Is the Universe Young? W/ Dr. Danny Faulkner

Hello everyone, welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host Eli Ayala and today I have a very special guest joining me for an exciting discussion. I am honored to have Dr. Danny Faulkner with us.

Dr. Faulkner is an accomplished astronomer and he is an advocate of the young earth creation position which we're going to be talking about today and I had the pleasure of Visiting with my family the Creation Museum and the Ark Encounter, which we absolutely loved.

But we also had the opportunity to hear dr. Faulkner give a talk on a flat earth, which was super fun to listen to and I was able to Meet with him afterwards and and invite him on the show. And so here he is.

And so let me just give you folks some background on who he is if you're not familiar with dr. Faulkner. Dr. Faulkner holds a PhD in astronomy from Indiana University and has spent over 26 years as a professor at the University of South Carolina Lancaster where he taught physics and astronomy.

And so I think currently he serves as a researcher a speaker an author at answers in Genesis Contributing to the Creation Museum and the Ark Encounter in various capacities. Dr. Faulkner has written extensively on the topics of astronomy and creation with notable works such as the created cosmos and The universe by design you guys can check those out along with many other works that he's written On Amazon and of course probably on the answers in Genesis website.

We'll kind of send people over there as well. He's well known for his ability to articulate the young earth creationist position. This is what something that I saw while listening to him. And this is really hard when you are trying to get someone to interview on an interesting topic.

Especially someone who's very knowledgeable in a particular area. You have people who are great up here, but they're not really good communicators. And so what came out to me very clearly while listening to his talk.

Is that not only does he know his stuff, but he is a very clear communicator. And so I thought he would be a perfect guest to talk about the topics that we're going to be discussing today. So without further ado, I'd like to introduce for the first time on revealed apologetics.

Dr. Danny Faulkner. How are you doing brother? Pretty good.

Thank you for that very kind introduction.

Well, it's my pleasure. I know that you're a super busy guy. And so I thank you for making the time to join me here to talk about these issues now. Before we went live just to say this to the audience before we went live I was just talking with dr. Faulkner very briefly.

And I had expressed to him that I just recently. Not like yesterday, but a few years, I guess it hasn't been an area that I've explored in great depth. But I recently come to adopt the young earth perspective on biblical grounds and of course the science is the area that I probably need to brush up on as I My focus is in philosophy and theology.

So I'm looking forward to not only hearing your answers to my questions with respect to kind of the biblical understanding in defense of Younger but also exploring and learning from you that the scientific aspects of that.

And so that's what we're gonna be discussing today. Would you like to say anything before we get started to the audience anything you want them to know about you?

No, you've done. She said it pretty well. I'm just looking forward to the interview. I'm answering your questions rather than me just spewing forth.

Alright, well, thank you very much. Well straightforward. So what I want to start off with Is a video. Okay, we're gonna we're gonna play a brief video here that I have set up here and it's a portion and a lot of people who are listening to my channel you guys have asked me to do a Debate review which may still happen.

It just depends if I have the time. But for now, we're just gonna take like a small portion of the debate between very well-known atheist. By the name of cosmic skeptic his his real name that's not. His real name is.

His mother didn't give him that name. His name is Alex O 'Connor a very well-known atheist he recently had a debate with Dinesh D'Souza and there was You know a moment in the debate where the issue of Genesis came up and I was like, wow.

You know, that was that was really rough to listen to and so I thought this would be a great Opportunity for dr. Faulkner as I knew he was coming on today to address this. So he has not seen this clip.

He has not watched the debate, but I'm sure he'll have something to say. So, let me just get this up on the screen here.

Let's see here.

Okay.

There we go.

Now I'm gonna press play and let me know if you hear it. Yeah, sometimes the audio doesn't go through reach the top of the mountain. Okay good. So let me give you some context. They're having a dialogue dr. Faulkner and Dinesh D'Souza asks the cosmic skeptic about how.

What does he think about the fact that the Bible was able to predict the beginning of the universe? And so he now is quoting or retelling a story. From his professor Dr. Jastrow, I think that name will be familiar to you.

He's very prominent scientist and he is Summarizing the story of the the scientists climbing the mountain. You're familiar with this and when they get on top of the mountain, right?

You got a bunch of that was written back in the mid to late 70s. That's right. That's right.

And so he's he's explaining this to show that the Bible Got it right before the scientists and of course the you know the atheist is going to do a strategic debate move here and kind of do like a Intellectual judo move and turn it around on him and then we're gonna see.

Interesting response from Dinesh D'Souza, which I think is going to be very relevant to what you're gonna be able to speak to. So let's let's listen to this and then I'll stop it and then you can comment on it.

Does that sound okay? Yeah. All right. Let's go.

And there was a bunch of Hebrew prophets or theologians sitting there. Wouldn't been there from the beginning. So I'm describing now a Skeptic a true skeptic and a true scientist describing the scientific shock that attends to a discovery.

That and I think it is out of the spirit of that discovery for you to go. Oh, yeah, I mean it could have been this week. It's like tossing a coin. It isn't like tossing a coin. This is a question that's been argued for two centuries and only resolved in the last several decades.

And resolved decisively in one side on the other. And the fact that you're Not willing to just straight-out say yeah, it is actually an astounding fact that we now know.

No, no, no, and I mean look the the scientific method is also revealed to us that the Earth was formed about four and a half billion years ago. That is much later than the Sun. The goss of the the Old Testament account.

The Hebrew Bible account tells us that it was the other way around so got that bit wrong.

Okay. All right. So so so so we're. Yes, the Bible is not. To get things wrong, you know, the Bible is not a science. It's not listing out a sign.

Oh, well now hold on a second. You can't now move the goalposts, especially if you're still gonna especially if you're still gonna miss the or the the issue.

Well, well, no. The issue of the origin of the universe. Is you just really critical. Told me that Genesis predicted or knew about or somehow.

Knew about the scientific hypothesis of the origin of the universe. Then when I pointed out another scientific observation that doesn't occur with Genesis you Tell me that Genesis isn't the scientific text to begin with.

Well, if you if you read if you read Genesis, it is making a Astounding claim which pertains to God. Obviously God created that isn't making a scientific claim or not.

Is it telling us how the universe scientifically formed or not?

But it's not telling us how the universe scientifically formed because if it did they would be Outlining the history of the big relevance of bringing this up in the first one because because it is stating a conclusion not a process.

It's all right.

So someone I'm sure.

That little clip gives you feelings you have things to say I am sure and this is the first time that you have watched this but it's not the first time that you've heard this. Line of reasoning no doubt, right?

Oh, no many times. Yeah many times. Why don't you explain to us in terms of your reaction in terms of why do you think Dinesh D'Souza is struggling. Oh.

There are many reasons why one is that he didn't think this through carefully before he had. Also, he didn't look at the details of the thing. I think the basic argument the Jastrow made in the mid 70s and this that that he distilled The creation of Genesis 1 to one essential element the universe had a beginning.

You have to realize that for 2 ,000 years preceding that in the West the belief was the universe was eternal. That idea persisted well through the 1960s and really turned around by about 1970 which Jastrow was writing just a few years later.

And I think that's the what D'Souza was taking there. He was taking the the that one distillation and making hey see this see the Bible is is proved by this. But the devil's in the details always in and he had not looked through that entirely at all.

I've seen this this argument used by many different people. I could mention names I won't but many many Christians and people I don't doubt they're they're they're born-again Christians. But they have not thought this through carefully and I don't think they really have understood scripture carefully and what this says the scripture says more than just.

The universe began suddenly in the past. It says much more detail than that and as soon as he it was ambushed on one with the ambush. He set the trap himself. He then started doing a lot of backpedaling.

It really really was pretty embarrassing. I think yeah.

And and I've only seen that clip once before I knew the moment that I saw it. I'm like, oh and we need to use this because I think and it's not just to show. Oh, look how silly Dinesh D'Souza is. Obviously we you know again, I don't agree with Dinesh on a lot of areas.

I think he's actually he might actually be Roman Catholic. I don't even know much about him. I've only seen him in debates. So if he's Roman Catholic, I obviously would disagree with him coming from a Protestant perspective.

But I don't want you know a person debating the issue of God to get destroyed, you know you want them to make good points, especially if there's going to be a lot of folks watching this video, but.

To be fair there are other people who make the argument that D'Souza was making there. Who have thought it through a little better they have they have would have a counter that I wouldn't agree with that either, but at least they were better prepared.

I'm just surprised how poorly prepared he was for that comeback.

Yeah. What do you think about the idea of the inconsistency that on the one hand he wants to use the Bible to show look it Makes these predictions, but then when pressed for consistency, right? He doesn't want to take the traditional, you know straightforward reading of Genesis.

And so he's gonna he's gonna say what what anyone who's been trained on kind of like a Hugh Ross or progressive creation or the old. Well, you know the saw it the book the Bible isn't a science textbook, which is true.

But it seemed to be weird that he wanted to use it to support science. But then when based on you know, based on the science from at least from a secular perspective, it doesn't you know. The Bible gets it wrong.

What do you think of that?

Yeah I.

Get he's not not thought this through and prepared for this. The Bible does give details and that's where you come down to presuppositional approach of either scripture. Means what it says and says what it means or it doesn't.

You can't go in in Smorgasbord fashion and pick and choose what parts of the Bible you want. He was going to take one thing away from Genesis and nothing else. And when when his feet were held of the fire the look in his face, it was a spotlight of deer.

I think he had he realized instantly that he had a problem. Hmm. You can see that in the silence, too. You know in a debate I mean, there's nothing wrong with silence if you have to think about something but in a debate or discussion long pauses are not.

Are not always good. It means that you're not prepared for that particular particular particular issue brought up. I hope it will do better in the future by going back and trying to work his way through all that.

Yeah, excellent.

So now so before we move into some of my other questions as I wanted to start off with that I thought that would be an interesting way to begin this discussion here. What would have been your answer if you were sitting in the the seat?

In that debate in that discussion about the the issue of what we know the universe I think me. I don't remember exactly what he said. Let me see if I could.

Let me see here.

Okay, so let me let me put the video up here. I'm gonna stop it early so that maybe you can comment and respond to the actual point that Dinesh D'Souza seems to be struggling With. Okay. Let me put this up here.

Okay, let's play it again.

The relevance of bringing this up in the first place because because this isn't the scientific texts to begin with. Of the origin of the universe then when I pointed out told me that Genesis predicted Listing out a sign.

Well now hold on a second you. Okay, all right, so so so the Old Testament account the Hebrew Bible account tells us that it was the other way around. So got that bit wrong. We don't want that four and a half billion years ago that is.

Very much a timestamp it.

Was formed about four and a half billion years ago. That is much later than the Sun the gossip the the Old Testament account the Hebrew Bible account tells us that it was the other.

Way around. All right, so it's to stop right there. That is what? Dinesh D'Souza would agree with as well as I understand. He is I think having read his book a long time ago I think he's a theistic evolutionist.

So he would probably hold to the thirteen point seven billion years in terms of the universe and the six Million years of the earth. He would agree with that portion. If you were in the chair, he made two statements here.

He said something about the age of the universe and then the day in which the Bible says the Sun was created. How would you how would you have responded at that point?

Responded to Dinesh or to the atheist to the to the atheist. Well, you'd have to grant that he's correct about that and of the Big Bang. Responding to people who want to make the Big Bang part of their apologetic is the fact that that the order of Events is incorrect according to the Bible if the Big Bang is correct.

The Big Bang happens thirteen point eight billion years ago the Sun and the solar system including the earth come about around four and a half a billion years ago. Which means the order is completely wrong because it's pretty clear in Scripture that the earth Was the first thing created and the and the Sun the moon the stars everything else they came along on day four which by the way also contradicts this because the whole secular cosmology cosmogony about how the world came to be is After the Big Bang a few hundred million years later.

There were stars or galaxies and so there were stars and other Astronomical objects existing prior to the earth for about nine billion years before the earth came along again out-of-order things. There are many other examples like this again.

That's a criticism I often bring to the to the idea of trying to merge the current scientific Thinking of how the world came to be with what Scripture says the order could not be more clear in Scripture and the order according evolutionary ideas cannot be any more clear either and the two are very contradictory and People who I found who want to make them blend somehow come up with very creative ways of saying Getting around that and they never they never adjust the the secular ideas.

They always adjust Scripture they would argue for instance, there was a shroud of a cloudy atmosphere of Blocking the view of the stars and they only became in the Sun and the moon they only became visible on the fourth day once the atmosphere became clear enough and you know, that was a Pretty common belief a hundred years ago.

But over the past 50 60 years this idea of a cloudy atmosphere for the early earth in the evolutionary circles. That's been thrown away. It's been transparent from the very beginning now. So that that attempt is really out-of-date scientifically.

So it's a mismatch of this and that trying to reinterpret Scripture to make it fit. What what the what the science says and I that's wrong head and scripted Christians should not do that. That's I said Jesus or reading into the passage not exegesis reading out of the passage.

Hmm. Excellent.

Those are excellent points. Now. How would you interact with the idea that you know, the Bible seems to describe that the Sun is being created on day four. Someone says hey that that doesn't make sense.

Dr. Faulkner. How can the Sun be created on day four. We know that science has told us. Blah blah blah blah blah blah. Fill in the blank. How would you begin to address that line of thinking?

Well, you're referring to the the need for light for the plants prior to that. Are you talking about what was your Sun Earth orbiting before the Sun?

Maybe all of those are included in the assumption that the day of the day for creation of the Sun just doesn't make sense for The person who's coming from this other perspective. Yeah. On day one God created light.

He separated light from the darkness. He called the light day and then not darkness. He called night. That's the real quick synopsis of the first day of creation. Plants come along three two days later on day three and you already have the day-night cycle.

You have you have the light on those on the first three days before the Sun comes along. Doesn't have to be the Sun. You can buy plant lights. We had a house that had some plant lights in one of the rooms and you could you could leave the drapes closed and turn On the lights and grow all the plants you wanted.

I'm not an expert about this. I only know what I read. But there are many marijuana plants that have never seen the light of day. In fact, I had a co-worker and she and her husband were busted because they had a Marijuana operation going on in the basement.

They had the windows covered over with with I think black garbage bags and they had. They had boxes down there with soil and they had the plant lights that were running it those those marijuana plants are doing just fine.

Without any sunlight at all what they needed was light in order to operate. So it's silly to suggest that that the Sun before the plants was a problem. It really isn't if you understand how these things work as far as orbital motion.

We can I think pretty well confirm that the earth is orbiting around the Sun today. I Believe it's been doing that for a while. But how do you know what was going on at the beginning of creation? This is getting into the question of how do you know what was going on in the past?

What was the earth doing for the first three days? Well, I don't know. Was it orbiting something? Probably not. I think what happened was on day four when God Transferred that light giving a property of daytime light property to the Sun the earth began to Revolve perhaps around the Sun at that instant maybe started rotating on its axis, too I don't know not enough information is given.

But I don't think there's anything contradictory at all unless you really are looking for some sort of Contradiction that you want to read into the scripture, which again is I said Jesus not exegesis.

Yeah. So now getting back to this light source because I often hear this in in discussions people say well what well what was the light? source as though not knowing the light source somehow refutes the fact that there was a light source and that that's sufficient.

And. To answering the question with respect to light in those, you know, the previous days leading up to the creation of the Sun. What do you what do you say to that? Well, is there anything wrong with simply saying, you know?

I'm not sure the Bible doesn't tell us directly, but here's what it does tell us and here's what we can infer. Yeah, I would just speak to that.

I'm very emphatic that the Bible doesn't tell what the source was. It just says there a light there could be almost anything. Well, the most common speculation. As long as you recognize the speculation then you're fine.

It's when you've been to transfer that speculation into truth that you have a problem. The most common speculation is it came from the Lord himself? They point out and at the end of the book in Revelation 22 it says that that Jesus will be the light of that city.

We won't need the light of the Sun of the moon. So they'll always be light because of his he's a source of the light. That's a good that's a good parallel and there are some things that are similar at the beginning of the book and the end of.

The book.

But it's not a guarantee that that these are all the conditions at the end of the book are gonna be like they were in The beginning so we need to be very careful. It's conjecture not a bad one. I don't have no quarrel with that, but don't tell me this is what the Bible teaches because it doesn't.

It's a it's a speculation.

People have made no, but the nature of the speculation. Dr. Faulkner is not very scientific, right? Jesus is the light, you know, blah blah blah. I think this is so important because our explanations we can we can use science.

Christian world. You provides a foundation for science and we've spoken about that on this channel before but that doesn't mean that we do science independent of theological considerations even with respect to some of the things that we're allowed to within certain Boundaries to speculate on.

Isn't that. Isn't that right? I mean.

Yes, yes definitely so. We tend to think of science and theology being opposites of one another at one time. The theology was considered the queen of the sciences. It was considered that the capstone it that's in the last 400 years.

That's been flipped around somehow, but you know science does not have all the answers. Science is very limited. Science is something that people do. People make mistakes and so scientists make mistakes and science can be wrong and often is wrong.

If you study the history of science You will find that it's littered with the resting hulks of all sorts of scientific ideas that were once thought to be absolutely true. Only to turn out to not be true.

I could give you a long laundry list of of those things and it's pretty arrogant to think that only today we have. We have the final answer on things plus we divide the way we do science two different ways.

I mean some people tell me what's called operational science, which is the science of the here-and-now. Experimental observational science how the world now exists like we can determine that the earth is moving around the Sun each year rotating on its axis but the other is origin or historical science and this is talking about past processes and You weren't there to actually test that.

What was going on when the earth came about that come out through and slowly gradually through a naturalistic a random process. Or was that a guided creative act? We simply don't know now many scientists want to insist that we can't allow creative acts to come into play.

But I'm asking well, why not a science itself is limited to the natural world but it doesn't really address if there's a Supernatural reality that can intervene with the world in the past or in the future even today for that matter.

And people make the grave error of assuming that the science we have today can answer all those questions. I like to go back if you will let me Lake Carl Sagan. He did that Cosmos TV series in like 18 1980 1981 and it began with a statement something like this.

The the cosmos is all there is all there ever has been or all there ever will be and many people View that as being a great scientific statement and it really isn't at all. It's a it's a philosophical statement.

It's his starting point is but position that he has philosophically and theologically. It's a denial of the supernatural because when he says the cosmos he's referring about the physical natural world.

He's not saying the natural world at all. He's like he's saying it doesn't exist because that's all that exists is the natural world. But how could he know that with any kind of certainty? Well, he would have to get outside of the cosmos and look around and see there's nothing there, but you have to do that internally in the past.

To see that there's nothing there in the past and he'd have to be internally Eternally in the future looking around outside the cosmos to make sure there's nothing there. So to make that statement without with with certainty Carl Sagan would have to assume the properties of the very thing is denying a supernatural.

Beyond beyond the the world we have right right. And the fact that that is a philosophical Statement and not a a scientific statement should be. That should be. We should all agree if you're an atheist watching this.

You should agree that that statement is philosophical. It's not scientific. Just because someone wears a white lab coat and says something doesn't mean everything they say is science, right? Yeah, I would.

I appreciate what you said. Was you talked about how many times science has has been mistaken? And I don't think that you're doing that to demean science. Science is a beautiful tool. But I think as you would agree, it's important to Understand science within its proper context.

Just to bring up tonight. I want to make it very clear.

I believe science is it can be a very God honoring thing? I have was called to be an astronomer to be a scientist so that to say that science is trash or is Horrible, it would be a gross Misrepresentation of what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying that science has its limitations. Unfortunately many people not just scientists. But the average person on the street many times thinks that science can do more than it can really do.

That's correct. And and a lot of unbelievers who are informed Recognize the limits of science in ways that maybe a lot of people like an online kind of you know The popular level kind of don't understand to quote Sean Carroll, which I'm sure you sure you familiar.

Sean Carroll is an atheist. He said and I think it was in a debate. It might have been his debate with dr William Lane Craig, but he said that Science is not a science doesn't give us truth. It gives us theories that work and and I appreciated that because it is an acknowledgment that science is a pragmatic Discipline that doesn't make it bad.

That's a it's there's nothing wrong with that. But to acknowledge that it has its limits I think is is one small step forward and having meaningful discussion with people who disagree over these issues.

And in science we often use.

Contradictory theories at the same time. I mean there's a old theory that Heat is a fluid that flows from from a place of surplus to a place of deficit. We've since replaced that with what we call the kinetic theory of heat but guess what we still use that theory of the Caloric the the fluid that flows from from positive to negative.

We do that we talk about heat flow inside of heat engines and so forth. So we continue to use that that discredited model. We also use a geocentric model for many many times. I use it many times at least well.

We've got these cool models and just happen to have it here really a celestial sphere like this notice. It's geocentric. The earth is at the center and you got the got the world spinning around the earth like this.

This is not true folks. It was once thought to be tuned about 400 years ago. However, I find it very useful. We do some workshops here at answers and genesis the Creation Museum based upon that. So we have many contradictory if you will or even it blatantly incorrect models.

We use because we find them what's the term you use useful because they work. I think you said.

So it's perfectly fine to do that. Now. You did make mention and I think it's important I was just after visiting the Creation Museum and the art encounter like I couldn't go home and just like. You know look into some styles like this is super interesting.

So, of course, I watched the classic debate between Bill Nye the science guy and Ken Ham since there are a bunch of books. I even picked up this this book here because I just love debates. I know this was a debate that happened a while back.

I love debates. I love analyzing debates and so I was like, yeah. This might be something to pick up at the gift shop or whatever. But by the way when I watched the debate first time I first time I heard I listened to it.

I didn't watch it. Happy to see one of the scientists that popped up on the screen there was yourself. I was like But what what was brought up in that debate and what you brought up here and I thought was a very helpful distinction was was difference between operational science and historic and historical science.

In the debate as I was just recently watching it listening to to Bill Nye he said that that is a distinction that scientists don't make and that's just something that is Characteristic of what chemist Ken Ham was putting forth or people who kind of support can quote-unquote Ken Ham's position is operational science and historical science a Distinction that is typically used by scientists.

That's my first question. And then my second question I'll save until you answer the first one because I don't want to lose my train of thought. Go ahead. I.

I'm not aware that that's used much by secular scientists. I will admit that we talked about it much but you know. Just because secular scientists don't recognize that distinction doesn't mean that there is a distinction there.

That's again making an assumption ahead. But most scientists think the thing don't think that way. So therefore that must not be true. It's just simply wrong. Obviously. It comes from the fact that these standards of evidence are different in every case.

And if you talk about what happened in the past. You can't experiment on it the way you can. To today in the lab, you can't even observe it like like I would an observational science today like astronomy.

You have to conjecture about things you use. Principles you you glean from how the world works today and ask well what could have happened in the past, you know. Forensic science is like that. You can't totally reproduce an accident.

Let's say or a crime scene for that matter. But you can use some principles to try to figure out if an explanation is plausible or not or how plausible it might be and We creation scientists engage in the same thing.

We have geologists who have different models of how Grand Canyon might have formed by the way. There are secular models about this and many of them are converging on one another believe it or not. There are many geologists today or thinking there's a somewhat catastrophic origin for Grand Canyon.

What's not this gradualistic thing the signs at the park would tell you so. Again the rules are very different and you you have a hard time really. Disproving an idea that happened in the past because the past is past with apologies to William Faulkner.

Well, that's excellent.

I think that's that was one of the first things that popped into my head. Saying that a group of people do not acknowledge a distinction about something doesn't mean the distinction is false. Just because Ken Ham brings it up in a debate and people might not like Ken Ham for whatever reason doesn't mean that Ken Ham Is wrong even just as I was listening to the debate I was thinking I mean, I'm not an idiot.

I don't have PhD in science or anything like that, but I'm thinking sure. Yeah, there's there's a difference between the science that goes into you know. Making a computer or you know. You know x-ray machines and things that's clearly different than when we're trying to talk about things of the past.

I mean, you don't have to be a Rocket science our scientists to recognize that and so it's very interesting to hear bills Bill Nye say, you know. Scientists don't make that distinction like maybe they should that's a I thought it was a pretty good distinction to make so.

But anyway, so a couple of things here. So I have some comments here that I'm interested. Maybe you made mention to something that was speculative which let's qualify it. You said there it's speculation to suggest that God was the source of light at the beginning.

But someone asked the question. With respect to God not being a being that emits photons, let me see if I could find it here. So so, you know see. Let me find it here so that I could put the person's statement up there and I think with stream yard.