The Myth of Religious Tolerance

I recently had a friend express to me the hurt he felt that his Christian family did not accept his alternate religious beliefs.   He then went on to explain that his own religious views did not require everyone else to abandon their views in favor of his.  His consternation at the closed-mindedness of Christian proselytizing was clear.  The pain and distress experienced by my friend was real and evident, and I expressed my sincere sympathy with what they were going through.

So why can’t we all just get along?  I’m sure you’ve seen the “Coexist” bumper sticker before (see the image above): each of the letters are formed to represent a religious or other ideological view.  The implication is that these ideologies have not been doing a good job of peacefully coexisting, and that world would be better if we all just got along.  Is that a fair interpretation of the message being communicated here?  Isn’t this also the message expressed by my friend?

Still, though, the application of this is pretty unclear, isn’t it?  The devil’s in the details, as they say.  We can cry for peace all we wish, but it cannot be achieved through declaration or emotion alone.  There are two problematic assumptions I see with the “coexist” approach.  1. All paths are presumed to lead equally to God, and/or 2. Religion is considered a placebo.  But both of these assumptions are really condescending towards anyone who takes religion seriously, aren’t they?

Concerning “all paths lead equally to God,” most religions differ with every other religion (and I include atheism in this) over the big questions of life.  What happens to our consciousness upon death: reincarnation, absorption into the great spirit, heaven or hell, extinction?  What is the significance of mankind: God’s special creation, insignificant happenstance of evolution, insignificance of illusory existence? Who was Jesus: a deceiver, a lunatic, the son of God?  All religions could be false, but under no circumstances can they all be True (with a capital “T”).

In regards to religion as a placebo, I mean that it is an atheistic view which presumes from the outset that all other religious views are false, but that it has some positive psychological benefit for the believer, so it is OK for a person to believe.  At least, it is so long as they don’t take it so seriously that it starts to affect other people in any way.

In either of these cases, religion is reduced to an ice-cream parlor in which you choose your favorite flavor, mixing and matching components as it suits you, to pick what appeals to you, and in which it would be ridiculous for someone else to say your preference is wrong.  But is religion simply a matter of opinion, like ice cream flavors, or are does religion refer to absolute truths which are independent of our likes and preferences?  The only good reason to hold a religious (or any other) view is because it is objectively true, and accurately reflects reality, isn’t it?  This makes it rather important to thoroughly investigate and compare coherence, consistency, and completeness of the core claims of any religion being considered, and see if they accurately explain the world we in which we live.

At any rate, this view of religious tolerance self-destructs.  Reflecting back on the conversation with my friend, I wish I had asked him why, if trying to change others’ religious views was such a great moral crime, he was trying to change his Christian family and my religious views?  After all, Christianity is a missionary religion, and respectful persuasion is part of our core beliefs.

America’s Choice

Following the results of this year’s Presidential elections, I’ve been feeling depressed off and on throughout the days since, and have been trying to determine the real cause.  Was it because my candidate did not win?  No, not exactly.  As a libertarian-minded conservative, I have been backing candidates this year with little to no chance of winning, so the results of the election were no surprise on that score.  The surprise was that Obama was reelected at all, after the economic and foreign events that have occurred, and the positions for which Obama has stood for in the last four years.

It seems amazing and unprecedented to me that America would choose him.  I’ve heard rumblings of voter fraud and intimidation, in favor of Obama, but I have no way I trust to verify or refute these.  I suspect there would be an equal number of cries of similar electoral shenanigans were the election to have gone in favor of Romney (indeed, even before noon on voting day, I saw articles about concerns for Republicans “stealing” Ohio).  America chose.  And what are we to make of this choice?  The choice was made in favor of increased debt, of further acceptance of abortions and gay marriages, of larger, nanny-state government, of class warfare and redistribution of wealth, and of socialized healthcare.

I’m so tired of the phrase “the lesser of two evils,” and frustrated that this has characterized the election choices of the last two cycles (or more, but I’ve only recently become politically aware enough to care).  Would Romney have been better?  I say marginally, but I’d rather see a completely different direction, instead of picking between flavors of statism.  Romney would have been a reprieve from the spiritual and economic collapse that seems impending, but only a temporary one at best.

So I’ve been grieving.  Grieving for the America we have lost – for the freedoms we have given away with our popular votes and for those taken bit by bit.  I grieve for the loss of Christian morals in our nation that no longer have a majority assent, however grudgingly given.  But I am late for the funeral; the Christian worldview as a dominant position has been dead for a while.  I am just now noticing that the corpse is dead, and no longer animated Weekend-At-Bernie’s-style.  As with grief, it hits me out of nowhere at various times of my day; as with depression, the brightest fall colors and bluest sky seem dim, like I am viewing them through an oily film.  But, also like grief, I can see a gradual lessening as my perspective begins to change.

This election is a wake-up call for Christians.  It’s no call to “take back America” – I submit it was never “ours.”  America is no theocracy, and we are best not to try to make it one; God got out of the human theocracy business when Israel crowned Saul king, and he won’t be back to take over until the end.  Besides, any human-led theocratic government could just as easily become Muslim theocracy, and that certainly isn’t desirable.  So what is this a call to?  It is a call for we Christians to arise from the laziness we are used to and be disciples and salt and light, instead of leaving it to our “Christian” presidents and our pastors and prominent ministry leaders .  I don’t think we can consider our duty done only with the few dollars we drop into the offering plate.

I feel the weight and urgency of the work we ought to be doing, but aren’t.  And by “we,” I mostly mean me.  But you, too.  There are organizations out doing the work that we need to involve ourselves in.  In fact, I feel rather overwhelmed and impotent in the face of it all.  We don’t have to go to Africa or Asia or the Middle East to do mission work.  America is part of the mission field, and there are real needs and issues that should be addressed, such as sex trafficking, abortion, homelessness and addictions of all sorts.  Relating the love of Christ to others through works of social justice is vital, but we must also couple the acts with the knowledge of God.  ”Social justice without spiritual justice is not justice at all.” – Chris Hodges

Please Christian, open yourselves to big, specific dreams of ministry and teaching here in our country.  It may be that we are at an end to a chapter of American history.  If economic collapse occurs, it might even mean major political changes as well.  But if this is what it takes to get more of us awake and involved, then let it not be in vain.  Let’s show America something worth choosing.

Gratitude and the Pursuit of Happiness

(Part 1 of the word studies related to the Wood Family Covenant.  These notes written to organize my thoughts, but will be largely rephrased for kids’ understanding, or so it is to be hoped!   This is also a partial answer to an earlier blog, Longing, beyond.)

My family’s childrens’ dictionary defines “happy” as “a feeling of joy or pleasure.” But “happy” is also defined elsewhere as “contentment,” and it is this the definition that one should strive towards. Happiness, as an extended state of bliss, is simply not attainable.

If one were to map out the high and low points of one’s day, or life, it would be a series of ups and downs. If everything was an “up”, it would be a flat line, or “normal” and expected. To have a “high” from there would require an increased level of pleasure beyond the current state. Thus the pursuit of happiness becomes a ratcheting upward climb towards stronger, higher and different pleasures, which in the end is a treadmill of running to stand still.  Addictions are an example of this law of diminishing returns.

Thus the importance of gratitude: by living in a sense of thankfulness, one is more able to appreciate the “goods” and pleasures in one’s life, big or small, and remain longer satisfied at the current “plateau” level of happiness. This is contentment.

The fact that we have an appetite for a larger, more fulfilling “good” than we can find through selfish pursuits is an indicator that we ought to pursue a higher good, namely God. He has created each of us with that sense of longing for something beyond what we can find on earth through possessions, sensual pleasures, and horizontal relationships.  When we try to fill the God-shaped-hole with anything but God, it is idolatry and will be ultimately unsatisfying.

Wood Family Covenant

Longing, beyond

“The loneliest moment in life is when you have just experienced that which you thought would deliver the ultimate, and it has just let you down.” – Ravi Zacharias

“When the music’s over, turn out the light.” – The Doors

What do you do when your cherished fantasies dissolve, or resolve into unsatisfying reality?

What are we living for when our “ultimate” fails to live up to expectations and lets us down?

What hope do you cling to when the concept that you find so compelling and important is disregarded by those who need it most?

How do you handle the realization that you cannot change the world, and your spit in the ocean feels so insignificant?

What happens when the acquisition of knowledge fails to satisfy or give enough answers?

What do you do when your youth and beauty fade, and you are left, mid-life, looking backwards?

What happens when sex does not completely fulfill the intimate longing, when the promises of romance fail or only partly deliver?

When the euphoria of music leaves you looking beyond, what then?

When the temporary satiation of an addiction leaves you feeling spent and used, and the effects diminished, how do you deal handle the disappointment?

What is the next level, the further hope beyond what has let us down so far, that we cling to as the “real” ultimate?  Can we afford to let ourselves hope again?

Do we fall back on the safe, “second string” hopes and dreams we’ve been settling for all along?

Do we collapse into pessimistic fatalism, avoiding dreams and the crushing despair of their dissolution?

How do we deal with the despair of a life of days in a high-walled rut of rote and routine? Would we even have the will and energy to try to break out? How do we resist the hypnosis by the tunnel on the lonely road of despair?

Is it even possible to stop dreaming? Some of our hopes and fantasies are not articulated in our consciousness until we realize they are out of reach. We seem to be built to dream.

I know the Christian answer: the hole left by collapsed dreams, hopes, and fantasies is God-shaped, and anything else that promises to fill it is a counterfeit, a sin, and/or a misapplication of some “good” that isn’t meant to be so glorified. I allegedly believe this, but don’t do well applying it, as I reach for things in sight and place my hopes of fulfillment in them.

Is there no good in this world in which to reach for or dream about? “The Lust, the Flesh, the Eyes, and the Pride of life, drain the life right out of me.” (77s paraphrase of 1 John 2:16)

Maybe this is what is meant by “coming to the end of yourself.”

So Jesus said to the Twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?”  Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life”  John 6:67-68

“In the Beginning” conference notes – raw

In the Beginning Conference

This is a dump of the “raw” notes I took during the conference.  It does not include any conclusions or commentary by me, but only reports the presentations made by the speakers.

************************************************************************************************************

Wed. 6/15/11 – John Lennox

Defending Christianity as a truth claim, rather than genetic

Although true, not defended with violence

1 Pet 3:15 Forthright engagement with love and humility

Fact of creation agreed upon, its manner and timing is debated

Under attack from atheists, Christians may be confused about Genesis and its interpretation

Aristotlean and Copernican views of earth as center of universe, and the Biblical indications supporting this; Galileo disproved this.  Why do we as Christians believe this?  Have we disregarded Biblical teaching?

The issue is really how the Bible is interpreted.  Genre, cultural context important.  One should be guided by natural, customary meaning (literal method) of the text, in context of the other Biblical teachings.  Can be more than one natural reading of a word.  Earth – as the planet, or the ground.  Other times literal not meant – Jesus says I am the door – meant as a metaphor.  Metaphors stand for something real.  So different levels of literality.  Literalistically (exactly as written) vs. literally (as the author means it).

If meaning not obvious, then what?  Scripture and science – some think Bible isn’t relevant to science at all (non-overlapping magisteria). Doesn’t work because Bible does talk about some things that science talks about, like origins of universe and life.  God encourages man to investigate natural world.  God loves an inquiring mind – “love Him with all our mind”.  The Bible is not a textbook of science, but has truth to tell us about same objective reality that science discusses, so we need to try to understand that truth.  True knowledge of science by Christians gives credibility to the Christian message.  If my views of something non-fundamental to the gospel are in conflict with others, it may be that my view is just my interpretation.  Must know difference between what scripture says and what it means.  In order to discern truth and come together charitably, conferences are helpful.

“Foundations of the earth” are metaphors for something real – not literal metal cement and stone, but real nonetheless.  Earth doesn’t have to be the center of the universe to be in the center of God’s attention.  Science and reason helps us come to the most probable interpretation of the Bible.  Once it became evident that the earth did move and that the Bible could be consistently interpreted in that way, it was not foolish to believe so in light of the new science.

“Creationist” – meant someone who believe God created.  Currently usually means “young earth creationist”  Many prominent church fathers and theologians have interpreted Genesis to be young or old.

The interpretations morph into the following views:

Young earth – 10000 years or less

Old earth – “days” are of unspecified length

Framework – days are not chronological, but descriptive.  Genesis days form a literary parallel or framework, where days 1-3 balance 4-6.  Cosmic temple view – (theistic evolutionists).  Could still contain sequence all the same.

Different interpretations of the same text.  Must think about what the text says before we interpret.  We bring preconceived notions to the understanding of what the text says to what it actually says.

Genesis 1 – “day” Hebrew “yom” – one use in the Bible – daylight hours, 12 hrs , other evening and morning – 24 hr day.  7^th Day, Sabbath, is different in that no mention of evening and morning.  Some say the seventh day extends through the present.  Another use of day could be as in “in my day” – an indefinite period of time.

Genesis 1:1-2, following the 6 days of creation.  Could indicate that 1 & 2 is not included in day 1.  Logically possible that universe is ancient, and that the creation days were 24 hrs as well, on the reading of the text.  No definite articles used on day 1-5, but on 6 and 7.  “A” day, vs “the” day.  Noteworthy for logical possibilities.  Could be a sequence of creation time periods of differing length, or 24 hours separated from one another by unknown lengths of time.  Opposite of unguided non-intelligent process – no movement towards more complexity without God’s word.  Textual sophistication gives room for these different interpretations.

Objections to framework –

1. Far fetched, goes against natural straightforward reading of the text.
   1. See question of fixed-earth – increased scientific knowledge didn’t undermine authority of scripture.  Experience of the real world already helps in understanding scripture.  If we applied objection above to fixed-earth, we’d still hold the view.  Must know why the view is held and if there is good reason to change view.  (epistemic duties)  Number of people believing something is not enough reason to reject change in views.  Does a change in view have important theological implications, or can it consistently be applied to scripture’s teachings?
   2. Even if possibility granted, later Genesis chapters rule it out that it creates major theological problem – since life came before day 6, death been in the world a long time.  Sin and death closely related.
      1. There are clear pains taken to show difference between man and beast.  Death before entry of sin among plants and animals, “Death passed among all men” (Paul) – *human* death is a consequence of sin.  Animals do not sin.  Question of animals and plant death before the fall is left open.  View of non-death of animals before human sin, raises questions of animal development and life arise.  Did the physical features of these creatures develop after sin, or in anticipation of it?  Corruption, disease, and human death may be consequence of sin, but animal and plant death is not.

What of the serpent, before the fall?  Something had already corrupted at least part of the creation, and it was corruptible.

Uniformity of nature – the present has the only key to the past.  But with creation, we know that the past is not absolutely uniform.  Theistic evolution – creator engineered the parameters universe to be able to evolve life.  God creates universe; sets laws; sustains the universe; let life develop without any further intervention, except perhaps infusing souls into humanity.

1. Most physicists comfortable with singularity as the beginning of the universe – God is first cause
2. Theistic evolutionists believe origin of life and humans involve some supernatural intervention
3. Supernatural intervention also in the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus

Evolution – cannot account for origin of life.  Presupposes but doesn’t explain first life.  Unguided processes do not create new information.  The materials cannot create the outcome without the intellect.

Don’t overlook the main message of Genesis – that God created it, not the method.  Also remember to be charitable as it is not a crucial issue of orthodoxy.

Saturday, June 18, 2011 Q&A with John Lennox

Science is not the only source of knowledge, and science is not coextensive with rationality.

Youtube: dueling professors

Thursday, June 16, 2011 – Terry Mortenson and Hugh Ross

Terry Mortenson – young earth creationist view “A Defense of Biblical Creationism”

God created the world in six literal 24-hour days about 6000 years ago and judged the earth with a flood

Genesis 1-11 is history

1. Literary form – narrative
   1. Sentence structure – verbs used
   2. Lacks poetic features – parallelism etc. missing
   3. Gen 1-11 and 12-50 – no break in style or format, and end of Genesis is clearly historical
   4. “Toledot” – 11 times in Genesis “these are the generations of”
   5. Description of real time and places
   6. Gen 1-11 lacks signals of parables, visions and dreams
   7. This is Jesus’ view
   8. This is the view of Biblical writers
   9. Historic orthodox view of church

Why Galileo affair is not relevant to origins debate:

1. No sustained discussion in bible of the physical structure of solar system,  but there is of Creation, Fall and flood
2. The few brief references are mainly in poetic sections of the Bible
3. The structure of the solar system is not connected in any way to the gospel, but Genesis 1-11 is foundational to it.

Gen 1:5 – God called day, and the darkness he called night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.  Clear what the meaning is by context – literal – cardinal, not ordinal

Numbers modify days: one, second,…

Modified with “evening” and “morning”

Genesis 1:14 God created lights to measure days, years and seasons.

Vs 17 says that God placed them in the expanse of the heavens which was made on day 2.

So the sun, moon, and stars were not made on Day 1 or any time before Day 1 – but on Day 4

Psalm 33:6, 8-9 – by the word of the lord the heavens were made and by the breath of his mouth all their hosts. For he spoke and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.

Exodus 20:11 – For in six days the Lord made the heavens and earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day.

5 days before Adam – 5 days

Adam to Abraham – ~2000 yrs

Abraham to Christ – ~2000 yrs

Christ to present –   ~2000 yrs

Total -                           ~6000 yrs

Gen 1:21, 25 – “after their kind” – not changing from one kind to another kind (ie evolution)

“It is not important when, how, or how long God created, what’s important is that God created” – he disagrees because Genesis is foundational to the rest of the Bible.  Has theological implications on other Biblical doctrines.

Doctrine of death: why is there death and disease, and why is it tragic?  Rom 5:12 says through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin.

Natural disasters – did God make the earth like that?  Fossil record shows record of pain, suffering, death, disease, killing, and extinction over millions of years.  Nowhere does the Bible clearly state that animals did not die or kill before the fall, but neither does it say that God is triune or that Jesus is fully God and fully man either.  Context and other doctrine imply these.

Gen. 1:29-30 – “I have given you every plant” Man and animals are originally vegetarian.  Eating plants doesn’t kill, animals do not have life.  Only after flood is man explicitly told to eat meat (Gen 9:3).

Consequences of fall

-serpent was cursed – more than the cattle and the beast, so other animals were cursed also.

- Eve cursed with pain in childbirth, Rom 5:15 – physical death

Vs 17 ground cursed, outside garden

Vs. 21 Coats of skin to cover their nakedness – first mentioned death of animals

Vs 18 thorns and thistles grow – fossil thorns in records millions of years ago (ie. Before original sin)

Rom 8 – creation waiting for the sons of God, creation subjected to futility, hopes to be set free from slavery.  Whole suffering groans.  Most commentators say subjection happened at the fall.

Many dinosaurs seem to have had cancer – if cancer in dinos millions of years before man, god must have said it was “very good”

4 major extinction events in fossil record over millions of years – again “very good” during creation process.

If there were millions of years of natural evil, was not the curse of Gen 3 completely meaningless?  What did it do?  We would call the curse a blessing by greatly improving things, since we don’t see the massive extinction afterwards.

Doctrine of God

Gen 1:31 – God created heavens and earth – it was very good, then sin came.  How does he teach sinners to relate to the fallen world?  You are to rest on Sabbath, also your ox and donkey (Ex 23:12).  Not to abuse their animals but treat them well (Prov 12:10).  Matt 6:26 God cares for the creation, even in fallen world.  Animals and earth are cursed, many destroyed in flood, all because of man’s sin.

1. How could this caring God spend millions of years creating, then allow millions dying before sin enters the world and call it good?
2. How can God tell man to care for the animals if they lived before man was around?

Genesis foundational to the doctrine of God.

Dembski’s book – The End of Christianity – Finding a Good God in an Evil World.  Assumes that the millions of years of evil and says it is part of the consequence of sin because of God’s foreknowledge.  Answersingenesis.org – Mortensen and Dembski for his response.

Doctrine of the Gospel – build on foundations of Genesis

Seed of the woman will break the work of the serpent.  Jesus is the second and last Adam – came to solve problem started in Garden of Eden.  Rom 8:19-23 – creation waiting eagerly for revelation of the sons of God – creation will be set free from corruption.  So Jesus return will eradicate pain and death of the curse.  Is. 11 and 65 – time in future when wolf lies with the lamb and lion will eat grass.  Gospel is not just about spiritual salvation, but redemption of entire creation.

“You have to believe in young earth to be saved” – He certainly does not say this, only belief in Jesus work.  But this does not mean age of the earth does not matter.  Genesis is foundational to the credibility of the gospel, must be history and reliable, or the rest of the Bible is questionable.

Scientific question – Grand Canyon –280 mi long, 4-5 miles wide, 1 mile deep.  Millions of years to form on evolution.  Evidence that it happened catastrophically (ie. Flood).  A global flood changed things and in minutes, hours, or days, gave the impression of much greater age.  Challenges the dating methods of the earth of millions of years.

Uniformitarian view – earth movement before works the same as now.  Rejected by some geologists, because some past catastrophic events could have changed things faster than the gradual changes (Catastrophism).  Assumptions affect the outcome of their hypotheses.

Radiometric dating?  The problem is the assumptions in the dating methods – circular reasoning

Hugh Ross – “Old earth view”

Reasons to believe reasons.org

Constructive integration – bible has detail description of natural history, works with data of science

Belgic confession – God known by natural and special revelation, and we should study both (book of nature)

Sola Scriptura – Bible is the only verbal propositional authority, but not the only reliable revelation, ie. Nature; they will agree with one another.  Bible is inspired by God, universe is created by God.  Impossible for God to lie, so they will agree.

Theology: human interpretation of Bible’s word

Science: human interpretation of nature’s facts

1 Thess 5:21 – “test everything, hold onto the good.”   Test and act on established truth.

Scientific method from within scripture.  “Biblical testing method” encourages investigator to research before drawing conclusion.  Repeated over and over again to approach the truth more closely.  27 chapter length or longer descriptions of creation in Bible.

Slows down process causing faulty interpretations

1. Identify frame of reference
2. Determine initial conditions
3. Note what occurs, when, where, and in what order
4. Note final conclusions.
5. Form hypothesis about how and why of the phenomenon
6. Test hypothesis
7. Revise hypothesis
8. Repeat sequence

Many different Biblical creation accounts on reasons.org

Integrate all disciplines of science for a more complete picture

“All attempts to harmonize our biblical story of the creation of the world with the results of  natural science have been useless and must always be so.”  Disagrees!

“Yom” – “day” in Gen. 1 with four different possible meanings.  Only word that can stand for a long finite period of time in Hebrew, so Moses had to use it if he meant a long indefinite period of time.

1. Part of the daylight hours
2. All of the daylight hours
3. One rotation period of earth
4. Long finite period of time

Gen 1 miracles

1. Creation of the physical universe, and space/time
   1. “Any universe that expands on average must have a beginning where a causal agent outside space and time creates space, time, matter, and energy.” Borde, Vilenkin, Guth
   2. Gap between Gen 1:1 and 1:2?  “Stretching the heavens” – expansion of the universe? Job 9:8, Isaiah 40:22, Isaiah 44:24, Isaiah 48:13, Zech 12:1… etc
   3. On big bang, time needed for correct rate of universal expansion for stars, planets, life etc. formation
   4. Fixed physical laws – Gen 1-2, Gen 3:17, Eccl. 1:4-10, Eccl. 3:11-15, Jer 33:25, Rom 8:18-23, Rev 20:7-22:5
   5. Reference frame shift Gen 1:2
   6.  Atmospheric transformation – opaque to translucent
      1. Job 38:9 clarification – I made the clouts its [the earth] garment
      2. Formation of abundant, stable water cycle
      3. Formation of land masses
      4. Production of land plants  “all plant life” then gives non-complete list
         1. Plant fossils before Cambrian explosion

i.      Knauth & Kennedy Nature 460 (2009) 728-32

ii.      Strother et al., Nature 473 (2011): 505-509

1. Atmospheric transformation: translucent to transparent.  Gen 1:14-15 Lights not created, only now visible
   1. Vs. 15 – “to serve as signs to mark seasons, days, and years for advanced life” – which life?  The advanced animals and man, who need it for mating, feeding, etc.
   2. Vs. 16 – “God made two great lights…He also made the stars.”  – Hebrew verb form means completed sometime in the past, not instantly when mentioned on fourth day
   3. Emergence of small sea animals (bodies)
   4. Creation of birds and sea mammals (soulish) – mind will and emotions
   5. Creation of three kinds of advanced land mammals (soulish)

How much evolution?

If YE: after the fall some herbivores rapidly evolved to become carnivores.  After flood, thousands of species rapidly evolve to become millions.  Radical evolution

Old Earth: micro evolution, small changes within the species

Theistic/naturalistic evolution: micro and macro evolution

Does the Bible allow for evolution?  Lev 19:19 – “min” translated “kind” cannot refer to genera, families, or orders given in the prohibition in Lev 19:19 – “Do not mate different kinds [kil’ayim = two kinds] of animals”  Different owls separate “min” Lev 11:15-16.  So Bible rules it out

No discernable change in human DNA over the last 25,000 years – DNA not evolving in any significant way.  No discernable change in Neanderthal DNA over 80,000 year period.  Long-term evolution experiments on yeast and bacteria show only micro-evolution.

1. Creation of humans (spiritual)

“there was evening and morning” omitted from seventh day – we are still in the seventh day.  God’s rest answers the fossil record enigma.  Average of one new species/year before humans arrive, virtually none afterwards.  God targets evil and suffering on seventh day, but at the end it will be eradicated.  God’s Sabbath (epoch of rest) explains why present-day science reveals only natural processes at work.

More scientists in physical science believe in God than in natural science.  Anthropic principle responsible for their conversions.

Adam (Genesis 2)

1. Adam created outside Eden
2. Sees Eden’s trees grow
3. Tends the Garden
4. Names all the “nephesh” creatures (20000+ species); man was lonely, only after 24 hours?
5. Undergoes surgery
6. Recovers
7. Sees Eve
8. Exclaims “happa’am” – “at long last”

Genesis 1 score

With yom = epoch and reference frame = earth’s surface, science accuracy score is:

Initial conditions 4 of 4, creation events: 10 for 10

The more we learn about nature’s record, the more reasons we gain to trust in biblical inerrancy.

The more we learn about the Bible, the more reasons we gain to trust the reliability of nature’s record.

13-14 billion years ago universe created

60,000-30,000 years ago man created

Friday, June 17, 2011 –Michael Behe

Michael Behe –Intelligent Design

“Intelligent Design at the Foundation of Life”

Design – Psalm 139:13-14 “I am fearfully and wonderfully made”

David knew this, not from revelation, but from empirical observation.  Can we tell if a system was purposefully designed by an intelligence?  This is the question, not taking position on the creator itself.  Intelligent Design could have been conducted through the process of evolution.   A designer can design something to change over time.  ID does not take a position though, just says it is possible.

Why science and not just the bible?  Prov 25:2 – glory of God to conceal the matter, to search out is glory of kings.   World is mysterious and it glorifies God to search out the mysteries.  Mendeleev discovered the periodic table of elements and the hidden relationship between the elements.

What is Intelligent Design, how do we recognize it, and why is it a compelling theory for the biology we have discovered?

1. Design is not mystical.  Deduced from physical structure of a system.
   1. Design: the purposeful arrangement of parts; we infer design whenever parts appear arranged to accomplish a function
   2. Strength of inference is quantitative – more parts arranged to perform the function, the more sure we can be that it was designed.
   3. Everyone agrees aspects of biology appear designed. (even those who oppose the reality of design)
      1. Richard Dawkins – “biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”  Any engineer can recognize design in an object.  “The living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design.”  But thinks it is misleading.
      2. There are structural obstacles to Darwinian evolution.
         1. Darwin: Weakness of irreducible complexity to his model.
         2. Irreducible Complexity: mousetrap example – all parts must be in place and functioning in a certain way or it does not function at all, not just at a reduced level.  In other words, Darwinian process cannot account for its development.  Function only appears when the system is complete, there’s nothing to “select” for along the process.
         3. Are there irreducibly complex natural organs?  Yes, many, some of which:

i.      Bacterium flagellum

ii.      Macromolecular machines in the cell

iii.      The more studies done in life science, the more complicated the systems of life  are – they are not becoming simpler to understand.

1. Grand Darwinian claims rest on undisciplined imagination
   1. Franklin Harold – “We should reject as a matter of principle, [intelligent design, but]…we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”  He doesn’t say what principle that may be.  May be because it points beyond the natural.
   2. Follow the evidence wherever it goes!
   3. Bottom line: Strong evidence from design, little evidence for Darwinism
      1. Life overwhelmingly impresses us with the appearance of design – Dawkins.  Is there good reason that we go against the obvious?
      2. Inductive argument – using established facts to draw general conclusion – normally used in sciences, based in empirical facts.

Intelligent Design is rational

Michael Behe Q&A

Google: bacterial evolution experiment lenski

Round Table Q&A – Behe, Ross, Mortenson

Faith and science –

Mortenson – when in conflict, allows science to influence his thinking, but only the text of the Bible to determine meaning.  Nature is cursed; Bible does not say that the evidence of nature is infallible, only God’s word.  Since Bible is written word, it is a different kind of revelation than natural revelation, and proper interpretation may be more difficult.  Science doesn’t change interpretation with authority, but by driving back to the scriptures for reconsideration and reconciliation.  “Established” scientific theories are overthrown all the time, so must be cautious in depending on science to interpret the Bible and reality.

God’s Wrath, God’s Love

I think our view of God is a an inaccurate one often. We tend to think of him either as an authority, but equal, like a president, or else something completely impersonal or removed who has no daily influence.  God is wholly “other,” and while we are created in his image, we are not God and he is not us. We share characteristics, but must not become too casual and comfortable in our relationship. The pure, holy, and awesome God condescends to have relationships with man, yet he still retains his attributes.

I used to think that wrath was unworthy of God. Isn’t God Love? Shouldn’t divine love be beyond wrath? God is love, and God loves every person and every creature.  That’s exactly why God is wrathful against some of them. My last resistance to the idea of God’s wrath was a casualty of the war in the former Yugoslavia, the region from which I come. According to some estimates, 200,000 people were killed and over 3,000,000 were displaced. My villages and cities were destroyed, my people shelled day in and day out, some of them brutalized beyond imagination, and I could not imagine God not being angry. Or think of Rwanda in the last decade of the past century, where 800,000 people were hacked to death in one hundred days! How did God react to the carnage? By doting on the perpetrators in a grandfatherly fashion? By refusing to condemn the bloodbath but instead affirming the perpetrators’ basic goodness? Wasn’t God fiercely angry with them? Though I used to complain about the indecency of the idea of God’s wrath, I came to think that I would have to rebel against a God who wasn’t wrathful at the sight of the world’s evil. God isn’t wrathful in spite of being love. God is wrathful because God is love.

- Miroslav Volf, quoted in Is God a Moral Monster, by Paul Copan

By His Stripes We Are Healed

Isaiah 53:5 -
But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.

Does this last line refer to physical healing, or spiritual?

Could healing not occur before the stripes?  Yes, God healed in the old testament as well as during Jesus ministry prior to the crucifixion.

Is this intended as a promise to believers for an assurance of healing?  It does not seem to be the case – there are many Christians with physical ailments, and some of them die.  Indeed, since “old age” isn’t a legitimate medical cause of death, everyone (including those previously healed) who doesn’t die of violence will die of some physical ailment (rapture notwithstanding).

Taking the view that this is a healing promise from God is dangerous in that expectations are built up for disappointment and disillusionment if healing does not occur.  The false doctrine of the “health and wealth gospel” or “prosperity gospel” asserts that Christians should expect financial prosperity and physical health as guaranteed sign-on perks, and that if one does not possess them, then one’s faith is deficient.  This is a false view of the purposes of God; his objective is not to make us happy in this life, it is to perfect our character.  For most of us, luxury and comfort foster complacency and self-reliance; for some few others, wealth and health is properly used in selfless generosity.  When the clock runs smoothly, we often forget the clockmaker.  In The Problem of Pain, C. S. Lewis says that “Pain is God’s megaphone to rouse a deaf world.”

I will not deny that God can and does heal; I know of many cases where miraculous healing makes the best explanation.  But I think the context of the phrase in the verse, as well as the evidence of our Christian life experience seems to indicate that this is intended to mean the spiritual healing of a restored relationship with God through Christ’s sacrifice.

Why be moral?

I’ve been thinking over the years since I read “Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis about whether objective morality is possible without the existence of God.

The best answer I could come up in favor of morality without God as a standard was the Social Contract model, in which morals developed as part of an evolutionary …survival tool as societies formed for the protection of the masses.

The problems I have with that though is that it’s too arbitrary – whose society gets preference in a conflict? That is, how do you define a society? It could be a country, an ethnic group, a minority group, a family, or even perhaps an individual.

The other issue that follows from this is whether or not living with “positive” moral values is really in my best interests without an afterlife in which I must account for my actions. That is, if I think I can get away with it, why not lie, cheat, and steal to improve my own condition?

The attached link is a paper (not mine) which develops this argument.

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/virtual_library/articles/clark_kelly_j/why_be_moral.pdf

Intelligent Design in our Universe (10/21/08)

The Finely-Tuned Universe

The Fine-Tuning Teleological argument states that there is design in the universe, and that the purpose of the design is human life.  There are over one hundred cosmological or physical parameters that have been discovered so far[1] which support the fine-tuning argument, both on the macro level of astronomy, cosmology, and physics and the micro level of biology and chemistry.  Below I will enumerate some examples of these evidences as well as examine some of the critical responses to the finely-tuned universe argument.

Evidence of Design

The following is a list and brief explanation of several of these parameters which individually make a strong statement establishing design.  Together, particularly with the host of others referred to above, the case for design is far stronger than the most airtight forensic conviction in our courtrooms.  For just 75 of the many available constants to be so without a Designer, the probability is approximately 10^-99, a vanishingly small number.[2]

One such evidence is found when considering the strong nuclear force, which binds subatomic particles within an atomic nucleus.  With a variance in this force of about 1 percent, the universe would either have no hydrogen at all in it or be completely composed of hydrogen, neither condition which will support life.

The weak nuclear force is what allows nuclear fission, fusion, and decay, and is responsible for the production of helium.  If this were slightly stronger or weaker in its strength, the right amount of helium would not have been produced to have developed planets.

Electromagnetic force is necessary for the formation of molecules through the sharing and placement of electrons.  If it were stronger or weaker, molecules could not form, and so neither could more complex arrangements of life.

The gravitational force in the universe is another parameter with an extremely narrow range supporting the existence of suns, planets, and life as we know it in our universe.  A very slightly higher amount of gravity in the universe would result in crushing gravity which would result in animals not much larger than insects to be unable to support their own weight.  Increasing gravity slightly more would cause the stars in the universe to burn more quickly and hotter, making planets uninhabitable.  Reduction in the gravitational force by a small amount would cause the stars to not burn as hot and so nuclear fusion, again, would not start, and neither sufficient energy nor heavy elements for planetary creation would be produced, and life would be impossible.

The cosmological constant is the energy density of empty space.  If it had been large and positive, it would have been a strong repellent which would have prevented the formation of galaxies and stars.  Had it been large and negative, it would have been attractive to the point of causing the universe to collapse in on itself as soon as it had begun expansion.  In fact, it is smaller than had been first predicted, making it a very precise setting making our universe and life possible.[3]

The mass of a neutron is just the right amount too – were it only a bit bigger, nuclear fusion in stars would stop, and there would be no energy for life.

Criticisms of Teleology and Alternate Explanations

Perhaps the most widely accepted refutation attempt by critics of this argument is the Multiverse theory.  This theory states that there are actually an infinite number of universes appearing and disappearing throughout the infinite stretch of time, and thus, the staggering odds against a chance production of our universe means nothing more than the number came up.  These multiple universes are theoretically said to have appeared within bubbles created during an inflationary period early in the universe’s existence.  However, there are several problems with this theory.

Firstly, as is demonstrated elsewhere,[4] an actually infinite number of things (such as discrete universes) cannot exist; it is a mathematical impossibility.  Even stating it as a hugely enormous number of finite universes doesn’t get around the problem, but it does bring us to the second problem with the multiverse theory.

That second problem would best be summarized by the “fixed game” example[5], which applies to the multiverse theory as well as directly applying to a “chance” explanation in a single universe. As noted above, there are over 100 constants that we currently know of which are each improbable to an enormous degree.  Imagine a person tossing a coin again and again, noting whether it landed heads or tails (only an approximate 50% odds), and it came up heads each time, up to and exceeding one hundred times.  That person would not reasonably conclude that he was incredibly lucky[6]; he would strongly suspect that the game was fixed, that the coin was weighted or in some other way tampered with to produce such a result.   

Thirdly, there is no scientific evidence or precedent to think that such a thing could exist; there is no support for this theory in observable nature.  This makes the multiverse theory more of a metaphysical position than a scientific one, and since the model of a Designer fits more within our realm of experience, Occam’s Razor suggests that we must discard the multiverse hypothesis rather than postulate an infinitude of undetectable and untestable universes to explain our own which is so.  Moreover, once science begins entertaining the notion that the universe is not, in fact, a closed system, but can be acted upon by outside forces, supernatural influence can no longer be ruled out on those grounds.

A fourth problem with the multiverse theory lies within the requirements of a mechanism that could produce universes as postulated by this theory.  For such a “universe machine” as this to work, there would necessarily be some uniform laws in place to produce these multitudes of universes, and these laws would have to operate within certain fine-tuned parameters of physics to be able to even produce universes.[7]  So the implied design is not refuted by the multiverse theory; it is only moved up a level.  If the multiverse theory is somehow and someday proven true, it will only raise more questions and evidence in favor of creationist theism.

Some naturalists attempt to explain away the evidences of design in the universe by imagining a yet-undiscovered unified Theory of Everything, which would show all these apparently designed constants to be components in a larger organization of a naturalistic law or principle.  The French mathematician and astronomer Pierre-Simon, marquis de LaPlace states it so:

An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.[8]

The problem with a “Theory of Everything” solution is similar to that of the multiverse machine.  Such a theory which would require or force the precision of the constants as we find them to be would be even more complex, and itself imply design of an even higher ingenuity.[9]  So again, the problem would just be moved up a level.

An attempt is made to brush the issue aside with the weak anthropic principle which is explained by British mathematical physicist Roger Penrose in the following manner:

The argument can be used to explain why the conditions happen to be just right for the existence of (intelligent) life on the earth at the present time. For if they were not just right, then we should not have found ourselves to be here now, but somewhere else, at some other appropriate time.[10]

This explanation is no explanation at all, however, but a statement of our ability to observe the fine-tuning.  Truths and natural laws exist independently of our recognition of them.  Thus, they are discovered, not created, and this fine-tuning still requires an explanation.

Other naturalistic scientists discard the anthropic principle of design as being a god-of-the-gaps solution.  The argument is that by inserting “God did it” into gaps in scientific knowledge, the scientific investigation is closed and no further exploration is felt needed by the theist.

The argument for the existence of God as the designer is a reasonable conclusion from the evidence supplied; it is not simply a fallback default solution.  Dietrich Bonhoeffer stated:

…how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don’t know.[11] 

The evidence produced by scientific study builds more and more the case for a Designer of the universe.  The gaps in the knowledge of one who believes in intelligent design are still available to be filled by scientific exploration as the solutions are discovered; these solutions are not ruled out ahead of time by presupposition or prejudice.  Scientific study is in no way hampered by the proposal of universal design.

In fact, it is naturalistic scientists who make limiting judgments prior to evaluation of evidence, by ruling out the metaphysical before the scientific process even begins.  This is naturalism-of-the-gaps, and limits accurate and complete scientific study of the universe’s evidence.

The naturalistic responses to this body of evidence and the staggering improbability of chance occurrence of it all are either faulty philosophical sidesteps or bad scientific methods, as they themselves would define it.  Therefore, the Anthropic Principle of cosmology provides very compelling evidence for the most reasonable conclusion that a supernatural being designed and created the universe in such a way that mankind could exist.  As astronomer George Greenstein puts it:

As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency—or, rather, Agency—must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?[12]

 

---

[1] A more lengthy list may be found at Reasons To Believe. “Design Evidences In The Cosmos.” 1998. (see bibliography)

[2] Ibid.

[3] Stephen Weinberg, “A Designer Universe?,” New York Review of Books (October 21 1999): .

[4] As developed in William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1994), 94-97.

[5] Kenneth D. and Robert M. Bowman Boa, Jr, 20 Compelling Evidences That God Exists (Colorado Springs, Colorado: Cook Communications, 2005), p. 50; also Strobel, Lee. The Case for a Creator. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2004, p. 136.

[6] Odds are less than one in a quadrillion quadrillion for 100 tosses, according to Boa, 20, (p. 50)!

[7] Strobel, The Case for a Creator, p. 142-144.

[8] LaPlace, Pierre-Simon, marquis de, A Philisophical Essay on Probabilities, trans. F. W. Truscott and F. L. Emory (New York, New York: Cosimo, Inc, 2007), 4.

[9] Strobel, The Case for a Creator, p. 137

[10] Roger Penrose, The Emperor’s New Mind (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1989), 559.

[11] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison (New York, New York: Touchstone, 1997), 311.

[12] George Greenstein, The Symbiotic Universe: Life and Mind in the Cosmos (New York, New York: William Morrow, 1988), 26-27.

Argument Defense: The Problem of Evil (11/9/08)

One of the most often cited arguments against Christianity is that of the problem of evil.  One of the permutations of this argument states that because of the existence of evil in this world, God as defined by Christianity cannot exist.  This argument, and responses to it, will be examined below.

As defined by the Christian faith, God has three characteristics (among others): He is omnibenevolent, or all loving and all good; He is omniscient, or fully aware of what happens and what will happen in the world; He is omnipotent, or all-powerful and able to accomplish His will.  Christians also believe that God created the world, and agree with critics that evil now exists in the world.

From these two premises, that God is omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent, and that evil exists in the world, critics conclude that there is a contradiction, and so God cannot exist.  The apparent contradiction is that if God is aware of the evil in the world and all good and loving, He should want to remove it, and if He is all-powerful, He should be able to do so.  The fact that evil in the world remains means that there is a conflict with one of those two characteristics and thus Christianity is self-contradictory.

This apparent contradiction can be resolved by considering the possibility that the existence of evil is tolerated by God for some good reason that we as humans do not realize.  This is certainly logically possible however, and solves the alleged contradiction.  One argument that could explain this reason for evil is that God values man’s free will.  If God desires a loving relationship with man, as is taught in the Bible, free will is essential.   Without the ability to reject the love offered by God, true love reciprocated is not possible.  Beings coerced into belief and good behavior are little more than automatons, and would be incapable of true expressions of love. 

With this freedom to choose and express love, though, comes the other edge of the sword, which is the ability to reject God and behave contrary to His will, paraphrased as loving God and loving others.  This, then leads to the evil that mankind has accomplished in the world.  God shows respect for man’s choices and allows for the consequences of the expression of this free will, even when it is contrary to His own perfect will.  Since God, in His respect for man’s choices, will not (ordinarily) interdict that will, innocent victims often are made to suffer as consequence of the actions of others.  Again, God could intervene at every such occasion, but this would preempt man’s free will and devalue the choices he made, for good or bad.

The main thrust of the argument against Christianity from the problem of evil is an understandable outcry against the frequent unjust suffering in the world.  Since Christians believe that God is indeed all-powerful, loving, good, and knowing, they may reconcile the widespread evil in the world with the knowledge that God has a redemptive plan for mankind and can conceivably use the evil actions of others to accomplish this plan, while showing respect for His creation by permitting the exercise of man’s free will.