Author Archive
« Older Entries |The Birth of Jesus- Myth or History?
Monday, December 12th, 2011
It looks like American Atheists is at it again. Just in time for the holidays, the organization has sponsored billboards all over the country to wage war on Christianity. The orange and black billboard displays four images: a statue of the Roman god Neptune, Santa Claus, a guy wearing a suit and a devil mask, and a classical portrait of Jesus Christ. The sign is punctuated by the words, “37 million Americans know MYTHS when they see them- What do YOU see?” All of this comes as no surprise since the same organization held a similar campaign last year in which they put up billboards depicting The Nativity with the accompanying message, “You KNOW it’s a myth- this season, celebrate REASON.” The obvious common denominator between the two signs is the message that Jesus is nothing more than a myth.
If given the opportunity to speak to those who designed the billboard, here are a few questions that I would like to ask them: “Just for clarification, when you make the claim that Jesus is just a myth, do you mean that the entire story of Jesus is a myth? Are you saying that Jesus was not a real person in terms of history, or are you specifically referring to the miracles attributed to him? That is, are you saying that Jesus was a real, historical figure, but any details referring to his virgin birth and miraculous acts are mere fabrications that were added to the historical account?” All of these questions are very important, so I want to take a moment to address them separately.
For starters, let’s investigate the claim that the entire story of Jesus is a work of fiction. Is it true that Jesus was not a real person in terms of history? The fact of the matter is that you would be hard-pressed these days to find a respectable scholar, even among critics of the Bible, who is willing to make such a bold claim. Nevertheless, there are a few people in academia who continue to insist that the Jesus of the New Testament never actually existed. Those who hold such a view will oftentimes state it this way; “Outside of the New Testament, we’ve never found any other ancient writings that acknowledge Jesus of Nazareth as a real, historical figure.”
In response to such a statement, the first thing we need to ask the critic is why is it necessary to find a source outside of the New Testament? In other words, even if it was the case that the New Testament documents were the only historical records that mention Jesus, why isn’t that sufficient? Why must we accept the terms set by the critic who demands that the New Testament documents are unacceptable unless they are supported by other, additional writings? This raises another related question: Why is it that the New Testament documents are assumed to be “guilty until proven innocent” when nearly every other ancient historical document is approached on the basis that it is trustworthy until proven otherwise? There is no reason why the New Testament writings should be treated any differently or with any less respect than we give to any other historical documents, especially in light of the fact that the New Testament documents are better attested to than any other ancient documents in terms of manuscript evidence alone. In addition to this, the New Testament surpasses most other ancient documents in terms of confirmation through archaeological discoveries.
Take, for example, the book of Acts which is a historical record of the early Christian church immediately following the resurrection of Jesus. If the book of Acts is merely a work of fiction by the author (Luke), then one could easily expose it as such. It leaves itself open and vulnerable to careful scrutiny by virtue of the fact that it is filled with very specific details in terms of naming exactly who, what, when, where, why, and how the alleged events took place. In his scholarly work, “The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History”, historian Colin Hemer painstakingly verifies Luke’s accuracy in the book of Acts by identifying in precise detail 84 facts recorded by Luke that have been confirmed by archaeological and historical research. Luke’s careful attention to detail in recording historical events led British archaeologist Sir William Ramsay to conclude after thirty years of study, “Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy…..this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.” (“The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament”, p.222).
So, what does all of this have to do with the question of whether or not Jesus was a real person in history? The author of the book of Acts is the same person who wrote the Gospel of Luke in which he carefully records a detailed account of the birth of Jesus, as well as his life, ministry, miracles, trial, execution and resurrection. The point is, since Luke has proven himself to be an accurate historian in the book of Acts, we have good reason to think that he was just as careful in meticulously gathering and recording the historical facts surrounding the life of Jesus as presented in the Gospel of Luke. Furthermore, this affirms the historical accuracy of the other three Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and John) where the events they record correspond to the details given in Luke’s Gospel. The abundance of historical and archaeological evidence in support of the New Testament should be enough to convince any honest, open-minded person that the Gospels give us an accurate, reliable, historical record of the life and words of Jesus. The New Testament documents stand on their own merits according to the generally-accepted methods of historical investigation. But for the sake of the hard-core skeptic who insists on citing ancient sources outside the Bible, there are several non-Biblical sources from the ancient world which affirm the historical certainty of the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Such sources would include the writings of Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Phlegon, Thallus, Seutonius, Lucian, Mara Bar-Serapion, Tacitus, Celsus, and the Jewish Talmud. (It’s worth noting that the last three in this list are not only non-Biblical sources, they could be considered anti-Biblical sources).
This brings us back to the initial claim by American Atheists that Jesus is just a myth. As we’ve seen, they certainly cannot mean that he never existed. They can only mean that they believe that the miracles recorded in the New Testament, such as his virgin birth, are nothing more than fanciful additions to the story of Jesus. However, this, too, is an assumption that is not based on evidence or good scholarship. It is a misguided conclusion based on an atheist bias. That is to say, before they even look at the evidence, they already have their minds made up that God does not exist. Therefore, miracles (being an act of God) cannot and do not occur. Their bias demands a naturalistic explanation.
However, such a false conclusion about the “impossibility” of miracles is not only unnecessary, it is irrational, especially in light of the cumulative evidence for God’s existence. The latest discoveries in cosmology, physics, biology, genetics, etc. all point unmistakably to a Divine Architect. That being the case, it logically follows that if God has the authority and power to bring the universe and everything in it into being at His command, then it is not beyond His power to send His Son into this world in an extraordinary way, born of a young virgin, in fulfillment of a prophecy given by Isaiah almost 700 years earlier. “All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: ‘The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel’- which means, ‘God with us’.” (Matthew 1:22,23)
Tags: American Atheists, ancient documents, book of Acts, Christmas, Gospel of Luke, history, Jesus, Luke the historian, miracles, myth, New Testament, the Bible, virgin birth
Posted in Bible | 6 Comments »
Will The Real God Please Stand Up! (Part 2)
Saturday, October 15th, 2011
In part one of this post, I was taking a look at some of the clichés that have become popular in our culture when it comes to religion- namely, the idea that “all beliefs about God are equally true.” In the process, we discovered that slogans of that kind often make the mistake of treating belief and truth as if they are the same thing when, if fact, they are not at all the same thing. Furthermore, we established that all beliefs about God cannot be true because they are making contradictory claims about God. This eventually led to the question: Is there any way that we can verify which beliefs about God actually correspond to the truth about God? Before proceeding to that question, I think that it would be best to begin by addressing those who would insist that it’s rather pointless for us to even ask such a question since we cannot know anything about God. In response to that, let me quickly say that if God has chosen to remain anonymous by leaving it entirely up to us to figure it out for ourselves, then they are correct- we cannot know. However, if God has chosen to reveal himself to us by some means, then this gives us the ability to sort out which beliefs about God are more likely to be true about God.
There are many compelling reasons why I think that God has, in fact, intentionally revealed himself to us. Both time and space in this post do not allow for a thorough presentation of the various evidences from philosophy and science for the existence of God. That alone is such a huge topic that it deserves and requires a series of posts that I plan to address in the future. For now, let it suffice to say that the list includes such evidence as the origin, immensity, and fine-tuning of the universe, the information content of DNA, the countless examples of obvious design that we observe in nature, and our shared moral intuitions that transcend time and culture. When all of the evidence is combined, it requires an intelligent Cause of the universe and everything in it, who is greater than the universe itself. In order to best explain the evidence, this First Cause must be self-existent, eternal and all-powerful (to explain the universe), all-knowing (to explain the complexity and variety of living things), moral (to explain our shared moral intuitions), and personal (to explain conscious, creative human persons).
This information alone begins the process of narrowing down the options in our attempt to determine which beliefs about God are more likely to be true. If we begin with the evidence, as well as the characteristics that God must possess in order to best explain that evidence, it serves as a “filter” through which we can process various beliefs about God. For example, if the combined evidence points favorably in the direction of God’s existence, then it is highly unlikely that belief systems such as atheism, agnosticism, or Buddhism are true, because they either deny God’s existence or imply that God doesn’t exist. They disqualify themselves on the basis that they do not fit the observable evidence. If conscious, self-aware, creative human beings (persons) are best explained by a personal Creator, then any belief system which claims that God is an impersonal force or energy immediately loses traction. Again, they disqualify themselves because they do not comport with the observable evidence.
Once we’ve processed all of the world’s beliefs about God through this “filter”, the only three belief systems which remain are Judaism, Islam and Christianity. Is there any way to narrow down our search any further? Is there any way to determine which of the three “finalists” is most likely to give us the truth about God? That will be my topic in the third and final part of this series.
Tags: beliefs, cultural beliefs, DNA, evidence, First Cause, God, Intelligent Design, origins, truth, World Religions
Posted in Theology | Comments Off
Will The Real God Please Stand Up! (Part 1)
Saturday, September 17th, 2011
“All religions are equally true.”
“No religion is the ‘right’ one or the ‘only’ one.”
“It doesn’t matter what you believe as long as you’re sincere.”
It’s not uncommon these days to hear such catchphrases whenever the topic of religion or God is being discussed. In fact, our culture today places such a premium on tolerance and diversity that if someone even suggests that all religions are not true, that person is going to be labeled as everything from “naïve” to “hateful”. It certainly seems to be the case that over time, more and more people have come to accept the idea that all religions are true. But is that really the case? Is it possible for all religions to be equally true? If not, then why have so many people bought into the idea that all religions are true?
The more I encounter this question, the more convinced I am that one of the biggest reasons that there’s so much confusion and disagreement on this is the failure of most people to understand the difference between belief and truth. In conversation, I have found that it’s quite common for people to use those two words interchangeably as if they were the same thing, but they are not the same thing. As we are about to see, there is a significant difference between belief and truth.
To illustrate, suppose that I asked those of you who never met my dad to write down what you sincerely believe to be an accurate description of my dad. Write down what you believe about his physical appearance, as well as a description of his character and his personality. Suppose that I asked all of you to submit your descriptions to me, and then imagine all of your papers spread out on a table in front of me for review. What we now have represented on that table are various beliefs that people have about my dad. Obviously, there will be a great deal of diversity among those beliefs because they are contradicting one another in their descriptions of my dad’s eye color, hair color, weight, height, personality, etc.
Even though this is a simple illustration, it contrasts the stark differences between belief and truth. It tells us that:
1) All beliefs cannot be true because they are oftentimes making contradictory claims. (My dad cannot be five feet, ten inches tall AND six feet, two inches tall!)
2) No matter how sincere a belief may be, if it doesn’t agree with the truth, it is a false belief.
3) The truth is not going to change in order to conform to one’s beliefs. His beliefs must change in order to conform to the truth.
Since it is reasonable to think that these unchanging, fundamental principles regarding the nature of truth apply to other truth claims as well, we have every reason to think that these same principles apply to truth claims about God. Even though we recognize and respect the fact that there is a diversity of different cultural beliefs about God, that is a very different thing from saying that all of those beliefs are equally true! In fact, as we’ve just seen, it is impossible for all of them to be true because in most cases they are making contradictory claims. The atheist believes that there is no God. Most religions believe that there is a God- both claims cannot be true. Some religions believe that God is a vague, impersonal force whereas others believe that God is a specific, personal, moral, intelligent Being- it cannot be the case that they are both correct. Just as with the illustration about my dad, all beliefs about God cannot be true, and any belief about God that does not correspond to the truth about God is a false belief.
I’m not sure why we are so shocked or offended by that. After all, entire cultures have been shown to hold false beliefs about much simpler truths. For example, throughout history there has been a diversity of cultural beliefs about the earth with regard to its shape, its composition, and the means by which it travels. But regardless how long or how sincerely those cultural traditions were held, their beliefs turned out to be false. The point is, if entire cultures have been wrong in their beliefs about something that is much more accessible to them, it should come as no surprise to us that they may also be wrong when it comes to something that is much more difficult to grasp- that is, the truth about who God is and what He is like.
So, where does this leave us? Is there any way to verify which beliefs about God correspond to the truth about God? Can we know the truth about God? If so, what is it? In my next post, we will examine these questions and more.
Tags: belief, catchphrases, cultural beliefs, diversity, Religion, tolerance, truth, World Religions
Posted in Theology | Comments Off
Is Morality Determined By Society?
Tuesday, August 16th, 2011
In my previous post, I was taking a look at a popular approach to morality known as “moral relativism”, specifically the kind of relativism which says that right and wrong are up to the individual to decide. I had pointed out that most relativists are not consistent when it comes to actually applying their relativistic view to real life. In the end, they attempt to relativize any values that they don’t like, while absolutizing the values that they do like. For example, they will often tell us that modesty, sexual purity, and abstinence before marriage are only “right” for some people (it’s “relative”). Yet, when it comes to anything that they personally find offensive such as hate, discrimination, intolerance, or homophobia, they push their morality on others by insisting that such things are wrong for everyone- absolutely. As I said, this is hardly in keeping with their claim that right and wrong are “up to the individual”. When faced with the fact that they are not living consistently within their own view, the diehard relativist will often seek refuge in another brand of relativism which says that right and wrong are determined by society. As it turns out, this approach to morality is plagued with many problems as well and it raises a number of questions.
For example, when someone says that morality is “determined by society”, the first question we need to ask is, “Which part of society?” This is an important question for several reasons. Before World War II, the Jews were certainly a part of German society. So, if society determines what’s right, then how did the Jews ( being part of that society) end up in the prison camps? Right now, even within American society, we are split almost 50/50 on everything from same-sex marriage to abortion. As a side-note, this “split” within American culture is the reason why it’s no longer reasonable nor meaningful for a politician to claim that he or she wants to represent “the people”, because the question could always be asked, “Which people? Those for abortion, or those against it? Those for same-sex marriage, or those against it?” The point is, how can a society that is so sharply divided over moral issues be said to “determine” what’s right or wrong?
There are other problems with the notion that morality is based on whatever society says. If something is right or wrong based solely on whatever society says, then moral reformers, by definition, would be “immoral” because they are defying that which society says is “right”. Based on that sort of reasoning, we would have to condemn German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer for standing up against Hitler and the Nazi party when he spoke out against their crimes against the Jews. We must also condemn Corrie ten Boom for going against society’s wishes by hiding and protecting Jews from the Nazis. William Wilberforce would have been a “criminal” for defying society and fighting against the slave trade. In our own country, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. would have been considered “immoral” by that definition because he disobeyed racial segregation that was put into place by a society that had already determined what was “right”. By the way, this is why I often ask the relativist if they believe that racism was wrong before the Civil Rights Movement. If right and wrong are simply determined by a majority vote, then we lose the only foundation on which to say that racism is objectively wrong or truly wrong. At best, we would be forced by our own twisted logic to say that racism is only “wrong” for now, but that may change in the future as society changes. Now that is a frightening thought.
If there is a lesson to be learned in all of this, it is best learned by looking back in history at the Nuremberg trials in 1945 where the leaders of the Nazi party were put on trial for war crimes. Throughout the proceedings, the defendants insisted that the Allies had no business trying them for war crimes because they (the Nazis) were operating according to the laws of their country- they were doing what was “right” for their society. If that’s true, if right and wrong are determined by society, then the International Military Tribunal would have never been in a position to bring charges against those who masterminded the Holocaust. The only way that any society can be judged as “immoral” is on the basis of an external standard of what is right- a Moral Law that transcends culture.
I am convinced that a Moral Law of such supreme authority and power can only come from God as the Supreme Lawgiver. Undoubtedly, there are many people who will stridently disagree with me. I would only remind them that in disagreeing with me, they are also disagreeing with Wilberforce, Bonhoeffer, ten Boom, and Dr. King, all of whom shared my conviction. One thing is for sure, justice would have never been served if the Nazis had succeeded in convincing the Tribunal and the rest of the world that right and wrong are determined by society.
Tags: cultural relativism, moral law, moral relativism, morality, Nazis, Nuremberg trials, relativism, relativists, right and wrong, societal relativism, society, the Holocaust, values
Posted in Christianity and Culture | 6 Comments »
An Inconvenient Truth About Morality
Saturday, July 16th, 2011
If you’ve ever listened in on a discussion involving a controversial issue where someone is perceived as promoting “traditional” or “Christian” values, chances are, you’ve heard one or more of the following responses:
“That’s not wrong for everyone, it’s only wrong for you.”
“That’s just your opinion.”
“What’s right for you may not be right for me.”
“Stop pushing your morality on everyone else.”
Whether they realize it or not, those who give such responses are expressing a particular view of morality known as “moral relativism”. More specifically, they are referring to that view of morality which says that right and wrong are up to the individual to decide for himself or herself.
This concept of moral relativism has been accepted by so many people today that we hear it on a regular basis from the average person on the street (as we’ve just seen in the examples above). Even though relativism has its share of problems as a moral view, I’m more interested in focusing at this time on the people who have adopted that view of morality- that is, the moral relativist. As we will see, those who say that morality is “relative” tend to be very inconsistent when it comes to how, when, and where they apply that principle. Generally speaking, they will only play by that rule when it’s convenient for them to do so- when it suits their own self-interests. This explains why they claim to be a “relativist” when it comes to justifying their own lifestyle or behavior. Yet, the moment someone does or says anything that offends the relativist, they will react as if they believe in a real, objective standard of morality. All of a sudden, they believe that right and wrong are not up to the individual to decide.
This double standard of the relativist is most noticeable when you listen carefully to the things they say. For example, consider the following statements that are commonly expressed by the moral relativist:
“I was here first.”
“That’s just wrong.”
“Christians are such hypocrites.”
“You’re being intolerant.”
“People who don’t support gay rights are spreading hate.”
“Not allowing same-sex marriage is discrimination.”
“She lied to me.”
“Someone stole my iPod.”
It’s important to understand that in all of these statements, the relativist is making a moral judgment- they are condemning someone else’s behavior as “morally wrong” . Here’s my point: as a relativist, it would make sense if they meant that such things are only wrong for them, but that’s not what they’re saying. They’re saying that it’s wrong for others. To put it another way, they’re deciding what’s right or wrong for others, yet they claim to believe that it’s up to each person to decide for himself!
All of this reminds me of a conversation that I had a few years ago with a young lady named “Denise” (not her real name). It was a few months before the 2008 elections and there was a proposition on the ballot in Arizona that was intended to preserve and protect the institution of marriage as one man and one woman by a “yes” vote. Denise had been going around the neighborhood putting up posters and signs encouraging people to vote against the proposition because, as she put it, “Such a proposition is discriminating against same-sex couples.” As I engaged her in conversation I pointed out that if we were going to get anywhere in our discussion, we must ultimately get down to the foundational question of every political, social, and moral issue: by what standard does one determine what’s right or wrong? The conversation at that point went as follows:
(Denise)- “Well, you want to base it on God.”
(me)- “I think that’s the most reasonable basis for morality.”
(Denise)- “I don’t believe in God.”
(me)- “It’s not a question of whether or not you ‘believe’ in God. It’s a matter of whether or not he really exists. There’s an overwhelming amount of evidence from both science and philosophy that God really does exist. But just for the sake of discussion, let’s pretend that he doesn’t exist. Let’s suppose you’re right. So, if there is no God, then on what basis are you going to decide what’s right and what’s wrong?”
(Denise)- “That’s easy. It’s up to each person to decide for himself. I can’t say what’s right or wrong for you and you can’t say what’s right or wrong for me. I can’t push my morality on you and you can’t push your morality on me. Like I said, it’s up to each person to decide for himself.”
(me)- “It’s easy for you to say that, but I don’t think you can live by that.”
(Denise)- “Why not?”
(me)- “Because a moment ago, you said that not allowing same-sex couples to marry would be discrimination.”
(Denise)- “It would be discrimination.”
(me)- “So, are you saying that discrimination is wrong?”
(Denise)- “ABSOLUTELY. Discrimination is absolutely wrong!”
(me)- “That’s what I don’t understand. How can you say that discrimination, or anything else for that matter, is ‘absolutely wrong’ if you believe that it’s up to each person to decide for himself whether or NOT such things are wrong? After all, to say that it’s ‘up to the individual to decide’ is to say that it’s up to each person to decide whether or not discrimination is wrong, whether or not intolerance is wrong, whether or not racism is wrong, etc. Do you really want to live in a world where each person is deciding for himself or herself what’s right?”
She had no response.
Denise, just like every other relativist, finds herself in the unenviable position of trying to make moral judgments, yet lacking a foundation on which to do so. No doubt, the late Francis Schaeffer had people such as Denise in mind when he described the relativist as having “both feet firmly planted in mid-air.”
Tags: double standard, Hypocrisy, moral choices, moral judgments, moral relativism, moral relativist, morality, morals, objective morality, relativism, relativist, right & wrong
Posted in Christianity and Culture | 8 Comments »
Proteins: Taking Origami To A Whole New Level
Tuesday, June 28th, 2011
I wouldn’t exactly call myself a pack rat, but there are some things that I just can’t bring myself to throw away. Unlike some of my friends, I’ve never collected coins, stamps, or baseball cards. The truth of the matter is that the items that I tend to hang onto would not be considered valuable by most people, but to me they are priceless. One of those items is sitting on top of my bookcase. It’s a small swan that was given to me by a friend’s daughter who had carefully folded it for me out of a piece of blue paper. Given that I find it challenging enough to re-fold a roadmap, I have a real appreciation for anyone who has the patience and the skill to do origami. Taking a sheet of paper and transforming it into a work of art is hard enough. Yet there is something else that requires folding in order to make it, and the precision with which it is folded is so critical that life would be impossible without it. This “something” that I’m referring to is a protein.
All living things are made up of proteins, and proteins are made up of “building blocks” known as amino acids. More specifically, those proteins must be made up almost exclusively of left-handed amino acids. Amino acids exist in what has come to be known as “left-handed” and “right-handed” forms. In other words, if you were to look at a three-dimensional model representing each type, you would notice that they exist as mirror-images of each other, similar to placing your hands together, touching fingertips. Again, even though amino acids exist in both forms, living things are made up almost exclusively of the left-handed kind. So, even if you have a long chain of left-handed amino acids linked together, if just one right-handed amino acid finds its way into that chain, the protein’s ability to function is diminished greatly, if not entirely. To make life even more improbable, all of the “letters” of the “genetic alphabet” in that chain must be in exactly the right sequence in order to be meaningful, much like the proper arrangement of letters in a book or a set of instructions. How improbable is it? Just ask the co-discoverer of DNA’s double helix design, (evolutionist) Francis Crick:
“If a particular amino acid sequence was selected by chance, how rare an event would this be?….The great majority of sequences can never have been synthesized at all, at any time.”
Francis Crick, “Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature”, 1981, pp.51-52
We’re not finished yet. Not only do all of the correct amino acids have to be in proper order in the chain, not only do they have to be exclusively left-handed amino acids, in addition to this, the protein must be folded into a three-dimensional configuration to exact specifications. This is a critical step because the folded protein must have the proper “lock and key” fit in order to function and to interact with the other components within the cell that require an exact match to it. To say that the protein must be “precisely folded” is an understatement. In an outstanding presentation titled, “The Origin of Life”, Mike Riddle of the Institute for Creation Research draws our attention to two different studies in order to help us understand how improbable it is to properly fold a protein. He begins with the following statement by H.J.C. Berendsen:
“Scientists have been attempting to be able to determine a protein’s native conformation (or folding) by examining the amino acid sequence. Despite years of study, the ability to do this using even the fastest computers is beyond our reach…”
“…Using a super fast computer (one quadrillion computations per second) it would take 1080 seconds, which exceed the age of the universe by a factor of 60 orders of magnitude! This fact alone may give you a better perspective on the mind of God.”
H.J.C. Berendsen, “Perspectives: Protein Folding, a Glimpse of the Holy Grail?”
-Science, 1998
Or consider another study in Los Alamos, N.M. in October 14th, 2002, where researchers at Los Alamos National Laboratory and the University of California, San Diego, used some of the fastest computers available to simulate the folding of a “simple” protein consisting of only 18,000 atoms. (Again, this is after getting all of the right atoms, arranged in the right order- all it has to do is fold the protein properly). How long did it take the computers? It took 6 months on 82 parallel processors, which amounts to 34 years of CPU time! Riddle goes on to point out that by comparison, a living cell folds this particular protein in about 10 microseconds (millionths of a second), which is 100 trillion times as fast as our fastest computers. As it turns out, the fastest “computer” in the world is a cell!
All of this leads one to ask the question: if there is so much evidence for a Creator, why do so many people, especially in the sciences, continue to deny His existence? It all comes down to one word- accountability. That is, it’s not a problem with the evidence, it’s a problem with the heart of man. We rebel against the idea that there is anyone who has ultimate authority over us, to whom we will be accountable at the end of our lives. In our attempt to flee from God, we are willing to deny the obvious.
“For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.” (Romans 1:21)
Tags: amino acids, creation vs evolution, Institute for Creation Research, Mike Riddle, origin of life, origins, protein folding, proteins
Posted in Science | Comments Off
Absolutely Relative
Saturday, June 11th, 2011
Over Memorial Day weekend, some friends of mine brought to my attention an interesting exchange that was taking place between a few college students on Facebook. It all began with a discussion surrounding a movie that had just recently come out. The first student had rightly pointed out that many things about the movie, including the language, was in very poor taste. Other comments followed as a few more students joined the conversation. Most of the students agreed with the first guy and some of them went on to point out that movies which promote such obscene humor not only have a compromising effect on Christians who view them, they have a subtle, yet corrosive effect on our culture in general.
As expected, not everyone agreed and it wasn’t long before some students began to challenge this idea. One of those students was “Dave” (not his real name). Dave, as a non-Christian, identified himself as “Ignostic”, which he said is “not to be confused with ‘agnostic’.” In any case, Dave made it clear that he was a relativist and he made several comments to try and convince the other students that it’s pointless for them to make moral judgments about such movies because “morality is relative.” I have no doubt that Dave is a very intelligent guy and he was very persuasive in pointing out several examples from various cultural and historical traditions which, on the surface, give the appearance that morality is “relative to cultures”. There was one statement in particular that caught my attention as he attempted to summarize his comments by saying, “You cannot escape the context you are born into.”
This is not the first time I’ve heard that view expressed. In fact, I just recently spoke to a woman who teaches political science at one of our universities who stated that this “context” view is quite common within higher education. While it may be tempting to accept such a view purely on the basis that it’s “generally accepted” today in our colleges and universities, that should not stop us from calling it into question. In fact, the ability to examine the strengths and weaknesses of an idea is what a good education is all about. One thing that we often forget is that despite a great education, even a person of great intellect is capable of making egregious errors in reasoning because, just like the rest of us, they’re not perfect. I believe that this story is an example of that.
There is something fundamentally wrong with this relativistic notion that “you cannot escape your context.” To illustrate, suppose that I’m a Christian student in a college classroom and my professor has just said, “You cannot escape the context that you’re born into.” If that really is the case, then what would be the point in teaching that to me? As a Christian, I do not share that view. So, in order for me to change my way of thinking and to embrace this “context” idea, I can only do so if I have the ability to step out of (“escape the context” of) my Christian worldview. Yet, my professor has just told me that it’s impossible for anyone to escape their context! Or suppose that someone was raised in a community that is very racist. If he cannot escape the context that he was born into, then what would be the point in trying to persuade him that racism is wrong? It only gets worse at this point. What about the person who initially came up with this “context” theory? Isn’t his theory, itself, really nothing more than a result of his or her own cultural context? Did he come to his conclusions simply because he was raised that way? If his theory is nothing more than a product of his context, why should the rest of us accept it, even if we could accept it?
This “context” view runs into the same problem that undermines all relativistic views- they can’t live up to their own expectations. Right from the start, they begin to lose traction because the person promoting the idea is attempting to apply his view or theory to everyone except himself (“the self-excepting fallacy”). It’s one more example of an idea that has been allowed to take root in our culture, not because it is reasonable, but because we are either unwilling or unable to question the foundation on which the idea was built. “Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools…” (Romans 1:22)
Tags: moral relativism, relativism, relativist
Posted in Christianity and Culture | Comments Off
Mutations And “Faded” Genes (Part 2)
Sunday, May 29th, 2011
In my previous post we were examining the claims of evolutionary theory which says that every living thing which exists is the result of an unguided process of natural selection acting upon random mutations. The point that I emphasized was the fact that natural selection is powerless to create the very thing that is most needed- new genetic information. I ended by saying that the evolutionist would remind us that we are overlooking the most important factor of all- mutations.
So, do mutations have what it takes to save evolutionary theory? It’s highly unlikely. Just as with natural selection, mutations cannot create any new information. When asked if new information can originate through mutations, Dr. Werner Gitt, a director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology answered this way:
“…this idea is central in representations of evolution, but mutations can only cause changes in existing information. There can be no increase in information, and in general the results are injurious. New blueprints for new functions or new organs cannot arise; mutations cannot be the source of new (creative) information.”
Gitt,W., In the Beginning Was Information, CLV, Bielefeld, Germany, p. 127, 1997
It’s bad enough that mutations are not the “hero” that the evolutionist was hoping for. To make matters worse, mutations actually turn out to be the villain in the story! Not only do mutations lack the very thing that it takes to drive us forward in some onward, upward evolutionary direction, mutations are actually driving us irreversibly and inescapably in a direction toward decay and death. In fact, mutations are the primary reason that all of us age and eventually die. But not only do our bodies, individually, age and die, the overall effect of genetic decay (entropy) is that the entire human race is “aging” genetically and will eventually die.
In order to understand why that’s the case, we need to understand what mutations are and how they work. In short, mutations are “typographical errors” that occur in our DNA code as that information is replicated during cell division. Similar to word-processing errors, mutations can occur as deletions, insertions, “letter substitutions” (point mutations), and inversions. Just as errors in word-processing corrupt the meaning and integrity of a text, mutations corrupt genetic information. As a result, the cumulative effect is that the genetic information necessary to build human beings is in a state of disintegration.
In his presentation, “The Mystery of Our Declining Genes”, retired Cornell University Professor Dr. John Sanford comments that a famous geneticist once stated that if the mutation rate was as high as one mutation per person, per generation, human extinction and human degeneration would be certain. Dr. Sanford goes on to point out that current research in human genetics has confirmed that there are more than one hundred new mutations per person, per generation- a fact that is well-known among human geneticists. By the way, the “genetic mistakes” of each generation are passed along and added on to each successive generation. In other words, each of us will have one hundred more mutations than our parents did.
Evolutionists insist that it all makes sense once you include natural selection in the process- that natural selection acting upon those mutations is the key to understanding evolution. However, that explanation is entirely inadequate to salvage the theory. For the most part, natural selection cannot select for “beneficial” mutations because they are extremely rare and much too subtle at the genetic level- so subtle, in fact, that they are virtually “invisible” to natural selection. On the other hand, natural selection has the additional problem of not being able to select against (get rid of) bad genes for the same reason (too subtle to detect).
Here’s the problem: Since nearly all mutations are harmful, and since most of them are so subtle that they go largely undetected by natural selection, the overall, cumulative effect on an organism is one of decay and disintegration. Sanford compares the effect of harmful mutations to rust on a car. The rusting of metal is a subtle process (one atom at a time) that takes place long before there are any visible signs, and the overall effect is always destructive not constructive. In addition to this, it’s important to keep in mind that natural selection cannot “pick and choose” between which genes it “likes” and which ones it “doesn’t like”. It can only select the entire organism- it must take the bad genes (the majority) along with the “good” genes (extremely rare by comparison).
Dr. Sanford says that the declining condition of our genes is well known among human geneticists. He goes on to say that he is puzzled by the fact that even though geneticists agree that the human race is degenerating, many of those same geneticists continue to believe in evolution despite evidence to the contrary. What doesn’t surprise Dr. Sanford is why they withhold that information from the general public. After all, it’s not easy to face up to the fact that the human race is dying, and dwelling on it can leave a person feeling hopeless and in a state of despair.
However, the good news is that we are not the “byproducts of time plus matter plus chance”. You and I were created by the purposive act of an awesome, all-powerful God- the same God who sent His one and only Son, Jesus Christ, into this world to vanquish death and to offer eternal life to those who are willing to place their trust in Him.
Tags: DNA, Dr. John Sanford, evolution, genes, genetic decay, genetic entropy, genetic information, genetic mistakes, genetics, mutations, natural selection
Posted in Science | 4 Comments »
Mutations And “Faded” Genes (Part 1)
Monday, May 16th, 2011
A few weeks ago, I had the privilege of taking my nephew and niece to the Arizona -Sonora Desert Museum in Tucson where we had the opportunity to observe various wildlife and habitats that are indigenous to Arizona. Later that evening, I took their two younger sisters to the Arizona Mills Mall in Tempe where we visited the Arizona SeaLife Aquarium. It was a great experience that gave us a chance to take a close-up look at marine life of various sizes and brilliant colors. As I look back on both of those experiences and as I reflect on all that I had seen, I can’t imagine someone who would come away from such an experience without asking at some point, “How did all of this come to be?”
If you accept the explanation given by those who have embraced evolutionary theory, then everything which exists, the universe and everything in it, came about through a purely naturalistic process of “time, plus matter, plus chance”. More specifically, the theory suggests that every living thing came into existence through a combination of random mutations and natural selection. Even though that idea has been the dominant view in science for many, many years, the most recent research in various scientific disciplines tells a much different story.
One area of research that has exposed some of the theory’s weaknesses is the study of genetics. In order to appreciate its significance, it’s crucial that we begin with an understanding of DNA and its function. Every living thing, from microbes to man, is built upon genetic information in the form of DNA. Without this information it’s impossible to build life. You might think of DNA as a set of “blueprints” or “assembly instructions”. If you’ve ever had the experience of building a model plane or assembling a child’s bicycle, you know that it’s not enough to simply have all of the necessary parts. You must also have a set of assembly instructions to tell you exactly how and where each piece fits together. It’s important to keep in mind that the more complex something is, the more assembly instructions it’s going to require in order to build it. A model plane or a bicycle may come with a sheet of assembly instructions requiring twenty or more steps. Designing and building an automobile will take much more information. A space shuttle will take an even greater amount of information. This same principle holds true for living things as well. While the leap in complexity from a child’s bicycle to a space shuttle is unimaginably great, by comparison, the leap in complexity from a bacterium to a human being is far greater. If evolution is true, if life somehow evolved from single-celled organisms all the way up to complex human beings, it would require an increase in genetic information of staggering proportions!
The nagging question for evolutionary theory is this: Is it likely that an increase in information of that magnitude actually took place? Is there any mechanism that we’ve observed that has the ability to produce new genetic information? The reason that I emphasize “new” information is because there are processes that can transfer a loop of genetic material (a “plasmid”) from one place to another. But notice that such transferred information is not new, created information. It was pre-existing information that was simply relocated. Also, in plants there are processes that can result in the doubling of all the chromosomes, but such a process does not create new information. It would be analogous to a malfunction in a printing press that causes it to double-print the pages in a textbook. Even though it would result in twice the amount of pages, the book would not contain any more information than that which is in the properly printed book. This brings us back to the question of whether there is any mechanism capable of producing brand new genetic information.
The evolutionist will tell us that mutations and natural selection are the driving forces behind evolution. But in order for that claim to be true, one must first of all show that those processes have the ability to create the information necessary to build new, novel features. Everything that we’ve observed about natural selection and mutations would indicate that neither are capable of producing the new information that would be necessary for “molecules to man” evolution.
While it is true that natural selection is an undeniable process that we observe in nature, it is imperative that we understand the limitations of that process and not attribute to that process abilities that it does not possess. The most significant limitation of natural selection that we need to acknowledge is that it does not have the ability to produce new genetic information. Natural selection can only sort out, rearrange, and separate the information that already exists in the genes. The point is, natural selection cannot create new biological features because it cannot create the information that’s necessary to build those features.
At this point, the evolutionist would remind us that it’s not entirely up to natural selection alone to perform the “miracles”- it is a combination of natural selection and mutations. But is that really the case? Are mutations the “hero” of the plot? Can mutations come to the rescue of evolutionary theory? We will explore that question in my next post.
Tags: DNA, evolution, genes, genetic information, genetics, mutations, natural selection
Posted in Science | 3 Comments »
-
In today's world, there is a great deal of confusion when it comes to matters of truth, meaning, morality, our origin, and our destiny. The purpose of Renewed Thoughts is to bring clarity to such issues by examining them in light of a Biblical worldview, using the tools of science, philosophy, and critical thinking.