Science @ The John Ankerberg Show

Water of Life

2012-02-11T12:47:00.000-05:00

By one count there are over 700 references to water in the Bible. The first mention, Genesis 1:2, describes the water-covered early earth, swathed in darkness, with “the Spirit of God hovering over the face of the waters.” What a picture of God’s tender care for this unique planet! In future eons God would create unicellular life within earth’s waters in preparation for future complex multi-cellular forms of life. Creation acts culminated with the recent sudden onset of man “in our image.” Humans were the eventual recipient of the redemption God had in mind for them before the beginning of time (I Cor. 2:7, Eph. 1:4, 2 Tim. 1:9, Tit. 1:2).

The first biblical mention describes the plentiful physical water present on the primitive early earth. This water, recycled endlessly since that time, is virtually all still present on our planet. This concept supplies an interesting object lesson for the water referenced in the Bible’s last mention of water -- the “water of life” of Rev. 22:17. This water is symbolic of our eternal salvation, the gift of God to those He redeems. Earth’s physical water continues its life-giving work throughout earth’s long ages. The spiritual water of eternal life, as taught by Jesus to the Samaritan woman (John 4:14), would become “a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”

Earth’s physical water is thirst-quenching, cleansing, and life-giving as explained by hundreds of scripture passages. Its effects do not end with one incident of use. They have continued through thousands of recyclings since water first appeared on earth. There is one difference. The role of earth’s physical water will come to an end before the onset of the New Creation described in Rev. 21. The function of the water of life, a symbol of our eternal salvation, however, continues from the moment of our spiritual enlightenment throughout endless eternity.

Everyday Water Cycle

2012-02-08T12:28:00.001-05:00

Those who understand weather events to the point of being able to explain them are far more likely to enjoy those events. This statement also applies to a wide spectrum of human knowledge and daily experience. Consider, for example, how we enjoy watching athletic contests. A mother who cheers her son’s touchdown on the football gridiron enjoys the event more if she understands the complex events leading up to the score. Had the coach adjusted to the opposition team’s defensive alignment? Did the quarterback make a good pass? How skillfully did her son avert tackles? In football, as in the science of meteorology, knowledge is an enjoyment enhancer.

Even children may be taught the principles of nature’s many cycles as part of God’s majestic plan for our planet’s operation. In the kitchen, boiled water evaporates, sometimes to condense back to liquid again on a cool pan lid –- the water cycle in miniature. Boiling water uses up heat while condensation requires cooling. Herein lies an interesting irony, but not a contradiction. Our science teachers tell us evaporation is a cooling process, but heat is required for it to occur. That is because when water evaporates from our skin, for example, heat is removed from our skin and we feel cool as a result.

Less often, we hear that condensation is a warming process. When widely spaced water molecules clump back together (condense) to form drops of liquid water, the heat energy of the moving molecules becomes concentrated and some heat energy is given back into the environment. In this way the water cycle results in a just-right exchange of heat energy. Without such a just-right heat exchange process, the delicate, beneficial water cycle process would not function properly for our benefit.

The warming or cooling during evaporation or condensation, or even while water is freezing or melting, is due to the heat gained or lost during the process. It is called latent heat. It is responsible for the cool feeling we experience when we emerge from the swimming pool as well as the updrafts generated as air is warmed by the condensation of water during a summer thunderstorm. Water is a remarkable storehouse of heat. It absorbs and stores great quantities of heat, but it acquires and gives up that heat slowly. The speed of this heat exchange is fine-tuned for the good of earth’s life forms. This phenomenon is only one of hundreds of finely tuned processes without which life would be impossible.

Bible authors did not understand the “scientific” explanations we have discussed in this post concerning water’s behavior. They lived in the pre-scientific age. We can, however, identify with the insights of those authors gained by careful observation and their possession of spiritual inspiration from God. Modern scientists have discovered no scientific “errors” in scripture, but scripture is full of profound insights.

Genesis 8:22 (ESV) provides an outstanding example: “While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease.” In this verse there are four important cycles mentioned. Underlying the success of the seedtime and harvest cycle is the water cycle, authored by the Creator who designed cycles for man’s benefit.

Earth -- A Water World

2012-02-05T15:12:00.001-05:00

Some of the most familiar and plentiful things in our experience are also some of the most underappreciated. Water falls into that category. The surface of Planet Earth is 70% water covered to an average depth of about two miles. Earth’s oceans contain 97% of Earth’s water. Life on earth depends on this water in manifold ways. To the average person most of these ways are unknown and undervalued. If I were still a teacher beginning a unit on water, I might introduce the topic by using the catchy idiom “Water rules.” When we discover deeper truth about some of the most mundane matters or events, our expectations are often exceeded. Water provides a superb example.

Earth was a water world in the early days of earth’s formation. Genesis 1:6-8 describes events of Day 2. References to the expanse in the midst of the waters separating the waters from the waters, probably refers to the dividing boundary between the oceans and the atmosphere. In the water cycle liquid water evaporates from oceans and lakes into water vapor and later falls as a variety of precipitation. This is described in detail in the creation account of Job 38. Water must not merely be present on earth to sustain life. It must also be cycled and recycled endlessly through the ages because there is a finite supply of water on earth. The recycling of water (the water cycle) is a vital feature of God’s plan for the successful operation of this planet.

Bible passages referring to the “expanse” are used along with the terms “dome,” or “canopy.” Meteorologically, all of earth’s weather occurs in the troposphere, the thick lower layer of atmosphere supplied with water vapor mainly from the oceans. The boundary between the troposphere and thin upper atmospheric layers is quite distinct. The troposphere is the zone where earth’s weather occurs. Evaporation supplies this zone with water vapor to sustain the water cycle. The water cycle operated beginning with the second creation day. Vegetation, with “plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit” was the sequel on Day 3.

Skeptics like to claim these Genesis 1 descriptions echo the primitive pagan mythologies of nations surrounding

Israel

. One such image occurring in Job 37:18 refers to the sky as “hard as a mirror of cast bronze.” A few verses later, however, the sun is described as “bright as it is in the skies after the wind has swept them clean.” The brightness of the sky is compared to the brightness of a highly polished cast bronze mirror. Scripture writers used figurative language to augment their point poetically. Much of the imagery occurring in Job 38 clarifies the writer’s understanding of the many varied water cycle phenomena occurring in earth’s atmosphere.

Historical geologists have described how earth became a “water world” very early in its history. Before the water cycle was established numerous interrelated events occurred on our planet. It is certain that modern life would be impossible had the water cycle not been established. Ancient giant rainstorms bathed the earth in liquid water. Plentiful bacterial life of various types then appeared as precursors of today’s mineral resources and producers of the life sustaining atmosphere we enjoy today.

Modern man is consuming the resources formed over billions of years at an alarming rate. On the upside, many humans are learning to use water, mineral, and food resources more wisely as time progresses. We are also learning to recycle, an idea that originated in the mind of God. Some people, even in our churches, are ignorant of past earth processes which brought our modern treasure trove of mineral, energy, and food resources into existence. Better understanding of these processes should be an important product of church educational programs. In turn, responsible stewardship of nature should be the outcome.

Absent from the Body

2012-02-01T18:48:00.000-05:00

Driving along Interstate 80 on the return trip to the Midwest from my brother’s funeral services, a Christian Aid Ministries roadside billboard stood out starkly: “After you die, you will meet God.” There was no politically correct gloss in this statement, even though its explicit message grieves many and triggers scornful disbelief. In others, the message conveys hope and joy, for the statement is entirely biblical.

Here are some scripture phrases that come immediately to mind: If in Christ we have hope in this life only we are of all people most to be pitied (I Cor. 15:19); Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live (John 11:25); Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord (2 Cor. 5:8); If a man dies, shall he live again? (Job 14:14 ESV). Each of these passages reminds us of what is known, scientifically, as dualism. This is not strictly a theological term, but there is strong connection with the Christian view that our body is distinct from our soul and spirit. Stated colloquially, we are talking about our real self when we speak of soul and spirit.

The real self meets God when temporal physical life ends. Scientists and philosophers of mind have discussed and proposed their ideas about the so-called “mind-body problem” for centuries. Thousands of books have been produced on the issue. Many of the speculations relate to how the presence and processes of physical matter in the brain--the atoms and molecules--could explain the reality of human consciousness. This concept, seriously studied and extensively commented upon, is actually not very well understood.

One quote recurring repeatedly in the literature on this topic is “The question, then, is how it is possible for conscious experiences to arise out of a lump of gray matter endowed with nothing but electrochemical properties.” Speculations on how conscious experiences are generated are far more plentiful than truly satisfying explanations.

Scientist/philosopher René Descartes (1596-1650), was one of the early thinkers on the subject of consciousness, perception, and many related topics. He described the mind as “a thinking thing.” He stated, “I am therefore precisely nothing but a thinking thing; that is, a mind, or intellect, or understanding, or reason…” Further, that means, “a thing that doubts, understands, affirms, denies, wills, refuses, and that also imagines and senses.”

At the risk of serious oversimplification, we might say that the characterization of humans as “thinking things,” together with our inherent ability to be aware of the existence of God by using our senses, intellect, and exercise of free will and faith, actually describes the gift of soul and spirit implanted in the human race by God when he created man. When we meet God after this life is over, we meet him as “thinking things,” souls and spirits redeemed by God in Jesus Christ. Our physical bodies function as a temporary material home for the “real person.” God created our physical bodies--“fearfully and wonderfully made.” Our physical bodies do, however, experience physical death. “Then the dust (of mortals) goes back to the ground as it was before, and the breath of life goes back to God who gave it” (Eccl. 12:7 GW Translation).

We may ask what is more real--our bodies, or our soul and spirit? Ecclesiastes 12:7 supplies the answer as do many New Testament passages. When the body dies, we are poignantly reminded of the loss by the events of the funeral and by remaining artifacts associated with the loved one. Sadly, no longer can we interact with the “real self” of the departed. Joyfully, however, we realize that the redeemed soul and spirit given to humans by God, lives on permanently in the presence of the Lord. And when the time comes when each of us dies who remain, we will also meet God.

In memoriam…David M. Virkler, May 30, 1934-January 23, 2012

http://wordandtheworld.homestead.com/

Assurance Amidst Breakdown

2012-01-23T18:00:00.000-05:00

On November 17, 2011 I posted “System Breakdown,” detailing the idea that the breakdown of even one of the many hundreds of systems of our body could result in serious health problems. All our systems operate successfully most of the time. I implied that the breakdown of two or three systems at once could trigger a cascade resulting in complete system shutdown. When physical death occurs in a precious, close family member, we experience the acute pain of severed human bonds. In reality, those bonds depend on a rather fragile physical existence. The Book of James does not equivocate: “How do you know what will happen tomorrow? For your life is like the morning fog—it’s here a little while, then it’s gone" (James 4:14 NLT).

With great sadness I must report the passing of my older brother, my only sibling, David Virkler, from this life to the next. He was gifted with the ability to speak with biblical authority on the reality of spiritual death through sin and the remedy for it in Jesus Christ. We had precious fellowship concerning this reality. During our times of sharing I would sometimes test him with scientific challenges of how the operation of the scientific Law of Decay connected with the biblical “law” of spiritual decay. For most of our lives the Law of Decay enables our temporal physical systems to function quite successfully. We have attempted to detail that success in our blog posts for the past two months.

Now we are called upon to report that the operation of the Law of Decay has claimed a precious family member. Our assurance that the Law of Decay supports the existence of nearly seven billion presently living human beings on this planet does not remove the grief we feel at the departure of our loved one. Even the sorrow we experience, however, is a testimony to the gifts of ministry David possessed and the privilege of his family and friends to share them.

Those who do not believe in God’s sovereignty may become angry with God, or they may doubt His goodness. On the Sunday morning of David’s last day on earth, our pastor’s sermon closed with some startlingly appropriate truths. I quote him: “But let me ask you…do you accept the sovereignty of God over ALL things? Is your view of God big enough…that He is even in control of the bad things that happen? Romans 8:28 tells us that God is in control of ALL things! The good and the bad. And that through them all, God is working out His good purpose for His loved ones.

“Listen to Romans 8:28…And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to His purpose. Now I know that many of you have been through some terrible things…unspeakable things. And it seems to be a very bitter pill to swallow that God is in control of even those things. And it IS a very bitter pill to swallow.

“But we need to embrace the sovereignty of God even over bad things…Because the alternative is that God is not aware of those things. Or that He couldn’t stop them. Or that He has no purpose in them. But God’s word tells us, and we can believe it by faith, that God is in control of ALL things. And that in all of them, he is working out his good purposes for His people.”

Job's Water Cycle Tutorial

2012-01-21T23:48:00.000-05:00

Historical Old Testament figure Job received fascinating lessons in meteorology from the youthful Elihu in Job 36-37. The lessons followed Elihu’s more serious commentary in earlier chapters on the deficiencies he perceived in Job’s lifestyle. Elihu was less harsh in his judgment than Job’s other three friends. The lessons in meteorology follow the spiritual advice he offered Job. Elihu may have felt that our responsibility to God consists not only of obedience and righteousness, but also of becoming aware of the Creator’s authorship of order and grandeur in nature. The lessons in Job 36-37 are majestic tutorials on events of the earth’s water cycle.

Earth is a planet teeming with life primarily because it has a plentiful supply of water. In particular, earth life depends on the ability of most of earth’s water to remain in liquid state. Water also exists in two other states--solid and gas. Earth’s life also depends on water’s ability to transition among these three states within the very narrow temperature ranges present on earth.

The water cycle, also termed the hydrologic cycle, is only one of hundreds of functioning cycles upon which earth life depends. Failure of any one of these cycles would preclude the possibility of life as we know it. One of the most readily observable and understandable cycles is the water cycle. Its operation is easily visible whenever rain falls followed by our observation that some rainwater evaporates back into the air. Precipitation, one step in the cycle, enables plant life to thrive. And in turn, animal life thrives on plant life. Nothing is more vital for life than the production of food supported by adequate rainfall.

Transition of water from liquid to vapor and from vapor back to liquid enables water to travel long distances from oceans and other water bodies to cropland locations. Atmospheric circulation quickly transports the water vapor from place to place. Some water infiltrates the soil, becomes groundwater, and eventually returns to streams and larger water bodies for use in irrigation or even re-evaporation back into the atmosphere. Superimposed on this process are many sub-cycles, some of which may be demonstrated in the laboratory by hands-on activities such as heating liquid water (evaporating) and cooling water vapor (condensing), or by freezing and melting experiments.

The weather imageries presented in Job 36-37 by Elihu, along with additional commentary by the Lord Himself in chapter 38 are vivid and stunning depictions of water cycle phenomena. The purpose of scripture is not to render a scientific account, but rather to offer accurate and insightful observations. One may imagine that Elihu understood the process of recycling: the same water is re-used repeatedly over long time frames.

The origin of a stable water cycle on earth was a phenomenon of the second creation day (Genesis 1:6-8). On the third creation day, the dry land burst forth with every sort of grass and seed-bearing plant, along with seed-bearing fruit. “The land was filled with seed-bearing plants and trees, and their seeds produced plants and trees of like kind. And God saw that it was good. This all happened on the third day” (Genesis 1:12-13 NLT). Therefore, the water cycle existed on earth long before the fifth day appearance of animal life.

Understanding the intricacies of the life sustaining operational water cycle is a cause for humble worship of the Creator. The more we understand earth’s cycles, the more we comprehend His greatness. I recommend a devotional study of Job 36-38.

The Ubiquity of Cycles

2012-01-20T17:17:00.000-05:00

As a science educator I was called upon, to the best of my ability, to make my subject matter accessible and interesting, even fascinating. Because of their curiosity, we are told children are natural-born scientists. That is true to a great extent. After children develop into teenagers and later morph into adults, some become more self-conscious about expressing wonder concerning the surrounding world. Their ever expanding social awareness and need for personal fulfillment sometimes dampens their science appreciation, not to mention their science literacy.

Suppose a teacher is called upon to teach the water cycle, a topic found in most earth science textbooks. Depending on the age of the students, it would first be appropriate to instruct them what a cycle is. A dictionary definition would be a definite conversation stopper, but the student may identify with examples of cycles from his everyday experience. For instance, night always follows day and day always follows night. The seasonal cycle of summer, autumn, winter, and spring repeats over and over. Their wake/sleep and work/rest cycles conform to day/night successions. Planting, harvest and dormancy repeat with the cycle of seasonal progression.

Our world functions continually within a bath of repeating cycles, some obvious, some not so obvious. Even young children understand and value the cycles of everyday occurrence. On a different level of experience, a young boy will see the advantage of constructing his toy vehicle tracks so the moving cars return to their starting point. A few similar examples will help answer the question, “What is a cycle?”

Further use of imagery and demonstration are necessary to teach the ubiquitous nature of cycles. Our world manifests thousands of interlocking cycles which maintain the balance and complex interactions between our physical planet and its many life forms. Because multiple cycles operate, the earth constantly renews itself. The renewing cycles operate and are superimposed and dependent upon the general tendency of things to “run downhill” according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, better known as the Law of Decay. Paradoxically, without conformance to the Law of Decay, the cycles of renewal could not operate.

A thoughtful study of the Romans 8:21 phrase translated in many versions as the earth system’s “bondage to decay,” helps us appreciate the value of this tendency toward decay. Many wonderful Christians in my past experience have bemoaned this “bondage,” suggesting that even earth’s currently operating physical systems are corrupted by sin. Some imply that all death in our sphere of life is an outgrowth of sin and a cause for morbid pessimism. It is true that in the New Creation there will be no experience of death, but it is also true that other experiences in that new realm will be unimaginably different and superior.

The earth’s many cycles, including the water cycle, the carbon cycle, the oxygen cycle, the nitrogen cycle, biological life cycles, and multiple other natural cycles are all dependent on the Law of Decay for their successful functioning. We could call this dependency a form of “bondage,” without which none of earth’s many cycles could even begin to operate. Bondage in this context is clearly not a pejorative term of usage. Even the death of quadrillions of earth creatures since life was first created on earth 3.8 bya falls into the category of a beneficial, life-sustaining, life renewing cycle.

Ubiquitous cycles have been present on earth since the creation event. Our present earth is wonderfully sustained by hundreds of interlocking cycles. An understanding of these cycles helps us understand the proclamation of God after finishing His work of creating on Day 6: “Then God looked over all he had made, and he saw that it was excellent in every way…” (Genesis 1:31 New Living Translation)

Theology of Creation

2012-01-15T10:48:00.001-05:00

What is the meaning of the Theology of Creation? A large body of literature exists on this topic. Creation and creationism is often conflated with a record of the creation event, dealing with the who, the when, and the how of origins of our world and the cosmos. The topic generates a great deal of interest across a broad age range from our young children’s early Sunday School lessons to our deeper discussions with adult friends who may or may not be believers in the reality of the Creator.

Taken alone, this view of creation falls short of a more satisfying and enriching concept of creation in the present tense. Creation in a broader sense is the existing product of God who sustains its existence, structure, and order from moment to moment and maintains its operational processes with purpose and functional integrity. Too often discussions within our church circles and with skeptics become bogged down with inquiries concerning duration of the creation “days,” geological time scales, and related wrangling about death before the fall and the extent of Noah’s flood. Such discussions sometimes assume importance as a primary apologetic for the very existence of God or even a test for doctrinal purity. This understanding of the original acts of creation, important as it is, may have less value in affirming our own belief system or in witnessing to an unbelieving world than understanding the workings of creation in the present tense.

There exists no set of “proofs” to convince a doubter of the reality of God or the claims of Christ. In Luke 16:31, Christ expressed the poignant truth that “If they won’t listen to Moses and the prophets, they won’t listen even if one rises from the dead.” (NLT) This passage may affirm a previously existing strong state of unbelief on the part of the subjects of Christ’s statement, Lazarus’s five brothers. Nevertheless, we are called upon to present meaningful evidence pointing to the reality of God. There are many evidences of the handiwork of the Creator to substantiate His creative work. An oft-cited verse is the familiar Romans 1:20: “From the time the world was created people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.”

The Romans passage refers to evidence we can submit to open minded truth seekers. The natural world manifests ubiquitous evidence of functional integrity difficult to attribute to mere chance. Many writers distinguish the process of creation from the product of creation. We are unable to observe the process of creation. Scripture tells us in concise, simple terms the identity of the Creator and the fact that He created. It does not, however, give extremely detailed accounts of the functioning product--how our planetary system works. In our present day, particularly in the past fifty years, the evidence for God’s reality in the created order has become overwhelming.

As a science teacher I did not find it difficult to share my enthusiasm for the natural world and the benefits it provides the human race. In retirement, my sense of wonder has increased even more. As a Christian it is not personally difficult to recognize an intelligently designed, orderly world operating with intricately functional, interrelated systems for a clear purpose, the benefit of its living residents, especially man. To perceive our world as naturalistically produced, particularly the forms of life inhabiting its physical systems, seems absurd. Understanding God’s relationship to the creation he produced and the purpose for which he created it, a rational grasp of its incredible operating systems, and reveling in the enjoyment of the creation we experience as God’s sentient beings--these all contribute to our understanding of the broader concept of the Theology of Creation.

Speaking of the Weather

2012-01-10T16:46:00.001-05:00

Light banter about the weather is a common sequel to our friendly greetings when we encounter a neighbor. In our region the light banter has become more detailed of late as my neighbors in Northern Illinois exult over a mild and virtually snow free December and January. Our frigid, snow covered landscapes and icy roads of early winter the last five years are a fading memory. Some days the bird songs have sounded almost spring-like.

“What is happening?” we all wonder. We are not to worry, our local weather experts instruct us. Global warming was not mentioned in the same breath as their less familiar explanation that the “Arctic Oscillation” (AO) is responsible. This phenomenon has been identified explicitly since 1998, even though it has affected our weather patterns as long as we have studied them.

Normally over Earth’s North Polar Region there is a large bubble of cold air in place. Sometimes the air pressure in that bubble becomes higher or lower than the normal mean pressure over a short or long period of time. There is no regular pattern of periodicity. Higher polar air pressure produces a negative AO and results in cold, snowy weather in mid-latitudes. Lower polar air pressure results in a positive AO such as we currently enjoy--abnormal warmth and lack of snow. Retailers complain their snow throwers and shovels are going unsold this winter, but many municipalities have saved tens of thousands of dollars on costs for road salting.

Researching the literature on the vagaries of the weather, one comes away with a sense of wonder concerning the complexity of interrelated factors affecting local and global weather, both short term and long term. Doxological statements exulting in the Creator’s mastery over this planet’s meteorological phenomena are found in Job 37-38. In our day its vivid descriptions are matched by knowledge discoveries not previously accessible.

The interrelated effects of complex air and sea circulation together with variable amounts of open sea from season to season have replaced some of the speculation that global warming (or cooling) is responsible for the variety of weather conditions. Stated simply, our globe is an exceedingly finely tuned, intricate system. The variety of weather conditions humans experience may be regarded as a gift from God.

Long ago the ancient writer of the Book of Job described our weather's range of wonders: You are sweltering in your clothes (37:17); He makes the skies reflect the heat like a giant mirror (37:18); Driving winds bring the cold (37:9); (He makes) the treasuries of the snow (38:22); Have you seen where hail is made and stored? (38:22); (He) sends the rain that satisfies the parched ground (38:27); Who created a channel for the torrents of rain? (38:25) God controls the storm and causes lightning to flash forth (37:15) Where does the dew come from? (38:28); Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens? (38:29); God’s breath sends the ice, freezing wide expanses of water (37:9).

“Nice day we’re having!” does not begin to tell the breathtaking story of our weather.

Bedrock Tenets

2012-01-04T11:44:00.000-05:00

The paradigm of “No Death before the Fall” of Adam and Eve has become one of the bedrock tenets of the belief in a young earth currently held by many millions of evangelical Christians. Young earth believers must adhere to this belief in order to preserve their fundamental doctrinal belief that at the introduction of sin into the creation--Adam and Eve’s sin--the occurrence of death also entered the creation for the very first time for all created animal life.

This belief provides a serious dilemma for two reasons. First, it is contrary to the information gained from the reading of several biblical creation passages which speak of the diet of certain forms of carnivorous animals. Second, it necessitates denial of the record of paleontology. Birds of prey were created on day five; carnivorous animals were created on day six. Both of these life forms were created prior to man no matter what creation time frame we accept.

Several scripture passages describe the wonder and awe inspired by our observation of certain birds and mammals, including predatory animals. In addition to Genesis 1-3 there are many other creation passages in the Bible offering detailed, specific information on the beauty of nature and the characteristics of the creation. In each passage God is credited with the majesty of creation events as well as the behavior of created beings. Job 38-39 and Psalm 104 present outstanding examples.

Both passages provide detail concerning the food supplied for these birds and mammals by God. Job 38 speaks of ravens, omnivorous birds which clearly rely on living matter for their dietary needs: “Who provides for the raven its prey, when its young ones cry to God for help, and wander about for lack of food?” (Job 38:41 ESV) In Psalms the message is even more specific: “The young lions roar for their prey, seeking their food from God.” (Psalm 104:21) Before the appearance of Adam and Eve, therefore, death was a reality. After the appearance of Adam and Eve, death remained a reality. The onset of death was not an outcome of the sin of Adam and Eve.

In 2003 I conducted an extensive letter exchange with a well-known young earth creationist. Among many other issues, I referenced a Discovery Channel program in living color portraying hundreds of different sea animals both large and very small using a unique lighting system. Wholesale death of those creatures existed all along the food chain up to its top. That entire ecosystem was an example of a predatory food chain hierarchy.

I challenged my young earth creationist brother to deny that a “recreation” of the pre-fall ecosystem would have been necessary had Adam’s sin initially ushered in mass predation and death of creatures in post-fall ecosystems. Supernaturally produced fundamental change of the anatomical, genetic, and behavioral characteristics of countless quadrillions of animals is difficult to imagine. Abundant fossil evidence exists of a complex predatory ecosystem during the Cambrian explosion. He responded: “Since this was not a natural event, but a supernatural divine act of judgment, it had to involve some major acts that I suppose could be called a ‘recreation’ (or better, ‘tweaking’ of the creation).” Genesis 2:1-3 proclaims “So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation. I urge my readers to investigate the complexities of this argument.

These arguments are not offered as proof for any point of view. Resolution of discussions of this sort often hinge on the meanings of words, the divergent interpretations of scripture passages, and variant understanding of evidence collected from the natural world. We must acknowledge the broad spectrum of meanings, interpretations, and understandings. Most important is the necessity to use correct exegesis--the critical explanation or interpretation of scripture texts. “No death before the fall” is not a tenet established firmly in scripture.

Less familiar to Bible students is the term eisegesis. It means, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, “the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one’s own ideas.” Scripture is the special revelation of God’s truth given to man. God gives man the ability to search and discover the intentions of the inspired authors of scripture, understand the context of their writings, and comprehend the complexities of language they used. Many biblical scholars have risen to this challenge.

The record of nature is also the subject of interpretation by science researchers and scholars. Many disagreements on the meanings of scripture and the record of nature result from errant interpretations. Eisegesis applies primarily to Bible interpretation. But science scholars are guilty of a similar faulty interpretation of evidence they gather from the natural world. They see genetic commonality across living things and infer only common ancestry. In both scripture interpretation and interpretation of evidence from the natural world, substantive disagreements result from the interpreters’ tendency to impose their own personal interpretational preferences upon the evidence.

The professional science community is mostly governed by commitment to a naturalistic worldview. The young earth creationist community is governed by a commitment to a recent creation only several thousand years distant. In turn, this results in their confidence in a recent, globe-encircling flood and the paradigm of “No Death before the Fall.” In both cases we desire to put eisegesis aside and search humbly for answers to the question, “What really happened?”

Fundamental Changes?

2011-12-31T17:59:00.000-05:00

Some creationists propose that from the time the creation was completed by God as described in Genesis 1, it has undergone some fundamental changes in its physical operation. They argue these changes occurred as a result of man’s sin and subsequent alienation from God in the Garden of Eden after a period of sinless innocence of unknown duration. This idea appears frequently in the writings of creationists who believe the earth is only six to ten thousand years old.

No one knows the duration of man’s innocence before the introduction of sin into the fabric of man’s experience. The Genesis 1 account of the creation of “living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds” also tells of the creation of “man in our image, after our likeness.” All of these events take place on day six of the creation narrative. Theologians tell us “in our (God’s) image” means man is a willful, intellectual, rational, moral, and spiritual being. As the only living being created in God’s image, man is distinct from all animals.

Based on the many events of day six described in Genesis 1:24-31, we may confidently conclude the time elapsed was substantial. Toward the end of that time frame the Genesis passage reviews the general instructions God gave to the humans created on day six. They were to be fruitful and multiply. They were to fill the earth and subdue it. They were to have dominion over every living thing.

The second chapter of Genesis shifts its narrative focus. It is a day seven account occurring after all God’s acts of creation were complete. It relates more detail of the creation of Adam. It tells of his placement into the garden of Eden God had prepared (Gen. 2:8). Adam was instructed to work and keep the garden, eat certain plant foods, and avoid eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Adam was given the task of naming the beasts of the field and the birds of the heavens. Finally, to Adam’s delight, Eve was created.

Then comes the heartbreaking story of the initial human fall into sin and man’s alienation from God. Satan the tempter was cursed and life would become far more difficult for Adam and Eve than ever before as a result of their new fallen, sinful state. They would eventually die a physical death. Their spiritual death, far more serious, was already a reality.

Three brief chapters do not answer even a small fraction of questions we may have concerning earth and human history. The Genesis 1-3 passage provides information God considered essential for us to know: God created the universe and all living things on earth, and sadly, man fell into sin of his own free will. Given my personal choice, I would want a library of many inspired volumes detailing creation events answering when? how? and where? questions and a host of others. In God’s wisdom the creation narrative is quite succinct.

Many sincere Christians delight in dramatizing the effects of the fall of man into sin. They say it has resulted in animal death and animal predation which did not exist before the fall. In addition, they claim the physical laws governing the operation of nature’s geological and meteorological forces have been altered to permit violent, tragically fatal earthquakes and storms which would not be a part of our world had sin not been injected into the cosmic mix. They assert that a loving, all-powerful, good God should not and would not permit suffering and death for any of His created creatures. Their comments apply to the world they suppose existed for the limited time before the spiritual fall of Adam and Eve. But even in that short-lived world, if it existed as they suppose, it would be difficult to realistically envision a condition where no death or no decay were possible for any creature.

The great age of the earth has been established by sound mainstream science using dozens of independent methods. This is not godless, atheistic science. Wholesale death is evident in the record of paleontology among countless quadrillions of creatures within tens of millions of species existing on earth since life forms suddenly appeared 3.8 billion years ago. Suffering and death of our favored pets or beautiful wildlife are not conditions we wantonly celebrate. But to negate a divine purpose for events we cannot begin to understand with merely human wisdom is to set ourselves above the wisdom and purposes of God. The world of Genesis 1 was described as good or very good on multiple occasions by God as He looked upon His completed works. Such is the world we inhabit yet today.

Hugh Ross, in a new volume entitled Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job (Baker Books 2011) reports his startling perspective: “If I were to name one controversy with greater power to inflame passions than all others associated with creation, evolution, and judgment, it would have to be whether any animals experienced death prior to Adam and Eve’s sin. In my experience this issue is far and away the most divisive aspect of the dispute over the age of the earth and length of creation days.” If the No Death before the Fall paradigm of our young earth fellow Christians is accepted as factual reality, it is then an easy step for them to allow an earth only several thousand years old.

Genesis 1-3 speaks of the role of God as Creator of all things. In brief, it also speaks of man’s fall into sin and the consequences of that fall. We may rejoice in scientific discovery of how God has designed the cosmic operating system of our current dimension of time. In modern times our God has lovingly provided multiple opportunities for the discovery of “…the fixed laws of heaven and earth” (Jeremiah 33:25).

Psychological Arrow of Time

2011-12-23T15:59:00.000-05:00

Time may be considered either a coffee table discussion topic or an esoteric subject of interest mainly to scientists and philosophers. Coffee table conversationalists sometimes say, “Time flies!” or they complain about their day “dragging.” Similar comments are meant to poke fun at our subjective state of mind. But we all know the passing of time is inexorably steady.

Scientists are fascinated by the first two popularly discussed arrows of time: thermodynamic and cosmological. They relate to two overwhelming descriptive physical characteristics of our universe--ongoing decay, and ongoing expansion. A third arrow of time may also be of interest to the psychologist. It is called, appropriately, the psychological arrow of time. Humans remember their past, accumulating more memories of past events as they age. We do not remember the future, but we have an innate sense that time moves linearly from our memory-rich past to our memory-absent future. We could diagram this process using an arrow moving left to right across the page.

Popular agnostic physicist and cosmologist Stephen Hawking agreed that our present existence is dominated by our linear, forward-moving time dimension. Hawking and others are also fascinated by another time dimension he named imaginary time. Some scientists diagram time concepts showing two perpendicular lines. Our present time dimension is represented by a line moving only left to right, past to future. It is intersected by a perpendicular line crossing at only one point, the present. That perpendicular represents imaginary time which could travel infinitely far in either direction, not just one direction as required by our time dimension, “limited” as it is by a beginning and an ending.

This idea has promise for suggesting how our dimension-enriched God could operate and interact with humanity. His time dimensions (let’s call them imaginary) could operate outside our dimensions, but also at any point within our time dimension. The incarnate Christ willingly operated within our time dimension, but after His resurrection He also operated in other time dimensions, without the limits our restrictive time dimension imposes. This could explain many post-resurrection appearances and miracles.

For the present, humanity must be content with the opportunities and limitations of our present time dimension. We must be content to observe the progression of the psychological arrow of time and its relationship with the other arrows. Our present is positioned between a retrospective past and an anticipated future. This universe has experienced a beginning, and therefore a beginning of our time dimension. Scripture also states our arrow of time points to a conclusion of time as we know it. Consider this majestic passage: “Lord, in the beginning you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. Even they will perish, but you remain forever. They will wear out like old clothing. You will roll them up like an old coat. They will fade away like old clothing. But you are always the same; you will never grow old” (Hebrews 1:10-13 NLT).

This Hebrews passage cites the beginning and ending of our time frame. It also states God is changeless. He existed before He “laid the foundation of the earth” and was the pre-existing Cause of the created order. He is “always the same.” God “will never grow old.” If there is such a thing as imaginary time, this passage illustrates it. Many scripture translations use the phrase “everlasting to everlasting” to describe God in Psalm 90:2. The arrow of time in the dimension where God abides has no beginning or end. These ideas would provide for interesting conversation around a very large urn of coffee.

Cosmological Arrow of Time

2011-12-21T10:19:00.001-05:00

The cosmological arrow of time signals a constantly expanding universe. As we observe this phenomenon we have a sense of time moving forward. Our universe was smaller in time past; as it grows larger we move into the future. This observable fact logically points to the inescapable conclusion that our universe had a beginning. Scripture indicates God created everything that exists at the beginning--matter and energy along with our dimensions of space and time.

The Bible refers to the “stretching out” of the heavens at least eleven times in five different Old Testament books. Theologians and scientists who regard themselves as concordists would claim these passages refer to the modern discovery of the early 20^th century that the universe undergoes continual expansion. Concordism is the belief that scripture and scientific facts may be harmonized. Strong concordists would claim that a passage such as Isa. 45:12, “…My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts,” is a statement of scientific fact. The meaning of the “stretching out” imagery seems unmistakable.

Expansion of the universe at a precise rate provides the opportunity for life on Planet Earth and the eventual arrival of humans. Not only does the expansion enable us to sense the passage of time, but it also provides exact conditions without which life of any sort would be impossible. Expansion rates since the creation event could not have been even slightly less or slightly greater. The required precision of the expansion rate is dependent on the mass density of the matter originally created. Because all matter possesses gravitational attraction, too much or too little matter (mass) present since the beginning creation event would in turn cause too little or too much gravitational braking following the Big Bang creation event. For roughly half of the universe’s existence, the expansion rate was gradually slowing.

In recent years another discovery has been made relating to the expansion of the universe. A mysterious “dark energy” is now acting to accelerate the expansion of our universe. The same rules apply for the required rate of expansion. It now appears the precision required for life-sustaining expansion is even greater than in the former decelerating universe. The term precision acquires new meaning in this context. The precision required is exponentially greater than for any physical system man has ever devised.

Had the expansion rate been slightly greater no planets, stars, or galaxies could have formed at the right times and places. The universe would contain only diffuse gas and dust. This scenario would have resulted from too little mass density. On the other hand, had the expansion rate been slightly less only life destroying giant stars and black holes would have formed because too much mass was present. Someone may ask, “How much extra mass is too much, or too little?” The answer: Less than the mass of a single dime in the entire universe.

If I were teaching this concept to young people I would make use of sports analogies. When we shoot a basketball toward the hoop, a too-short or too-long attempt results in failure. The shot distance must be accurate within a small range. When we swing at a baseball, an under swing of a few millimeters results in a fly ball out; an over swing of a few millimeters results in a ground ball out. Only a near perfect swing results in a home run. Most successful athletic outcomes demand similar precision. The young person should understand that the precise expansion rate required for a successful universe is many billion times greater than the precision required in an athletic contest.

Dozens of other characteristics of our planet must be fine-tuned to an unimaginable degree. We are discovering many additional fine tuning requirements for life with each passing year. This degree of fine tuning points to the Master Designer. In the demanding swirl of life’s mundane events, many people find such information incomprehensible or boring. Others discover new ways to worship the God of Creation and to understand the beauty of His loving provision for man.

2nd Law Outcomes

2011-12-15T23:45:00.001-05:00

Statements from skeptics that a loving, benevolent God should not permit decay, pain, suffering, evil, or death do not indicate their basic understanding of the advantages of living in a world governed by the 2^nd Law of Thermodynamics. Such declarations are motivated by their desire to incriminate God. Scientists, in particular, should be among the last to decry the benefits of the 2^nd Law of Thermodynamics frontloaded by the Creator into the operating system of our universe at its beginning.

The 2^nd Law is sometimes called the Law of Decay. What, we may ask, could be good about a universal tendency for systems to decay, for ordered things to become less ordered? The skeptics, putting themselves in the place of God, sometimes ask why God did not create, according to their guidelines, a “perfect” world where no decay, pain, suffering, evil, or death could exist.

On another level, what could be good about having to keep a garden in order? or maintaining good relationships with our family? or avoiding conflicts with neighbors? or preventing any type of suffering? or working for the good of others? In the perfect world demanded of God by skeptics, there would be no responsibility to exercise human free will or autonomy because every good action would already be pre-accomplished for us. Human free will is a gift of enormous value from our Creator. Such lack of responsibility would not prove personally satisfying.

Human autonomy, and the autonomy of our physical cosmos to operate with the purpose for which God created it, is a double-edged gift. The benefits of the 2^nd Law are overwhelmingly positive for the human race. There are virtually no human physical activities which do not involve some application of energy consumption, energy conversion, or energy flow which are not an illustration the Law of Decay. Too often we cite our deteriorating automobiles, homes, or bodies as a deleterious effect of this law. Indeed, these situations are unwelcome handicaps. In other examples, the 2^nd Law enables us to think, digest food, stay warm, work, and travel from place to place.

One outcome of the operation of the 2^nd Law is the depressing deterioration of our physical bodies and our ultimate death. We would do well not to trivialize the tragic impact of the death of our physical body. Many Christian writers attribute death--the death of all creatures--to the sin of our first parents in the Garden of Eden. Credible scriptural support for this concept is lacking. In the scope of God’s plan for this temporal sphere of existence, scripture indicates the sin of Adam resulted in the spiritual death of all men. Animal death is not indicated: “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned…” (Rom. 5:12 ESV). The context of Romans 5 is spiritual death and reconciliation. Animals do not sin, so their death could not have resulted from their own sin. Moreover, animal life and death had existed on this earth long before Adam--for many millions of years. Plentiful microbial death on the early earth was the outcome of the 2^nd Law of Thermodynamics operating since creation. This large scale death has provided generous resources for the sustainment and enrichment of our modern life.

Instructive discussions of these issues have been provided in Why the Universe is the Way It Is by Hugh Ross (Baker Books, 2008): “This universe with all its features, laws, and dimensions represents the perfect theater for enactment of God’s redemptive drama. By its physical constraints, God limits the spread of evil, encourages the spread of virtue, and demonstrates his great love for humankind. According to the Bible, this temporal universe provides an essential proving ground to test each human heart (in the spiritual sense) and prepare those who pass the test for life in a completely new realm, one that includes all the features we long for and more—the perfection we can barely imagine.”

Why would an all loving God subject humans to “the tribulations and tragedies of this present world?” Hugh Ross continues, “One partial answer may be that if evil and suffering are temporary and humans eternal, then each person’s encounters with these troubles and griefs may serve as preparation for some high reward not possible otherwise. This consideration might also imply that humans are part of God’s strategy to bring about a total and permanent triumph of good over evil.”

Finally, Hugh Ross asks, “Why didn’t God just place Adam and Eve in the New Creation to start with?” Ross continues, “It appears that unless humanity is exposed to and tested by the greatest possible temptation, the most compelling attraction of evil, in the first creation—the rewards, pleasures, and relationships of the new creation cannot be made both perfect and permanent.”

Time and the 2nd Law

2011-12-10T13:23:00.001-05:00

Stephen Hawking discusses three arrows of time in his popular 1988 volume A Brief History of Time and subsequent updates. He defines an arrow of time as “something which distinguishes the past from the future, giving a direction to time.” One of the three is the thermodynamic arrow of time. The 2^nd Law of Thermodynamics is one of the most fundamental characteristics of our created universe. It has operated in the past and still operates in our present, giving us a sense of time moving relentlessly forward. Our understanding of this law helps us comprehend how God established the operational rules for our universe at the initial creation event.

God set up the time dimension of our universe at the creation event described in Genesis 1:1. It stands to reason that the creator of our time dimension would also create other fundamental characteristics to enable successful operation of our universe. In particular, He established abundant life-friendly characteristics. The 2^nd Law of Thermodynamics, also known as the Law of Decay or the Law of Entropy, serves as an umbrella for hundreds of other life-friendly characteristics.

The 2^nd Law of Thermodynamics states a fundamental reality. In our cosmos, all systems naturally proceed from a state of higher organization to a state of lower organization. Paint ages and peels; plants die and decay; hot water cools. Sometimes an apparent increase in order in an isolated system results from a reduction of order in some other system. Total order of the combined systems is reduced. For example, restoring an old, broken down, deteriorated automobile in the repair shop results in a localized increase of order when we look at the finished, restored vehicle, but the resources of the repair shop and outside vendors are diminished. When we look at the overall picture, the Law of Decay operates.

In this case, the Law of Decay (a reduction in the usefulness of resources) sounds like a bad thing. In this instance the Law of Decay works to our advantage. The owner of the restored vehicle may now drive down the street proudly, consuming fuel as he travels along. The gasoline is reduced to exhaust vapors and becomes useless as its heat energy dissipates, but it has provided a mode of transportation. The owner of the restored vehicle is happy to make these sacrifices.

Another example is provided by the consumption of food by living things. Food is a highly concentrated source of energy. As our bodies digest and otherwise metabolize food products, energy is produced. We are able to think, stay warm, and move about. The Law of Decay again works to our advantage. If the law did not operate, neither would we. One college biology professor, in his supplementary notes to students, stated if the process of energy transformation to lower states did not take place the organism would be dead!

Do we live in a world of decay? Yes, we do. For the most part, however, the Law of Decay works to our advantage throughout our lives. Carried to the law’s ultimate conclusion, eventually all organisms die. This includes the heartbreaking deaths of human beings. We function in the ongoing, linear dimension of time where the 2^nd Law of Thermodynamics functions constantly. Stephen Hawking states the inexorable progression of increasing disorder helps us sense the passage of time: “Disorder increases with time because we measure time in the direction in which disorder increases.”

Holy Scripture deals with the subject of our universe’s bondage to decay in Romans 8:18-25. The Apostle Paul may or may not have been thinking in a modern scientific manner in this passage. He could have combined common sense observations of increasing disorder in his physical world with spiritual insights he had received by revelation. It is quite certain that “…our present sufferings are not worthy to be compared with the glory that will be revealed in us” refers to our present existence compared with our future existence in an eternal, perfect, new-dimensional existence. The colorful imagery of “…the whole creation groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time (Rom. 8:22) could apply to our future deliverance from 2^nd Law physics to a future New Creation reality where our current physics will no longer exist.

Decay and death have been present on this earth from the initial creation to the present. God created the Law of Decay as surely as He created our dimension of time. The decay has resulted in many beneficial energy transformations; the death of quadrillions of creatures has resulted in production of plentiful resources for our modern life. Of course, the deaths of billions of humans created in the image of God are not events to celebrate. Such deaths do, however, represent deliverance from conformity to the 2^nd Law to something even better and more glorious yet to come for the redeemed in Christ.

From Start to Finish

2011-12-07T10:33:00.001-05:00

Jesus Christ’s startling utterance “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End” (Rev. 22:13) could not refer to the beginning and ending of Christ’s existence, for He is eternal. Rather, the passage refers to the beginning and ending of this present dimension of time in which Christ “holds all creation together” (Col. 1:17 NLT). Christ pervades all past, present, and future reality. He brought the matter and energy of our universe into existence as well as its dimensions of space and time. He unfurled the dimension of time at the start and He will roll it back up at the finish when time as we know it will end. In this sense He is the Alpha and the Omega.

Scientists have diverse and fully persuasive evidence that the beginning of time as we know it occurred 13.73 billion years ago. God in three persons existed before time began and was uncreated. This proposal does not yield to any rational human explanation. The uncreated God is the cause of our created cosmos. Time is linear in our cosmos. This means time proceeds in one direction with causes preceding their effects. Humans have the feeling of time slipping from one moment to the next. Within time we are always in the present even though we may contemplate the past and the future.

Some people do not care to contemplate these matters. Others speculate philosophically on issues such as “circular time” which allow for possible reincarnation or experiencing the future before the past. This is suggestive of a philosophy termed “eternalism” in contrast with “presentism” which views the present moment moving into the future, leaving the past behind. This was the view of early church theologian and philosopher Augustine (354-430 AD). He also conceived of God as transcendent, outside of time, as well as existing within our time dimension.

This esoteric discussion may be more important than the average church member realizes. If Jesus Christ created the time dimension in which we live, giving it a beginning and an ending, He must also have had a divine plan for the operation of matter and energy within our created dimensions of space and time. Secular science findings may enlighten us with respect to the characteristics of time and the realm in which we live. Many modern findings of science dovetail with scripture insofar as scientific issues are touched upon by the authors of sacred scripture.

An example is provided by a popular 1988 runaway best-seller authored by brilliant agnostic physicist Stephen Hawking. In A Brief History of Time Hawking’s Chapter 9 is titled “The Arrow of Time.” In a future post I will address his discussion of three different “arrows of time.” These are defined as “…something that distinguishes the past from the future, giving a direction to time.” Each of Hawking’s arrows of time could be connected with concepts mentioned in scripture about how our universe operates.

Bookends of Time

2011-12-04T23:52:00.002-05:00

We are firmly embedded between the “bookends of time.” The “books” between the bookends contain a record of events in our temporal sphere--earth history from the creation event until the present as well as events yet to come before the end of this present age. The arrival of the New Creation described in scripture brings an end to our current time frame and ushers in a timeless eternity. We might also describe the events of the pre-Genesis creation account as timeless.

From a scientific perspective the beginning and ending of our present dimension of time is not a far-fetched concept. Secular scientists agree that our present time dimension originated at the initial creation event of this cosmos. Many scientists are distressed at the idea that time had an actual beginning. This acknowledgement carries with it a tacit admission that there was also a Beginner. The concept of a Beginner runs counter to the secular reasoning that everything in our universe may be explained naturalistically. The troubling reality of a Beginner lurks inescapably as secularists contemplate the reality of the beginning of time, space, matter, and energy. Likewise, any discussion about the end of time may provoke a feeling of unease.

Many cosmologists have referred to the separation of three space dimensions and one time dimension from ten or more dimensions an instant after the Big Bang creation event. We could call this the “beginning of time.” The remaining dimensions still exist but remain tightly curled up, inaccessible to us. They are not a part of our human experience of dimensionality.

What about the “end of time?” Chapter 21 of the Book of Revelation tells us our time dimension ends at the onset of the New Creation. The experience of God’s redeemed people in the New Creation will be unimaginably different from the here and now. Speculation on the quality of our existence in the New Creation is woefully inadequate. We know there will be no sorrow, death, crying, pain, or evil. The pleasures of this timeless eternity will be far beyond our present ability to comprehend.

Since the 1960s when Big Bang cosmology replaced steady-state theory, scientists nearly all agree that time had a beginning. But they may have more problem with the concept of the end of time as we know it. Scripture such as Isaiah 34:4 speaks of the heavens being “rolled up like a scroll.” Most theologians agree that Isaiah is apocalyptic, referring centuries in advance to the end times described again in the book of Revelation. The imagery of Isaiah and Revelation 6:14 is reminiscent of secular cosmologists’ descriptions of the uncurling of space and time dimensions at the beginning of time. At the end of time the “curling” of dimensions is reversed: in Isaiah and Revelation the spatial dimensions of the sky are “rolled up.” Time comes to an end.

The verses of Isaiah and Revelation are not offered as proof texts. They are, nevertheless, suggestive: “And the sky was rolled up like a scroll and taken away. And all of the mountains and all of the islands disappeared.” (Revelation 6:14 NLT), God created our time dimension. Time had a beginning; time will have an end. Jesus Christ said, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.” (Revelation 22:13)

Roll Call

2011-11-29T18:27:00.000-05:00

Many people who lived five decades or more ago remember the popular hymn “When the Roll Is Called Up Yonder.” This title was requested more frequently than most during the “favorites” portion of hymn time. The verse 1 lyrics begin, “When the trumpet of the Lord shall sound and time shall be no more…” For those unfamiliar with biblical eschatology, this refers to the return of Christ at the end of this present age. It precedes the onset of the New Creation described in Revelation 21. I sang these lyrics hundreds of times as a young person. The term “time shall be no more” was characteristic of many sentimental expressions sung from behind a hymnal in that era. We do not disparage the pietistic expressions of those musical offerings. Perhaps our increased understanding of cosmology and its theological implications in the past half century imparts new meaning to this old expression.

Revelation’s description of the New Creation suggests that the dimensions of space and time we experience at present will be replaced with entirely new dimensions. Space and time will not be reckoned as we reckon them today.

Scripture also refers to a past interval in history when the dimension of time as we know it today did not exist. Four New Testament verses explicitly state this concept: I Cor. 2:7, Eph. 1:4, II Tim. 1:9, and Tit. 1:3. Cosmologists agree that our single time and three space dimensions were “created” a split second after the Big Bang. They even speculate on the presence of a number of other dimensions existing at the first moment of the universe’s existence. Ironically, secular cosmologists and theologians both agree on the “creation” of time at that point in the past.

We see, therefore, that our present dimensions of time and space are emplaced between two intervals of timelessness--one interval prior to the beginning of time (John 1:1-2), and the New Creation described in Revelation 21 after the end of time. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary indicates the Genesis 1:1 In the beginning refers to the creation of the heavens and the earth, while the John 1:1 In the beginning “…does not refer to a particular moment of time but assumes a timeless eternity.”

The Bible speaks almost exclusively about events in our time frame of existence and instructions for our lives within our time frame. God is the creator of our existence and sustenance within this time frame and the author of guidelines for our successful and joyful living. He also provides the opportunity to achieve redemption in this life and in the life to come--the ultimate in successful and joyful existence. This comes through the gift of God’s Son.

God created the conditions of our present time frame to fulfill His divine purposes. He enjoyed creating the heavens and the earth and eventually earth’s millions of different creatures. In particular, God took pleasure in creating man in His own image. He enjoys fellowship with the pinnacle of His creative work--man. Science has discovered the laws of operation of this universe and by extension, Planet Earth. Thousands of volumes of scientific literature have described how these laws have produced the resources currently supporting the existence of seven billion human beings and uncounted trillions of other living things. The functioning of our earth may be described as a divine success story. Even better things, however, are in store for redeemed mankind.

Best of All Worlds

2011-11-26T20:10:00.004-05:00

A popular current scientific buzz is an imaginative concept called the “multiverse” which posits that at the Big Bang multiple universes may have been generated. Perhaps, some scientists say, the number of universes is infinite. Some scientists hypothesize our own universe may possess all the “just right” requirements for life because if infinite universes exist, it is virtually certain that at least one of them would possess all the conditions and physical constants necessary for life as it exists on Planet Earth. Moreover, life could have evolved by chance, because with an infinite number of “trials” our particular set of earth conditions was bound to occur.

Physicist Paul Davies has declared that the multiverse hypothesis has no empirical testability. Therefore, it is not falsifiable and has no standing as a scientific proposal. Modern fascination with the multiverse idea reminds us of the Apostle Paul’s visit to ancient

Greece

. In the picture painted by Luke, writer of the Book of Acts, the intellectuals gathered frequently in downtown Athens to gossip. Eugene Peterson translates the scene this way: “There were always people hanging around, natives and tourists alike, waiting for the latest tidbit on most anything” (Acts 17:21 The Message). Paul Davies wrote “Taking Science on Faith,” an op-ed in The New York Times, Nov. 24, 2007, claiming “…Science has its own faith-based belief system…Clearly, then, both religion and science are founded on faith—namely, on belief in the existence of something outside the universe, like an unexplained God or an unexplained set of physical laws, maybe even a huge ensemble of unseen universes, too.” No doubt the Athenians would have been fascinated with the multiverse proposal.

Davies took a lot of heat from skeptical scientists for his proposal that science is akin to a faith system. A Wikipedia entry claims Davies’ piece “generated controversy over its exploration of the role of faith in scientific inquiry. Davies argued that the faith scientists have in the immutability of physical laws has origins in Christian theology, and that the claim that science is ‘free of faith’ is ‘manifestly bogus.’” We might ask, “What is the essential difference between religious faith and a scientific faith?” Our blog agrees that both science and religion are faith-based. The object of that faith highlights the difference.

Our Christian belief system casts strong doubt on the reality of the multiverse proposal. Genesis declares “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Science is based upon evidence gained from empirical evidence. We observe only our own universe. Paul Davies correctly states that the multiverse hypothesis has no empirical testability. Therefore, we do not assign credence to the imaginative and speculative hypothesis of the multiverse, however appealing that hypothesis may be.

The heavens and the earth referenced in Genesis 1:1 is the term for the entirety of the universe we now observe. It is the production of the God of Creation. He created Earth with the ultimate good of modern man in mind. Every process over the eons of time looked forward to modern man’s arrival. God has stockpiled the benefits from these processes, benefits which persist even in our day. We may confidently say, with the psalmist, “The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof…” (Psalm 24:1 KJV).

What Kind of World?

2011-11-22T22:24:00.000-05:00

How does the physical operation of Planet Earth’s systems and our cosmos fulfill God’s higher purpose? Do Earth’s physical systems and Earth’s life forms operate according to the foreknowledge of an infinite, omniscient God? Since the Fall of Adam in the Garden of Eden, are we operating under God’s “Plan B?” That is to say, was God’s perfect creation sabotaged at the moment of Adam’s Fall? These are not only issues of deep theological significance, but profound scientific questions as well.

Many Christians see both the operation of Earth’s physical systems and the spiritually fallen condition of the human race as the outcome of the sin of our Garden of Eden parents. They believe Adam’s action was responsible for both physical and spiritual degradation. Man’s spiritual alienation from God is, indeed, inherited from Adam. Some broadly blame Satan for man’s spiritual downfall. In some sense this is true. Had free will not been gifted to humanity and had Satan not existed, the Fall would not have occurred. But this conclusion seriously overlooks a deeper theological reality.

Long before the creation of man “in the image of God,” long before life of any type existed on this earth, and long before the initial creation event described in the first verse of the Bible, God in three persons existed outside our current dimensions of space and time. Stated another way, God was transcendent. Three dimensions of space and one dimension of time were imposed upon this universe at the creation event. We tend to think only in terms of our current space/time dimensions. In some small measure, theologically and scientifically we are able to grasp the importance of this concept by studying scripture and by discovering the operations of our cosmos from a scientific perspective.

Some of Scripture’s most startling passages refer to the plan of redemption for man. The plan was present in the mind of God even before the creation of our dimensions of space and time. The Apostle Paul, recipient of many of God’s special revelations of truth, spoke at least five times in his epistles of pre-creation divine determination of future events involving man on earth. For example, the New International Version translates I Cor. 2:7 using the term before time began, Eph. 1:4 with before the creation of the world, and II Tim. 1:9 and Tit. 1:3 by the term before the beginning of time. Rom. 8:28 uses the phrase “For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son…” In each of these cases it is clear these passages refer to man’s redemption from sin.

The term grace is used in scripture to indicate, among other things, the reception of something we do not deserve. Again, II Tim. 1:9 states, “Grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time.” We do not deserve grace because of our sinfulness. God knew man would rapidly fall into sin when left to his own free will choice. Another term, adoption, refers to the transfer of a person from one condition (family) to another. Clearly, redemption was in the heart of God long before the creation of the cosmos. We may ask, “Redemption from what?” We may answer, “Redemption from a sinful heart condition to a new condition of guiltlessness before God through the sacrifice of Christ.” Did God know beforehand that humanity would fall into sin by virtue of his free will choice? Yes, He did. God did not prevent Satan’s entry into the Garden of Eden, but He could have done so.

The physical characteristics of this world at times result in discomfort, distress, or even death. A broad scope analysis of conditions on our earth, however, reveals an earth with the optimal potential for nourishing and sustaining the lives of seven billion souls. God designed our earth system with our benefit in mind. He has given us the privilege of tenderly caring for it, working it, and reaping benefits from it. It is part of a cosmos gradually running down under the God-imposed “Law of Decay,” but it is a cosmos ideally suited to fulfillment of His plan for the redemption of reborn mankind into the future New Creation described in Revelation 21.

What kind of world do we live in? We may conclude this cosmos is ideally suited to fulfill God’s purpose: the redemption of mankind to a future state in the New Creation. This state is far more wonderful than merely restoring the brief “paradise” which purportedly existed in the Garden of Eden. Man was not intended to live forever in an unredeemed state in Eden. The Creator looked far beyond Eden to the state of redemption in this world and in the New Creation.

System Breakdown

2011-11-17T11:10:00.003-05:00

“It’s a wonder more things don’t go wrong; It’s amazing anyone stays healthy five minutes!” This was the observation of my brother, my only sibling, who recently suffered a significant stroke. This profound insight does not diminish the lingering stroke symptoms, but it does help us put the wonder of our normally functioning bodily processes in perspective.

There are nearly a dozen major organ systems in the human body including circulatory, digestive, endocrine, excretory, immune, lymphatic, muscular, nervous, reproductive, respiratory, and skeletal systems. In a healthy person they work together to create a smoothly functioning bodily unit. Stated another way, ordinarily we would describe ourselves as “feeling well.”

The circulatory system is primarily a network for blood distribution. Life giving oxygen, nutrients, and hormones are carried by the blood through arteries to every body cell. In turn, veins carry away waste products to be removed from the body. There are 60,000 miles of blood vessels in the human body, mostly composed of microscopic capillaries which touch almost every body cell. If a blood clot or other debris reaches the brain through one of the arteries leading to it and lodges there, lack of oxygen rapidly causes brain damage resulting in a variety of temporary or permanent adverse effects. This is the situation when a person suffers a stroke.

In any system, a single problem may cause breakdown even if the problem may seem minor. Lawn or garden watering ceases when a clog, kink, or break develops at just one location in the supply hose. Until the problem is remedied the watering process ceases. A flat tire on our automobile suddenly derails completion of a journey. And in 1986 the Challenger shuttle exploded because of a defective “O” ring. That inexpensive component failed because its sealing effect was slightly diminished in the cold morning launch temperature. Never mind that over 99% of the systems maintained proper function in the above examples. James 3:5 applies: “A tiny spark can set a great forest on fire.”

With respect to the hundreds of properly functioning components of our bodies’ circulatory system, we are remiss in not reminding ourselves often that our bodies are “fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14). The New Living Translation declares “Thank you for making me so wonderfully complex! Your workmanship is marvelous—and how well I know it.” Even as he still suffers from the residual effects of his stroke, my brother voices the sentiments of believers who, upon studying the dizzying intricacy and beauty of bodily processes for even one bodily organ system exclaim, “It is absurd and outrageous to suggest this is an (evolutionary) accident.”

We talk, read, and write far more about our personal body system failures than our body system successes. Even the person with science aversion experiences open-mouthed awe upon becoming even slightly aware of the multiple processes taking place in just one body organ system. The awe would multiply with an understanding of how the systems integrate. The sports-minded person may draw the analogy to an 11-man football team whose plays succeed only if every man performs his function correctly. The body, of course, is exponentially more complex.

The medical profession has produced hundreds of specialties focusing on diagnosis and treatment of these systems, or even subsets of one of these systems. Perusing a list of these medical specialties, one may think: “Look how many things can go wrong!” More realistically we should exclaim, “Look how many things are going right!” During his recovery process, my brother is able to voice this sentiment with even more conviction.

Contending for the Faith

2011-11-11T11:28:00.001-05:00

The brother of Jesus Christ wrote a one-chapter epistle in which he urges believers to “contend earnestly for the faith” (Jude 1:3 NASB). My personal preference for the translation of this verse comes from Eugene Peterson’s The Message: “I have to write insisting—begging!—that you fight with everything you have in you for this faith entrusted to us as a gift to guard and cherish.”

Many of our posts have stated the value of science as an apologetic tool to strengthen our faith. Apart from fundamental doctrinal pillars of the Christian faith such as the truth of Christ as God in the flesh and Christ as Redeemer of fallen man, science provides apologetic value at a different level. Science in general offers evidence of the supernatural creation event described in Genesis 1:1 as well as knowledge of a cosmos functioning in an incredibly orderly manner. The cosmos offers clear and ubiquitous evidence of intelligent design. By extension, the scientific knowledge gained over the past few centuries is a powerful apologetic for the very existence of God. Paradoxically, lurking in the consciousness (or subconscious) of many science professionals is the very question, “Does God exist?” This question has likely occurred to most people, science professionals or not.

Identification of intelligently designed features in our universe is not regarded as a scientific enterprise. Science, according to established modern standards, must investigate only natural events. The supernatural is ruled off-limits. There is an advantage to this ruling. It avoids assigning every unknown effect observed in nature to the direct, deliberate action of God. Naturalistic scientists are fond of proposing the “God-of-the-gaps” accusation against creationists and believers in intelligent design. In reality, most skilled theistic scientists reserve design explanations only for unique features of our physical cosmos such as the DNA code in living things.

The disadvantage of the paradigm that science must investigate only natural cause and effect is that events of probable supernatural origin are excluded from the discussion of what really may have happened. Scientific naturalism has been established as a rock solid, indestructible “rule of the game.” Theistic explanations are ascribed to a separate realm of reality. Many of my theistic evolutionary friends have subscribed to the doctrine of separation of the realms as an unalterable principle. One theistic evolutionist friend wrote, “They (science and theology) are not a single, self consistent whole but rather two very different ways of viewing reality.” Rigid adherence to this principle is a discussion stopper. The science establishment’s adherence to this paramount “rule of the game” is a brilliant accomplishment. It is also an unfortunate fact.

How does this discussion relate to the biblical exhortation to contend or fight for the faith? The oft-repeated exhortation to “get on board with science” in the matter of origins deflects seekers from a frank acknowledgement that God has ever acted interventionally along the timeline of life’s history on Planet Earth. Marriage to a “naturalism only” paradigm may preclude our embrace of a thoroughly Christian worldview. My TE friend, at the conclusion of lengthy discussions, stated, “Both of us believe that God is the Creator of all things, including humans.” But the unsolved question of how God created remains a troubling impasse.

Recognition of the evidence for sudden rather than gradual biological creation events on earth is established by careful analysis of great amounts of evidence and carefully reasoned interpretation of the evidence. The historical record of life on earth and the entire physical cosmos comprises the general revelation provided by God. We have the capability of inspecting and interpreting the evidence of general revelation. This capability is provided by the gift of reason. Revelation and reason, therefore, provide mankind with a double-edged tool for contending for the faith. In this context, our faith affirms the facts that God exists and that God acts in this cosmos.

Revelation vs. Reason

2011-11-08T11:03:00.000-05:00

Hymn time during a recent Sunday morning worship service featured “By Faith,” a popular new song by Keith and Kristin Getty. Verse 1 begins “By faith we see the hand of God in the light of creation’s grand design.” The subject of faith juxtaposed with creation’s grand design in only one line of the hymn is fascinating.

In the context of the hymn’s text, faith may be defined as an inner assurance that our course of belief or action is correct and supported by the will of God. Tangible proof may not exist to support our belief or course of action, but we are confident we are on the right highway. Over the centuries, theologians have sometimes referred to the embrace of revelation or revealed truth as faith.

Recognition of “creation’s grand design,” in contrast, is an embrace of reason. We recognize by our logical, rational thought process how unlikely or even how impossible it would be for the created order to have assembled itself to function with such apparent efficiency and purpose. Beyond that we acknowledge God as the agent responsible for creation and the apparent design features of the cosmos.

Historically, either reason or revelation was held in favor by theologians. Sometimes they stressed both reason and revelation. Early theologians Tertullian (160-220 AD) and Augustine (354-430 AD) and later figures such as Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) stressed the revelation of theological truths over reason. Pascal, a brilliant scientist and mathematician, was noted for his Christian conversion experience. His focus turned to theology after his conversion. Thereafter he de-emphasized finding God through evidence from the natural world.

Other theological notables stressed the importance of reason in acquiring knowledge of God. Justin Martyr (103-165 AD) promoted an early reason-based Christian apologetic as did Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) in the Middle Ages. Aquinas also blended revelation with reason in forming his theological belief system.

Is acquisition of our belief in God a matter of either revelation or reason? At times my personal enthusiasm for science may slant my thinking in favor of reason; the wonder of the design and function of the natural world is powerful affirmation of the reality of God. But for others their theological belief system is supported by their embrace of the revealed truth of scripture or other forms of personal enlightenment.

Scripture affirms the value of both revelation and reason. Our embrace of Christ as the Son of God, a truth brought forward to us in our day by the witness of scripture, may be regarded as revealed truth. Scripture also points to the design and beauty of the cosmos, the behavior of living creatures, existence of the whole personhood of the pre-born, and many other deep truths to support our ability to reason concerning the deeper significance of our existence and origin.

Congregational hymn singing satisfies our desire to offer worship to God as well as to express theological truths gained by revelation and reason. We would do well to study the lyrics sung by church musicians and thoughtfully contemplate the hymn texts used each Sunday. The gift of music allows us to express our heartfelt worship of the Creator who makes Himself known through the gifts of revelation and reason.

Ask The Birds

2011-11-02T15:18:00.002-04:00

“But now ask the beasts, and let them teach you; and the birds of the heavens, and let them tell you.” (Job 12:7 NASB) This unusual concept was a reply given by Job to his accuser, Zophar, who had proposed confidently that Job’s trials were punishment for his sins. Zophar and Job’s other “friends” had piously cited object lessons from the natural world to strengthen their case for condemning Job. Now Job is turning some of the same wisdom back on his accusers.

We may wonder what birds may teach us about the truths of life. He also cites the earth itself and fish of the sea. Job does not elaborate extensively. “Who among these does not know,” Job inquires, “that the hand of the Lord has done this, in whose hand is the life of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind?” Are these verses and the remaining verses of chapter 12 merely poetic imagery? Or could humans learn lessons from the birds of the heavens? And what would those lessons be?

Outside my office we have installed an ornamental water fountain which doubles as an avian bird bath and drinking station during the summer. Currently our various neighborhood birds have completed their parenting duties for the year and the permanent winter residents now seem to have banded together for some high sprited fun in addition to satisfying their need for food and water. Groups of mixed bird species sometimes excitedly fly from tree to tree or branch to branch in what seems to be a mysterious, exuberant celebration. The bedlam often ceases as suddenly as it began, only to resume another time.

One recent day our fountain was the locus of action. Within ten minutes seven different bird species visited the fountain. Many were robins, but they were joined by a blue jay, slate colored junco, cedar waxwings, starling, red bellied woodpecker, and several cardinals. In my human wisdom I would not have been bathing in the 36˚F temperature. But the cardinals seemed to enjoy splashing in the cold water with their feathered audience looking on. Most birds merely seemed intent on taking turns quenching their thirst. One exception was provided by two robins 90˚ apart on one level. In addition to drinking they periodically faced each other, opening and closing their bills in unison. Several other robins chased each other around the yard at intervals. What unknown purpose was served by these behaviors?

The blue jay garnered the most respect. He drank alone, having assertively dispersed the other birds for a few moments. Many birds seemed to politely defer to each other. Rarely did more than one or two drink at once. In ten minutes I observed behavioral interactions which could be variously described as joy, excitement, cooperation, submission, caution, assertiveness, aggression, dominance, boldness, and fear. My research provided information on the desirability of helping birds during winter by keeping a water fountain liquid all winter with a submersible heater. Most over-wintering birds seem to manage well without the human provision of feeders. Perhaps providing water is more important. Most important may be the lessons provided for us by the behavior of “birds of the heavens.” Their innate wisdom teaches humans some valuable lessons.

We learn from wild creatures by systematically observing their activities. The familiar verse in Matthew 6:26 reminds us that wild animals’ innate wisdom is supplied by God Himself: “Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they?” Evidence that our Father values us more highly is plentiful, including our intellectual capacity to provide for our own needs in ways animals cannot. The inherent wisdom of animals, however, provides humans with much food for thought. The exuberant autumn antics of our neighborhood birds are a gift of the provident Creator, both to the birds and to us.

In a broad sense, we may say that the tutorial provided by our feathered neighbors is a lesson from natural theology--a human lesson drawn from our “reason and ordinary experience” which points to the existence and actions of a divine Being. Science and natural theology are different pathways to realities of how the natural world works, including the scientific question of causes. Most professional scientists are willing to stop off at a naturalistic explanation for fascinating everyday phenomena we observe, consigning any hint of a theological implication to religionists. The problem of separation constructed between science and religion is known as the demarcation problem. It is hotly debated by scientists who wish to preserve the naturalistic purity of science unencumbered by any theological implication.

Multiple passages in scripture tilt us toward contemplation of the deeper theological significance of things we observe in the natural world. As I watched seven distinctly different bird species cavorting around my water fountain, I admired the unique beauty of each one along with their distinctive mannerisms. For me, explaining their physical beauty and behavior entirely by naturalistic reductionism amounts to an absurdity. I highly respect the methods of science which aid me in understanding beauty and behavior. In most instances science provides an entirely adequate account. Contemplating deeper theological significance, however, enhances our understanding and enjoyment of the reality of the Creator and His relationship with the created order.

Seasonal Rebirth

2011-10-28T15:06:00.002-04:00

A favorite question often asked is, “What is your favorite…?” Many deflect such a query with, “I like them all,” perhaps using the qualifier “for different reasons.” As autumn progresses in northern latitudes there is often trepidation at the approach of winter, sometimes fueled, as in the Midwestern US, by the rumor that a “La Nina” weather pattern is still in effect. Conversely, when late winter moderation clearly signals a weakening of winter’s grip, spirits are lifted.

Cycles are common in our created world. Weather cycles related to temperature and precipitation fluctuations and the consequent sequences of seed time, harvest, and dormancy are topics addressed in scripture. For example, after the Genesis flood, the Lord said, “While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease” (Gen. 8:22 NASB). These contrasting conditions were related in Old Testament times to the annual revolution of the earth around the Sun as it rotates on its tilted axis. These relationships still exist after many thousands of years.

Our revolving earth produces seasonal cycles because of its obliquity: Earth’s axis is tilted 23.5˚ away from the perpendicular to its orbital plane. Without any axial tilt there would be no cyclical seasonal changes anywhere on earth--no annual anticipation of summer’s oncoming warmth or winter’s frigid cold. Seasonal changes result in a refreshing variety of weather in Earth's temperate, middle latitudes. But there is a more important reason to embrace the benefit of these seasonal variations. Grain crops thrive when where warm seed time and harvest contrast with a period of cold dormancy. Humans get about 48% of their calories from grain crops. The Northern hemisphere has 90% of the world’s people and produces most of the world’s grain crops in its temperate zones.

Northern hemisphere winter sun rays must spread over a larger area of land because they arrive at a smaller angle above the horizon. Since they are “shared” by more surface area, any one spot receives less heat. Summer reverses the conditions. The sun takes a shorter path across the heavens in winter. Days are short; heating time is less; cooling time is greater. Again, summer reverses these conditions.

Some people may long for a season-less weather pattern. Without disparaging anyone’s desire for pleasant weather, we must remind ourselves that seasonal changes provide far more interactions between air masses, resulting in distribution and movement of precipitation-producing systems superimposed on the seed-time, harvest, and cold. The Genesis 8 passage seems to affirm the benefits of contrasting conditions--the “ups and downs” of weather. Now and then these ups and downs result in too much or too little rain, or too much or too little wind and humidity for our personal preferences and comfort.

This meteorological variety enables the Earth to support nearly seven billion people. Famines and weather tragedies do occur. But such events are relatively rare and often result from poor human management or deficient stewardship. Heavy media coverage of these tragic events may cause us to see our earth’s weather cycles as cruel rather than as the benevolent gifts of a caring Father.

Attractive Belief Systems

2011-10-24T18:51:00.003-04:00

Blaise Pascal wrote “People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive.” William Dembski, intelligent design theorist, claims Pascal was “…not talking about people merely believing what they want to believe, as in wish fulfillment. Rather, he was talking about people being swept away by attractive ideas that capture their heart and imagination.”

Recently I concluded two lengthy written dialogues with friends who embrace theistic evolution. We all agreed in the end that “God is the Creator of all things.” That statement of agreement, however, belies fundamental disagreements between us involving the question “How did God create?” In particular, how did he create living things, including humans? Was modern man a unique and special creation appearing on earth at a specific point in time in the past few tens of thousands of years by a fiat miracle of God? Or did man slowly develop from LUCA (the last universal common ancestor) since plentiful bacterial life suddenly appeared on earth several billion years ago?

My friends both wound down the dialogue by asking questions such as “Does it make a difference?” and “We are not as far apart as you think we are.” Perhaps they thought the gulf between us would seem narrower. I have thought deeply about their statements and have concluded that it makes a significant and substantial difference. The differences should never diminish the quality of friendships or personal relationships. Nor should the differences affect the mutual respect we have for each other as individuals. But the issue is far from unimportant.

One friend wrote “I have tended to assume that if you take the scientific evidence from physics for an old universe, an old earth, etc. as valid evidence…you must already be on a road that leads to taking the same open mind toward the evidence for biological evolution as a scenario with some limited validity also.” This comment also goes to the heart of objections made to me by young earth creationist believers. Herein lies an ironic twist in discussions of this sort. Belief in an ancient cosmos does not presume belief in biological evolution. The eventual coalescence of matter into planetary systems such as our own unique Solar System resulted from physical laws based on physical constants established by the Creator from the moment of creation of the cosmos.

The world of living things poses an entirely different origins scenario. Physical systems operate according to the physical laws in effect from the beginning of time. We might say the “information” inherent in those physical constants was front-loaded into matter at the beginning. Living things, on the other hand, appear to have come into being with an exponentially vast, intelligent input of information long after the initial creation event. That information possessed directions for synthesizing thousands of different proteins and organizing them into complex, functional systems. Living systems are very different from non-living systems. An understanding of forces and motion, formation of storms in our atmosphere, or structure of complex mineral crystals, for example,--these are simple matters compared with an understanding of the origin of information needed to produce living systems. To use a sports analogy, the world of living things is in a different league.

Both friends stressed the dichotomy between theology and science. I had repeatedly made the proposal that science and theology comprises “a single, self-consistent whole,” and that we should be able to inspect the creation using the methods of science and identify the work of God, particularly with respect to the origin of information in the DNA/RNA of living systems, as well as in the exquisite design and function of living and non-living things alike. This argument does not resonate with theistic evolutionists because of their insistence on keeping the conclusions of science completely within a naturalistic box. One friend, a career professional scientist, claims “divine agency in creation is not subject to mundane scrutiny by the powers of human reason, but is hidden.”

Most theistic evolutionists prefer to accept the scenario of mutations, natural selection, and plenty of time to explain the process of change naturalistically. Nearly all would insist on knowing how a miraculous process such as creation of life or creation of a new species would work. To claim God acts to create or reorganize molecules in some unknown fashion does not satisfy the theistic evolutionist. They prefer to continue the search for a naturalistic process to account for origins of species, including man. We acknowledge that for some, this is an attractive idea which captures the heart and imagination. Their ability to explain events in natural, human terms provides a sense of empowerment. We also note that the science profession in the last 1½ centuries has constructed a wall of separation between itself and theology. As a result, science is not perceived favorably by many in the community of faith.

The Bible Zodiac

2011-10-18T23:15:00.001-04:00

The Signs of the Zodiac have been associated with horoscopes--ancient and modern systems promoting belief in the supposed connection between events visible in the sky and events on Planet Earth. The zodiac is a narrow band of constellations through which the sun apparently moves during Earth’s annual revolution around the sun. This apparent movement is caused by the real revolution of the earth around the sun. Day by day, we view the sun from a slightly different position in space. Therefore, the sun appears daily in a slightly different position with respect to background stars. Once each year the sun traces a giant circle through the constellations of the zodiac—Capricorn, Aquarius, Pisces, and nine more.

Teaching this concept is a tricky business. If you are a “Taurus” it merely means that on the day you were born, the sun was surrounded by the stars in the constellation of Taurus (the Bull). Of course, those stars would not be visible in a sun-brightened sky. But wait six months! Taurus would then be visible opposite the sun in the dark night sky. Your birthday is six months away. There is a mystic appeal associated with these celestial movements and the imaginary personal traits assigned to the “signs” of the zodiac. But there is NO truth to the belief that movements of celestial objects entail meaning for human events, or ever did.

The Book of Job may have been penned at around the time of Moses. Even if it was written later, its events likely took place around the time of Abraham. The Book of Genesis, probably written by Moses, references lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide day from night, and to signal signs, seasons, days, and years. The sun swings through the twelve constellations of the zodiac once each year. Another way to describe this phenomenon is to note that the twelve constellations slowly revolve across the night sky, making one cycle in twelve months. Springtime constellations appear, for example, in the evening dark sky, slowly slide around, then appear in the same place exactly one year later to mark the onset of spring again.

Genesis 1:14 states the “lights in the expanse of the sky” act to “separate the day from the night” (the sun’s daily motion) and “to mark seasons…and years (the sun’s annual slide through the zodiac). Other functions of the sun and moon are more familiar. They “give light on the earth,” one governing the day; the other governing the night. This description of the luminaries’ function is absolutely accurate in terms of determining days, seasons, and years. The causes of the changes in terms of rotation and revolution of the earth and the structure of the universe were not understood by the ancients, but residents of that time were exceedingly skilled at making meaningful observations to help determine days, seasons, and years.

Several translations of Job 38:32 mention “Mazzaroth,” including the KJV, ESV, and RSV. This term is used in the context of astronomical constellations, and there is little doubt that the Hebrews were aware of the zodiac and its season-heralding features. Explicit scientific explanations would wait for Copernican and Galilean astronomy several millennia later.

Bible authors were aware of other celestial features such as the Pleiades, the Great Bear (Big Dipper), Orion, and several bright planets. This discussion is not meant to tout scripture as an astronomy textbook. It may help us respect the inspired thought processes of ancient Bible characters and writers and arouse admiration for their powers of observation. All such references show the ancients’ respect for the natural world and affirm their appreciation of God as Creator.

Celestial Wonders

2011-10-16T21:25:00.003-04:00

One day last week I rose very early and journeyed up my driveway for the morning newspaper in early morning pitch darkness. My body was “suffering” from jet lag, seven hours ahead of the clocks in northern Illinois. When I saw the constellation Orion blinking brightly in the southwest, I was reminded of one of the astronomy labs I had offered my young astronomy scholars for many years.

Mid-October evenings were often cool and clear. Our outdoor astronomy session was preceded by an introductory talk and demonstration on the gym floor by my pastor. He was an astronomy enthusiast and owner of an excellent tracking telescope. The evening lab session provided an appropriate diversion from the regular classroom. It was necessary to schedule the gathering on a moonless October evening when the stars shone in a dark sky and the students were not distracted by excessively cold temperatures.

My students were well versed in the difference between real and apparent motion of the heavenly bodies. At some point in their lives they had learned that the sun’s motion in the heavens is only apparent. What really moves is the earth, rotating on its axis at almost 1000 mph at our latitude, even though we can’t “feel” it. We do not feel the motion, for we are carried along with the earth at the same speed. The sun and stars, as a result, seem to move across our sky, some of them rising above or setting below the horizon in the process.

If we understand the mechanics of earth’s rotation and revolution, we realize the axis of the earth, if extended into space, always points to a single spot in the sky. Conveniently located at that spot in the sky is a famous star called Polaris (the Pole Star). The revolution of the earth, extensive on a human size scale, becomes insignificant when considered within the vastness of space. If we were to visit Earth’s North Pole we would observe Polaris directly above our head 24/7/365. This also has the effect of everyone in the northern hemisphere being able to observe Polaris at the same spot in the sky: directly toward geographic north 24/7/365.

Earth’s daily 24 hours of rotation is real motion. It results in every star in the sky appearing to revolve around Polaris once each day. Close to Polaris they travel in small circles; farther from Polaris they travel in larger circles. During the hour my students were identifying constellations and viewing various “Wow!” sights such as Saturn’s rings and Jupiter with its moons through telescopes, the apparent movement of fifteen degrees did not seem very noticeable. But the most jaw-dropping sight was yet to come. Nine hours later they returned before the crack of dawn’s early light. The sky was then completely different. Earth had rotated out from under the evening stars, revealing a different and exciting celestial panorama. The famous constellation Orion now appeared in the southwest within a beautiful star-filled region of the sky called the Great Winter Hexagon--six bright stars which frame a rich field of interesting and beautiful stars. The startling effect of seeing an entirely different sky pattern taught my students the concept of earth’s rotation more effectively than any classroom activity.

In the public school setting where I offered this annual outdoor astronomy lab, it was not appropriate to express the explicitly religious devotional sentiments those celestial marvels inspired in me. My students, however, were able to share my enthusiasm for the wonders of the natural world while studying astronomy and many other topics within our science curriculum. There are many ways in which believers are able to express their Christian worldview in a secular setting.

The Old Testament book of Isaiah contains many magnificent creation passages. Isaiah 40:26 (NIV) exults: Lift your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one, and calls them each by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing. This verse is contained in a virtually complete original manuscript of the Book of Isaiah. It was copied over a century before Christ and is now displayed in the Shrine of the Book Museum in Jerusalem. Its words were originally uttered by the prophet over seven hundred years before Christ. I was privileged to view the manuscript in person in 2009. This was an emotionally moving experience not to be forgotten.

Is It Science?

2011-10-14T22:22:00.002-04:00

“Intelligent design is not science,” many people within the science community regularly repeat. This claim has acquired considerable traction in our culture. From the science classroom to the courtroom, the intelligent design concept has been consigned instead to the realms of religion and theology. William A. Dembski, prominent proponent of intelligent design, writes in The Design Revolution (2004) that ID critics, “Rather than help assess the merit of intelligent design as a scientific project…relegate it to the ‘safe’ realms of religion and theology, where it can’t cause any trouble (which in itself is an indictment of how far theology has been downgraded in Western culture).”

The scientific community, wholly committed to methodological naturalism as an operating principle, and largely committed to philosophical naturalism as a guiding principle, is not about to honestly assess and judge the scientific merits of the case for intelligent design. Such actions would amount to a paradigm shift for that community: Scientists do not pretend to speculate on the meaning of evidence which may signal supernatural cause and effect. They fear acknowledging intelligent design may be tantamount to acknowledging an intelligent deity. When the evidence uncovered indicates the intelligent cause may be a supernatural being, the scientists demur. However, intelligent causes are frequently the subject of scientific investigations.

Let us move this discussion to the realm of the practical and experiential. My wife and I just returned from a 21-day journey to Europe. We devoted several days to each of seven major countries, visiting primarily historical sites. Detailed records exist to account for the origins of many historic structures of recent centuries. Clearly, the structures were intelligently designed. But further back in time less recorded information is available. In some instances, such as the Roman city of Pompeii, all structures were completely buried under cinders and ash by a violent volcanic eruption in 79 AD, and the thriving city was basically forgotten until the 18^th century. Archaeology uses systematic empirical, scientific methods of investigation and analysis to establish intelligent origin.

No one doubts that the methods of archaeologists are those of traditional science. The same may be said for methods of modern investigators such as forensic experts. Dembski and other intelligent design proponents such as Stephen C. Meyer make the case that the science community accepts many instances of intelligent causation in the systems they investigate. They consider their conclusions of intelligent causation to be supported by good science. In the case of natural systems displaying evidence of a supernatural intelligent designer, however, they claim the same rules do not apply.

Dembski states “The fundamental claim of intelligent design is straightforward and easily intelligible: namely, there exist natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural causes and that exhibit features that in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence.” It is unfortunate that the rules for determining a causally adequate explanation differ according to the subject under investigation.

Past Postings

2011-09-15T12:24:00.002-04:00

During your science blogger’s brief hiatus from regular posting on the Ankerberg website, readers are invited to review several series I have posted in the past. Clicking on each link below takes you to the first commentary in each series. Clicking on Newer Post at the bottom of each article progressively takes you through the series. I offer five suggestions:

THEISTIC EVOLUTION – Over thirty posts examined the foundations and implications of the belief in theistic evolution. TE has become a significant discussion issue and a source of disagreement among Christians:

http://jasscience.blogspot.com/2011/02/concordisms-counterbalance.html

INVISIBLE ENERGY – This more light-hearted series of ten posts studied the wonders of invisible electromagnetic (radiant) energy, and how knowledge of it and its application have revolutionized human experience within the past 1½ centuries. When I taught physical science, this topic was one of my personal favorites:

http://jasscience.blogspot.com/2009/10/ubiquitous-radiant-energy.html

CREATIONISM VIEWS – Over twenty-five posts examined the differences in Christian creationist beliefs. There is substantial divergence of positions concerning the antiquity of the universe and geologic events and time scales. This series does not set out to “prove” an old earth and universe. Readers may fruitfully investigate that issue for themselves. Rather, the postings examine the history of the topic within the church in the last two centuries. Primarily, we examined the events of the 20th century. Understanding this background is at least as important as understanding the various scientific and theological interpretations surrounding the topic of creationism. Here is the link to the first post:

http://jasscience.blogspot.com/2010/01/deaths-cause-and-effect.html

VIBRANT DANCE SYMPOSIUM – In October 2010, an array of Christian leaders in the field of science assembled for three days in Austin, TX. Their sometimes differing views of origins made for interesting and informative exchanges. One of the most important discussion topics was the interaction between faith and science in the church setting. My ten posts reported on the presentations of nine different plenary speakers at the symposium:

http://jasscience.blogspot.com/2010/10/vibrant-dance-symposium.html

ISRAEL - Finally, anyone contemplating a visit to the Holy Land should read as much as possible prior to visiting. You will be better equipped to understand the history of past and current events in that country. My wife and I agreed that our visit to Israel in 2009 was, in many respects, the "trip of a lifetime." I submitted seven posts on the visit to the land where Jesus walked:

http://jasscience.blogspot.com/2009/04/miracle-of-israel.html

Wonder Wasps

2011-09-13T13:31:00.000-04:00

Most children enjoy all manner of critters, including those in class insecta. They take pleasure in capturing, caressing, and controlling the creatures, at least for a brief time. Insects make up more than half of all the organisms on this earth. So it was not difficult to locate a few interesting ones in our neighborhood when our grandchildren visited the past several years--grasshoppers, walking sticks, katydids, butterflies, wasps, and ants, to name a few. Thousands of volumes have been written on the appearance and behavior of the one million insects already catalogued. For young children, however, nothing compares with informal “field studies.”

For the past several summers, great golden digger wasps have resided among the paver blocks in our driveway. Mention of the word wasps causes some people, both old and young, to shrink away or even react in unwarranted attack mode. One of Grandpa’s first tasks was to encourage a gentle, inquiring demeanor, including sitting still, being quiet, and observing thoughtfully. This strategy worked. We discovered most wasps, especially these types, known as “solitary wasps,” are not interested in attacking or stinging. After the wasp’s initial suspicion of the large animals observing her, she quickly resumed her busy excavating activity, descending her vertical tunnel only to emerge pulling out dirt and small pebbles and kicking them into a mound just outside the tunnel. The action continued until a large pile was formed.

Later we observed the wasp returning from the fields carrying anesthetized grasshoppers or katydids. After carefully laying its prey down it backed into its hole, then methodically dragged its victim down into one of the horizontal subterranean tunnels it had constructed. A single egg, deposited on each specimen it had acquired, would soon hatch into the larva stage and begin consuming the parental provision. The pupa stage remains in its sealed compartment over the winter only to hatch into an adult next summer and renew the same sequence of behaviors. In order to instill sentiments of respect for such wonderful creatures in my grandchildren, I have referred to the critters in our neighborhood with expressions such as “our” birds, “our” butterflies, or “our” wasps. In a real sense, they do belong to us.

Some may object that the predator-prey relationship manifest by such animals is a disturbing indicator of a creation gone awry. This is not the case. There is real purpose behind their existence and behavior. The digger wasp and tens of thousands of similar creatures do far more good than harm and generally should be left alone. Many function as population controllers for harmful organisms, natural recycling agents, and clean-up managers. In addition, many insects are valuable pollinators of food plants. Without them, human life would be impossible.

Evolutionary biologist Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) was incorrect on many of his proposals, but coined the concept of ecology which he defined as “the comprehensive science of the relationship of the organism to the environment.” In the last fifty years there has been a strong movement encouraging the study of ecology and how its understanding and application benefit humanity. We give God the glory for creating such a large variety of animals and plants to occupy unique ecological niches.

The great golden digger wasp is a genetically programmed animal. It is unable to “think about” adapting to a slightly different sequence of events in its quest to provision its tunnel nursery. Such a degree of adaptation is typical of higher level animals. A sense of wonder is a natural outcome of an encounter with an animal such as the digger wasp because they are naturally equipped with marvelous inherent behaviors. Other varieties of digger wasps are programmed to use slightly different strategies for removing the dirt and stones from their tunnels. Instead of pulling, other species are pushers, carriers, or scrapers. Perhaps the Creator had a sense of humor when He designed unusual physical features and programmed the animals with diverse, unique behaviors.

We usually think more in terms of the wonders of higher animals such as vertebrates—mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, and amphibians. The writer of the Book of Job wrote majestic descriptions of such animals because they were more obvious and accessible, even though far less common in terms of the quantity of species. Only about 58,000 catalogued species exist of all five vertebrates combined.

Millions of species interrelate in ways mostly beneficial to the inhabitants of our planet. Our Creator has “provisioned” earth’s environment with countless creatures, great and small, for specific purposes. The more we understand the interactions of those creatures, the more we understand why God pronounced His creation “good” and “very good.” The Creator took pleasure inspecting His works. In our surroundings and in descriptive literature, we also have multiple opportunities to recognize purpose and take pleasure in God’s created creatures.

Keep It Simple

2011-09-08T15:24:00.000-04:00

When we become adults our interactions assume a level of complexity we were unable or unwilling to assume as children. We think and interact with each other on many different topics. Three examples are religion, politics, and sometimes science. As children we absorbed the religion of our parents and for the most part, we accepted it without question. Likewise, our political awareness sprang largely from observations of our parents’ governance. Our blog concerns science, so we will include the common observation that children are budding scientists. They enjoy observing, capturing, collecting, testing what happens if…, and asking, “Why….?”

As we became older our religious, political, and scientific sophistication increased. We began to be more impacted by people outside our families and churches. In science, where discoveries are the most physically accessible, we continued to enjoy observing, collecting and inquiring. The added dimension of schooling provided more formal knowledge of facts and scientific procedures for investigating and discovering. This knowledge profits our children as they progress with their education.

Is there a downside to the acquisition of scientific knowledge in the setting of the public school? Christian creationist parents may be distressed to discover the level of indoctrination present in their children’s life science courses where evolution is the ruling paradigm. Many high school biology texts, in particular, relentlessly intone the term evolution, even when it serves no purpose for explaining the theory in the context of the discussion. Perhaps the spirit of evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky’s (1900-1975) hyperbolic utterance “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” functions as a rallying phrase in our biology classrooms. Contrariwise, mention of design theory or a creation alternative to explain even one of biology’s “big bangs,” such as the startlingly sudden appearance of bio-chemically complex bacterial earth life, could earn a teacher a trip to the courtroom for promoting religion in the classroom.

Our children’s crucial years prior to high school and college offer opportunities for parents and churches to make the most of our young folks’ fascination with details of the world of both living and non-living things. Instruction in both physical and functional design features of living things, as well as the precision and order of our physical world is within our capability, even for those children of pre-high school age. One of the finest appeals I have heard to church leaders regarding the use of science in our churches was presented by Deborah Haarsma of Calvin College during the October 2010 Vibrant Dance Symposium in Austin, TX. Here is the link to my post reporting on her talk:

http://jasscience.blogspot.com/2010/11/science-in-our-churches.html

Why do we title this post “Keep it Simple?” First, the Darwinian explanation of life and its origins complicates the simple concept that God created life suddenly on this earth, and new life forms over time, according to the Genesis account. This is far from a purely fideistic belief, because the fossil record is rife with clear indicators of sudden emergences of new and innovative forms. Evolutionary explanations of the development of life, which are diverse and often possess a high degree of uncertainty, make a simple concept difficult. We agree with philosopher William of Ockham (1285-1347), perhaps most famous for stating a principle later to become known as Ockham’s Razor: “Simpler is better.” It is also known as the Law of Parsimony. One writer claims it “shaves away unnecessary assumptions.”

Second, consider Stephen C. Meyer’s statement in his chapter “DNA, Darwin, and the Appearance of Design” from Signature in the Cell: “Even so, there is something curious about the scientific denial of our ordinary intuition about living things. For almost a hundred and fifty years, since its putative explanation by Darwinian theory, this impression of design persists as incorrigibly as ever.” Children, especially, who notice details, and ask, “Why?” or, “How did it get that way?” with sometimes wearying frequency, are satisfied with an answer such as “God created the butterfly that way and gave it those abilities.” A study of the natural world which even many atheistic scientists acknowledge having clear features of design, evokes in young an old an intuitive recognition of the work of God.

Recognition of order and design, productions of an intelligent agent, is rational to a far greater degree than a belief in random, chance events said to produce the incredible features of our cosmos and its life forms. The processes and discoveries of science have revealed this order and design. Before any of the recent discoveries involving the synthesis and structuring of proteins in body cells directed by RNA, the psalmist David exulted, as if presciently, “For you formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb. I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are your works, and my soul knows it very well.” (Psalm 139:13-14 NASB) This intuition by Psalmist David enabled him to “keep it simple.”

On Board With Science

2011-09-05T13:05:00.000-04:00

Were someone to deny the benefits of science in our modern world, he would be accused of being a crackpot. It is no exaggeration to say that science, particularly since the Scientific Revolution of the last four centuries, has changed our civilization. The previously untapped potential of science has burst upon the human race, and the benefits for mankind multiply with each passing decade. No one in the 16^th century could have envisioned what was in store; no one in the 21^st can accurately foresee what is yet to come.

The focus of this discussion will be the natural sciences—categorized generally as astronomy, biology, chemistry, earth science, meteorology, physics, and oceanography. These are also known as the hard sciences, not in terms of their difficulty, but in terms of our ability to discover knowledge in those fields empirically. We are able to quantify data through observation and experiment, using accepted scientific method.

Natural sciences are the basis for applied science. We credit applied science for the technology which powers our transportation, enables us to communicate instantly, provides medical knowledge to insure our health, affords multiple work-saving devices, supplies media entertainment, and makes quality foods of our choice available throughout all seasons. Cell phone technology was an unknown luxury a few decades ago, spurned by many with questions like, “Why do we need that?” Now we cannot imagine being out of immediate and potentially constant contact with our loved ones wherever they are. Access to instant weather radar enables us to become short term weather prognosticators. Years ago our automobiles were sometimes considered worn out at 70,000 miles. These days most well-maintained cars run like new with twice that mileage.

We need not be urged to “get on board with science” with respect to everyday applications of the hard sciences enumerated above. The implications and applications for our mundane experience are welcomed and generally non-controversial. In the area of philosophy of science, however, some controversy arises. Many members of our churches do not think very much about the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science is generally defined as concern with the assumptions, foundations, methods, and implications of science. It is in the area of implications of science and its reported findings that many people in our church pews experience problems “getting on board with science.”

Different branches of science include philosophical studies in their own respective disciplines. Among other topics, philosophers of biology spotlight evolution and its implications. Science philosophers in other branches of hard sciences may concentrate, for example, on the implications of our ever expanding technological innovations and the wide ranging effects of those rapid advances on society at large or on particular segments of society. Given that the field of biological science has especially strong appeal for those imbued with a naturalistic outlook, we would predict that philosophers in biological science would promote their findings in a manner to reflect an evolutionary view of life’s development, including humanity.

Accepting this philosophical implication has a major impact on the Christian worldview. On two fronts, conflicts exist. Evolutionary scientists have lively disagreements as they interpret their data, a predicted outcome of how normal science operates in all disciplines. More important, evolutionary scientists interpret their data within a framework of naturalism. They imply that the complex processes of life’s development--molecules to man--proceeded with God watching passively, if indeed, He exists at all.

On board with science? The phrase has an appealing ring. What young person in our day, immersed in the sea of advances brought by science, would not want to be on board with science? Proceed with caution. Interpretations of the biological data are variable, but the philosophers’ implications that ambiguous data all support naturalistic evolution do not vary. Science as a broad discipline was actively secularized by those antagonistic to religious viewpoints following the Civil War. Bioscience was part of the secularization.

As a science educator, I am enthusiastic about science and its remarkable potential. When we encourage people of any age to get on board with science, however, we must be sure we know which compartment of the vessel we are boarding.

Getting Our Attention

2011-08-31T10:14:00.000-04:00

Politicians and preachers alike have again been reminding us about the possibility of God’s direct and deliberate intervention manifest in the world’s recent weather events and disasters. Do the east coast earthquake and Hurricane Irene signal the action of God to “get the attention of politicians,” as one politician exclaimed? In personal conversations my friends have wondered if these events signal the close approach of Christ’s end times return. We must read Christ’s very own words in Matthew 24:4-14 for enlightenment.

Natural and man-caused disasters will be common during the approach of the end of the age, the Matthew 24 passage tells us. This includes wars and rumors of wars, famines, pestilence (disease), and earthquakes. Consider, however, that the approach of the “end” has been ongoing for at least 2000 years. Our Lord described events which could only be described as a general chronicle of human and natural history.

In our own neighborhood, 14 inches of rain pelted two or three counties in just eight hours one evening in late July, causing horrific damage and claiming the lives of two acquaintances in separate flash flooding incidents. A few weeks later the east coast experienced a rare earthquake and a major hurricane in little more than a week. During the past spring, terrible tornado outbreaks occurred in widely separated areas. Texas still suffers from extreme drought. Do such events signal the approach of the end more than the many tragic events on Planet Earth throughout its history?

The 2007 National Geographic Society publication Raging Forces…Life on a Violent Planet, puts the issues in perspective. Author George W. Stone begins his first chapter this way: “Our planet is a perpetually evolving, chronically violent, flame-singed, water-soaked, windswept, habitually inhospitable cosmic compound, wrapped around a molten iron heart, orbiting an atomic fireball. Our Earth home is by turns a life-sustaining sphere and a crucible of cataclysm, calamity, paroxysm, disease, disaster, and death. It always has been and always will be.” But our earth’s climate has provided superbly for human, animal, and plant life on this planet for thousands of years. It sustains nearly seven billion people, supplying them with food, mineral, and energy resources. It is a life-friendly planet, described in multiple verses in Genesis 1 as “good” or “very good.”

Individual geologic or weather events, nevertheless, can generate consternation and suffering even within the context of earth’s generally nurturing climate. Violent storms, droughts, and earthquakes have been a feature of our planet throughout its history.

China

experienced history’s most severe flood in 1931--up to three million dead. In 1815 Indonesian volcano Mount Tambora killed 92,000 in the planet’s largest volcanic eruption. The Great Atlantic Hurricane of 1780 killed 22,000 in the Caribbean.

China

’s 1976 earthquake may have killed as many as 500,000. The 1811-1812 New Madrid Earthquake was the most powerful ever to hit the

United States

. It would cause inconceivable destruction and death if it struck a populated area in our day. The 1972 Feb. 3-9 blizzard in

Iran

buried at least 4000 villagers in up to ten feet of snow and remains the deadliest blizzard in earth’s history. In the

United States

, the heat and drought of 8½ years during the 1930s caused the Dust Bowl and affected three-fourths of our country. Famine and pestilence have claimed uncounted millions throughout earth history.

The tale of thousands of other disasters, lesser than the ones described above, is one of heartbreak. But failure to focus our awareness on earth’s life-sustaining features is to commit a serious error. We must not fail to distinguish between “…the weather—a chaotic and dynamic system with immediate impact—and climate, which is the more stable and predictable average of weather when measured over time.” We must realize the benefits of looking at “the big picture.” God looked at the big picture, the completed earth, and pronounced it “very good.”

Matthew 24:15-51 continues describing the worldwide events ushered in at the time of the Great Tribulation. The verses from Matthew 24:4-14 describe conditions as they have existed from the time of Christ on up to and including our present day. Do unusual and seemingly frequent weather, geological events, famines, and pestilence signal a message from God that Christ’s return is close, or that He is “telling us something?” Perhaps that is true; perhaps it is not. We should not pretend to know the time line for His return. History shows such events have been occurring for thousands of years. At the very least the events instruct us in the operation of our physical world.

The words of Christ in Matthew 24 are true and reliable. History and statistics chronicle war threats, famines, earthquakes, persecution, executions, hate, falling away, lawlessness, betrayal, and the rise of false prophets--these have been occurring for millennia. The Great Tribulation events of an unknown future time described after Matthew 24:14 and in the Book of Revelation appear to make the events of our day seem gentle by comparison. We have general revelation--a reliable indicator of the reality of God in the beauty of the very good, functioning, fine tuned cosmos of which Planet Earth is a part. In addition we have the special revelation of God’s inspired word in scripture. We must not add or take away from either revelation.

Secularization of Science

2011-08-24T22:14:00.002-04:00

Those who forget history are destined to repeat its mistakes. In one form or another, authorship of this statement is claimed by many. In the current lively area of science/faith issues, we would do well to remember the history of how science became completely secularized well over a century ago. Knowledge of the root of modern scientists’ antagonism toward intelligent design and creationism may not make their opposition any easier to accept. That knowledge may, however, help us develop a more meaningful and appropriate response to the ubiquitous design, creation, and theistic evolution squabbles rampant today in personal and media discussions.

From 1870 to 1930 a militant struggle, encompassing every facet of public life, occurred in the

United States

. Had this struggle been characterized by armed conflict as had been the tragic American Civil War, our children’s history textbooks might contain lengthy accounts. Rather, the struggle was a conflict of religious and secular activists for institutional control and authority: Who would be most influential interpreting the discoveries of science? Would a view of theistic reality help inform us, such as belief in the existence of God and His actions as Creator of the cosmos? Or would rigid secularism prevail? Secularism is the loss of religious authority in all aspects of life. This includes social life, education, and governance, and yes, science.

Sociologist Christian Smith in The Secular Revolution details the historical battle for secularization of our society. He describes the battle as “a profound cultural revolution which transformed cultural codes and structures of thought, expectation, and practice.” Smith often uses “revolutionary” to describe the struggle.

One chapter in Smith’s volume details the capture of science by the secularizers. Contributor Eva Marie Garoutte reminds us that for more than half of the 19^th century, inductive Baconian science undergirded scientific inquiry. Baconianism was the accumulation of knowledge through refined observation. Early scientific methodologist Francis Bacon (1561-1626) had stated, “Knowledge is the rich storehouse for the glory of the Creator and the relief of man’s estate.” The practice of science through this Christian worldview lens was straightforward. The scientific laws discovered through Baconian induction “were understood teleologically as descriptions of the mediate intervention of the divine in the world,” Garoutte states. But dramatic post-Civil War changes were in store.

Over several decades the gospel of naturalism was spread publicly and militantly. As science became more popular, ambitious secularist scientists claimed the authority formerly accorded to theistic scientists. The secularization of higher education and the secularization of science went hand in hand. The positivists, who had stated that sense experience was the only path to authentic knowledge, won the day. Science, they said, could not inform us about God or any of God’s creative interventions in the cosmos. The domains of religion and science must be kept separate, they contended. The secularists insisted that science and religion did not constitute “a single, self-consistent whole,” Garoutte continues. “They were completely disjunct; they simply had nothing to say to each other."

How does this historical knowledge inform us today? Did the secular scientists make mistakes as they captured science for the “religion” of secularism? May we avoid repeating those mistakes of history? “What mistakes were made?” we may ask. For starters, consider the lack of scientific knowledge of the immediate post-Civil War decades. Gregor Mendel’s pea plant experiments were merely the start gate on man’s ever-widening journey of discovery in genetics. Scientists knew virtually nothing of the structural complexity and function of cells. Cosmology was in its infancy. Evidence for the origin of the universe did not exist. The exquisite precision of physical constants, the fine-tuning of hundreds of cosmic and terrestrial parameters, the mind-bending information contained in DNA, the protein building capability of the cell based on the DNA code…these are but a few of our discoveries.

The 21^st century mistake, more serious than the mistake made by the secularizers of science in the late 19^th century, is to disconnect science and faith after the example of Stephen J. Gould, who advocated the NOMA principle in 1997. Gould and many other science commentators have repeated the errors of the 19^th century secularizers. This is even more astonishing in light of our exponential increase in knowledge of our incredibly ordered cosmos.

My prayer is that Christians would not submit to the bondage of secularization with respect to the science/faith connection. Instead, they should prayerfully consider the most effective means to stage a counter-revolution. Eva Marie Garoutte suggests that to submit to the secularist science mentality is to submit to a “progressive” religion that makes peace with science by completely subordinating ourselves to it. Wise application of science provides countless God-gifted benefits. Early scientific thinkers saw that science and religion formed “a single, self-consistent whole.” Let us strive to recapture that vision.

Circular Science Reasoning

2011-08-21T21:30:00.000-04:00

A strong antipathy exists between those who believe in creationism or intelligent design and those who promote naturalistic evolution. Creationism and intelligent design are often regarded as anti-science positions. Science deals only with the natural; no one is permitted to infer supernatural interventions along the timeline of earth history even if the evidence points that way. Expressed belief in creationism or design amounts to religion, as opposed to science, we are reminded. Science has become secularized, as has virtually every segment of our society.

Frequent media invocation of the vaunted term science often carries with it a heavily loaded meaning. We are not told the science may be the consensus science of those who support specific agenda. Science is an umbrella term. Multiple methodologies and various schools of thought exist throughout the science profession. As valuable as the human endeavor of science is, interpretation of data and application of its conclusions are frequently subjective and agenda driven. Biased media commentators attack entire groups such as religious denominations or political parties by questioning or criticizing their attitudes toward science.

Two examples illustrate the point. Supporters of global warming theory ask why certain religious groups or political parties do not support science. Their question implies that if they did support science, they would uphold the idea of anthropogenic global warming. Further, they would also implement heroic remedies such as cap-and-trade emissions rules. Vigorous supporters of theistic evolution provide another example. They speculate that skepticism concerning evolution would vanish if doubters would just “get on board with science.”

Logical fallacies abound as arguments are made for one viewpoint or another. Reverently invoking science in discussion of issues could be an example of begging the question or circular reasoning. Whenever one of the first premises in discussion of an important issue runs along the lines of “Science tells us this,” or “No one who believes in science would think that…,” we should raise a flag of caution. The statement “Science tells us evolution is true,” begs the question. It says evolution is true because invocation of the term “science” is meant to force the listener toward a certain conclusion. Such arguments lack logical justification.

One might highlight the fallacy of this argument on other grounds, including “appeal to authority.” My theistic evolutionist friends correctly make the point that virtually the entire science profession has concluded evolution is true. Therefore, so should we, their argument goes. The scientific authority they cite, however, is questionable because their strong naturalistic bias permits no other interpretation. They would interpret all data according to their naturalistic preconceptions.

One of the most fruitful investigations Christian laymen could make involves understanding sound and cogent arguments and logical fallacies in argumentation. We are called upon both to receive and to defend belief positions. Scripture encourages believers to use their minds effectively. Among the many passages related to the principle of sound use of the gift of mind is II Tim. 1:7 (NKJV): “For God has not given us the spirit of fear, but of power and love and of a sound mind.” Many other translations of this verse indicate the need to exercise sound judgment and discipline when receiving or presenting arguments.

The Science/Faith Disconnect

2011-08-17T23:17:00.001-04:00

The title of one of our first blog posts in 2007 was “The Science/Faith Connection.” Our modern secular culture does not take kindly to the concept of a connection between science and faith. The formerly strong association between science and theology began to break down after the American Civil War.

Prior to the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, most science was still influenced by Aristotelian thinking. Science was then known as “natural philosophy.” Aristotle was an ancient Greek philosopher whose teachings about the natural world relied primarily on reason and argument. He theorized about “purpose” (telos) and derived universal rules from particular examples. Although Aristotle introduced a few ideas which may be considered scientific in a modern sense, he would have been uncomfortable with modern scientific methods.

The Scientific Revolution relied on mathematics more extensively. New scientific methods used controlled experiments to simulate events in the real world. It also initiated methods of discovery which could be duplicated by other researchers. These science experiments confirmed the operation of our world according to predictable, natural laws. Metaphysical speculation, typical of Aristotelian thinking, yielded to concrete understanding, providing scientists with solid knowledge and a sense of empowerment.

Early pioneers of the scientific method were, for the most part, theologically Christian in their worldview. They understood nature’s orderly laws as a manifestation of the authorship of God. Galileo, Descartes, Pascal, Boyle and many others openly acknowledged God’s authorship of the creation and its operation. The sense of empowerment resulting from their knowledge did not deter them from connecting the creation with the Creator. They described the precision of nature’s laws and the apparent design manifest in both living and non-living things as God-affirming. They did not hesitate to publicly acknowledge the connection between the physical universe and its Creator. Theology was often described as the “Queen of the Sciences.”

The situation changed dramatically just after the Civil War. In the early days of Darwin’s milestone publication of Origin of Species, American universities were quickly becoming secular institutions. In 1861, in one twenty-six school sample, 59% of American college presidents were clergy. That number fell to 15% by 1890 and to 0% by 1915. Theology, formerly in a complementary relationship with science, was summarily booted out of this exalted relationship. One example of the abrupt, deliberate certainty of this takeover is illustrated by an 1872 article in Scientific American: “Science, by experience made conscious of her own superiority, has lifted up her head, and in place of being the handmaid of theology, and being judged by theologians, has placed herself in position to judge the teachings of theology, and to decide which are true and which are erroneous.” It was not only education which was becoming secular; science was dragged along in the flow. The victory of secularism was sudden and unequivocal in the last decades of the 19^th century.

In modern times many would say the secularization of science is a recent phenomenon. In reality it has been ongoing for 150 years. In political imagery one might term it a coup. Science has been declared the domain of naturalism by the secularists who have captured it. Most current philosophers of science view the scientific enterprise in this light, as do the scientists themselves. These facts account for the fact that science as a profession has great appeal for those who already possess a naturalistic worldview. Their worldview is affirmed by those who have formed the “rules of the game” of science in the last 150 years.

Christians who choose to work in science professions must operate under the banner of methodological naturalism. Even when scientific methodology signals intelligent design as an explanatory option, the science community stridently denies that possibility as a subject for serious investigation. One of the best examples is the coded information in the DNA of living cells. The origin of such information has no credible naturalistic explanation because codes are always the product of a mind.

Science is skillfully insulated against any theistic intrusion. We are counseled that science is science; religion is religion. The two domains shall not meet, the edict states. The science profession in the 150 years has been remarkably successful preserving the purity of science as a totally naturalistic enterprise. Curiously, some scientists are beginning to realize that their “game rules” may rule out any possibility of truth discovery. Although the primary function of science is not instruction in theology, the pivot toward secularization, in retrospect, has been enforced with deliberate, purposeful zeal. The natural science/faith connection has been portrayed as unnatural. Many early pioneers of the Scientific Revolution viewed science and religion as a single, self-consistent whole. To them the relationship of the domains was completely natural.

Marvels of the Monarch

2011-08-12T13:58:00.000-04:00

Before putting the monarch butterfly discussion to rest for the summer, consider how we may communicate the marvels of the monarch to a young person in a gripping way. We may observe the tiny egg hatch into a tiny caterpillar, grow into a large caterpillar, morph into a gold be-jeweled chrysalis, and finally hatch into the adult end product--the magnificent orange and black aeronaut with its mysterious navigational capability. Young people may say, “That’s awesome!” A few may wonder, “How does that happen?” In the world of living things around us, there are thousands of events capable of triggering that question: How does it happen?

The monarch, with its four-stage metamorphosis, is high on the list of fascinating, wonder-provoking creatures. Its life cycle and migratory capability place in it a league by itself. But we must keep in mind that the progression of events in its body building process occurs in all living creatures, to one degree or another.

When the adult monarch places its tiny egg beneath a milkweed leaf, it deposits a complete program of instructions for fabricating a complex, functioning organism. The phrase complex, functioning organism does not even begin to reveal its physical beauty and capability. The monarch’s DNA contains a multi-million digit genetic code which directs the building of thousands of proteins, strings of amino acids which fold into specific shapes. These shapes are critical in governing the animal’s appearance and function.

An object lesson may help us understand. Resting in our family game closet is a 1500-piece jigsaw puzzle picturing a Bavarian castle. Each puzzle piece is uniquely shaped, fitting in only one specific position with respect to other puzzle pieces. Only one arrangement of pieces successfully completes the puzzle. If any pieces are misplaced or missing, puzzle enthusiasts judge the project to be a failure. But when all 1500 pieces are correctly assembled, the complete Bavarian castle comes into view.

Who designed the Bavarian castle puzzle? The image was clearly selected for its aesthetic beauty. The cut of the puzzle pieces resulted from the deliberate, intellectual process of the designer and manufacturing technologists. The pieces were precisely shaped to fit with each other perfectly and they must all be sequenced properly to result in a successful image.

In biology, this necessary, precise order of any organism’s thousands of different proteins forming functional structures is termed specificity of sequence. The adult monarch, not to mention the chrysalis, caterpillar, and egg stage, is composed of many thousands of different successfully assembled proteins--strips of amino acids strung together and folded into precise three-dimensional shapes. They match up with other specially shaped proteins to produce functional structures. Both shape and sequence of proteins, therefore, must be exactly correct in order to successfully produce an adult monarch butterfly. Success manifests itself in correct color, pattern, structure, and function of its wing, length and thickness of its antennae, anatomical features of its digestive system, and its intrinsic capability to sense environmental factors guiding the insect to a special Mexican forest, to list only a few examples.

At what age could a child begin to understand? Depending on the child’s age, the parent or teacher could use a 30-piece jigsaw puzzle to illustrate. Perhaps the child could understand that paintings of Bavarian castles do not assemble themselves. Children’s usually futile efforts to capture butterflies may help them contemplate their visual ability and knack for avoiding danger. Some children may be able to infer the absurdity of all these features and events “just happening by accident.” Jesus Christ, who healed sick folks and rose from the dead, is able to create a monarch butterfly and the multiple other wonders surrounding us. This is one of the most important lessons our children could ever learn.

Train Up a Child

2011-08-08T22:55:00.000-04:00

Forty-two second graders sat attentively for almost an hour last spring listening to my PowerPoint presentation on four stage metamorphosis and migration. To illustrate, I used my personal photo images and recounted my experiences with one of the most remarkable animals on the planet--the monarch butterfly. During the question and answer session, the seven-year-olds demonstrated repeatedly that curiosity and wonder for the natural world is innate and intense at an early age. Their questions were surprisingly insightful. It was a privilege to nourish their excitement over one of nature’s great wonders.

One of the last slides pictured two tiny monarch eggs I had found beneath a single milkweed leaf. With tender care, last summer these eggs hatched to become caterpillars, formed chrysalises, and became adult monarchs in the course of only one month. Several weeks ago a special guest, our seven-year-old granddaughter, demonstrated her skills locating these barely visible monarch eggs. After a roadside foray to a nearby milkweed patch, she presented me with several minute monarch eggs. After more than a thousand-fold weight gain, they have now progressed to the beautiful chrysalis stage. Upon hatching into adults, this generation will soon depart for a solitary

Mexico

forest site.

As the school visit drew to a close last spring, I tried to help the second graders stretch their imagination. Inside each tiny, smaller-than-a-pinhead egg is stored all the information necessary for building, step by step, a caterpillar, a chrysalis, and finally an adult butterfly. Each stage is a magnificent display of beauty and function. If the students could imagine a tiny envelope containing all the instructions necessary for building a city skyscraper, they might be able to understand in a small way how the egg contains detailed microscopic information enabling the monarch to build many thousands of proteins into very special structures and designs: the caterpillar’s organs of digestion, the shape of the chrysalis, and the beauty of the adult, not to mention how it is capable of finding its way to Mexico.

The opportunities for teaching children the works of the Creator in a home, school, or church setting by observing natural phenomena are limitless. Both living and non-living things supply such opportunities. The exultations of biblical authors with respect to living things (Job 39 and Psalm 139) and the expressions of worship and devotion for the maker and sustainer of the cosmos (Job 38 and Psalm 19) were penned long before modern scientific discoveries in the world of living things or the workings of the cosmos. In our day there are far greater opportunities to observe the micro- and macro-cosmos and to tap into the scientific knowledge gain than ever before in the history of man.

Our children are both beneficiaries and victims of these modern gains in scientific knowledge. In terms of improvements in medicine, diet, and ease of communication, to list only a few, they are beneficiaries. However, they are victims of technological overkill, their discovery process connected to point and click phenomena. Their sense of wonder and discovery may emanate from the virtual world instead of the natural world. In our increasingly secular society the connection between the natural and the supernatural, and between created things and the Creator is becoming weaker.

With respect to fostering understanding and appreciation of the natural world and how the supernatural and natural realms are not closed off to each other, consider the well known passage in Proverbs 22:6 (NAS): “Train up a child in the way he should go. Even when he is old he will not depart from it.” This verse surely relates to fostering proper patterns of thought in our children as well as the more familiar interpretations. Those thought patterns lead us to recognize the Creator in the works of His Creation.

Jesus Is the Creator

2011-08-03T16:36:00.001-04:00

The monthly email invitation to attend the science/faith organization chapter meetings always closed with the exultation “Jesus is the Creator.” As we contemplate the intersection of science and faith in this blog, we recognize that as we discover the wonders of design, whether in the fine tuning of the cosmos or in the magnificent, intricate design and functionality of living things, we are looking at the work of Jesus, the Creator.

Historian Mark A. Noll, in a Christianity Today interview entitled “The Foundation of the Evangelical Mind,” states those who rely on Christ for their personal salvation should also rely on Christ “to provide the basic standpoint from which to look at intellectual problems.” This means recognizing, Noll continues, “that everything exists because it was created by Jesus. John 1, Colossians 1, and Hebrews 1 all make the same statement: It’s not just that the Lord God in some general sense created everything. We also have the amazing statement in Colossians 1 that all things hold together in Jesus.”

When we study the natural world with this in mind we strengthen our Christian faith, according to Noll. “When responsible examination of nature takes place, the examiner discovers not just nature, but nature as created by the Son of God and sustained by Providence…The relevance of Christ for science is to realize that everything that exists in nature comes from Christ, but also that the life of Christ gives us a way of exploring nature that involves openness to what we experience. So, ‘Come and see’”.

Another Christian historian, George Marsden, wrote in The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship (1997), that the centrality of our Christian faith--that Jesus Christ is God incarnate--has an implication: “…that the supernatural and the natural realms are not closed off to each other.” Our secular society makes every effort to disconnect the supernatural and natural realms. Alas, in effect, we are counseled that the natural realm does not inform us about God.

The concept of Jesus as the Creator becomes more vital as we study the world of nature. Let us offer a word of caution. Noll and Marsden do not espouse pantheism which posits the equivalence of Deity and nature. We must guard against such errant thinking. But failing to see Jesus as the Creator of our fine tuned cosmos and our marvelously designed living things may be an error of equal magnitude. The multidimensional essence of Christ is revealed in the natural world by His agency as the Creator.

Something to Crow About

2011-07-29T12:44:00.000-04:00

Biologists who endorse neither intelligent design nor theistic acts of creation along the cosmic timeline may nonetheless marvel at the wonder of living things--their structure and their function. For those who are interested in science there are two levels of study. First, we observe the appearance and behavior of the life around us. Second, we study their biochemical characteristics, including their genetic makeup. Our inquiries trigger deeper questions about why the animals have their unique characteristics, how their inheritance is passed along, and the history of that particular species. Whether we are students of behavior or biochemistry, the living things around us provide plenteous fascination.

Residential neighborhoods provide an abundant supply of wonder-provoking creatures if we take time and effort to discover and study them. This spring I was reaffirmed in my admiration for crows, a bird some may despise. Even if we believe they are not the most beautiful members of the animal world, we may agree with the New World Encyclopedia claim: “With their intelligence and unique behavior, they add to the wonder of nature for humans.” In my youth I recall the distrust neighborhood farmers had for crows and their omnivorous penchant for consumption of some favored crops and seeds. In reality, their eating habits were probably more blessing than bane.

Last spring I observed a group of about a dozen crows in my neighborhood. They repeatedly swooped down from the taller trees in our yard and headed deliberately toward a single, unknown spot concealed in our back woods. I never located the exact spot, but I believe the area became their nursery. They were preparing a colonial nesting site. Older siblings sometimes assist in nest building and feeding of young. Over several weeks I listened to their diverse vocalizations and watched their playful mid-air jousting sessions. They were obviously entertaining themselves. We shared their joie de vivre. I observed their sedate search of our lawn and driveway for dietary variety, and watched from my office window while they tentatively drank at our birdbath. After a few weeks we heard adolescent crow vocalizations and later observed a few parental tutorials on our house roof.

Crows are an integral part of our ecosystem. They have been known to fashion and use tools and can be trained to imitate the human voice. Many years ago I captured a young specimen for a friend who wanted a unique pet. Fear of crows owing to their size and color is unwarranted. Their talents, intelligence, and usefulness should arouse our admiration instead.

Many animals manifest the quality of “soulishness.” Reasons to Believe founder Hugh Ross states, “Soulish life includes creatures in which God endowed mind, will, and emotions so that they can form relationships with members of their own species as well as with human beings. God designed soulish animals so that each kind serves and/or pleases humanity in its own distinct way.” In Genesis 1 there are three instances where Hebrew bara is used to indicate the performance of transcendent miracles. God originated something entirely new which did not exist before--the creation of the universe, the creation of soulish animals, and the creation of human beings in the image of God. Different categories of living things have one or more of these qualities: physical existence, soulish life, and spiritual being.

All living things have intricate structure and functionality. In addition, some animals have soulishness to enrich our lives and entertain us. Finally, only humans have spirit, the imago dei, the ability to discover and form a relationship with God. We are told of the transcendent creation of this quality in Genesis 1:26-27. We rejoice in the familiar verbal sequence “body, soul, and spirit” to describe humanity, the pinnacle of God’s creation activity described in God’s word.

Theologians focus on the nature of God and human efforts to relate to Him. Scientists are more interested in the physical universe and its life forms. They have difficulty grasping the nature of soulishness in animals such as our neighborhood crows. That quality is not reducible to simple descriptions of material matter and molecules in motion. Certainly, the quality of spirit, possessed only by humans, is beyond the ability of science to analyze or describe. We may, however, contemplate soulishness and spirituality and be persuaded of the reality of the origin of each in a transcendent, divine miracle.

Avian Ownership

2011-07-23T10:12:00.002-04:00

Our Creator provides multiple occasions for worship experiences. Sunday church is but one of those opportunities. Many others present themselves to the alert, thoughtful observer.

Last summer a friend visited our northwest Illinois home with her three young boys. We live in a unique geologic area called the Driftless area, so named because it was not blanketed by ice during the last episode of continental glaciation. It is devoid of glacial “drift” -- material left behind by a past glacial event; hence, we call this the “Driftless area.”

I’ve referred to our neighborhood as “bird heaven.” My young visitors were curious about a songbird insistently repeating the same four phrases on a single dead branch above our garage. The male indigo bunting was one of “my birds,” I told the boys. In a real sense, I may claim all the joy-giving birds in my neighborhood as my own. Each species has its own set of behavioral characteristics as well as its own unique physical appearance, setting itself apart from all other avian species. Information from bird manuals and web search engines plentifully supplement our own personal observations.

“My” indigo bunting was not present and singing when my young friends visited again early this spring. But lo, after a few weeks, there he was again, perched on the identical bare hickory branch as last summer. I cannot be positive this summer’s bird was the same as last summer’s resident. But if it wasn’t, it is certain that particular hickory branch has a special appeal for male indigo buntings. Their vivid, iridescent blue is visible only in sunlight. Its apparent color results from light diffraction through their feathers, not from blue pigment. Males leave nest-building and raising of the nearly helpless babies to the females while they patrol the neighborhood defending their territory, using their relentlessly repeated vocalizations.

This species does not spend the winter in the Driftless area. These migrants take off in September or October for parts known: the Caribbean or Central America. The birds use stars to migrate by night. Come spring, they know what to do. They return to their nesting grounds. I have identified many dozens of other bird species in our neighborhood. One neighbor claims to have identified 153 different. Our local conservation foundation bird watchers have exceeded that number substantially.

My personal worship experiences triggered by my neighborhood Driftless area birds are not exercises in nature worship. Intuitively, I see these experiences as occasions to worship God--the Creator and Designer. He authored the variety and beauty of our physical surroundings, both living and non-living. Skeptics pronounce this type of intuition flawed, irrational, and unpersuasive. Even the brilliant case made by Stephen C. Meyer in his 2009 volume Signature in the Cell, which carefully establishes the intelligent origin of information in the DNA of every living thing, including my own neighborhood birds, does not generate credence in those who deliberately choose to doubt. Acceptance or rejection of design theory is more a matter of personal choice than of the quality of evidence. Meyer states, “None of the alleged logical errors involved in inferring intelligent design from DNA would prevent any reasonable person from inferring or detecting the activity of intelligent agents in any other realm of experience.”

No life scientist would disagree that the structure of DNA in an indigo bunting, or any living creature is related to its remarkably unique appearance and behavior. Scientists who reject creation and design often express wonder and enjoyment, even if they reject belief in design theory and the Designer. But if their wonder and enjoyment helped them appreciate the action of the Designer instead of a naturalistic process, their experience would be enriched. Instead of worship of nature, they could worship nature’s Designer.

Dual Denial

2011-07-18T16:47:00.006-04:00

Theistic evolution (TE) is currently a hot button issue in significant circles of the evangelical community, particularly on college campuses. This could turn out to be a healthy phenomenon, or it could become a trigger for divisive strife. A healthy outcome is possible if all parties approach the discussion by committing themselves in Christian deference to a sincere search for truth.

What origins view must we abandon if we accept TE? Acceptance of TE means denial of direct agency in the design and creation process. There is strong evidence leading to the inference of direct, divine creative interventions of life on earth--fiat creation. This is a position TE adherents stoutly reject, deferring instead to a naturalistic account. Exquisite structures possessing obvious hallmarks of design, such as the basic unit of the living cell, are extraordinary for their design features alone. But in reality, every living thing on earth from simple bacteria to the human body manifests unique design structures accompanied by remarkable functionality.

It is difficult to overlook the marriage of structure and function in the world of living things. In light of the evidence, it is difficult to sidestep the conclusion of operative intelligent design. One prominent proponent of TE describes intelligent design as a ship “headed instead to the bottom of the ocean.” Intelligent design and supernatural creation have been described as irrational, or worse. Instead, what appear even more irrational are desperate statements of negativism and denial with respect to design and creation.

More troubling is denial of traditional interpretations of Judeo-Christian Scripture. Biblical creation passages explicitly use Hebrew verbs such as bara to indicate direct creative interventions by God. In many instances bara signals creation of something ex nihilo, out of nothing. But bara always signals the action of God Himself. In the view of most theistic evolutionists, passages describing creation events no longer need be viewed as God-breathed writings, but rather, as human productions. Accounts of appearances of new life forms, formerly regarded as creation events, may now be interpreted as the outcome of naturalistic evolution, they claim.

Books by self-proclaimed evangelical Peter Enns stress new concepts regarding the “problems” of Old Testament Scripture interpretation brought to light by modern biblical scholarship. Enns claims the new interpretations resolve “significant cognitive dissonance.” He refers to conflicts between consensus-driven evolutionary scientists and scientist/theologians who interpret ubiquitous design features and sudden innovations in the fossil record as instances of divine creative acts, in conformity with orthodox scripture interpretation.

Science thrives on its ability to amend its own conclusions based on new research findings and new scholarship. Evidence for design in the universe and its living things is becoming progressively stronger while evidence for organic evolution becomes progressively weaker. Nonetheless, biological scientists as a whole remain firmly committed to evolution. It is my judgment that the paradigm of naturalistic molecules to man evolution has not been shown to be true. Science historian Thomas Kuhn has written about paradigm shifts in science--gradual accumulation of anomalous data eventually resulting in the overturn of a long accepted, shared pattern of accepted beliefs within a community of scientists. We may be due for a paradigm shift in the coming years.

Most Catholics and mainline Protestants have long been on board with the evolutionary paradigm. Only in the last few years has TE become an issue in large segments of the evangelical church. The origins issue is a matter to be approached with sincere humility. What happened in history past is a matter of fact, not merely a matter of opinion. The agency of change in the past cannot be established by direct observation. Our blog has extolled the value of “inference to the best explanation” when we study the historical sciences.

We have two witnesses helping us to discover origins truth. One is the historical record of the rocks revealed by conventional scientific method. The other is inspired scripture. Pauline M. Mills penned one of the most popular worship hymns of all time in 1963, “Thou Art Worthy.” Its lyrics are based on Rev. 4:11 (KJV): “Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.”

Confronting Origins Issues

2011-07-12T14:10:00.000-04:00

Two issues lie beneath the radar of the usual ministry thrusts of evangelical churches. Nevertheless, they are important both ecclesiastically and culturally. One is the earth time scale issue. Is Planet Earth billions of years old or only six to ten thousand years old? The other issue is potentially more divisive. Did God create all living things, including man, using the theorized mechanisms of evolution? Or were the actions of creation described in Genesis supernatural interventions producing living things, including man, in novel, original divine acts?

This blog dealt with the creationism time scale issue in several dozen posts during the first half of 2010. After this series concluded, I quoted a friend who stated the time scale issue made no difference to her with respect to her Christian faith, her belief in God, her embrace of Christ as Savior, or her daily experience as a Christian. However, I went on to explain why I am keenly interested in and care deeply about the origins issue. It is a matter of fact, not mere opinion. Likewise, the evolution issue, covered extensively in our posts beginning February, 2011, is a matter of fact and not opinion. In the last fifty years, many more origins questions have moved into the realm of discoverable fact.

What about the evolution issue? Are we comfortable proclaiming that our beliefs about evolution make no difference with respect to our Christian faith? I propose that the issue of evolution has far greater importance with respect to our faith than many Christian churches wish to acknowledge. Cultural pressure, and now even pressure from within our own ranks, aggressively thrust us toward the evolutionary belief framework. We live in a culture acclimated with a prevailing evolutionary haze, especially in the fields of secular science education. We are bombarded profusely with evolutionary jargon, as if to reinforce the truth of the concept by continual repetition of its terms.

Rarely do I recall a wide-ranging, well-researched sermon on the topic of evolution in the churches I have attended. We are blessed with plentiful commentary on virtually every other topic relating to Christian faith and practice. It is as though insulating ourselves from the topic will make it vanish, or perhaps we may, at least, pretend it does not exist. Perhaps this “missing link” in our church educational offerings is commentary on the intimidating nature of science topics among many church members, if not our evangelical clergy. We must recognize that the physical realm and the spiritual realm are mysteriously unified in human existence and that both realms cry out for our discovery.

Our secularized culture has succeeded in casting the natural and the spiritual as separate spheres of human existence. In particular, the science profession has insisted on the dichotomy of the natural and the supernatural. This dichotomy enabled early scientists to remove mystical interpretations from everyday phenomena and to help us focus on the efficacy of natural laws. This was a useful focus, moving science forward in its effort to describe how the natural world functions. Nonetheless, the usefulness of this movement has been overstressed. We have enhanced the reality of the natural at the expense of the supernatural. Consequently, in the field of science, the supernatural may never inform us concerning the unity or intersection of the two realms. Stephen J. Gould’s popular 1997 essay on “non-overlapping magisteria” (NOMA) popularized this concept anew for our modern culture, but the idea had been aggressively promoted by secularists in science, sociology, and education beginning about 1870 in

America

. Our churches, therefore, do not fight only a modern battle. Rather, the struggle began with the foothold achieved by Darwinism in 1859.

The segregation of the spiritual from the natural in our culture has important implications. For example, in court cases such as Kitzmiller vs the Dover, PA school district in 2005, even the official suggestion that students may wish to examine a view other than evolution was ruled an unlawful constitutional infringement of religion on science.

For the scientist operating in our culture, there is no “interdigitation” between the supernatural and the physical events of creation in Genesis, even though secular paleontologists observe apparently sudden innovations in the fossil record ubiquitously. Moreover, clear examples of transitional speciation linking organisms in an evolutionary flow are not in evidence.

Andy Crouch, a senior editor at Christianity Today kicked off the Austin, TX Vibrant Dance Symposium in October 2010 with the imagery of “interdigitation” to illustrate the complementary relationship of faith and science. Many speakers at that conference expressed their vision that Christians should get on board (interdigitate) with science--evolutionary science. What comes to mind when we consider the pressure brought to bear on evangelical Christians to embrace theistic evolution? I propose the old saw, “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.”

Philosopher/theologian Jay Richards, Program Director of the Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture, has written a thought-provoking statement bringing into question the wisdom of marrying theism to Darwinism: “To the degree theistic evolution is theistic, it will not be fully Darwinian. And to the degree that it is Darwinian, it will fail fully to preserve traditional theism.” I call on evangelical pastors and college officials to examine the implications of this issue more deeply.

Sweeping Generalizations

2011-07-09T12:04:00.001-04:00

The issue of evolution generates considerable angst in our day, especially as it seems to conflict with biblical views. We might describe some exchanges between evolutionists and creationists, even old earth creationists, as intense if not heated. Currently there is a strong campaign directed at evangelicals, especially on our college campuses, to accept the compatibility of theistic evolution with their Christian belief system. The BioLogos organization is at the forefront of this movement. Spokespersons for BioLogos make unwarranted claims for the evolutionary paradigm. For example, Francis S. Collins, BioLogos founder, pronounces Darwin’s framework of variation and natural selection “unquestionably correct,” and claims, “Evolution, as a mechanism, can and must be true.” (emphasis mine)

In freshman college English Composition class, my professor instructed his student writers to “avoid 100% statements.” This cautionary advice was the professor’s attempt to divert his youthful scholars from the fallacy of “sweeping generalization.” Are science professionals prone to generalization fallacies in reporting some of their findings? As in most human endeavors using the power of persuasion, yes, they are.

The common genetic information system among all living things bespeaks the relatedness and common ancestry of all life, evolutionists forcefully proclaim. There are similarities in the genomes of divergent species. At first blush this may seem to make sense if one finds all naturalistic explanations appealing as most scientists do, especially in bio-science. They perceive genetic commonality through the lens of naturalism, hence, evolution. Creation and design proponents see the commonality as evidence of the work of a designer repeatedly re-using common design strategies. It is certain that neither viewpoint offers a standard of proof acceptable to those holding the opposite belief.

Ultimately, origins questions yield primarily to abductive inference, cornerstone of the historical sciences: We must ask, “What is the best explanation for what we observe?” Does any operational (experimental) or observational science unequivocally provide examples of mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow which result in examples of macro-evolutionary speciation, not merely micro-evolutionary adaptation? If not, should evolutionists tout their view as unquestionably correct, and further claim that evolution, as a mechanism…must be true?

The need for an open minded truth search takes precedence over the need to promote sincerely held belief preferences or philosophical commitments. We must commit to studying and understanding not only the evidence which supports our own view, but also the evidence produced by those who disagree with us. Without this pattern of action we merely talk past one another.

The Apostle Paul’s exchange with the Athenians on Mars Hill (Acts 17) is a model for our interactions with those holding divergent views. Had we been present for that conversation, it is unlikely we would have observed a rancorous approach by the apostle. He reasoned with them about matters of eternal significance, using his observations of their devotional icons and their knowledge of the universe as entry points for the discussion. We imagine the apostle’s gracious manner enabled him to confront his listeners in a meaningful search for truth. Instead of sweeping generalizations, Paul’s discussion was reasoned and respectful. The narrative records responses ranging from sneers to an expressed desire to hear more. Some even “joined him and believed.”

Belief Preferences

2011-07-04T18:16:00.002-04:00

At the Vibrant Dance Symposium in Austin, TX in October 2010, one of the plenary speakers, a theistic evolutionist, stated there was likely a naturalistic explanation for one of the “big bangs” of biology, namely, the Cambrian Explosion. This geologically sudden proliferation of dozens of diverse body plans is a profound enigma to paleontologists. The same speaker expressed confidence that even the more remarkable origin of life question may be solved within a naturalistic scenario. Life’s origin remains a perplexing mystery to those looking to avoid consideration of a supernatural creation event. Some have posed a minimum requirement for a theistic evolutionist: belief in only two supernatural miracles--the creation of the universe from nothing, and the origin of life.

Within the spectrum of beliefs held by theistic evolutionists, many accept New Testament miracles, including the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. Some accept Old Testament miracles. On the other hand, many abrupt appearances of new life forms over past geologic eras are dismissed as naturalistic events.

Theistic evolutionists reverently describe science as if it were an entity of truth. Science is a divine gift which helps us to discover truth about our God-ordained natural world. But science is not an entity of intrinsic truth. Science is a complex and variable means of knowledge discovery subject to the effects of changing methodologies, diverse philosophies, various worldviews, and the power of consensus. This analysis may seem to smack of an antipathy toward science. In reality, my concern is the abuse of science. There are several categories of scientific investigation, including evolution, which are often overly driven by the power of consensus and particularly affected by biased methodologies, philosophies, and worldviews.

Literature on traditional scientific method describes inductive, deductive, and abductive reasoning, the framework around which scientific method is built. Written manuals describing scientific method do not include the variable factors mentioned above. Many laypeople are unaware how these factors affect the reporting of scientific consensus. They do not understand the powerful human element in science. The question is not only, “Is evolution true?” One must also ask, “How does the human element affect the scientist’s judgment?”

Theistic evolutionists encourage fellow Christians to “Get on board with mainstream science.” They claim the scientific community has pronounced evolution to be true and to permeate every sphere of our existence: “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” the mantra drones. This belief preference, however, contradicts the guidelines of some very strong principles of scientific methodology. For example, evolutionary science, a historical science, depends primarily on abductive inference--selection of the best explanation from competing explanatory alternatives. The evolutionary literature presents many competing hypotheses to explain biology’s big bangs, described by evolutionary biologist Eugene V. Koonin as “sudden emergence(s) of diverse forms at a new level of complexity." A careful reading of evolutionary literature proposing the various competing hypotheses leaves the reader bewildered and confused. Clearly, no “best explanation” surfaces. Instead, many un-testable competing hypotheses emerge. Some are creative proposals, some are speculative, and some are bizarre and incredible. Most of them achieve the attentive praise of evolutionists and are often enthusiastically labeled “good science.”

Within the strict limits of scientific naturalism, theistic evolutionists may express pride that they are endorsing “good science.” But are they able to instill confidence that their beliefs are really true? Do they feel comfortable promoting their personal belief preference that hypothetical Darwinian mechanisms such as mutation and natural selection have generated the gripping beauty and functionality of our bio-diverse world?

Some of my theistic evolutionist friends lament the lack of “original research” by intelligent design and creationist scientists. Perhaps they hope to discover that fiat creation is somehow akin to a naturalistic process. In Matthew 12:13 Jesus instructed the man with a shriveled hand to stretch it forth. The hand “was completely restored, just as sound as the other.” If we believe this miraculous account, we must believe the molecules and atoms in the man’s hand were supernaturally reorganized. In turn, if we believe in the reality of this miraculous healing, it should not be difficult to explain the miracles of the creation of the universe, life’s first appearance, the Cambrian explosion, or the creation of man in God’s image. From the standpoint of abductive inference, a foundational support pillar for the operation of historical science, supernatural miracles certainly meet the criterion of “best explanation.”

A Startling Claim

2011-06-28T13:08:00.002-04:00

The latest BioLogos book project publication The Language of Science and Faith (2011) makes a startling claim. Authors Karl W. Giberson and Francis S. Collins assert, “There has been no scientific discovery--not one--which has suggested that evolution is not the best explanation for the origin of species.”

We may comprehend this declaration only if we understand that science, as defined by the contemporary professional science community, investigates only naturalistic phenomena. Consequently, scientists may only reach a naturalistic conclusion with respect to any subject under investigation. The claim by Giberson and Collins, therefore, has constricted truth value and applies to a limited scope of reality. Many people do not understand this self-imposed restriction under which scientists work: the possibility that supernatural creation events occurred along earth’s historical timeline cannot even be considered, notwithstanding the strong evidence in its favor and weaknesses in the case for evolution.

Craig Rusbult, Editor of the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) website for Whole Person Science Education, has written on these issues with insight and passion. He writes, “If design was involved in the origin of a feature but we ignore this possibility (by refusing to consider the evidence for design), a false conclusion is unavoidable.” Rusbult has clearly stated his view that on rare occasions scientists using “open science” would be willing to consider an explanation which does not force them to a naturalistic conclusion. He further explains that in “closed science” the opening assumption in any investigation is that all phenomena in the natural world are and have been natural occurrences. By this standard the science profession practices “closed science.”

Evolutionists pronounce proposals of creation and design “unscientific” for the reasons given above. For many laypersons, this statement has traction. Who would not want to be riding the bandwagon of science in this modern culture? In reality, the creationist conclusion is supported by well established methods of science discovery. Arguably, evidence for evolution is sometimes poorly explained by the “plurality of processes and patterns” swirling through the evolutionary research literature like a winter blizzard.

Some confusion in the public mind relates to the sort of “scientific” evidence offered to support evolution. Much modern science is called “operations science,” which discovers and applies physical processes taking place today. The confidence exuded by evolutionists is not grounded in the findings of operations science. Studies of topics such as evolution, the age of the earth, and distant geologic processes which molded Planet Earth, are more generally included within historical science. The methods of discovery are not identical to operations science. Historical science attempts to determine ancient conditions, events, and causes, and endeavors to explain present conditions by citing past causes for conditions existing today.

Nineteenth century historians William Whewell (1794-1866) and Charles Peirce (1839-1914) also suggested that we may discover ancient events and conditions by using clues and facts from the present. We “calculate backwards” from “manifest effects” in the present, enabling us to describe and explain past events. Peirce was a pioneer in describing “abductive reasoning,” particularly useful in the study of historical sciences. Abductive reasoning is defined as “inference to the best explanation.” Abductive reasoning often enables us to explain the cause of the phenomenon under investigation. Further, scientists desire to explain the observed phenomenon in the best possible way, ideally narrowing down the explanation to a single cause from several competing hypotheses.

Does evidence from the historical sciences, such as the repeated, explosive diversification of life forms, prove creation? Or does the fossil record of change over time prove evolution? Even though I come down firmly on the side of special, divine creation events, we recognize this discussion is woefully inadequate considering the complexity of the evidence. Thousands of authors have weighed in. Most non-scientists know little about the issues. The volume of literature is overwhelming and potentially confusing. Some authors write from a secular perspective. Others write from a Christian perspective. Scripture encourages us to “Test everything. Hold onto the good.” (I Thes. 5:21 NIV) Standing apart from these scientific proposals are creation narratives of the scripture text, beginning with Genesis 1:1: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”

No Debate Allowed

2011-06-22T21:01:00.004-04:00

One popular method of elevating the case for evolution and diminishing the case for creationism/ID is to deny any debate exists or to deny there are even grounds for a debate. This method comes from some of the same ideologically mindlocked cheerleaders for evolution who sling epithets such as IDiots at the advocates of intelligent design. The blogosphere is plentifully populated with this sort of enthusiast. This public harangue is effective among many evolution supporters. Increasingly, however, they are being exposed as merely implementing damage control. The phenomenon reminds us of advice supposedly given to a preacher whose wife was asked to proofread his sermon. Next to one paragraph, she wrote, “Weak point--Shout loud.”

Is there warrant for debate over the truth of evolution? Yes, there is. With increasing frequency, even some evolutionary scientists are raising questions about long-held evolutionary beliefs. In an interesting interaction between Steve Newton, Programs and Policy Director for the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) and Casey Luskin, staff member at Discovery Institute, these issues were highlighted. Luskin quotes Eugene V. Koonin: ...The modern synthesis of evolution “has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair.” Lesser known biologist Gunter Thiessen states, “It is dangerous to raise attention to the fact that there is no satisfying explanation for macroevolution.” Science philosopher John Dupré says, “The evolutionary debates with creationists have also undoubtedly tended to discourage admission that major conceptual issues about evolution remain unresolved.” Nonetheless, evolutionists are intensely loyal to the creed set forth decades ago by evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

Topics such as horizontal gene transfer (HGT), evo-devo, and gene expression do not help make clear to the public the simple idea that we are supposedly descended from a single-celled ancestor. These and many other complex topics are always presented as mechanisms of evolution in the available reams of literature. Newer proposals that the straightforward concept of evolution is now, instead, “The plurality of processes and patterns,” do not make evolution easier to explain or defend. The debunked ideas of gradualism and transitional species, and questions about the validity of idealized trees of life (TOL) adorning our biology textbooks, are the new elephants in the room. Perhaps the largest elephant in the room is the obvious fixity of species existing between the so far poorly explained sudden appearances of major biological transitions and new life forms.

Evolutionary biologists are uncomfortable when questions are raised by creationists and believers in ID. They publicly intone that, “There is no debate over evolution among scientists,” and that creationist and ID proposals are simply “bad science.” Among themselves, however, evolutionary scientists continually debate the hypothetical mechanisms of evolution. Legitimate science questions are publicly cast aside as having a social, political, or religious agenda. Good practitioners of science welcome robust debate on scientific questions. Evolution should be questioned on its scientific merits. The claim that there is no debate is a false claim made by naturalistic and theistic evolutionists alike.

Biology's Big Bangs

2011-06-18T16:29:00.004-04:00

A well known sports announcer frequently punctuates his NBA basketball broadcasts with the exclamatory “Bang!” Mike Breen repeats this amusing figure of speech to report a successful shot from “beyond the arc,” taken from a minimum distance of 22 ft to 23 ft 9 in. A basket from there scores three points for the team. “Bang!” highlights the drama of the event and the sudden change it sometimes produces in the game’s direction. This exciting shot contrasts with “free throws” which are worth only one point and result in a slow change of score.

The “Bang” sports metaphor is reminiscent of the “Big Bang,” theorized to be the Genesis 1:1 initial universal creation event bringing forth the existence of time, space, matter, and energy. In 2007 Eugene V. Koonin, Senior Investigator for the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) wrote a peer reviewed article in Biology Direct entitled “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution.”

Koonin’s thesis poses an analogy “to the scenario of the origin of universes in the eternal inflation version of modern cosmology.” The term inflation in this context refers to the theorized “exponential expansion” in the earliest moments of our universe’s existence, and explains certain characteristics of our presently still-expanding universe as it has unfolded since that initial moment.

In the scope of the non-scientist’s inquiry into the truth of evolution, these esoteric issues are obscured in a blizzard of propaganda, such as, “Get on board with science!” Most laymen have no idea what that emotionally charged imperative means, because many origins issues are concealed within a philosophical smokescreen. That same smokescreen hides much embarrassing data about the history of life on earth--data which deflect us from the evolutionary model and tilt us instead toward belief in a supernatural creation model.

Dr. Koonin’s article is a candid admission of a startling historical phenomenon--a prickly problem evolutionists prefer did not exist. Major changes in earth life did not occur gradually; they occurred suddenly with no intermediate forms. This is a hallmark of the entire fossil record of past life on this earth--not a characteristic of theorized evolutionary sequences but rather, a predicted consequence of creation events. It is an unparalleled mystery from the standpoint of evolutionary theory. Quoted below is Koonin’s introductory paragraph:

Background: Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin’s original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life’s history, the principal “types” seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate “grades” or intermediate forms between different types are detectable…”

How did the scientific community receive this startling confirmation of data long recognized but not much discussed in the evolutionary context? That depends on the individual worldview of members of that community. Fazale Rana from Reasons to Believe and Paul Nelson on Michael Behe’s Uncommon Descent blog, among others, highlighted Koonin’s article from a creationist perspective. The evolutionary community reacted with stunned disbelief, exemplified by self-described “skeptical biochemist” Lawrence A. Moran in his Sandwalk blog. Committed evolutionists have little trouble adhering to their paradigm.

Is Eugene V. Koonin a closet creationist? No, he is not. He is a committed evolutionist as are almost all in the field of bioscience. Edward O. Wilson, Harvard biologist, has stated, “People would rather believe than know.” Wilson’s statement makes an interesting study as we remember that the root meaning of science is knowledge. Readers are encouraged to make a deeper study of the precepts of belief, knowledge, and truth and how they relate to each other in terms of our core beliefs about reality, including creation events and earth history.

Family Secrets

2011-06-14T23:59:00.002-04:00

Children sometimes reveal sensitive family secrets, to the consternation of their parents. Seasoned professional scientists also sometimes reveal information to the public which may be regarded as “inside knowledge,” tantamount to a family secret. Stephen J. Gould (1941-2002) surprised the scientific world with frequent, candid admissions of an unexpected mystery in evolutionary theory. Gould was a prolific popular science writer and commentator. He was a fascinating figure with broad knowledge, including sports and music. But he is best known for his views on biological evolution and revealing to the public a profound evolutionary anomaly.

Several decades ago Gould, with colleague Niles Eldredge, disclosed that the fossil record of earth life reveals exceedingly long periods of changelessness (stasis), followed by the sudden appearance of new species, with no intervening transitional forms. Gradualism does not characterize the fossil record. Darwin had also noticed this pattern and feared his theory would be undermined without gradualism. Today’s evolutionists are forced to hypothesize creatively regarding this phenomenon. Gould and Eldredge termed it “punctuated equilibrium.” Some evolutionists have described PE as “not a well developed theory.” Divergent explanatory theories abound.

Gould was an evolutionist who subscribed to Darwinian views of changes in life forms resulting from mutation, natural selection, and plenty of time. Nevertheless, he chose to highlight PE. This “fits and starts” phenomenon has significant implications as we judge the degree of certainty ascribed to the evolutionary process. It is vital that truth seekers acquire a clear vision of what the record of the rocks demonstrates. To that end, following are a few quotes from Stephen J. Gould:

Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear.

In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.”

The Burgess Shale teaches us that, for the history of basic anatomical designs, almost everything happened in the geological moment just before, and almost nothing in more than 500 million years since.

Every paleontologist knows that most species don’t change. That’s bothersome…brings terrible distress…They may get a little bigger or bumpier. But they remain the same species and that’s not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis.

The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.

All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between the major groups are characteristically abrupt.

The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record.

Darwin’s argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution.

Stephen J. Gould never abandoned his faith in Darwinian evolution even though the consistent pattern of stasis followed by sudden change is repeatedly manifest as a defining signature in the fossil record. Many evolutionists have stated their preference for a gradualistic scenario, but must devote their energies to producing imaginative hypotheses to account for the surprising anomaly. Faced with the plausibility of recognizing creation events as a causally adequate explanation they are ruled instead by their unwavering commitment to naturalism.

The Evolution Inference

2011-06-09T19:48:00.002-04:00

Belief in evolution is supported by a well established reliance on inference. Without the power of inference, the discipline of science and many other human inquiries would skid to a halt. The definition of inference ranges from drawing fairly certain conclusions based on deductive and inductive reasoning to drawing conclusions based on evidence which merely produces some degree of probability. The degree of certainty is variable.

In origins studies it is widely agreed that life forms have changed over earth’s long history. This change is observed in the fossil succession and the change is termed evolution. In this sense, and in this sense only, evolution is a fact. Evolutionists attribute the changes entirely to naturalistic causes. How the mechanisms of naturalistic evolution work has been in considerable dispute, even among naturalistic evolutionists. Whether the mechanisms of evolution (mechanisms of change) result from natural or supernatural processes is, of course, the subject of even more heated disputes between naturalists and theistic creationists.

Old earth creationists do not deny that many changes in life forms have occurred from the earliest one-celled bacterial life (prokaryotes) to the present multiplicity of life forms, encompassing all complex, multi-cellular creatures, mankind included. A surprising, under-reported fact is that numerous abrupt changes in the fossil sequence occur after lengthy periods of stasis--no change. Gradual changes are not in evidence. Evolutionists and creationists alike see the same abrupt changes: there are virtually no transitional forms in the fossil record. Evolutionists infer a naturalistic process; creationists infer supernatural creation events.

Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002), popular and influential evolutionist, incurred the wrath of fellow evolutionists beginning in the 1970s by stating the surprising reality of this step-like, “fits and starts” progression of the fossil record repeatedly and explicitly. He wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.”

How does the evolutionary science community deal with this “trade secret?” They dismiss it as unproblematic. Gould and Niles Eldredge in 1972 proposed “punctuated equilibrium” as a descriptive term with respect to the apparent “fits and starts” character of progressive changes in the record of the rocks. But the descriptive value of punctuated equilibrium far exceeds its explanatory value. Most people who choose to believe in evolution also choose to infer that the fundamental processes of mutation and natural selection driving small changes (microevolution) in isolated populations eventually result in the production of a new species (macroevolution). Essentially, they agree with Darwin who argued that small amounts of change over a short time could produce large amounts of change over a long time.

Theistic and naturalistic evolutionists examine the fossil record and infer that the entire array of earth life was brought forth in an undirected, naturalistic process. The tree of life has one trunk, they claim; all species are related; the common origin of all earth life is inferred. At present, the commonality of DNA sequences of genomes across species causes them to infer the evolutionary relationship of all earth life. Genome similarity is the modern basis for the evolution inference.

Genome similarity is far from proof that evolution has occurred. Exciting research in this field is ongoing. Evolutionists draw confident inferences that evolution has occurred. Creationists look at the ever present past record of stasis, extinction, sudden appearance of new forms, and non-existence of intermediate forms, and make inferences that many supernatural creation events have occurred. Diverging inferences should be approached by the stakeholders with the greatest of humility and a request for divine wisdom.

Consider the advice of the Apostle James: “If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him.” (James 1:5 NIV)

Degree of Certainty

2011-06-04T13:32:00.011-04:00

The choice between belief in evolution and belief in creation is a choice of utmost importance. It possesses importance on multiple levels, from personal to cultural. The importance of our beliefs about evolution and creation cannot be overstated.

Stakeholders in the discussion lobby for acceptance of their views. We often hear references to the “court of public opinion” or the “jury being out.” In a legal setting, lawyers must persuade the judge or jury of the truth of the case in order to secure a favorable verdict for their client. Along the way there are many types of arguments brought to bear which have little or nothing to do with truth or falsity. The case for the truth of evolution has been tried energetically ever since The Origin of Species burst upon the scene in 1859. According to a large throng of analysts, the verdict has been settled long ago. The frequent voicing of such a statement is but one example of a logical fallacy, a reasoning error often overlooked in the argument process, whether in personal persuasion or in a courtroom.

Logical fallacies associated with the case for evolution are extremely common. We must acknowledge that logical fallacies in the case for creation also prevail. One need only watch a few interview news shows to affirm the fact that logical fallacies--errors in reasoning--abound in human experience. The abundance of these errors may be an indicator of a “missing link” in our educational system. One of my fondest recollections as a teacher involves a wonderful group of children with whom I spent a memorable semester. Students in our school for whom the curricular offering of “French” was deemed academically inappropriate, were assigned a class clumsily dubbed “Non-French.” It was soon more appropriately labeled “Skills.” Having some freedom to choose the curricular topics, I decided to offer “Logic for Beginners.” Surprisingly, the enthusiastic students loved the course, including the Venn diagrams and syllogisms. They compassionately tagged their more adept classmates in the French class “Non-Skills.”

There are several dozen logical fallacies (errors of reasoning), many of which permeate the evolution discussion as well as other weighty discussions. One would be hard pressed to catalog all of these fallacies with respect to any one topic. Many fallacies relate to neglect of the actual truth value of an argument in deference to explicit or subtle pressure to accept the argument on other grounds. For example, in the bandwagon fallacy, people are urged to “get on board” with an idea, because so many other people are on board with the idea. This informal fallacy is no better or worse than a formal fallacy. All fallacies are problematic because they often have the appearance of being good arguments. Closely related to this fallacy are appeal to emotion, appeal to consequences, and appeal to force.

The case made for evolution is rife with hyperboles. The BioLogos Forum publishes hundreds of blog posts under the banner Science and the Sacred from many different authors, mostly supportive of theistic evolution. Recently I read a post from Michael L. Peterson, newly appointed to the faculty of Asbury Theological Seminary as Professor of Philosophy of Religion. He stated “The findings of the sciences have converged more strongly on the truths of Evolution, such that it now has as high a degree of confirmation as anything else we know in science.” Having studied multiple issues in the field of science, including issues related to origins theories of evolution, creation, and intelligent design, I can report that there are numerous conclusions in science confirmed with far more certainty than the paradigm of evolution. I can also report that many of the “certain” science conclusions related to evolution are, indeed, not confirmed with any such degree of certainty.

Once more we must make the distinction between what science says and what truth is. We must make a bold attempt to open-mindedly discover possible errors in our methods of discovery, in our logic, in our reasoning, in our methods of argument, and in how we use our powers of persuasion. The responsibility to discover what is certain and true is our God-gifted ability and responsibility.

Truth and Theistic Evolution

2011-06-01T13:28:00.000-04:00

The newest book promoting theistic evolution to the Christian creationist community is The Language of Science and Faith (2011) by Karl W. Giberson and Francis S. Collins. Until recently both scientist/authors were active in the BioLogos organization. The new volume is billed as a “BioLogos book project.” Once again the findings of science are invoked to support the concept of evolution as God’s method of bringing every living thing, including humans, to its present state.

Giberson and Collins, in their first chapter, propose a set of three simple, interlinked propositions defining evolution as a formal theory. It is worthwhile to review basic evolutionary theory. Following are verbatim quotes: (1) All current species have descended from common ancestors (2) Changes in species occur gradually over time as a consequence of mutations (3) Species change when beneficial mutations allow certain of them to have more offspring than others.

The authors then set forth a familiar, classic example of evolution in action. They cite an example of “artificial selection”--man’s long history of selectively breeding many different varieties of dogs in order to bring out various desired traits. Their account exemplifies what is theorized to happen by chance in nature without any input from man. Such changes occurring in nature are termed “natural selection.” In theory this selection process slowly brings about changes such as those accomplished over time by deliberate selective breeding of dogs. In nature over the long term, a new species is produced, according to the theory. Production of a new species is called macroevolution.

Use of dog breeding as supporting evidence for evolution is mystifying. There is a surprising omission in the citation of selective dog breeding by Giberson and Collins. The authors are impressed with the difference between a dachshund and a Great Dane, but at the end of the day, they remind us, they are still both dogs. The authors do not remind us that left to themselves over several generations, without heroic breeding efforts the dogs will slowly return to their original appearance. In other words, no macroevolution occurs.

The following quote (p. 45) is reproduced in its entirety because it is significant to their primary case:

There is a natural commonsense intuition that species are, on average, stable and unlikely to evolve into a new species. So, while small, microevolutionary changes certainly occur, there seems to be little evidence for large-scale, macroevolutionary changes. Scientists, however, make the confident claim that macroevolution is simply microevolution writ large: add up enough small changes and we get a large change. So what is really going on here?

The important, appropriate, and entirely reasonable question to ask is, Does the uncontroversial fact of microevolution provide evidence for the complex and controversial claims of macroevolution? In fact, we believe this particular question is really at the heart of the entire controversy over evolution.

We begin our response by noting that the distinction between micro and macro evolution is arbitrary. Every step along an evolutionary pathway is, in fact, a tiny, micro evolutionary change…

In other passages we read a few paragraphs under headings “Proof that Evolution has Occurred” and “Proof of Macroevolution?” These passages refer to the commonality of DNA sequences across various species of living things, especially genes purported to be “broken.” The “genes that are broken” reference is reminiscent of an idea evolutionists frequently used a few years ago to disparage ideas of creation and intelligent design--so-called “junk DNA”--leftovers from common ancestors. This term is not used even once in The Language of Science and Faith, because many non-coding sequences and other features of DNA whose functions were previously unknown are now known to have function. Therefore, some of the best evidence formerly cited as evidence for evolution has now been demonstrated not to be persuasive evidence.

The science supporting evolution is outlined in a brief 23 pages and is summarized above. The remaining chapters deal with other topics and read like an inspirational philosophical and spiritual pep-talk. I found some of the conversation useful. But if I were searching for an answer to the question, “Is Evolution True?” I would be unconvinced. If I were inclined to be receptive to the need to get on board with science, BioLogos-style, I might be impressed. To be fair, I realize this volume was not meant to offer exhaustive evidence.

The process of arriving at a scientific answer is enormously complex. Generally, this is not a weakness of science, but rather, a strength. The multidimensional complexity inherent in the process of science discovery also offers multidimensional opportunities for errant conclusions. By the admission of scientists, science is a subjective enterprise. Science is not an entity of truth in itself, but it helps us to discover truth. The question we should ask ourselves as we read multiple volumes on the important topic of origins is not, “Am I on board with science?” Instead, we should ask, “Am I on board with truth?”

Dubious Science

2011-05-30T13:26:00.001-04:00

The BioLogos Foundation has burst on the scene, self-described as “the leading organization dedicated to the task of showing that the natural sciences and Christianity can co-exist in a manner that is mutually supportive—each enriching the other, in a harmonious relationship.” The Foundation is also one of the leading, high profile advocates of theistic evolution. Francis S. Collins was the moving force for BioLogos’ formal launch in 2009, inspired by the intense interest generated by his 2006 publication of The Language of God (A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief). It was supported by a grant from the Templeton Foundation. Collins had become famous for spearheading The Human Genome Project, completed in 2003. It mapped the entire array of genes of the human genome from a physical and functional standpoint, marking one of the greatest scientific achievements of all time.

The peaceful co-existence and harmonious mutual enrichment of the spheres of science and faith is a noble, exciting objective. BioLogos deserves praise for pursuing this mission. I am energized by such a lofty goal and saddened by the perception of conflict between science and Christian faith. Many church leaders and church members have refrained from using science as a formal apologetic tool. Some even shy away from using object lessons from the world of science, thinking that by avoiding these subjects they could be more faithful to scripture only, an approach they deem safer and less controversial. As a former science educator, sometimes I may have overplayed my devotion to the apologetic force of science. The campaign at this level is not without risks.

What could be the objection to an organization such as BioLogos, whose stated goals have been articulated so brilliantly by its leaders? Francis S. Collins, having claimed evangelical Christianity as his personal belief system, has wielded enormous influence among some members of that community, if not in the wider community of Christians and in the secular world. As a prominent scientist, he wields enormous power in spreading his beliefs, but not without risk. Professional athletes who use their forum of fame to promote their faith run a similar risk: their fame could corrupt the substance of their message. They could even promote a false message. The doctrines promoted by people of high achievement sometimes bear little relationship to the truth of their message. This is illustrated by the fascination of the public with what celebrities do and say.

Francis S. Collins has earned the right to be a spokesman for science. Science, as an all-inclusive term, however, is one of the most misunderstood subjects in our society. If someone asked me how I view science, I would preface my answer by saying my personal career as a science educator was entirely satisfying. Then I would say that as a Christian, I view the findings of science to be powerfully supportive of my theology: Creation sings the glory of the Creator. My added caveat, nonetheless, may surprise my listeners, perhaps not seeming to play tunes from the same musical manuscript: Like any human enterprise, the practice of science is often impelled by the subjectivity of its practitioners; it is often overly driven by philosophical considerations; its conclusions may be channeled by a personal or group agenda; its findings are often filtered through the worldview of the scientists; its pronouncements are overly driven by consensus.

BioLogos Forum is one of the most high profile organizations promoting theistic evolution. Their brand of theistic evolution may be described as “extreme Darwinism” or the “strong evolutionary hypothesis.” Briefly reviewed, that means every creature, including humans, descended from common ancestors through naturalistic processes. Transcendent creation events (the miraculous origin of a species, including humans) or intelligent design as an explanation of the natural order is not part of the BioLogos organizational belief. Man himself descended from the simplest LUCA (last universal common ancestor) following the origin of life about 3.8 billion years ago. The life origins process BioLogos describes is a naturalistic process, and does not differ from the processes described by naturalistic, secular scientists in any respect.

In previous posts I have explained the naturalistic foundations of any belief in evolution, whether totally naturalistic or included under the banner of theism. In upcoming posts I will further review why I feel theistic evolution, and indeed, any evolution, is dubious science, even though it is embraced by virtually the entire scientific community. I will explain why numerous findings of secular science support a creationist perspective: sudden and unexplained appearances of diverse forms and features at a vast new level of complexity, with no antecedents in the fossil record. There is no satisfactory gradualist, evolutionary explanation for this phenomenon, so prevalent in the fossil record. These facts provide a prominent caution signal as we consider the claims of evolution under the banner of science.

Intelligent Design's Ancient Roots

2011-05-25T14:17:00.003-04:00

Stephen C. Meyer, author of Signature in the Cell, has refocused attention on whether Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific proposal with roots in the early history of modern science. He points to many early scientists whose investigations were motivated by recognition of design features.

We hear incessant claims from secularists that ID is neither science nor scientific. These claims emanate from a variety of sources including theistic evolutionists. Meyer argues persuasively that both origins (historical) and operational (experimental) sciences deserve equal billing as scientific investigations. Charles Thaxton, an early proponent of design, offered these ideas decades ago. Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould also claimed that evolution, a historical origins science, should be acknowledged as science because its scientific “testability” was tantamount to its “explanatory power.” Gould, of course, offered very different explanations of origins than Intelligent Design proponents. People who choose to believe in evolution have found Gould's arguments persuasive.

Intelligent Design also has powerful explanatory power, inherent in the term itself. But ID does not presuppose naturalism. The modern scientific community excludes it as a scientific proposal on these grounds. A large segment of the public accepts the edict of the community of scientists on the matter, obediently following them in painting ID with the brush of non-science, or even pseudoscience. Theistic evolutionists also forcefully deny Intelligent Design. Francis S. Collins, in his popular book The Language of God, zealously promotes theistic evolution to the community of creationist evangelical Christians. He says, “One does not invoke intelligent causes when undirected natural cause will do.” He opines that, “Intelligent Design is ironically on a path toward doing considerable damage to faith,” and follows that with his claim that, “It is headed instead to the bottom of the ocean.”

There are other questionable assertions made by Collins in The Language of God. He states, “While ID is presented as a scientific theory, it is fair to say that it was not born from the scientific tradition.” Unfortunately, Collins does not search back far enough to discover the roots of inspiration for the development of modern science in the early years of the Scientific Revolution. Since then, scientists were driven away from their early roots of inspiration. Sociologist Christian Smith writes that the “scientific objectivity” which became the paradigm for the pursuit of all knowledge in an academic revolution in the late 19^th century, “redefined religious concerns and perspectives as irrelevant if not detrimental to the mission of higher education.”

What does this mean? From about 1870, science drifted more quickly toward naturalism. The drift eventually impacted education and other elements of our culture. Soon after the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species, actions of an Intelligent Designer no longer had much explanatory power within scientific academia. However, a study of the early years of the Scientific Revolution reveals a very different reality. Stephen Meyer, in his important 2009 volume Signature in the Cell, points out that many early scientists such as Johannes Kepler, Louis Agassiz, Carl Linnaeus, and Robert Boyle, suggested the activity of “a most intelligent and designing agent.” Isaac Newton wrote, “This most beautiful system of the sun, the planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.”

These statements do not prove the truth of Intelligent Design theory, but they demonstrate the inaccuracy of Collins’ claims. He incorrectly reports, “Intelligent Design burst on the scene in 1991.” Meyer counters, “Clearly, the idea of intelligent design had played a formative role in the foundation of modern science. Many great scientists had proposed specific design hypotheses. This seemed to suggest to me that intelligent design could function as a possible scientific hypothesis.” Meyer wonders why many contemporary scientists have rejected this idea out of hand.

In the last half-century of scientific discovery, evidence for design has become ever stronger with each passing year. Even secular scientists acknowledge the discovery of hundreds of fine tuning parameters possessed by our cosmos. The wonder of the DNA code and its function has been revealed to our generation. Scientists now have more justification than ever before to investigate the Intelligent Design hypothesis. But a well built roadblock labeled Naturalism Only has been erected by the science community at large. It is ironic that truth discovery may be suppressed under the banner of science.

Is Creation Fallen?

2011-05-16T22:58:00.000-04:00

Last Sunday my worship experience was heightened by the offertory vocal This Is My Father’s World. Consider the following exultant phrases referring to the creation, especially during this month of May as the countryside springs to verdant life: All nature sings…I rest me in the thought of rocks and trees, of skies and seas—His hand the wonders wrought…The birds their carols raise…The morning light, the lily white declare their Maker’s praise…This Is My Father’s World…He shines in all that’s fair…In the rustling grass I hear Him pass…He speaks to me everywhere. Fundamental truths about how the creation speaks of the glory of the Creator are not overshadowed by the poetic talents of the lyricist.

At home after the service I reviewed the texts of a long list of titles in the hymnal’s topical index under the heading “God—Creator and Creation.” My hymnal supplies a supporting scripture passage with each of its 818 hymns. Titles such as All Creatures of Our God and King (verses 1-3), Joyful, Joyful We Adore Thee (verse 2), and Let All Things Now Living (verse 2) are linked with scriptures such as Psalms 8, 19, 24, 104, 148, and Romans 1:20. John Calvin called the physical creation “the theater of God’s glory.” Psalm 139 speaks of deep truths concerning the genetic completeness of the unborn. This insight is prescient--thousands of years ahead of its time. Bio-scientists have discovered the complex secrets of genetic inheritance only in the last 50 years.

Who would not revel in this physical creation as a manifestation of God’s glory? Yet, some theologians see this creation in a very different light. One well-known evangelical minister has written “Because of sin, no part of creation now exists as God originally made it…It was spoiled…subject to God’s curse instead of His blessing.” Many evangelical theologians see creation as spoiled by sin. I must respectfully disagree. There is no scripture clearly instructing us to that effect. The human race is spoiled by sin. At least one Bible commentary claims the Romans 8:19-22 “groaning and birth pains” refers to the Jewish expectation of Messiah’s arrival as deliverer, not to a creation groaning under sin. More generally, all believers anticipate the ultimate redemption of our bodies and souls. This will occur in the New Creation described in Revelation 21-22. We will be delivered from the First Creation existing today into the future New Creation now being prepared (John 14:2).

Had the characteristics of the First Creation fundamentally changed when man initially sinned, a large array of physical changes would have occurred. This would have amounted to additional divine creation events. Genesis 2:1 states that God rested from his works of creation after heaven and earth and man were formed. In the “altered by sin” scenario, herbivorous animals would have become carnivorous animals. Molecular genetics would have been altered. Predatory behavior would have appeared for the first time. Laws governing plate tectonics and laws governing meteorological events would have changed. Earthquakes, tornadoes, and floods would have occurred for the first time, bringing potential or real death. Looking back at the long geological history of Planet Earth, such events had occurred for millions of years.

The fine tuning of our cosmos provides us with the ordered system in which we now exist. Creation brings glory to The Creator, giving us cause to worship Him. It is not a fallen creation, but this creation is inhabited by fallen man. Misguided stewardship of this creation results in human discomfort and death. We may take comfort that the future New Creation will be superior to the present creation. The New Creation will be free of discomfort and death.

What We Don't Know

2011-05-14T20:05:00.001-04:00

Even the secular world praises the Old Testament Book of Job as an inspired work of literature. The Liberty Bible Commentary claims, “Scholars agree that it is much easier to praise the work than to understand it.” For Bible commentators who pride themselves in making clear the interpretation of Scripture, this claim has implications. The Book of Job deals with natural tragedies--what they mean, why they occur, and perhaps broader questions of why discomfort, grief, tragedy, and sin could even exist at all. There are numerous scientific descriptions and insights. Job confessed he did not understand many of the wonders described and could not answer the questions posed.

In Chapters 38-39, God speaks to Job out of a violent storm. Earlier Job had lamented his bodily condition and his personal fall from favor. The Lord reviews creation events during the early formation of Planet Earth, asking if he understood those events or even the wonders of animal behavior. Essentially, Job was unable to give a coherent response. Perhaps this exercise was God’s way of showing Job that many of His works and ways will never be fully understood.

The violent storm of Chapter 38 (“whirlwind” in KJV) from which God spoke must have reminded Job of the meteorological disasters which had destroyed his flocks and children. Later, even his body was reduced to a pathetic, pitiful shell of its former self by Satan with God’s permission. Job was a righteous, upstanding man whose deeds did not merit retribution. In modern parlance, it was an example of bad things happening to good people. Many would be quick to proclaim that only an unfair God would allow such injustice. Much modern thinking insists that events should occur only according to our own personal concepts of right and wrong. In our day we seldom hear any of our leaders pleading for wisdom from the mind of God.

Job’s family and fortune fell victim to a probable tornado, a firestorm of some sort, attacks from Sabeans and Chaldeans, and finally, personal bodily disease inflicted by Satan (Job 1-2). These events were permitted by the Lord. If God, the Creator, is in sovereign control of our universe, we must acknowledge that any event is under his purview. Human free will is also permitted by God, operating in every human continually. If asked, every person would choose to retain free will. The same people would likely want God’s system of justice to conform to their own. This is evident in commonly heard statements that a “just” God should do this, or wouldn’t do that.

Earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes, and floods have occurred in 2011 in our Second Law of Thermodynamics world, along with the far more common tranquil events. The latter outnumber the violent, tragic events by orders of magnitude. The tragic episodes have understandably received overwhelming publicity, riveting our attention for extended periods on those relatively infrequent, isolated events. Human nature craves information about bizarre and fatal incidents. Media reports of the more normal, ubiquitous life-sustaining conditions would be received with a broad, collective, public yawn.

After his possessions and family members were wiped out, Job stated “The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away.” Even after his later loss of health, “Job did not sin in what he said.” After many chapters in which he debated with his friends and with God and finally yielded to God’s sovereignty, his wealth and family were replaced. His initial statement about the Lord giving and taking away could now be reversed. The events of Job 1-2 could now be said to have led to fulfilling God’s higher purpose. We may speculate on what that higher purpose was, but we may never understand it from a human standpoint. Job was not vindicated by his righteousness, but by his recognition of God’s sovereignty. God triumphs over Satan. God triumphs over evil. At the end of time, the triumph is not only in the hearts of believers, but also in an ultimate sense as outlined in the Book of Revelation 21-22.

Within God’s plan there is a purpose for natural disasters, sometimes called “natural evil.” We rightly mourn over their effects. In our wisdom, we would forbid such events. Unwelcome personal difficulties, even tragedies, provide a tempering and refining opportunity unknown to us, but known to God (Romans 11:33). We will never fully understand tragedies such as

Haiti

Japan

, or Alabama, not to mention lesser tragedies. We could, however, identify with this statement of Job, uttered even before God replaced his family and possessions:

I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted. You asked, ‘Who is this that obscures my counsel without knowledge?’ Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know. You said, ‘Listen now, and I will speak; I will question you, and you shall answer me.’ My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you. Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes. (Job 42:1-6 NIV)

Groaning Under Sin?

2011-05-09T00:00:00.002-04:00

Whenever tragic natural disasters occur, particularly those resulting in loss of human life, many rush to explain those events through the lens of the sin of Adam and Eve in Eden. One website expressed this belief held by many Christians: “God created a perfect world where there were no disasters because there was no sin. This world was spoiled and changed when humanity sinned.” Romans 5:12 is an oft-quoted passage to justify the claim that physical death and by extension, fatal disasters, occur because Adam sinned: “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin…so death spread to all men, because all sinned…” With belief in an ancient earth, the “no death/no disasters” creed is impossible. Throughout the lengthy geologic history of earth, there have been many natural and cataclysmic events which resulted in death and disaster for the creatures living on earth.

Scripture makes no explicit statements to support a claim of a perfect death-free and disaster-free world prior to the sin of Adam. Romans 5:12 states death spread to all men because of Adam’s sin. In the context of Romans, this verse refers to spiritual death which only humans can experience. In addition, Romans 8:19-22 is offered to support a “groaning” creation. This colorful word appears in many different translations of Romans 8. Its frequent citation is an example of the dangers of “proof texting,” the use of a short passage, often a single verse, to justify the acceptance of a doctrine or belief. A contextual study of the entire book of Romans makes clear the overwhelming purpose of the book: to offer a comprehensive account of Christian doctrines related to redemption through Jesus Christ. The book of Romans speaks of man’s spiritual death and alienation from the Creator caused by sin, and outlines the God-provided remedy for that sin and death.

Broad scope scientific knowledge of the operation of our natural world produces a wide-angle picture of reality. Since the creation event of Genesis 1:1 our universe has been governed by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That term may bewilder the average person, but it is an important, fundamental concept, wholly worthy of our effort to understand. In a sense, the universe may be said to "groan" under this law.

Our universe has a tendency to “run downhill.” Energy tends to dissipate, to become less useful. Physical systems naturally tend toward greater disorder. This tendency is manifest in hundreds of ways in our everyday life. Sanctified hermeneutical imagination leads us to propose that the "groaning" creation of Romans 5 could refer to this fundamental scientific law as a spiritual object lesson. The law has been operative since the beginning. Scientific descriptions of the Second Law may cause some people to see its operation as a “bad” thing. But without it, human existence as we know it would be impossible. We could not consume energy to power our automobiles, nor could we digest our food, to list only two examples.

New Testament scriptures deal primarily with the phenomenon of man’s spiritual disorder. But the condition of the physical creation parallels the spiritual. Romans 8:21 states “the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay” (NIV). Scientifically, this surprising verse is ahead of its time. It appears to refer to the termination of the physical characteristics of this universe at the onset of the New Creation of Revelation 21-22. In the spiritual realm, there are several startling verses suggesting that the spiritual redemption of man was also in the mind of God before the beginning of time (I Cor. 2:7, II Tim. 1:19, and Tit. 1:2). This implies that the omniscient God knew man, gifted with free will, would fall into sin and would need redemption. Man’s Garden of Eden sojourn of innocence likely did not last very long. Physical and spiritual decay are now both a feature of this universe. Man willfully chose his own spiritual decay; God had already imposed the physical decay long before.

The Apostle Paul lamented, in Romans 7, that even though he was redeemed by Christ, he still had a tendency to sin. He was susceptible to its harmful effects even though he was a redeemed Christian. Just as the physical creation “groaned” under the Second Law, in his flesh Paul "groaned" under the temptation to sin. He looked ahead to the New Creation of Revelation 21-22 where there would be no Second Law to govern physical reality. Neither would there be any law of sin and death (Romans 8:2).

Tragic deaths from natural disasters result from the operation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. We must be mindful, however, that the benefits of the Second Law far outweigh its harmful effects. At the original creation event, long before man was placed on this planet, God imposed the Second Law because He chose to have the universe operate that way. Some Christian authors envision our universe as it presently exists merely as a preliminary stage leading to the ultimate defeat of all sin and death--a condition yet to arrive at the onset of the New Creation.

Many cataclysmic events of prehistory provide multiple benefits to our existing civilization. Some of those events created multiple die-offs of living organisms and later forged their remains into the energy resources we extract from earth in our time. These cataclysmic, “disastrous” events were not caused by Adam’s sin. To blame natural disasters on Adam’s sin is to trivialize the greater disaster of alienation from God. Observation of natural disasters provides us with the wisdom to cope more effectively with living in a world governed by a prevalent law--the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

God Is In Control

2011-05-03T10:16:00.000-04:00

In 1874, Mary A. Baker (1831-1921) penned a hymn which remained popular into my childhood years. The dramatic hymn “Master, the Tempest is Raging (Peace! Be Still)” posed a sharp contrast between a raging tempest and its peaceful aftermath. Even though the hymn’s imagery is that of a tempest at sea, one line refers to “The Master of oceans, and earth, and skies.” All of them, according to Baker, “shall sweetly obey Thy will…” The hymn refers to parallel New Testament passages in Matt. 8:27, Mark 4:41, and Luke 8:25. On one occasion the disciples feared for their lives while sailing on the Sea of Galilee. Christ rebuked the winds and the sea became calm. The amazed disciples wondered what kind of man could perform such a miracle.

The Old Testament relates stories of God-sent hail, fire, and windstorms. God, therefore, is able to act both as initiator and mitigator of natural disasters if He wills to do so. God possesses mastery over the natural world because He created it. But this does not mean we are free to judge a particular event in nature to be a transcendent miracle superseding the many established physical laws, or even an event carrying with it a unique message for man. Physical laws, governed by underlying physical constants, were set in place by God to provide an ordered and predictable universe at the initial creation event described in Genesis 1:1. Transcendent miracles such as the physical creation of man in God’s image, the plagues which devastated

Egypt

, healing the withered hand, or Christ’s bodily resurrection are unusual and infrequent events.

Most “miracles” are transformational miracles. Reasons to Believe founder and scholar Hugh Ross explains that transformational miracles occur frequently. Ross uses the term “transformational” miracles to describe geological and meteorological processes which refashion earth to make it ultimately more habitable and beneficial to man. Availability of energy resources and our climate’s ability to sustain agriculture by distributing fresh water resources are only two of many possible examples.

Transformational miracles provide some intense events understandably unwelcome. The Alabama tornadoes of April 2011 provide a poignant example. Floods, strong winds, extreme temperatures, and seismic events related to plate tectonics cause temporary grief and even loss of life. An effort to understand the broader picture surrounding these events proves productive. For example, our earth’s equator receives a great deal of solar energy compared with Polar Regions. Heated air rises and flows toward the poles. Polar air flows back toward the equator, twisted and turned by a rotating earth. This brief account describes a complex interaction of warm, cold, moist and dry air. Most of the time, our weather is placid and mild, or changeably interesting. But on occasion, such interactions result in violence and tragedy. Nature obeys God’s changeless physical laws.

To suggest that God sends natural tragedies to reward us for sin may be tantamount to pronouncing that God’s blesses the practices of a pagan society’s farmers when rain waters their crops. Both statements may be regarded as non sequiturs. We would be remiss, however, not to acknowledge that God is ultimately in control of our world. The truth of this statement is manifest in multiple ways each day if we make the effort to study in depth and appreciate the processes of the physical world God has created. Mankind is gifted with the scientific ability to understand the characteristics of the world we inhabit, to avoid the dangers it poses, and to wisely harness God’s ordained laws for our benefit and enjoyment.

Within this context we may understand the deeper meaning of Genesis 1:28: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it.”

God's Higher Purpose

2011-04-30T15:45:00.002-04:00

Television, newspapers, and internet pages are filled with images of the tragic tornado super outbreak of April 28, 2011 in

America

’s deep south. This event now ranks second only to the famous tri-state tornado super outbreak of 1925 in Missouri, Illinois, and Indiana which killed 747. At this writing, 343 people are known dead. Americans who were not personally impacted suffer in empathy for the victims and their families. We commit them to God’s care.

Of my own personal, first-hand ordeals with many severe natural phenomena of Planet Earth, none has resulted in serious personal tragedy. But I claim close-up experience with a tornado, hurricanes, blizzards, heat waves, cold waves, floods, droughts, volcanoes, and earthquakes. In 1973, several days after a small tornado passed within several hundred feet of the northern New Jersey school where I taught earth science, a half-dozen students joined me during lunch hour, pedaling a mile to view a spot in the nearby woods where the twister touchdown made it appear as though a giant rotary lawnmower had passed through. The current Alabama disaster makes that experience insignificant as I soberly contemplate the horrific power of weather’s forces.

Each occurrence of events such as the recent major

Japan

earthquake and tsunami or the Midwest flooding episodes of recent years brings with it many questions about “what God may be saying to us.” I do not question that God can control weather and send deadly storms. Psalm 148:8 references natural disasters accomplished at God’s bidding. Various translations state these events do His bidding, fulfill His Word, or obey His orders. Neither do I question that God’s omniscient foreknowledge may include every natural event happening now or yet to happen.

Since God has a higher purpose in mind for pain and suffering, premature, tragic, or mature-age death, and certainly, on a more cheerful note, the many joyful experiences we are blessed with most of the time, we must humbly endeavor to submit to the Creator’s plans and purposes. Those plans and purposes are far beyond human understanding. Man’s pronouncements about what we think God is doing, what we think God wouldn’t do if He were loving and benevolent, or what He ought to do according to our judgment, become impertinent, trivial, and foolish. However, we must not depreciate the grief which attends the human tragedy of this tornado outbreak.

We need frequent reminders of the ubiquitous severe events on earth throughout its history. The account of the creation of the heavens and earth in Genesis 1 recalls several events which were followed by the pronouncement that “God saw that it was good.” In the eons before and after God’s spirit moved on the face of the waters (Genesis 1:2) there were many manifestations of fierce and turbulent events as the earth acquired its features and characteristics. From the Big Bang until this very moment in earth history, the Second Law of Thermodynamics has operated as a God-ordained overlay of this universe. In brief, this means energy dissipates; things run down from a higher to a lower state of organization. Most of these events ultimately benefit humanity. Some, however, are violent, destructive, or fatally tragic.

The Alabama tornado outbreak is a tragic natural disaster almost beyond comprehension. A web search of historic natural disasters brings the broader picture of life on earth into clearer focus. We are reminded of many similar past tragedies both prior to man’s advent and since the creation of man on this planet over many millennia. Human discovery of the fixed laws of nature and how to apply them has enriched our lives. Modern society is the product of technology powered by energy sources birthed in many wild geological events of the distant past. Those events would be considered violent and tragic by today’s standards. The Book of Job and other scriptures refer to many natural disasters over thousands of years.

April 28, 2011 must be perceived within the context of the universe God created—a “Second Law” universe where things are running down. God’s “very good” creation operates under the umbrella of this law. It is not a “bad” law. The outworking of God’s imposed laws is manifest in God’s higher purpose to be experienced in the future. The New Creation described in Revelation 21-22 is in view for the redeemed people of God. In the New Creation God’s higher purpose will be fully revealed.

Rejection Notices

2011-04-24T20:55:00.002-04:00

Naturalism has many qualifying adjectives such as metaphysical, philosophical, and ontological. Many secular organizations endorse naturalism and reject the existence of God explicitly and proudly. An example is this terse statement: “Naturalism implies that there are no supernatural entities.” One Merriam-Webster entry for the definition of materialism is similar: “A theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter.” The message is clear. Naturalism is bitterly antithetical to theism in any guise.

Evolutionists compose a substantial majority in the world of biological science. In most cases their unabashed worldview is the worldview of naturalism. Many take the time to comment on creationist and theistic evolutionist positions in their statements, blogs, articles, books, and speeches. Their message to creationists is one of predictable, explicit rejection. Theistic evolutionists fare no better. In reality, they are scorned more harshly.

Steven D. Schafersman appears on many web searches on “naturalism” as a spokesman for the naturalist worldview. At the Conference on Naturalism, Theism, and the Scientific Enterprise in 1997, he presented a paper entitled “Naturalism is Today an Essential Part of Science.” This lengthy paper outlined the practice of naturalism prevalent within the science profession. I present his statements as the view of naturalist scientists and not necessarily as my own view. The reader should make his own judgment. Schafersman asks, “How convincing is the argument made by theistic naturalists, individuals who believe in both science and the supernatural, that evolution--or any statement of science--is firmly established by a naturalist method in which they don’t really believe? Not very convincing.”

Following are three other passages drawn from Schafersman’s paper:

“I maintain that the practice or adoption of methodlogical naturalism entails a logical or moral belief in ontological naturalism, so they are not logically decoupled.”

“Do theistic evolutionists think they are playing a game, in which they do science during the day with naturalistic methods, but at night go home and leave naturalism behind in the laboratory, since they don’t really believe it describes a true picture of reality?”

“I merely want to suggest that supernaturalistic methodological naturalists may wish to examine their metaphysical beliefs more closely, since I think they are illogically engaging in self-deception.”

Another spokesman for the naturalist worldview is Laurence A. Moran, a self-described evolutionary biologist. In his paper “Theistic Evolution: The Fallacy of the Middle Ground” he makes these incisive remarks:

“Scientists, on the other hand, argue that an interventionist God who guides evolution violates the rules of science…Supernatural explanations of the natural world are not scientific.”

“As explained earlier, the scientific description of evolution does not rely on, or permit, the intervention of supernatural beings.”

“So is there a middle ground where an interventionist, personal God is compatible with modern science? Perhaps not. The conflict between religion and science certainly isn’t avoided by postulating a passive God who doesn’t play an active role in guiding evolution.”

“If one’s explanation of the natural world posits a God who created the laws of physics and chemistry, then one is not behaving like a scientist. Of course, there’s even more of a conflict if one’s God is supposed to have set up the universe in order to produce humans.”

“It seems as though there’s no room at all for religious explanations of the natural world as long as we agree that scientists have to stick to naturalism.”

“In my opinion, the term ‘theistic evolution’ is another oxymoron.”

What may committed naturalists teach Christians? With respect to Christians who accept theistic evolution, scientists such as Scafersman or Moran offer instruction on what the embrace of evolution really entails: Belief in evolution necessitates acceptance of a naturalistic worldview, and affirmation of the reigning philosophy that scientists may investigate only the natural world and arrive at only naturalistic conclusions. Creationism and intelligent design proposals are effectively ruled “out of bounds,” an athletic term better expressed as “not in play.” This blog is committed to the acceptance of creationism as “in play,” both scripturally and scientifically.

TE - Rejected Suitor

2011-04-19T11:14:00.002-04:00

Theistic evolutionists, who now wish to be known as evolutionary creationists, are experiencing a chilly reception from naturalistic evolutionists. Both terms are problematic in the realm of evolutionary science. “Theistic” and “creationist” are not fitting descriptors within the paradigm of evolutionism. Evangelical evolutionary creationists, in particular, would acknowledge the Judeo-Christian God of scripture as the agent of creation, directly or indirectly making things happen (creating). One wonders if the problem is the proper understanding of reality or merely one of semantics.

Creationism and theism both fall outside the purview of naturalism. The adjective theistic implies the existence of a supernatural entity. Creationism, as a noun, implies the action of a supernatural entity. Neither term falls within the realm of science. Creationists are urged, in various ways, to make peace with science and embrace it in order to discover truth on origins. But science is not on the verge of making peace with theism or creationism, notwithstanding the pleasant “concordat” claimed by some naturalistic scientists to exist. Concordat is a term used by the late Stephen Jay Gould in his famous 1997 NOMA article in Natural History. Gould stated, “I believe, with all my heart, in a respectful, even loving concordat between our magisteria.” He referred to the magisteria of science and theology.

Historically, concordats have existed between authorities in church and state. They govern details of the roles of authority administered in independent spheres. Peaceful co-existence usually prevailed but some concordats were characterized by tension. Today science and theology are said to be separate realms of authority with neither impinging on the other.

These descriptions of the connections between science and faith ring with a pleasing sound until we grasp the reality of a shocking disconnect. Secular evolutionary scientists embrace neither theism nor creationism. The NOMA principle (non-overlapping magesteria) endorsed by the science, media, educational, and judicial establishments of our culture keeps theism and creationism at bay. Theistic evolutionists (evolutionary creationists) wish to be perceived as intellectually credible in our culture, but their efforts at rapprochement with secular evolutionism are doomed to dismal failure.

I urge theistic evolutionists to examine the reality of this difficult state of affairs. As suitors to evolutionary science, they are experiencing the pain of rejection. Their views also alienate them from their creationist brethren. They find themselves wedged between adjacent groups who reject them for entirely different reasons. They have endorsed the conclusions of evolutionary consensus science increasingly questioned even by the evolutionists themselves. Theistic evolutionists have rejected intelligent design and many other propositions of scripture with respect to creation events, especially the fiat creation of man in the Image of God.

Concerns on Consensus

2011-04-14T20:39:00.007-04:00

Many theistic evolutionists, now promoting themselves as “evolutionary creationists,” yield to the belief that because evolution possesses overwhelming support among biological scientists, its claims on origins questions are credible. This is a position articulated by many brilliant people with whom I have discussed origins issues. For them adherence to majority opinion is an important support pillar for the evolutionary belief system they choose to hold.

Adoption of the consensus of scientists on evolution should be approached with the greatest caution. Acceptance of any consensus depends on the subject of the belief system in question as well as the identity of the group. Who proposes the religious belief system, the political ideology, or the behavioral theory? With respect to the evolutionary community’s proposals on the broad questions of origins, there is considerable complexity. Knowledge of evolution as a historical science differs considerably from knowledge of the "hard sciences" of chemistry and physics gained in the past few centuries. In chemistry and physics there is little contoversy and no need to “rediscover the wheel.” In those fields doubting the consensus of scientists is foolish and futile. It is not so with evolution.

How did life on earth originate suddenly and with bio-chemical complexity? Beyond that, the profound questions regarding the appearance of life’s multiplicity and the recent arrival of modern humanity demand our diligent consideration. Why do living things manifest such unmistakable signatures of intelligent design? How demonstrable and credible are the theorized driving mechanisms of macro-evolution such as natural selection and the more imaginative recent proposals such as “phenotypic plasticity?” The consensus of naturalistic bio-science professionals is that natural processes alone are responsible. Moreover, contemporary science philosophy dictates that we continue searching for natural explanations only, perhaps forever. Relying on the consensus of such biased stakeholders should inspire minimal confidence.

Theorized proposals of evolutionary processes as causally adequate for what we observe in the world of biology are not supported by the mere consensus of evolutionary biologists. Some of the strongest support for evolution in past years was the presence of so-called “junk DNA.” In recent years evolutionists have retreated from claiming that junk DNA affirms evolution. Increasingly, it has been shown to have function. But many theistic evolutionists continue to cite evidence such as junk DNA as a reliable indicator of common ancestry.

In the face of developing questions concerning evidence for the reality of evolution, I repeat my hope that endorsement of evolution by evangelical biological scientists not be driven by adherence to the modern scientific consensus. Modern science is strongly driven by the worldview of naturalism. Christian thinkers should resist endorsing the worldview of naturalism. Beyond that, but no less significant, we should resist the evolutionary consensus and avoid the temptation to be accepted in the world of academia based on evolution’s purported intellectual credibility. The harsh reality is that both naturalistic evolutionists and traditional creationists are harshly critical of and strongly opposed to the concept of theistic evolution now becoming known metaphorically as “evolutionary creationism.”

Problems of Consistency

2011-04-07T15:12:00.000-04:00

One of the most significant problems theistic evolutionists face as they spread their message on the origins of life is the inconsistency of their stance. On one hand they embrace science, saying that evolution is scientific. Of course, that statement is broadly true. Scientists investigate the questions of evolution. We are explicitly and implicitly exhorted to “come to peace with science” by authors and leaders in The BioLogos Forum. But marriage of the terms “theistic” and “evolution” is fraught with glaring inconsistencies.

Evolution is a naturalistic process, supposedly obeying natural laws as do moving or falling objects. It needs no God to direct or even oversee it. Science is a naturalistic venture, currently so defined by the broad consensus of science practitioners and philosophers. Some Christians with a theistic worldview are scientists, but they are obligated to keep their theism under wraps when discussing causal adequacy in any of their scientific discoveries or proposals.

When theistic evolutionists claim, as did Francis S. Collins in The Language of God that “…God chose the elegant mechanism of evolution to create (emphasis mine) microbes, plants, and animals of all sorts,” they are guilty of promoting a serious incongruity. We are exhorted by the promoters of TE to embrace science. But according to the rigidly controlled professional science establishment of our day, science will countenance the action of no supernatural intelligence, no creator, and especially, no God of Judeo-Christian scripture in its proposals of causal adequacy for anything we observe in our physical world.

If evolution cannot stand alone on its own merits without injecting God into the picture, perhaps the theory is undermined as false. Jason Dulle argues these points effectively in “Theistic Evolution: The Illegitimate Marriage of Theism and Evolution.” Dulle suggests, “If naturalistic evolution is not sound on its own terms, we have no reason to accept it as true, and thus no reason to do the exegetical and theological tango with scripture to accommodate it.” Dulle inquires, “Why do some Christians feel the need to maintain a theistic evolutionary view? The only sufficient reason is that theistic evolutionists are convinced that evolution is true.”

Theistic evolution, according to modern science philosophy, is not really evolution at all, since theistic explanations are not permissible in any scientific account of reality, including historical origins science. And science, according to modern science philosophy, is not theistic. The pronouncements of both theistic and secular writers that theistic evolution is an “oxymoron” are more easily understood.

Evolutionary biologist Laurence A. Moran makes arguments almost identical to Jason Dulle. It is fascinating that Moran and Dulle locate themselves on opposite sides of the origins belief spectrum. In “Theistic Evolution: The Fallacy of the Middle Ground” Moran says, “It seems as though there’s no room at all for religious explanations of the natural world as long as we agree that scientists have to stick to naturalism. Do scientists really insist on this restriction? Yes, they do.” This statement is not designed to make theistic evolutionists comfortable. They claim the mantle of science, but the science community is not supportive of theistic evolutionists’ desire to straddle the fence by claiming God “creates” through the process of evolution.

Dulle asks, “Is there reason to believe that the case for evolution is not as sound as scientists would like to make it? Yes, there are.” Many authors have discussed evolutionary theory based on its evidential weakness. Creationists and theistic evolutionists argue about the strengths and weakness of evolutionary evidence. Naturalistic and theistic evolutionists argue about the validity of injecting any theistic views into the origins discussion because of the self-imposed limitations on theistic reality by the ruling scientific authorities. In two important spheres, therefore, we experience impasse. The TRUTH is standing by as an observer.

Claims of Compatibility

2011-04-06T14:20:00.001-04:00

Claims of theistic evolutionists that TE beliefs are compatible with evangelical theology and a Christian worldview do not resonate favorably with creationist perceptions of reality. On the other side of the origins spectrum, neither is the heavily naturalistic community of bio-scientists supportive of the TE concept. Theistic evolutionists attempt to please a group of people who, for various reasons, find it difficult to believe in the supernatural creation events scripture explicitly enumerates.

Consider some of the arguments posed by creationist Jason Dulle in “Theistic Evolution: The Illegitimate Marriage of Theism and Evolution.” Dulle argues that TE is not intellectually coherent. TE posits that God used the evolutionary process to create. That is to say, evolution, a chance, undirected process, becomes the creator. In theory, of course, God could mandate that “chance” events produce a manifestly purposeful, ordered outcome. Theologically and semantically, however, such a concept is an oxymoron--a conjoining of contradictory terms. (I acknowledge the philosophical complexity of this issue.)

When we observe our natural environment, there are plentiful examples of order. Some ordered natural features in non-living physical systems are highly impressive manifestations of natural patterns. These patterns are to be distinguished from designs. Formations of patterns in nature, such as tornado vortexes, snowflakes, and mineral crystals, obey pre-existent natural laws which are capable of producing apparent order from chaotic systems. Weather phenomena provide some of the best examples. Patterns, however, are to be distinguished from the ordered design features found in living creatures. Design features obey the ideas which come from instructions in a language. DNA is recognized by scientists as a language. All languages come from a mind. Information theorist Perry Marshall has clearly articulated these proposals in the past few years. He poses The Atheists Riddle: “Show me a language that does not come from a mind.”

Life forms are the product of the coded language of DNA, a complex sequence of instructional information beyond imagination. Bill Gates, Microsoft chairman, has stated, “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.” Trillions of living cells fabricate thousands of different proteins, the building blocks of all life forms. Each protein is a string of amino acids which folds exquisitely into an appropriate shape in order to achieve a special function. The physical structure of at least five million different species presently on earth, as well as the integrated functioning of their many life sustaining processes, is dictated by the presence of these intricately folded proteins.

Stephen C. Meyer, in his Discovery Institute publications, has outlined the incredibly unlikely scenario evolution as “creator” would have to accomplish in order to produce even one of today’s five million extant species: If Species A were to become Species B by the process of evolution, it would be necessary to produce, simultaneously, new proteins, new cell types, new tissues, new organs, new body parts, and finally, a new organism. To describe evolutionary processes as the virtual “creator” of earth’s multiplicity of life forms stretches credibility to the breaking point. This is equally true whether one claims to be a naturalistic evolutionist or a theistic evolutionist. The TE paradigm is not comfortable middle ground on which to stand with respect to the profound questions of origins of earth’s life forms, and in particular, the human race created in the Image of God. These discussions should be approached with open-minded humility, whether one embraces the tenets of evolutionism or creationism.

Evolution's Connections

2011-04-03T23:51:00.006-04:00

Belief in evolution, and by extension, theistic evolution as it is understood today, is as old as the proposals of Charles Darwin, author of The Origin of Species in 1859. Historically however, ideas of a self-existent natural world and even primitive concepts of “evolution” have been present for many centuries. The formal theory of evolution of life forms on this earth, along with the startling proposal of a mechanism to drive it (natural selection), offered to an eager world by Charles Darwin in 1859, burst on the scene as an attempt to bring clarity to the formerly blurred picture. We could draw analogy to the recent advent of high definition, big-screen color television compared with the performance of early small-screen black-and-white receivers of the late 1940s and early 1950s.

The worldview of naturalism, which provides a foundation for the structure of evolutionary theory, also came into clearer focus. Naturalism has captivated large segments of our culture. It was not widely seen as a fully-developed worldview before the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species. In the decades following that landmark publication naturalism came to be recognized as a major worldview.

The Center for Naturalism (naturalism.org) provides a proper perspective for anyone who desires an accurate account of the origin of the naturalistic worldview foundations of evolution. Their website states, “The Center for Naturalism promotes naturalism as a comprehensive worldview –- a rational and fulfilling alternative to faith-based religions and other varieties of supernaturalism.” The website states further, “Though Darwin’s theories caused political and cultural turmoil, they also helped give birth to a new school of American philosophy, known as naturalism, which emerged as an alternative to traditional thought by grounding philosophical thought thoroughly inside nature.”

John Dewey (1859-1952), whose thinking influenced many generations of educators, is described in The Center for Naturalism’s website: “John Dewey -- a widely read philosopher, theorist, cultural critic, and public intellectual, inspired generations of philosophers in the

United States

with a system he called 'pragmatic naturalism.' " The website continues, “Here, at last, naturalism took its place as an explicit worldview (albeit with many variations), based on a broadly empirical, scientific epistemological commitment, but going beyond science by making that commitment the basis for ontological claims about the world – namely, the denial of the supernatural.”

Evangelicals who promote theistic evolution do not wish to have their beliefs associated with philosophical naturalism. Their desire, instead, is to appear to be supportive of science. The question must be asked: What worldview drives the science which supports evolution? How strong and how reliable is this science? What presuppositions drive that science? We must not forget that as Christians, we are committed to the discovery of truth above our commitment to science.

Obeying Rules of the Scientific Courtroom

2011-03-30T18:44:00.004-04:00

Dramatic courtroom scenes portrayed in literature, on television, or in movies are frequently laced with the judge’s exclamation “Objection sustained” or “Objection overruled” in response to questioning techniques by counsel. In such instances, the judge applies rules governing courtroom procedural law. Notwithstanding the desirability of rules governing the admissibility of evidence in a courtroom, there may be cases where sustainment or denial of evidence could sway a jury and affect their ability to render a correct verdict. The judge may not be impartial, or the jury may be biased. In these cases application of such procedural rules may be counterproductive in the quest for justice. Ideologically driven judicial appointments by ruling political parties could result in loading the courtroom bench with a particular judicial viewpoint.

The case for evolution has been tried in the courtroom of professional biological scientists. The judgment that this particular professional community is biased toward a naturalistic worldview is beyond dispute. Under these procedural rules verdicts of science may NOT include the intervention of any supernatural being, namely, God. Beyond that, we must consider hundreds of statements from evolutionary biologists. They procedurally eliminate the supernatural in determining “causal adequacy” for the origin of life forms and apparent design features in living things. In addition they boldly utter metaphysical and ontological statements on the nature of reality and existence. Stated more explicitly, they do not believe in the existence of God.

We may recall verdicts in civil courts of law which were obviously in error due to jury bias, judicial misconduct, procedural errors, or concealment of relevant evidence. Sometimes such verdicts are later reversed. The best examples are the many publicized rape or murder convictions overturned by DNA evidence not accessible at the time of trial. Sometimes convictions are overturned after many years of incarceration of innocent parties. How ironic that our current knowledge of complex, intricate, coded DNA information (three billion bits of digitally coded information) in every body cell supplies evidence that an intelligent mind operated in the past and still operates. We are coming ever closer to overturning the verdict that evolution is true and factual.

My concern mounts that believers in theistic evolution have joined forces with the naturalistic worldview at the core of evolutionary theory. This theory, supported primarily by inference and consensus of scientists motivated by staunch commitment to philosophical naturalism, is plagued by many mysteries. The sudden appearance of new forms in the geological record, the almost complete absence of transitional forms in the fossil record, and the absence of persuasive evidence for the efficacy of the theorized process of natural selection are only a few of those enigmas. Many other questions give us cause to be skeptical of evolutionary claims. Questions on origins should be approached and researched with great reverence for the incredible wonders we observe in functioning living things. Evolution as an elegant theory was certainly worth investigating in the years since Darwin proposed it. In the last half-century, however, the evidence for sudden creation and intelligent design has become stronger. Perhaps in our lifetime the verdict for evolution will be overturned.

Standing on Middle Ground

2011-03-24T12:06:00.003-04:00

Believers in theistic evolution find themselves on the proverbial middle ground. They camp between theistic creationists and atheistic/agnostic evolutionists. Some may still wrestle with significant conflicts. Is matter invested with self-organizing capability--the ability to progress naturalistically from “molecules to man?” Or did God perform several or many supernatural miracles along the timeline of bio-history to organize the molecules into complex, living, functioning entities, with modern man in His image a very recent creative act? Everyone would agree that we now have upwards of five million separate species extant on earth today. Many times that number have existed in past ages. Whatever direction theistic evolutionists turn from their middle ground, they see earth life as a mind-boggling plethora of biodiversity.

Answers to questions on origins should be sought with humility. In my personal research, I am struck by the incredible knowledge we have accumulated, yet aware of the knowledge still to be gained. By studying these challenging issues, comparing the evidence and interpretations, we may acquire a clearer picture of reality.

Origins science is a historical science. In contrast, laboratory scientists test their experimental findings under controlled laboratory conditions. Most laboratory science will not effectively answer questions on origins. Historical scientists seek “causal adequacy” for their discoveries. That means independent evidence supports a claim that a specific cause produces a certain effect. If more than one explanation seems “causally adequate,” they attempt to pare down the explanations to just a few and finally, only one. In this process they use abductive logic to produce an “inference to the best explanation.” Their inferences are then tested by comparing the strength of their explanatory power. Many science authors have described this process in great detail.

The scientific process of abductive reasoning (inference to the best explanation) has been used throughout the history of modern science. Science philosopher Charles Peirce (1839-1914) developed the concept more formally as foundational support for the process of scientific discovery. The method is still in use today as an effective means to acquire causally adequate explanations for big questions in science, such as the enormous bio-complexity on earth. Using abductive reasoning, the creation and intelligent design hypotheses are among the most causally adequate scientific explanations of what we observe to account for the origin of earth’s diverse life forms. Additionally, creation and/or design have significant explanatory power centered on the actions of the infinite, omnipotent God of the Bible.

Theistic evolutionists stand on middle ground with respect to scientific truth discovery. They subscribe to the firmly entrenched contemporary philosophy that any suggestion of divine intervention is not scientific. Therefore, they are forced to claim the evolutionary ground inhabited by naturalistic scientists. But there is a strange irony in their embrace of evolution as a naturalistic process. Theistic evolutionists are not warmly received by the larger community of naturalistic scientists. Since they believe God “created” by an evolutionary process, they are accused of being in the theistic camp and marrying their Christian religion to science. Intelligent design theorists are also accused of using design proposals to promote their religion. Naturalistic scientists, therefore, do not spread the welcome mat for theistic evolutionists. And neither are creationists and intelligent design believers welcomed.

Is there a remedy for theistic evolutionists standing on the uncomfortable middle ground? The remedy may rest in their acknowledgement that abductive reasoning indeed does provide a scientific explanation for the origin of biological information. Such an acknowledgement describes the deliberate intervention of God as causally adequate to explain the origin of coded information in the DNA of every living cell, since coded information is the product of a mind. By comparison, naturalistic explanations are deficient in their causal adequacy when tested by their explanatory power. Further, the middle grounders should consider rejecting the worldview of naturalism now controlling the thinking of a majority of the world’s bio-scientists. Finally, they may consider a commitment to truth discovery above their commitment to “science” as defined by the contemporary science community.

Commitment to truth discovery supersedes the adherence to 21st century science philosophy which permits no supernatural explanations. Science, by definition, is discovery of knowledge of our world--present and past. Creationists and ID believers need not reject the use of science in support of their beliefs. Rather, they may use long-established science processes in their quest for truth concerning origins.

Deep Roots of Evolution

2011-03-21T15:45:00.004-04:00

Some of the best reasons to be skeptical of evolutionary claims come from the statements of naturalistic evolutionists. They do not acknowledge either divine origin of the universe or its divine sustenance. Theistic evolutionists claim to believe in a God who originated the universe and in some way sustains it even to this moment. The naturalistic evolutionist never has a need to invoke the supernatural, either in the past or in the present. Theistic evolutionists are in danger of acquiring an identical mindset.

Naturalistic evolutionists are driven by the worldview of naturalism. Our universe, they claim, self-originated and sustains itself to this moment. All observed effects result from a previous physical cause. Every conclusion concerning reality in the field of origins is driven by philosophical (metaphysical, ontological) naturalism.

When we consider the merits of theistic evolution, it is impossible to divorce it from naturalistic evolution which was, in turn, birthed from the womb of philosophical naturalism. Theistic evolutionists may wish to humbly consider the following statements of naturalistic evolutionists. The statements are philosophically homogeneous. They have a consistent connotation. Consider these brief statements penned by several famous naturalistic evolutionary scientists:

Niles Eldredge: He (Darwin) taught us that we can understand life’s history in purely naturalistic terms, without recourse to the supernatural or divine.

Julian Huxley: In the evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural. The earth was not created; it evolved. So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body. So did religion.

Richard Lewontin: We are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.

Ernst Mayr: The Darwinian revolution was not merely the replacement of one scientific theory by another, as had been the scientific revolutions in the physical sciences, but rather the replacement of a world view, in which the supernatural was accepted as a normal and relevant explanatory principle, by a new world view in which there was no room for supernatural forces.

Michael Ruse: And it seems to me very clear that at some very basic level, evolution as a scientific theory makes a commitment to a kind of naturalism, namely, that at some level one is going to exclude miracles and these sorts of things, come what may.

Endorsing an evolutionary belief structure born, as it is, of naturalistic parentage should trigger extreme caution. The naturalist agenda extends beyond simple scientific beliefs promoted by the science professionals of our day. Naturalism is a worldview capable of deforming our religious beliefs. Therefore, skepticism is a healthy response to the paradigm of evolution relentlessly promoted by citing the consensus of the scientific community. The Christian community should be extremely circumspect in its endorsement of “theistic” evolution. Evolution is founded upon many questionable conclusions of contemporary consensus science. It germinated from and is now rooted in the naturalistic worldview.