Author Archive
« Older Entries | Newer Entries »The Soup Kitchen Remains Closed For Darwin
Sunday, May 1st, 2011
At the end of last year, Access Research Network gave a list of ten of the top scientific discoveries made in 2010 (plus five honorable mentions) that offered a positive case for intelligent design and a challenge for evolutionary dogma. In a brilliant article titled, “No More Soup For You!”, they cited a paper by evolutionary biologist William Martin regarding origin of life theories, specifically putting to rest the “primordial soup” theory. The 81-year-old theory was first introduced by J.B.S. Haldane and it proposed that life on earth first began in a “soup” of organic molecules before “evolving” out of the oceans “millions of years” later.
The paper that was cited by ARN appeared in Bioessays 27 Jan 2010. In it, Martin and his colleagues get right to the point in the introduction, “Primordial soup at 81, well past its sell-by date.” They go on to explain some of the more recent problems that plague the “soup” theory and why it should have been discarded a long time ago. In place of it, they propose an alternative explanation that involves deep-sea hydrothermal vents. Even though the “hydrothermal vents” theory faces serious obstacles of its own, (the hydrolytic effects of water, etc.) my main point at this time is to ask why so many outdated evolutionary ideas persist, despite having been thoroughly discredited by reputable scientists. For example, in the four leading biology textbooks currently being used in our educational system, the discredited “soup” theory continues to be presented as a “fact” to unsuspecting students by way of several references to the famous Miller/Urey experiment in 1953.
The Miller experiment was conducted in a laboratory apparatus using water vapor, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen (to simulate what was believed to be the early earth’s atmosphere), a sparking chamber (to provide an energy source), and a “trap” to catch the final product. The experiment resulted in a product that contained, among other things, a few amino acids, the basic building blocks of life. At the time, the media hailed Miller’s experiment as, “Life Created In A Test Tube.” Since that time, many scientists have pointed out that Miller’s experiment was not only light-years away from “creating life”, it was misguided in every way, from the manner in which it was set up, right down to the final product.
To begin with, Miller started off with the wrong assumptions about the early earth’s atmosphere. Knowing that oxygen would actually prevent the formation of any precursors to life, he assumed that the early earth’s atmosphere did not contain any oxygen. Based on that assumption, he did not include oxygen in his experiment. However, more recent research has revealed that oxygen has been present in the atmosphere throughout earth’s history. Secondly, the “trap” Miller used was entirely unrealistic. In the event that any organic molecules formed, the purpose of the trap was to protect and isolate them from “overexposure” to the very same spark that was used to produce them. For Miller, the trap would prove to be a Catch-22 because with the trap, any resultant products collected in the trap would run into a dead end. Yet, without the trap, there would be no way to isolate and protect the delicate product (amino acids) from being destroyed by the same energy source (spark) that was necessary to produce them in the first place. Lastly, Miller’s experiment produced the wrong results. Amino acids come in both “left-handed” and “right-handed” forms (mirror-images of each other). Proteins in living things are made up exclusively of left-handed amino acids, yet Miller ended up with a lifeless mixture of left-handed and right-handed amino acids. To make matters worse, the final product resulted in a tar-like substance, a mixture which would have been toxic to life.
In the end, all naturalistic explanations on the origin of life require a serious leap of faith. To believe that random, chance processes organized the necessary building blocks of life, in just the right order, in the correct three-dimensional configuration, (like a lock and key) leading all the way up to a self-reproducing organism, is to invoke an even greater miracle than the one given by an all-wise, all-powerful Creator. As for Darwin, it appears that the “soup” kitchen remains closed and it’s not expected to open any time soon.
Tags: creation vs evolution, Darwin, evolution, Miller experiment, origin of life, primordial soup
Posted in Science | Comments Off
Did God Forsake His Son At The Cross?
Sunday, April 17th, 2011
Today is Palm Sunday, a day celebrated by Christians to mark the day that Jesus made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem- a day that would lead to a chain of events that would result, a week later, in his arrest, trial, crucifixion, and resurrection. Each year as we celebrate Easter and as we reflect on the events surrounding his crucifixion, questions are often asked by those who seek to make sense of those events. A question that is frequently asked has to do with one of the statements made by Jesus while he is hanging on the cross. Two of the Gospel writers, Matthew and Mark, make mention of the fact that at one point Jesus said, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” This statement has led some people to ask if God had, in fact, forsaken his Son at that moment and if so, why?
The answer given by most pastors and Bible teachers is that God could not look upon his Son as he hung upon the cross because Jesus had taken upon himself every crime, every offense that the human race had committed against God. Since God is holy and cannot look upon sin, he turned away from his Son in that agonizing moment as he became the sin-bearer of the whole world.
There is nothing contradictory about that explanation (especially in light of the concept of God’s triune nature, known as the “Trinity”). Even though I find that explanation to be well within reason, I believe that there is another explanation that is worth noting. This alternative view was first explained to me by my good friend Brian, who said that it was brought to his attention while he was attending a Bible study led by Bible teacher, Kevin Saunders. Having spent a great deal of time living in the Holy Land and being immersed in that culture, Saunders’ Bible studies incorporate much of the knowledge and information that he’s gained from that experience. In fact, Saunders says that the significance of this statement made by Jesus was first revealed to him by one of the rabbis that he met while living in Jerusalem.
The general idea that Saunders shares with his students goes something like this: Suppose that you are attending a special event and the guest speaker opens with the familiar phrase, “I pledge allegiance to the flag….” Even if he were to stop after the first six words, most people in the audience would begin to follow along and recite the entire pledge because they have committed all of it to memory. It is deeply ingrained in them and in our culture. Just the opening line alone is sufficient to elicit this response from those listening. Now let’s think about how this would apply in much the same way to the Jewish culture living in Jesus’ day. The Jewish people were diligent in their memorization of Old Testament scripture. Memorizing the Word of God was taken so seriously that some sources say that boys between the ages of six and ten would memorize the first five books of scripture. The better students would memorize the rest of the Old Testament by age 14.
This fact about Jewish culture is extremely significant in understanding Jesus’ statement. As it turns out, Psalm 22 begins with the words, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Just as with our illustration (the Pledge of Allegiance), when Jesus uttered these words, those standing around the cross would immediately begin to mentally recall the entire 22nd Psalm. This leads us to the next question. Why would Jesus want them to recall that particular Psalm? What was so significant about the 22nd Psalm? If you read it, you will see that it contains an extraordinarily vivid, detailed description of the events taking place during his crucifixion. It’s important to keep in mind that this Psalm was written by David about 1,000 years before the events took place!
To appreciate how powerful this is, imagine yourself as a first century Jew living in Jerusalem. You hear a commotion out in the city streets and your curiosity compels you to go find out what’s going on. You see the man they call “Jesus” slowly making his way through the city streets, surrounded by a mob of local people and escorted by Roman soldiers. As you get closer, you can see him stumbling, carrying a wooden cross on his shoulders. His face is so badly bruised and beaten that he is barely recognizable. His eyes are so swollen that he can hardly open them. From head to toe, he is bleeding profusely from multiple, deep lacerations inflicted upon him at the hands of the Roman soldiers who scourged him earlier.
Caught up in the moment, you become part of the crowd and eventually follow the assembly up to the top of a hill known as “Golgotha” where Jesus, along with two criminals, is nailed to a cross. There he is, suspended between heaven and earth, on display for everyone around to look upon him in all of his agony, pain, and humiliation. As you stand there in utter silence and bewilderment wondering what this poor, pathetic man ever did to deserve such horrific treatment, you look around and you begin to notice several details as this event continues to unfold in front of you.
The man hanging on the cross has his arms outstretched, with his hands and feet nailed into place. His arms look as if they are being pulled right out of the sockets and because he’s been stripped of his outer garment, you can see his ribcage heaving as he gasps for air. In addition to the excruciating pain of his lacerations and his nail-pierced hands and feet, he is severely dehydrated, which further intensifies his torment. On the ground near the cross, the religious leaders have gathered around to mock him and to hurl insults at him, challenging him to come down from the cross and save himself. Off to the side, the Roman soldiers who are there to oversee the execution are now engaged in a cruel game of casting lots to see who will get to keep the dying man’s garments.
Suddenly and unexpectedly, you hear Jesus cry out from the cross, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” His words immediately trigger a response from you as your mind begins to play back, word for word, the entire 22nd Psalm that you memorized as a child:
“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?…..But I am a worm and not a man, scorned by men and despised by the people. All who see me mock me; they hurl insults, shaking their heads (saying): ‘He trusts in the Lord; let the Lord rescue him. Let him deliver him, since he delights in him’…….”
“Do not be far from me, for trouble is near and there is no one to help. Many bulls surround me; strong bulls of Bashan encircle me. Roaring lions tearing their prey open their mouths wide against me. I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint. My heart has turned to wax; it has melted away within me. My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth; you lay me in the dust of death. Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet. I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me. They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing……”
As we look at the events surrounding the crucifixion from this perspective, is it possible that Jesus intentionally quoted the 22nd Psalm so that those standing nearby would be aware of the fact that David’s prophetic words were being fulfilled right there in front of them? It’s entirely possible. Either way, whether you accept that explanation or the view that I mentioned at the start, one thing is for sure, Jesus’ death on the cross is not to be taken lightly. As someone has said, “Jesus did not go to the cross so that you could ‘have a nice day’.” Whatever else the cross may tell us, it tells us that God is very serious about our sin and that he is very specific about what he is or isn’t willing to accept as payment for our sin. “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)
Tags: Easter, Jesus Christ, Old Testament scripture, Palm Sunday, Psalm 22, salvation, sin, the Cross, the Crucifixion
Posted in Theology | Comments Off
Reconciling A Loving God With The Reality Of Hell- (Part 2)
Sunday, April 3rd, 2011
In my previous post, I was dealing with a question that is often directed at Christians, “How could a loving God allow anyone to go to hell?” In the process of thinking through that question, we discovered that even though the question, at a glance, seems to involve a contradiction, there is no contradiction in it at all. Having established that, I want to look further into this question to examine some of the emotional reasons people often give for objecting to the idea of hell. There is no doubt that the idea of a literal hell is so emotionally charged that just the mention of it is enough to create controversy. Of those who object to it, their reasons generally fall into one of two categories. Either: (a) They personally find the very notion of hell to be extremely offensive, or (b) They believe that it’s nothing more than a “scare tactic”.
Regarding the first objection, I certainly understand why many people find the idea of hell offensive. But, as with anything else in life, it’s not a question of whether we’re offended by it- that is irrelevant. The question that we must deal with is whether or not it’s really true! That being said, I think that there are good reasons why we should believe that it’s true. For one thing, there is no question that Jesus clearly affirmed the reality of hell. Given Jesus’ credentials (i.e., his miraculous birth, life, death, resurrection, and fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy), if there is anyone who would be in a unique position to know the truth about God, heaven, hell, etc., then Jesus is the most qualified person to speak with authority on those topics. Therefore, we have good, sound reasons to trust what Jesus said about hell and to heed his warnings about it.
What about the objection which insists that the idea of hell is nothing more than an invention of man- a mere “scare tactic”? Common sense demands that there are some things in life that we should be afraid of. There is a reason why we use “scare tactics” to warn children about strangers and to warn young people about the dangers of driving while under the influence or while texting. A doctor who holds back from giving you bad news in order to avoid “scaring” you is not a good doctor. “Scare tactics” are a legitimate means of warning someone as long as the threat to that person is real. As I said, there are some things in life that we should fear. Going to hell is not only one of them, Jesus said that it’s the one thing we should fear the most! “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:28)
So, is there a way to reconcile the reality of hell with God’s love? The answer is yes. Even though God’s holiness demands justice for our innumerable crimes against him, it was God’s intense love for us that sent his Son into this world. “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.“ (Romans 5:8) Jesus willingly went to the Cross in order to take our punishment upon himself and to provide the only means by which we can be acquitted. God has done everything necessary so that we can be pardoned of our offenses against him. What we, as individuals, choose to do with his generous offer is another matter. “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.” (John 3:36)
Tags: contradiction?, contradictory?, Eternal Life, God's justice, God's love, God's wrath in the New Testament, heaven, hell, is God loving?, Jesus Christ, life after death, salvation, scare tactics, sin, skepticism, skeptics, the Cross, the holiness of God, unbeliever
Posted in Theology | Comments Off
Reconciling A Loving God With The Reality Of Hell- (Part 1)
Sunday, March 20th, 2011
“How could a loving God allow anyone to go to hell?” It’s one of those questions that almost every Christian dreads, especially when it’s asked of him or her by a friend, a family member, or a co-worker. When confronted by it, it seems that most Christians either end up compromising the answer, or else they end up running away from the question altogether. Why? I think that there are a couple of reasons, one of which is the fact that it’s an extremely emotional question. If the person asking this question has already lost someone close to them, the thought of their friend or loved one spending eternity in hell is so overwhelming that one cannot dwell on it for very long. The second reason that many Christians are afraid to face up to this question is because it seems like a blatant contradiction. After all, it’s become so popular these days to talk about a loving God, there seems to be something terribly inconsistent about suggesting that this same God will actually allow people to go to a literal hell- forever.
As I said, at first glance, this question sounds like a contradiction, but when properly understood, there is no contradiction at all. When a skeptic or an unbeliever asks me this question, the first thing that I ask them is why do they believe that God is loving? In other words, what are they basing that on? How do they know that God is loving? Is it something that they just arbitrarily made up on their own, or do they have good, sound reasons for believing something like that? It’s an important question because most people just assume that the idea of a loving God is central to most religions, but that’s not the case at all. A survey of most of the world’s major religions will reveal that the concept of a loving, personal God is nowhere to be found. For example, the idea of a loving God cannot be found in Buddhism because Buddhism does not believe in a personal God to begin with, yet love must necessarily come from a person.
As it turns out, the only way that anyone can speak about a loving, personal God, and do so with any degree of certainty, is if they are willing to begin with the Bible as a reliable, authoritative source of truth. However, if they’re going to use the Bible as their starting point, even if only for the sake of discussion (as a skeptic), they forfeit the right to pick and choose which attributes of God they like in the Bible and which ones they don’t like. The Bible makes it perfectly clear that even though God is loving, he has other attributes as well. It goes on to tell us that God is also perfectly righteous and holy. Even the unbeliever can appreciate the fact that if God is so “loving” that he never punishes evil, then God is not a just judge- he is not a good judge. Even the skeptic would not respect a God who is so careless or irresponsible with his love that he would allow all of the evil in this world to go unpunished. So, while it may sound like a contradiction to ask how a loving God could allow someone to go to hell, there is nothing at all contradictory about a God who is also perfectly holy, just, and righteous allowing someone to go to hell.
This leads me to my closing thought. While the question of hell and a loving God involves no contradiction on God’s part, it does, however, expose a glaring contradiction on the part of the skeptic who asks this question. Those who ask how a loving God could allow someone to go to hell are oftentimes the very same people who will later ask how a loving God could allow so much evil in our world. In other words, according to them, if God is loving, he should not punish evil (in hell), yet at the same time, they believe that if God is loving, he should punish the evil and injustice that we see going on in our world- a contradiction, for sure.
In my next post, I want to continue with this topic as we explore the reasons why so many people object to the idea of hell and why their objections don’t add up.
Tags: atheism, atheists, Buddhism, Christianity, Christians, contradiction?, contradictory?, God's justice, God's love, heaven, hell, is God loving?, Jesus Christ, life after death, salvation, sin, skepticism, skeptics, the Bible, unbeliever, World Religions
Posted in Theology | Comments Off
It’s A Matter Of Which Bias Is The Best Bias To Be Biased With
Sunday, March 6th, 2011
In my previous post I made mention of an editorial, written by a local high school student, which was published in his school’s newspaper. I went on to explain that the author of the editorial had expressed a great deal of skepticism with regard to Christianity, the Bible, and the existence of God. The reason that I decided to use his article as a springboard for discussion is because he raised some very important questions and objections that frequently come up in conversation whenever the topic of Christianity is being discussed.
One of the many issues that he raises is the idea that science has not only discredited the Bible, it has somehow called into question God’s very existence. Throughout the article he attempts to portray the debate over God’s existence as a matter of “science vs. religion” or “facts vs. faith”. For example, he states, “Of course many religious people dismiss the overwhelming majority of scientists as wrong.” This idea that science and religion exist in two distinct, separate, and even opposing categories with no overlap between them is a view that seems to be held by most people today, both by believers and unbelievers alike. As they see it, on the one hand you have science which deals only in matters of fact and reason, proven by experimentation. On the other hand you have the category of religion which is portrayed as the very opposite of science, logic, reason, and rationality because it supposedly requires a “leap of blind faith” as a feeble attempt to make up for its utter lack of scientific evidence and credibility.
Even though this view of “science vs. religion” persists as one of the great myths of our time, it is not grounded in reality. It cannot be the case that the debate over God’s existence is a matter of “faith vs. science” because both sides of the debate use scientific facts to support their view and both of them require some element of faith. For example, the atheist, by faith, must believe that the universe either came from eternal matter or that it came from nothing, out of nothing, by nothing for no reason. (By the way, notice that while some atheists ridicule Christians for believing that Someone created everything, they are apparently willing to believe that nothing created everything!) In addition to their views on the origin of the universe, the atheist must believe, by faith, that the process of evolution began with the “biochemical evolution” of life from non-living matter. By faith, the atheist must believe that the staggering complexity and order that we observe at every level in biological systems arose out of chaos and disorder.
Not only do both sides of the “God debate” require some element of faith, both sides offer scientific arguments in an attempt to support their view. The creationist and the evolutionist are both examining the same facts from the same fossil record, geology, biology, etc. In the final analysis, the origins debate is not over the facts themselves. The debate is strictly a matter of how to best interpret those facts.
When it comes to the process of interpreting the facts, one thing that we must be careful not to overlook is the role that one’s bias plays in that process. In his editorial, the writer falsely assumes that all scientists are objective and unbiased when it comes to the process of interpreting the facts in front of them. Either that, or he’s assuming that no scientist would ever allow his or her bias to influence the outcome of their work. At one point he writes, “Scientists are not trying to prove God is unreal, they base their work on evidence and logical reasoning.” Let’s be up front and honest here. Everyone has a bias of some sort, and everyone carries that bias with them wherever they go. As a result, it influences everything they say and do, whether they are a teacher, a politician, a judge, or a scientist. There is nothing “magic” about putting on a lab coat that somehow enables a person to suddenly give up their bias. To illustrate, here are a couple of quotes from two scientists who are atheists:
“Anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done and may in the end be our greatest contribution to civilization.”
-Dr Steven Weinberg
Nobel Laureate in Physics: in New York Times, 11-21-06
“We take the side of science,…because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism….Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
-Richard Lewontin (of The Museum of Comparative Zoology) in “Billions and billions of demons.” The New York Review, January 1997, p.31
So much for the editorial’s claim that no scientist is trying to disprove God’s existence.
Not only does one’s bias play a role in interpreting the facts in science, it may actually be the most important factor of all. If that’s the case, then the real question we need to ask is, “Which bias does the best job of explaining the facts?” Or, as Ken Ham of Answers In Genesis says, “It’s a matter of which bias is the best bias to be biased with.” The bias of an atheistic worldview suggests the following; Something came from nothing. Order came from disorder. Life came from non-life. Mind and consciousness came from inanimate matter. Moral law and moral obligation came from amoral material. Non-physical entities, such as information and the laws of logic came from purely physical processes.
In contrast to this, the bias of a Christian worldview offers us a more plausible, coherent, and comprehensive explanation that comports with reality. As C. S. Lewis said, “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”
Tags: atheism, atheistic worldview, atheists, biases, C.S. Lewis, Christian worldview, Christianity, Christians, creation vs evolution, does God exist, fact vs faith, origins, Science, science vs religion, scientists, skeptics, the Bible
Posted in Science | 2 Comments »
There’s Nothing Tolerant About The New “Tolerance”
Sunday, February 20th, 2011
Over the next few posts I want to look at some issues that came up recently in an article published in the editorial section of a local high school campus newspaper. I’ve mentioned before that I have the privilege of working with the high school students at my church. Because of my interactions with them, they will often mention to me some of the issues, topics, and discussions that have come up during the week on their various campuses. Two of our students recently brought me a copy of their school’s paper which had an editorial written by one of the students on the newspaper’s staff. The title of the article reads, “If God Is Real, Why Won’t He Reveal Himself?” The article is by no means limited to that question. In it, the author raises several thought-provoking questions that range anywhere from the problem of evil, to the areas of science such as the fossil record. Later, he goes on to raise doubts about God’s fairness and questions God’s apparent unwillingness to reveal himself openly to us today as he did in the Bible.
Even though the title is rather vague, suggesting that it is critiquing religion in general, there is no doubt that the writer had Christianity specifically in mind as he makes several references to “the Bible”, “Jesus”, and “Christians”. As one reads the article, it’s hard to miss the author’s cynicism as he openly challenges the Christian students on campus to come up with the goods. For example, he says, “Have you ever been sitting by yourself, contemplating His existence, and then you ask yourself, ‘Jesus, if you are real will you appear?’ Let me guess, Jesus was a no-show.” By the way, this is not the first time that this same paper carried an editorial written by a student on the paper’s staff which openly and unashamedly challenged the Christian students.
As I read the article, I kept wondering what would have happened if this student had written an editorial that was just as critical toward any other religion, group, or lifestyle on campus. Based on the cultural trend that I’ve witnessed over the past several years, it’s a pretty safe bet that such an article would have never been allowed to go to print. Even if it had, it would have drawn a tremendous amount of attention from local organizations and, perhaps, even from the local media who would have immediately condemned such an article as “intolerance”, “bigotry”, and “hate speech”. There’s no doubt that the “tolerance police” would have been all over that one.
This brings me to my main thought. In case you haven’t noticed, there is a big emphasis on tolerance these days not only in our public schools but in the media as well. Unfortunately, what’s being promoted today as “tolerance” turns out to be nothing more than a counterfeit of the real thing. This is why it is imperative that we clearly understand the difference between true tolerance and the distorted version which so many people have come to accept. Let’s begin with a proper understanding of what it means to be tolerant. Simply put, true tolerance means that we can agree to disagree. It’s important to understand that tolerance, by definition, actually requires disagreement. Why is that? Because if you’re in agreement with the other person, there’s nothing to tolerate- you agree with them! The whole point of genuine tolerance is that it allows us to freely and openly express our disagreement with someone else’s views or lifestyle while still maintaining a sense of respect and civility toward them.
Now compare this to the distorted version of tolerance being promoted today which says: 1) “All views are equal” 2) “Everyone has their own truth” and 3) “You cannot say that another person’s views or lifestyle is wrong.” While that may sound like good advice, a closer examination tells us that such a definition of tolerance is not only unreasonable, it’s impossible for anyone to live that way consistently. Even the writer of the editorial cannot live by that definition. Even though he doesn’t come out and say it in so many words, his criticisms of Christianity imply that: 1) All views are not equal (Atheism is more true than Christianity) 2) Christians do not have the truth (Christians have sincere beliefs that are false) and 3) It’s okay to say that another person’s views are wrong (Christians are wrong).
Please understand that I am NOT criticizing the author for writing his article or for disagreeing with Christians. In fact, I respect (tolerate) his right to disagree with us and to openly express that disagreement. I am simply drawing our attention to the fact that there is an obvious disparity which exists when it comes to which groups are allowed to express their views publicly and which groups are not allowed to do so. The lesson in all of this is that we need to be careful not to buy into today’s counterfeit version of “tolerance”, because in doing so we surrender our right to speak openly and freely. As a result, we will no longer have a voice in the arena of discussion and it will become impossible for us to engage anyone in open, honest dialogue.
Tags: Christian students, Christians' rights, freedom of expression, freedom of speech, intolerance, tolerance
Posted in Christianity and Culture | 1 Comment »
If You Can’t Get Started, You’re Not Going Anywhere
Sunday, February 6th, 2011
Picture yourself preparing to take your family on vacation. For weeks you’ve been talking about where you’re going to go, who you’re going to see and what you’re going to do. With great anticipation, you’ve thought about your upcoming adventure in such vivid detail that it’s almost as if you’ve already been there. So you get in the car with your spouse, the kids, your luggage, and plenty of snacks all packed up and ready to go on your long-awaited trip. As you turn the key to start the car, the unthinkable happens. You realize that the battery in your car is dead! At that point, no matter how much you talk about the trip, no matter how excited you are about the prospects of going, and no matter how vivid your imagination may be, you are not going on vacation- at least not until you’re able to replace the battery. The point is, if you can’t even get started, you’re not going anywhere.
Such is the position that the theory of evolution finds itself. For all of the talk, for all of the hype and speculation, and for all of the stories spun about how, when, and where evolution allegedly happened, scientists have yet to discover a realistic mechanism to begin the “journey”. Even Richard Dawkins, one of the most visible and certainly one of the most vocal atheists today, cannot provide a convincing explanation for the origin of life. Despite all of his rhetoric promoting evolution and for all of his rabid hostility toward creationists, when interviewed by Ben Stein in the documentary “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”, he openly admitted that scientists do not know how life got started. The reason I emphasize that no realistic mechanism has been found to explain the origin of life is because many scientific theories and scenarios have been suggested from time to time, such as the “RNA world” hypothesis. But for all of their explanations filled with “what if”, “maybe”, and “probably”, each theory they propose faces deep and serious obstacles from a biochemical standpoint.
In order to appreciate how improbable it is that life somehow began on its own, consider the following example given by microbiologist Jonathan Wells. In the highly acclaimed presentation, “The Case For A Creator”, Dr. Wells walks us through the following experiment. Take a sterile test tube and fill it with just the right amount of fluid, at just the right temperature. In addition to this, make sure that the fluid has just the right amount of salts and the right balance of acidity and alkalinity. In other words, create the perfect environment for a living cell. Now take a living cell and place it in that fluid. Notice that this cell already contains all of the “ingredients” necessary for life. In fact, it contains much more than that because it not only contains the basic building blocks of life, it contains all of the complex molecules of life already assembled. Now take a sterile needle and poke the cell to puncture it, resulting in all of its contents being released out into the fluid. What you now have is a test tube which contains everything that is necessary to create life. If ever there was a chance for life to begin on its own, here is the perfect opportunity and yet, it’s not going to happen. It cannot and will not create life. So if life cannot begin on its own under perfect conditions, with all of the major components already assembled, why would we think that it happened under less-than-perfect conditions? Or, as Dr. Wells summarizes, “What makes you think that a few amino acids dissolved in the ocean are going to give you a living cell? It’s totally unrealistic.” So, while evolution as a theory makes for interesting conversation and speculation, as a plausible explanation of the real world of biology, it leaves too many important questions unanswered. For now, the theory appears to be dead in the water- literally.
Tags: evolution, origin of life, richard dawkins, Science
Posted in Science | Comments Off
There’s A Reason Why We Call It “The PROBLEM Of Evil”
Monday, January 24th, 2011
The people of Arizona as well as the rest of the nation are still numb from the events of January 8th in Tucson when a crazed gunman attempted to assassinate Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and ended up killing six people, including a nine-year-old girl. As we struggle to make sense of such wanton cruelty, skeptics will often use such events to justify their unbelief by saying, “THAT’S why I don’t believe in God. What kind of a God would allow something like that to happen?” In defense of their unbelief, they will often make the comment that when they look at the world around them, they see a world that is so full of pain, evil, and suffering, there can’t possibly be a God.
Whenever I hear someone make such a comment, I often respond to them by saying, “If I understand you correctly, what I hear you saying is that you see a world that is not the way it ought to be- that things are not as they should be. You’re saying that you see a world that is a departure from some ultimate standard of good. It is a deviation from some original plan or purpose.” Such statements make perfect sense in light of a Biblical worldview. They don’t make any sense, given the worldview of a humanist, evolutionist, or atheist.
When we make the observation that this world is a corrupted version of how things ought to be, we are expressing an idea that is firmly grounded in a Biblical view of history recorded for us in the book of Genesis. The Bible tells us that the world we observe today with all of its pain, suffering, and sorrow is not the world that God created. At the creation, God brought forth a world that was perfect- no disease, no death, and no suffering. This original paradise in which he placed the first man and woman was the way God intended it to be. It was the way things ought to be. The very fact that we acknowledge the reality of evil in our world is testimony to the fact that God has imprinted upon each of us an intuitive sense of some original plan or purpose from which we have fallen. Indeed, we have fallen away from that original state of perfection. The Bible gives us some insight into this when it tells us about the first man and woman rebelling against their Creator, plunging a once-perfect world into darkness, disease, and death. It is that view of history that seems to make the most sense of our intuitions that this present world is a distortion of what it was originally.
In contrast to this, an evolutionary view of history runs diametrically opposed to our intuitions of a fallen world. If it really is true that our past history is an unimaginably long process of death, disease, suffering, and survival, then we cannot say that our world is not as it should be. If evolution is true, then this world of war, famine, disease, and death is precisely the way things are supposed to be. Even when faced with some tragic event that we would describe as “evil” or “unjust”, an honest and consistent response based on naturalism compels us to put aside all such emotions and dismiss such events as nothing more than “nature simply doing its job”. After all, in a world where there is no God, in a purely naturalistic, evolutionary world, there can be no such thing as an event that is truly “evil” or “unjust”. We give up the right to say that what took place is “not supposed to happen”, because in an evolutionary world of death and struggling where only the fittest survive, such events ARE supposed to happen. Natural selection is supposed to “weed out” the unfit in order to bring about that which is more fit. On that view, death is not an intruder into our world. Rather, death must be accepted as a “good” thing, a “beneficial” thing that allegedly drives us “onward and upward” in our evolutionary development. For those who reject the Bible’s history and explanation for the origin of evil, this evolutionary view is the only other explanation for the problem of evil. Personally, I find that explanation to be not only terribly inadequate and counterintuitive, it is pathetic.
Quite some time ago, I was invited to hear a gentleman give a presentation on the topic of God and the problem of evil. As an atheist, he was trying to use the problem of evil as a means by which to deny the existence of God. Afterward, during the Q&A time, I asked him why he kept referring to “ the problem of evil”. Puzzled, he just looked at me, waiting for me to explain my comment. I went on to point out that if it really is true that there is no God and that we are simply the byproducts of some evolutionary process, then it would have made more sense for him to talk about all of the benefits of suffering, disease, and death. As the discussion came to a close I couldn’t help but think about an observation once made by British author and journalist Malcolm Muggeridge when he said, “We have educated ourselves into imbecility.” I can only hope that as my atheist friend looks back on our conversation that evening, he will come to the realization that there is a reason why we refer to it as, “the problem of evil”.
Posted in Evil | Comments Off
A Bone to Pick With the Theory of Evolution
Monday, January 10th, 2011
In April of 2010, the media announced another fossil discovery of an alleged “pre-human species”. The actual find took place in March 2008 during an exploration of the Malapa caves near Johannesburg, Africa. In one article, a paleoanthropologist was quoted as saying, “This (discovery) is a thing that has a unique relationship to us. They are extraordinarily important.”
Despite such grandiose claims by the media, over the past several years I’ve grown increasingly skeptical of the fossil record’s ability to support evolutionary theory. I don’t want to leave anyone with the impression that I’m ignoring the evidence of the fossil record nor do I see it as any sort of “threat” to the Christian worldview. Instead, it’s had the opposite effect. I’m absolutely fascinated with the fossil record because I’m convinced that a closer, more objective examination of it points further and further away from an evolutionary view of history. Rather, it reveals a record of earth history that tells of a sudden, abrupt, catastrophic burial of nearly all life as the result of a global flood of the magnitude recorded for us in the book of Genesis.
The failure of the fossil record to support evolutionary theory is a whole topic in itself that I will address at a later time. What I wish to focus on at this time is the question of why evolutionists place so much confidence in the fossil record. I certainly understand that fossil evidence is not the only evidence offered in support of evolution. I also realize that the fossil evidence, just as with any other evidence in a forensic type of investigation, serves as a vital, available source of information about past events- events that none of us can go back and repeat or observe directly. By the way, it’s important to keep in mind that both the creationist and the evolutionist are using the same science to observe the same fossils, so their disagreement is not about the evidence itself, it’s about how to best interpret that evidence.
When it comes to the task of interpreting the evidence, my concern with those who are relying so heavily on the fossil evidence to “prove” evolution is that it seems much too convenient for a number of reasons. In short, the skeletal remains of an organism are much easier to fit into evolutionary theory than trying to deal with the intricacies and complexity of soft tissue or “soft biology”. In his book, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, Australian molecular biologist and medical doctor Michael Denton writes on page 177, “To begin with, ninety-nine percent of the biology of any organism resides in its soft anatomy, which is inaccessible in a fossil.” (emphasis mine). The point that he goes on to make is that two organisms which may appear to be related with respect to their skeletal remains alone, often turn out to be radically different, unrelated creatures once you include the other ninety-nine percent of the creature’s biological composition.
Interpreting the fossilized remains of a creature has certain liabilities. For one thing, relying on the skeletal remains alone leaves too much room for conjecture and artistic imagination. In 1995, Creation magazine interviewed medical illustrator Ronald J. Ervin. Ron’s outstanding knowledge of anatomy and his incredible gift as a medical illustrator has kept his artistic talents in such demand that he has been called on to produce medical, scientific, and graphic illustrations for courtroom use, journals, and textbooks, including a major college biology textbook- Raven and Johnson’s Biology. In a very candid interview titled, “Filling in the Blanks”, Ron states that when he was asked to do illustrations that attempt to re-create extinct creatures or alleged “transitional” creatures between ape and man, he explains that “No one knows for sure what they looked like, so the artist has the freedom to “create” with colors and forms.” He further explains that when he was asked to provide a textbook illustration of “Lucy” (a supposed pre-human ancestor), each time he submitted a sketch to the authors, they kept asking him to either add or remove “ape-like” or “human-like” qualities to his drawings in order to conform to their evolutionary bias. It’s interesting to note that even the famous evolutionist Richard Leakey was once quoted as saying that Lucy’s skull was so incomplete that most of it was “imagination made of plaster of Paris” (Weekend Australian, 7-8 May 1983, p.3).
Getting back to my earlier quote by Michael Denton, I believe that the biggest liability of all in relying on fossil evidence alone is that once you take into consideration a creature’s (ninety-nine percent) soft biology, the task of trying to imagine some transitional form or intermediate (i.e.-“missing link”) becomes much, MUCH more difficult. After all, it’s relatively easy to compare the skeletal (one percent) remains of a reptile and a bird and imagine some sort of an evolutionary “link” between them. It is something entirely different to explain in terms of real biology the necessary changes of scales to feathers, hollow bones, flight muscles, and “navigational equipment” (in migratory birds). In addition to this, there must also be radical, necessary changes in the creature’s cardiovascular, central nervous, and respiratory systems, all of which would require changes of unimaginable complexity.
To be sure, the fossil record will always be helpful in providing us some insight in the study of origins. But as Denton reminds us, “The systematic status and biological affinity (relationship) of a fossil organism is far more difficult to establish than in the case of a living form, and can never be established with any degree of certainty.”
Posted in Science | Comments Off
I’m Offended That They’re Offended
Monday, December 27th, 2010
If you’re not familiar with the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), they are an organization of trained legal professionals that specialize in taking on court cases where the rights of Christians have been violated. In recent days, they took on a case in Colorado Springs, Colorado that involved a middle school student named Cainan Gostnell who felt that he had to stop wearing his cross to school for fear of being punished by Mann Middle School where he attends as a 7th grader. It all began when an announcement was made by the school that all students wearing religious jewelry would either have to conceal it or stop wearing it due to the fact that some people in his school are “offended” by it. The ACLJ came to the aid of this young student by sending a demand letter to the school. As a result, the attorney from the school district responded to the ACLJ’s legal team with a letter stating that “Cainan may continue to wear and display his cross at school….”
For the life of me, I’ve never understood why any business or any school would establish its rules and policies on the basis of whether or not it might offend someone. Furthermore, I don’t understand why any state or federal government would pass laws on that basis because it seems rather pointless. A few years ago, during the month of December, a co-worker of mine had approached management and asked if he could decorate his workspace with Christmas decorations. Having received permission to do so, he proceeded to put up the decorations. As I expected, the other employees allowed him to do so without objecting to it. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for many businesses, offices, and schools in America today. When I was growing up, it was not unusual to see a Nativity scene on display in various public places. However, to do so today is almost guaranteed to draw criticism from those who object to it. As is often the case, they might even insist that the display be removed because it’s “offensive” to them.
Looking back on that day when my friend put up his decorations, I’ve tried to imagine what I might have done if someone had gone to management with the complaint that they were offended by his display. I think that an appropriate response would have been for me to follow up by going to management myself and explaining to them that if they make him take it down, then I will be offended! While I’m at it, I would also point out to them that they now have the unenviable position of having to decide which one of us they’re willing to offend and which of us they don’t want to offend. To make matters worse, if they choose to side with the other guy, I’ll be even MORE offended by the fact that they were willing to offend me in order to avoid offending him! Do you see how ridiculous the whole matter becomes?
The lesson in all of this is that it’s unreasonable, irrational, and counterproductive for any business, school, or government to establish laws, policies, rules, and regulations purely on the basis that it might “offend” someone. The fact of the matter is that everything is offensive to someone, and everyone is offended by something- it’s human nature and it’s unavoidable.
Posted in Christianity and Culture | 1 Comment »
-
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.