Here’s the 66-minute video featuring Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, who holds the Ph.D in philosophy of science from Cambridge University, and other degrees in the hard sciences.
The lecture starts really, really slowly. You can just fast-forward to the 12 minute mark, or you might die of boredom.
Topics:
Up until the the last 100 years or so, everyone agreed that the universe was eternal
This is at odds with the traditional Christian view that God created the universe
Materialism, the view that matter is all there is, requires eternally existing matter
Discovery #1: Hubble discovers that the universe is expanding (redshift observation)
The expanding universe was resisted by proponents of the eternal universe, like Einstein
Some naturalists even proposed speculative static models like the steady-state model
However, not of the speculative models fit with observations and experimental results
Discovery #2: Penzias and Wilson discover the cosmic microwave background radiation
Measurements of this background radiation confirmed a prediction of the Big Bang theory
The steady-state theory was falsified of by the discovery of this background radiation
The oscillating model was proposed to prevent the need for an absolute beginning
But the oscillating model is not eternal, it loses energy on each “bounce”
The beginning of the universe is more at home in a theistic worldview than an atheistic one
The beginning of the universe fits in well with the Bible, e.g. – Genesis 1, Titus 1, etc.
In case you are wondering about what the evidence is for the Big Bang, here are 3 of the evidences that are most commonly offered:
Three main observational results over the past century led astronomers to become certain that the universe began with the big bang. First, they found out that the universe is expanding—meaning that the separations between galaxies are becoming larger and larger. This led them to deduce that everything used to be extremely close together before some kind of explosion. Second, the big bang perfectly explains the abundance of helium and other nuclei like deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen) in the universe. A hot, dense, and expanding environment at the beginning could produce these nuclei in the abundance we observe today. Third, astronomers could actually observe the cosmic background radiation—the afterglow of the explosion—from every direction in the universe. This last evidence so conclusively confirmed the theory of the universe’s beginning that Stephen Hawking said, “It is the discovery of the century, if not of all time.”
By the way, Dr. Meyer also does a great job of explaining the problem of proteins, DNA and the origin of life in this lecture. And you can hear him defend his views in this debate podcast with Keith Fox and in this debate podcast with Peter Atkins. He does a great job in these debates.
Dr. Lisle graduated summa cum laude from Ohio Wesleyan University where he double-majored in physics and astronomy, and minored in mathematics. He did graduate work at the University of Colorado where he earned a Master’s degree and a Ph.D. in Astrophysics. While there, Dr Lisle used the SOHO spacecraft to investigate motions on the surface of the sun as well as solar magnetism and subsurface weather. His thesis was entitled “Probing the Dynamics of Solar Supergranulation and its Interaction with Magnetism.” Among other things, he discovered a previously unknown polar alignment of supergranules (solar convection cells), and discovered evidence of solar giant cells. He has also authored a number of papers in both secular and creation literature.
At age seventeen he became the youngest person ever to serve as director of observations for Vancouver’s Royal Astronomical Society. With the help of a provincial scholarship and a National Research Council (NRC) of Canada fellowship, he completed his undergraduate degree in physics (University of British Columbia) and graduate degrees in astronomy (University of Toronto). The NRC also sent him to the United States for postdoctoral studies. At Caltech he researched quasi-stellar objects, or “quasars,” some of the most distant and ancient objects in the universe.
So both have impeccable scientific credentials.
The MP3 file is here. (This is the updated version that Brian Auten fixed to remove the commercials!)
I don’t always agree with Frank Pastore, (only 95%), but he knows the topic of the debate back to front, and guides the discussion in an incredibly useful, accurate way. This is a fine debate to listen to! You will learn a lot. And you will have fun learning.
The Bible and the early church fathers
Jason Lisle
we take Genesis literally
the starting point of YEC is Scripture
the plain meaning of Scripture is that the earth was made in 6 24-hour days
science has to be interpreted in a way that fits a plain reading of Genesis 1
the evidence for an old universe and old Earth must be rejected a priori
Hugh Ross
we take Genesis literally
the Hebrew word for day (yom) can mean 24 hours or a long period of time
there are multiple creation accounts in the Bible
interpreting yom as long periods of time harmonizes all the accounts
the Bible says that the seventh day is not even ended
we believe in a literal Adam and Eve living thousands of years ago
Jason Lisle
there’s only 1 account of creation in the Bible: Genesis
the normal view in church history is 6 24-hour days
there are some early church fathers who that the days are long
the other places where creation is discussed are not real accounts
Hugh Ross
the early church did not spend a lot of time talking about the age of the Earth
there is not unanimous agreement about the age of the Earth
there is no definitive statement on the age of the Earth until Isaac Newton
Newton strongly favored an old earth, hundreds of years before Darwin
there are other creation accounts, Job 38-39
Pslam 104 is a creation account
Jason Lisle
a Psalm is not written in the genre of historical narrative
Psalm 104 is not a creation account – it talks about ships, etc
it’s talking about the modern era, not a creation account
The evidence from science
Hugh Ross
both of us believe in an absolute beginning of time, space and matter
both of us believe that space is expanding now
stars form as matter coalesces during the expansion of the universe
star formation requires a universe aged on the order of billions of years
Jason Lisle
if you pre-suppose my interpretation of Genesis, then the universe is young
Hugh Ross
the speed of the expansion of the universe proves an old universe
the light emitted from the oldest stars also proves an old universe
Jason Lisle
if you pre-suppose my interpretation of Genesis, then the universe is young
Was the universe made with the appearance of age
Jason Lisle
any evidence for an old universe is wrong
stars didn’t form gradually, they were created by God instantly
stars have the appearance of age, but they’re actually young
Hugh Ross
God doesn’t lie in the Bible or in the book of nature
Scientists can look back in time by looking further out into the universe
Because light takes a long time to travel to the Earth, we can see the past
we can see a time when there were no stars yet
stars formed slowly over time, not instantaneously
we have photos of the universe before stars and after stars
we can see a history of the universe by looking closer and further away
Does nature provide us with knowledge about creation?
They discuss Psalm 19 now, so here’s Psalm 19:1-5:
1 The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
2 Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge.
3 There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard.
4 Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.
In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun,
5 which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his pavilion, like a champion rejoicing to run his course.
Jason Lisle
nature isn’t a book
nature doesn’t provide knowledge about God
Psalm 19 doesn’t say that nature communicates to us
verse 3 says “There is no speech nor language”
Hugh Ross
If you read all of verse 3, it says the exact opposite of what you just said it says
Verse 1: “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands”
Verse 2: “Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge.”
Verse 3: “There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard.“
Verse 4: “Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.”
Jason Lisle
You can’t take the Bible literally all the time
How important is the age of the Earth?
Hugh Ross
it’s a non-essential because it has nothing to do with salvation or inerrancy
both sides of the debate affirm the same views of salvation and inerrancy
professional scientists have multiple lines of evidence saying the universe is old
the only reason it matters is that young earth creationism is a barrier to faith
if you have to deny science to be a Christian, then it stops people from being saved
young earth opposition to science has been used by secularists to marginalize Christianity
Jason Lisle
there was no death in the Garden of Eden, animal or human, before the Fall
the Bible says that death was a consequence of Adam’s sin
so there was no death before the Fall, according to the Bible
Here’s the 66-minute video featuring Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, who holds the Ph.D in philosophy of science from Cambridge University, and other degrees in the hard sciences.
The lecture starts really, really slowly. You can just fast-forward to the 12 minute mark, or you might die of boredom.
Topics:
Up until the the last 100 years or so, everyone agreed that the universe was eternal
This is at odds with the traditional Christian view that God created the universe
Materialism, the view that matter is all there is, requires eternally existing matter
Discovery #1: Hubble discovers that the universe is expanding (redshift observation)
The expanding universe was resisted by proponents of the eternal universe, like Einstein
Some naturalists even proposed speculative static models like the steady-state model
However, not of the speculative models fit with observations and experimental results
Discovery #2: Penzias and Wilson discover the cosmic microwave background radiation
Measurements of this background radiation confirmed a prediction of the Big Bang theory
The steady-state theory was falsified of by the discovery of this background radiation
The oscillating model was proposed to prevent the need for an absolute beginning
But the oscillating model is not eternal, it loses energy on each “bounce”
The beginning of the universe is more at home in a theistic worldview than an atheistic one
The beginning of the universe fits in well with the Bible, e.g. – Genesis 1, Titus 1, etc.
In case you are wondering about what the evidence is for the Big Bang, here are 3 of the evidences that are most commonly offered:
Three main observational results over the past century led astronomers to become certain that the universe began with the big bang. First, they found out that the universe is expanding—meaning that the separations between galaxies are becoming larger and larger. This led them to deduce that everything used to be extremely close together before some kind of explosion. Second, the big bang perfectly explains the abundance of helium and other nuclei like deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen) in the universe. A hot, dense, and expanding environment at the beginning could produce these nuclei in the abundance we observe today. Third, astronomers could actually observe the cosmic background radiation—the afterglow of the explosion—from every direction in the universe. This last evidence so conclusively confirmed the theory of the universe’s beginning that Stephen Hawking said, “It is the discovery of the century, if not of all time.”
By the way, Dr. Meyer also does a great job of explaining the problem of proteins, DNA and the origin of life in this lecture. And you can hear him defend his views in this debate podcast with Keith Fox and in this debate podcast with Peter Atkins. He does a great job in these debates.