad science. In evolutionary theory, it is sometimes hard to find good science. Shabbat Shalom: Do you think that creation excludes evolution? ence. To include them is to be unscientific. During the past century science has taken a rather strong naturalistic stance. This stance excludes God as a valid explanatory factor in science. This attitude has profound implications for both the questions and the answers science will come up with. More seriously it has pro-

Spring 2000 / SHABBAT SHALOM 11

tific insights. When the Genesis account refers to God's separating the land from the waters during creation week, this is information

that they were discovering the scientific principles that God had established in nature. During their time science flourished, il-

Evolution may turn out to be the greatest intellectual delusion of all time.

about nature that fits into our common understanding of science. When the days of creation are described as each having an evening and a morning, this is scientific data that helps authenticate them as ordinary days and not as long extended periods of time. Furthermore the Genesis account is presented as a factual account. It is not presented as a parable, allegory or fable. There is scientific information in the creation account. Shabbat Shalom: Is a short time period of creation--say one week as in Genesis 1--a possible option in science today? Roth: The present scientific attitude that excludes God from scientific explanations would dictate that creation in one week is not a lustrating how science and creation are compatible. There is some hope that science may be broadening its restricted outlook. In the past few years there have been suggestions of a significant shift in thinking away from the exclusiveness of science as now practiced. Leading thought leaders, including Nobel laureates, have been meeting in various conferences and discussing the question of whether scientific explanations that exclude God are sufficient. A number of books are being published on the topics of design and a designer for nature. Added to this is the beginning of a realization by the scientific community that the

The complexity of biological systems is almost beyond belief.

scientific option. This does not mean that creation week did not take place. It means that science has placed itself in a restricted mode that cannot accept such an option. On the other hand, if you define science as an open search for truth about nature that allows the possibility of a Creator God, then creation by God becomes a scientific possibility. It is of interest that the pioneers of modern science did not adopt the current restricted view of science that excludes God. Leaders such as Kepler, Boyle, Newton, Pascal, and Linné believed in God as Creator and felt

12 SHABBAT SHALOM / Spring 2000

majority of the population is not following them down their exclusively naturalistic evolutionary pathway. Scientists are beginning to realize that there is a strong grassroots movement in favor of teaching some creation along with evolution in the public schools throughout the United States. The public favors teaching both so as to give the students the option of evaluating both concepts. Shabbat Shalom: What of creation impresses you most? Roth: The complexity of biological systems is almost beyond belief, and to me represents the

strongest evidence for creation. Even the simplest of organisms has all kinds of very complex molecules that work together to carry on the life processes. When you look at more advanced organisms it is the same story at a different level. In our brains there are some 100 trillion connections between the nerve cells. It is very hard for me to think that all this complexity just happened to get put together by random action. It looks like there must be a Creator behind all this. Shabbat Shalom: Would you like to share with our readers one of your personal experiences when you have felt the creative power of God in your life? Roth: I can recall a few years ago in the Bahamas when I had wrenched my back while lifting equipment over the edge of a boat. I lay in bed with severe pain and was hardly able to move. For me, this was not at all a time to be incapacitated. Two of my companions and I were planning a research project under the sponsorship of the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to test the rate of coral growth. We were scheduled to take an underwater diving test the next morning. That test would determine if we could go and live for several days in the ocean down in an underwater laboratory. In my pain and desperation I prayed earnestly to God for help. I felt a tingling sensation in my back and was healed instantly. I got up and quickly told my companions that I was healed. We went on to pursue the research, I with special gratitude to God for His creative power and His love and mercy towards us weak human beings.

[Срећко Петровић]

Shabbat Shalom:

??? ?? ?? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???? ???????????? ????????

[Срећко Петровић]

Наслов теме би комотно могао да се промени у:

"Интервијуи са суботарским јуришницима"

Шта рећи.

[Guest Alefshin]

Shabbat Shalom:

??? ?? ?? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???? ???????????? ????????

?? ?? ??? ????? ?????????? ??????????? ????????, ????????? ??, ??? ?? ??????? ????? ?????? ??????, ??? `The Journal of Jewish-Christian Reconciliation`. ?? ?? ???????, ??????????  ?? ????????, ?????? ??? ?????????? ????? ?????? ????? ? ???? ?? ???? ?????????, ? ?? ????? ??? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ??, ??? ???? ?? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????????. ????? ?????? ???? ??????? ????????????, ? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ?????? ?????????????, ??? ???? ???? ? ?? ?? ????????.

[Guest Alefshin]

?????? ???? ?? ??????? ????? ?? ?? ??????? ?:

"?????????? ?? ??????????? ???????????"

??? ????.

??? ????? ?? ???, ???., ???? ?? ???? ?? ????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ? ????????????? ??? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ???????? ? ??????. ??? ?? ???? ???? ???. ?? ????? ????? ?? ???? ???? ? ?? ?? ?? ????????? ?????? ? ???? ?? ??? ???????? ??????? ????? ???? ???????????. ???????, ??? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ??????? ???????????? ?? ???? ????????.

[Срећко Петровић]

?????? ???? ?? ??????? ????? ?? ?? ??????? ?:

"?????????? ?? ??????????? ???????????"

??? ????.

??? ????? ?? ???, ???., ???? ?? ???? ?? ????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ? ????????????? ??? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ???????? ? ??????. ??? ?? ???? ???? ???. ?? ????? ????? ?? ???? ???? ? ?? ?? ?? ????????? ?????? ? ???? ?? ??? ???????? ??????? ????? ???? ???????????. ???????, ??? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ??????? ???????????? ?? ???? ????????.

?????, ?????? ??? ?? ??????? ???????????? ?? ??????? ????????, ???????. ?? ?? ????? ???????.

??? ?? ???? ???????? ?????? ???????? ?? ??? ????????? ?????????? ? ?????? ???????.

???, ?? ????? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ????? ????, ???? ??? ???????? ????? ?????????? ?????????? ? ??????? ????????????. ???? ????? ????? ?? ?? ???? "????????????".

[Срећко Петровић]

Shabbat Shalom:

??? ?? ?? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???? ???????????? ????????

?? ?? ??? ????? ?????????? ??????????? ????????, ????????? ??, ??? ?? ??????? ????? ?????? ??????, ??? `The Journal of Jewish-Christian Reconciliation`. ?? ?? ???????, ??????????  ?? ????????, ?????? ??? ?????????? ????? ?????? ????? ? ???? ?? ???? ?????????, ? ?? ????? ??? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ??, ??? ???? ?? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????????. ????? ?????? ???? ??????? ????????????, ? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ?????? ?????????????, ??? ???? ???? ? ?? ?? ????????.

?? ??, ??? ??????, ?????????? ??????? ("??????? ???" ?? ??????????). ? ??? ??????? ???? ????????? (? ??? ? ?? ?????, ??? ?? ?? ???? ???????????? ?? ??? ?  crvenilo), ???? ?????????????:

Why a Hebrew-Adventist Service?

To offer a special worship experience that combines the joyfulness and reverence, and the sense of community of the Hebrew tradition, with our distinctive Adventist identity.

To help Christians in general, and Seventh-day Adventists in particular, recover their Hebrew roots and enrich their emotional, intellectual, and physical adoration.

For Seventh-day Adventists this reflection and experience is all the more justified as they share so much in common with the Jews: the same Shabbat, the same affirmation of Creation and joy of life, the same reverence for the truth of the Torah, the same ideal of righteousness and justice, and the same hope for a better world.

http://www.shabbatshalom.info/article.php?id=7

?????, ?? ?????????? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ????????????? ?????...

[Guest Alefshin]

?? ??, ??? ??????, ?????????? ??????? ("??????? ???" ?? ??????????). ? ??? ??????? ???? ????????? (? ??? ? ?? ?????, ??? ?? ?? ???? ???????????? ?? ??? ?  confused), ???? ?????????????:

??????? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???????????? ???????? ????????, ??????? ?? ? ???????? ??????? ? ?????????????? ?????, ??? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ????? ????????? ??????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ????????? ? ?????????? ????. ?? ????? ????????? ?????? ????? ??????? ??? ???????( ??????) ???? ?? ?? ???? ?? ????? ? ?? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???????, ? ??? ?? ??? ???????? ????????? ?????????????-?? ?? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?? ??????. ? ?????????? ???? ?????? ?????????? ?? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ??????, ??? ?????, ??? ????? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ??-????? ????.

[Срећко Петровић]

Ja sam oce nacelno protiv koriscenja subotarsko-sektaske argumentacije. Nase bogoslovlje je za njih, ne znam kako da kazem, znate sta: Star Trek, to je nase bogoslovlje za njih, koji su jos uvek na nekoj ravni prirodnog bogoslovlja, i mislim da je gre'ota da bilo sta od njih preuzimamo, jer je to nazadovanje i propast.

Jos mislim da smo nas dvojica (i ne samo mi, nazalost!) osudjeni na tragicno nerazumevanje.

Forumi nisu zgodni za komunikaciju, posebno ne za raspravu. Mislim da bi sve islo drugacije kada bismo sedeli i uzivo razgovarali. Ali, sta je tu je> dok ne sednemo negde, hramacemo ovako na obe noge. Pozdrav

[Guest Alefshin]

Ово је начелно научно питање и тако га треба и посматрати. Рот и Шпетнер су генијалци и овде сам изнео њихове интервјуе зато што они имају шта да кажу, а то што су рођени у протестантском и јеврејском духовном миљеу то је друга ствар. Тамо одакле су они је најнормалније бити протестант( било које `сорте`) или Јеврејин као што је овде бити православан, свидело се то нама или не. Али мени је увек било пресудно оно што они имају да понуде као научници.

Што се тиче уживо разговора, па ето, састаћемо се на литургијском сабрању у селу Дубока у коме служи о.Иван па добродошао ако можеш да дођеш!