Merry Christmas!

"For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, so that you by His poverty might become rich." ~ II Corinthians 8:9

This is not going to be a long post. I just wanted to wish everyone a merry Christmas and remind you of the real reason for the season.

By His Grace,
Taylor

God's Sovereignty in Lewis

"Thus we see Lewis’ purpose in The Horse and His Boy. His aim throughout the whole story with almost every character was one and the same: to expand and display the reality present in Romans 8:28, 'And we know that God causes all things to work together for good, to those that love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.' Aslan, as you have seen, has this kind of encounter with Shasta and many other characters. All of the characters, even Bree the horse, seem to be down and out when Aslan comes to them with sovereign encouragement one by one." ~ Adam Powers

One of my friends, Adam Powers, is writing a series of entries on his blog about C. S. Lewis's Narnia series. Today's post is about The Horse and His Boy. Adam shows how one of Lewis' main points in this work is to show us the comfort of the sovereignty of God. He makes a great point and it is very encouraging. Read more here.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Fourth Advent Sunday

"The astounding truth is that in Jesus Christ, humanity encountered God in a real, personal, historical, and tangible way." ~ Kenneth Samples, Without a Doubt

Today was the last Sunday in Advent. The time of anticipation is coming to an end because the celebration is near. When we truly reflect upon what we celebrate in Advent we cannot help but be astounded. Listen to the expressions of wonder from a couple of the greatest minds in Church history:

He by whom all things were made was made one of all things. The Son of God by the Father without a mother became the Son of man by a mother without a father. The Word Who is God before all time became flesh at the appointed time. The maker of the sun was made under the sun. He Who fills the world lay in a manger, great in the form of God but tiny in the form of a servant; this was in such a way that neither was His greatness diminished by His tininess, nor was His tininess overcome by His greatness. ~ Aurelius Augustine, "Sermon 187"

The next thing that I would observe concerning the incarnation of Christ, is the greatness of this event. Christ’s incarnation was a greater and more wonderful thing than ever had yet come to pass. The creation of the world was a very great thing, but not so great as the incarnation of Christ. It was a great thing for God to make the creature, but not so great as the for the Creator himself to become a creature. We have spoken of many great things that were accomplished between the fall of man and the incarnation of Christ: but God becoming man was greater than all. Then the greatest person was born that ever was or ever will be. ~ Jonathan Edwards, "Of Christ's Incarnation" from A History of the Work of Redemption

Soon we will celebrate the birth of the "greatest person... born that ever was or ever will be", God "great in form... but tiny in the form of a servant." It truly is the "season to be jolly", but not because of presents, time off work, or even family celebrations. Those are good things, but they all pale in comparison to the celebration of He who created joy becoming like us so that we could experience joy in Him.

 Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz, "Ask a sign of the LORD your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven." But Ahaz said, "I will not ask, and I will not put the LORD to the test." And he said, "Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

~ Isaiah 7:10-14

By His Grace,
Taylor

Third Advent Sunday

"...Go back eighteen centuries before that. Who could have cared about the birth of a baby while the world was watching Rome in all her splendor?... Palestine existed under the crush of Rome's heavy boot. All eyes were on Augustus, the cynical caesar who demanded a census so as to determine a measurement to enlarge taxes.... What could possibly be more important than Caesar's decision in Rome? Who cared about a Jewish baby born in Bethlehem?
"God did. Without realizing it, mighty Augustus was only an errand boy for the fulfillment of Micah's prediction... a pawn in the hand of Jehovah... a piece of lint on the pages of prophecy. While Rome was busy making history, God arrived. He pitched His fleshly tent in silence on straw... in a stable... under a star. The world didn't even notice. Reeling from the wake of Alexander the Great... Herod the Great... Augustus the Great, the world overlooked Mary's little Lamb." ~ Charles Swindoll, Growing Strong in the Seasons of Life (43)

Today is the third Sunday in Advent. The Church continues the age-old tradition of celebrating Advent so that we do not make the same mistake the Romans and Jews made 2,000 years ago. It is easy to get caught up in the excitement of Christmas and forget about the reason behind Christmas. Even though I myself and kind of a Christmas Scrooge, there is nothing wrong with celebrations, presents, and family traditions. In fact, they are good things, but it is easy to get caught up in them and forget about the good news of Christmas.

"And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call His name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to Him the throne of His father David, and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end."

~ Luke 1:31-33

"Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord."

~ Luke 2:10-11

By His Grace,
Taylor

And the Word Became Flesh and Dwelt Among Us...

I just wrote a post about the second Advent Sunday and truly how incredible the incarnation, which we celebrate at Christmas, really was. Then, while procrastinating and not studying for a Greek exam, I read the latest letter by my friend Steve (whom you have probably seen me quote before), which is posted on his website: www.keylife.org. It is about Christmas, which is about "a boatload of problems that we can't fix and a God who came 'at the right time' to love us, forgive us and call us, and to tell us about Home. Christmas is a celebration of our helplessness and God's antidote." I really liked it so I thought I would share it:

I once said on a Key Life broadcast that a famous author had died. That's when I started getting letters informing me that he was very much alive. One friend even said that he had talked to this particular author that morning.

I thought I should correct that, but because I record the broadcasts a couple months ahead and because this particular author was so old he didn't even buy green bananas, I thought better of it.

There was a chance that if I said on the broadcast he was alive and kicking by the time it aired, he might have "assumed room temperature"...dead. So I just let the original mistake stand.

There are other problems with doing things so far in advance, particularly if one is a Scrooge. I'm writing this in October yet need to say something about Christmas because you will receive it in December. Not only that, I just came out of the studio after recording the Key Life Christmas programs. That would be no problem for you, but for a Scrooge it is painful. Between looking like Santa Claus and writing about Christmas before we even get to Thanksgiving, I hope you appreciate how I'm suffering. Please pray for me.

I wouldn't do this for anybody except you and Jesus...

You can read the rest of it here and I highly recommend it.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Second Advent Sunday

"When we open the package of Christmas we find that God has given us many gifts--vulnerability for intimacy, comfort for suffering, passion for justice, and power over prejudice... In the gift of Christmas, the unassailable, omnipotent God became a baby giving us the ultimate example of letting our defenses down... There is no way to have a real relationship without becoming vulnerable to hurt. And Christmas tells us that God became breakable and fragile. God became someone we could hurt. Why? To get us back." ~ Tim Keller, "The Gift of Christmas" in Come, Thou Long-Expected Jesus: Experiencing the Peace and Promise of Christmas

Today was the second Sunday in Advent. If you attended a church in almost any Christian tradition you probably saw the second candle of the Advent Wreath lit and heard one of the prophecies about the coming Messiah read. Many of us who have been "churched" for most of our lives have heard these before so it is sometimes difficult to remember how incredible the subject of Advent is. The "unassailable, omnipotent God became a baby". "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us..." (John 1:1, 14a) The Word that is God became flesh. When we really stop and think about it that is an incredible. The sovereign God became a vulnerable baby. Why? "To get us back." To redeem the relationship. That is the celebration we anticipate with Advent. That is what Christmas is about. As my friend Nathan said this morning while he was preaching, "The most important gift of Christmas is not under any tree."

And in the same region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And an angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were filled with fear. And the angel said to them, "Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. And this will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger." And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying,

"Glory to God in the highest,

and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!"

~ Luke 2:8-14

By His Grace,
Taylor

First Advent Sunday

"The Christmas message is that there is hope for a ruined humanity—hope of pardon, hope of peace with God, hope of glory—because at the Father's will Jesus Christ became poor and was born in a stable so that thirty years later He might hang on a cross." ~ J. I. Packer, Knowing God

Today is the first Sunday of the Advent season. The season begins four Sundays before Christmas and ends on Christmas Eve. Advent tradition has its roots deep in Christian history that can be traced as far back as the 6th century AD with certainty (possibly as far back as the 4th with some question). It is marked with anticipation and preparation for the celebration of the birth of the Messiah. It is anticipation and preparation for the celebration of the coming of "hope of pardon, hope of peace with God, hope of glory" that came with Christ. It is also a celebration and anticipation of the second advent (second coming) of Christ still to be realized in the future.

Isaiah 9:6-7

For to us a child is born,

to us a son is given;

and the government shall be upon his shoulder,

and his name shall be called

Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,

Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Of the increase of his government and of peace

there will be no end,

on the throne of David and over his kingdom,

to establish it and to uphold it

with justice and with righteousness

from this time forth and forevermore.

The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this.

We are entering a time where we celebrate the coming of the Messiah who did establish and does uphold His kingdom "with justice and righteousness" and we look forward to His second coming where all He inaugurated will be consummated. Perhaps today could be the day? We can hope and pray.

By His Grace,
Taylor

99% Chimp... but also 35% Daffodil?

"In the context of a 35% similarity to a daffodil, the 99.44% of the DNA of human to chimp doesn’t seem so remarkable. After all, humans are obviously a heck of a lot more similar to chimpanzees than to daffodils. More than that, to say that humans are over one-third daffodil is more ludicrous than profound. There are hardly any comparisons you can make to a daffodil in which humans are 33% similar." ~ Dr. Jonathan Marks, What it Means to be 95% Chimpanzee: Apes, People, and their Genes

You have probably heard it before, "Humans are 99% chimp!" The percentage number of genetic similarity reported ranges from 90-99% (the actual number is probably closer to 90% when one takes into account indels--insertions and deletions in the DNA sequences--but that is not really important for our purposes here). This statement is based on work done by Mary-Claire King and A. C. Wilson in 1975. Their work showed several human and chimpanzee proteins display a 99% agreement in amino acid sequence. This indicated that humans and chimpanzees are closer genetic relatives than anyone at that time had thought. Soon popular evolutionary news caught wind of this and the field has never been the same since. It seems like compelling evidence for an Darwinian paradigm. Is it?

Not really, actually. As Dr. Marks states above, we could also say that humans are 35% daffodil based on this method of comparison, which is absurd. Comparisons based on the percent similarity of genetic sequences is basically meaningless. It being meaningless has led others, like Science correspondent Jon Cohen, to write, "Now it’s totally clear that it’s [the 99% genetic similarity] more a hindrance for understanding than a help." Most of the scientific community that supports naturalistic evolution has largely abandoned this comparison since it has no value. Yet, this icon of evolution is still floating around in popular media and text books.

Why does this comparison have little value? Well, let me try to explain it using an example. Assume that you and I each have a box of colored pencils. Each of our boxes contains 100 pencils. When we compare the boxes we find that 99 of our colors are the same and we each have one color the other does not have. If we each start to draw are we going to come up with pictures that are 99% similar? No, of course not. Why? Because the pictures depend not so much on the colored pencils we use but on the way we express ourselves in our drawings, how the colored pencils are used functionally. We may be using the same supplies but we would use them in vastly different ways. Well, genes are like that. Genetic similarity in organisms counts for nothing, it is how the genes are expressed that really matters. Having similar genes means nothing because functionally they operate very differently in different organisms.

Recent work on the FOXP2 gene creates a great example of this. (This is going to get a little technical but I think it is very helpful in illustrating my point above with an important, real-life example.) This gene has gotten a lot of attention lately because of its importance to language capability. This gene codes for a DNA-binding protein, which are proteins used in differential gene regulation--the controlling of activity in genes much like a volume control. They can turn genes "on" or "off" or regulate their activeness anywhere in between. The FOXP2 gene plays this role in humans and other organisms, like chimpanzees.

In humans this gene is critical for language capability. A study done by the Max Plank Institute (published in Nature in 2001) showed that any modification of this gene in humans cripples language capability. It not only disables the ability of the humans to make the sounds necessary for language but it also disables their ability to comprehend language completely. In this study they also looked at the amino acids that make up the protein that this gene produces--the FOXP2 protein--in chimps, mice, and humans. Out of the 715 amino acids that make up the protein in chimps, mice, and humans, the mouse and human protein differed by only three amino acids and the chimp human protein differed by only two amino acids (that is about a 0.3% difference).

In a recent paper also published in Nature, a team of scientists from several universities reported on an analysis they did of how this difference in the FOXP2 gene for humans and chimps affected biological development. In order to study the effect they culture two sets of neurons that had the FOXP2 gene removed from them. (They did this so they could have the same starting point for each gene they were studying.) In one set they introduced the human FOXP2 gene and in another set they introduced the chimp FOXP2 gene. They then observed how the neurons were affected by the different genes. What they found was profound. In the set of neurons with the human gene there were 60 other genes that were up-regulated (more active) by this protein compared to the chimp neurons and there were 50 other genes that were down-regulated (less active) by this protein compared to the chimp neurons. So, the introduction of one human gene that is 99.7% similar to the chimp version of the gene had a profound affect on 110 other genes in development! A two-out-of-715 amino acid difference had significant biological consequences.

This study illustrates how a 90-99% genetic similarity between humans and chimps really means nothing. Even if one were to grant that the similarity is 99% (as I briefly mentioned above, the number is closer to 90%), that 1% genetic difference has profound implications when it comes to gene expression in each species. Gene similarity is meaningless. Gene expression is what is important.

By His Grace,
Taylor

The Bumpy Ride

"...She had mapped out a perfect life, without failures or disappointments. But that is more of a flawed life-plan than the bumpy ride God inevitably maps out for us. People who have never suffered in life have less empathy for others, little knowledge of their own shortcomings and limitations, no endurance in the face of hardship, and unrealistic expectations for life. As the New Testament book of Hebrews tells us, anyone God loves experiences hardship (Hebrews 12:1-8)." Tim Keller, Counterfeit Gods

God is good. Any Christian would agree with that statement. We can even say that God is perfectly good, and He is all the time. We take great comfort in those words, as we should, but there is a side of God’s goodness that we often misunderstand. We often think that God loving us means He will not allow us to experience "the bumpy ride." Many of us have found, however, that is simply not the case.

When C. S. Lewis lost his wife, Joy, he started journaling about his struggles with God. Eventually one of his friends read his journal and convinced Lewis to publish it because he knew how much it would help many others. Lewis did publish it (initially under a pseudonym) with the title A Grief Observed. In it he wrote about God’s goodness:

The terrible thing is that a perfectly good God is in this matter hardly less formidable than a Cosmic Sadist. The more we believe that God hurts only to heal, the less we can believe that there is any use in begging for tenderness. A cruel man might be bribed-might grow tired of his vile sport-might have a temporary fit of mercy, as alcoholics have fits of sobriety. But suppose that what you are up against is a surgeon whose intentions are wholly good. The kinder and more conscientious he is, the more inexorably he will go on cutting. If he yielded to your entreaties, if he stopped before the operation was complete, all the pain up to that point would have been useless. But is it credible that such extremities of torture should be necessary for us? Well, take your choice. The tortures occur. If they are unnecessary, then there is no God or a bad one. If there is a good God, then these tortures are necessary. For not even moderately good Being could possibly inflict or permit them if they weren’t. Either way, we’re in for it.

I think we often miss this when we consider what a "good God" would be like. In today’s culture, we want to believe that a truly "good God" would not discipline us, allow us to take a path that will hurt us, or use the evil in the world to accomplish His good plans for making us more like Jesus. We try to fit God into a box where His goodness is subject to our desires and comfort. Is that good though? Is a parent who does not discipline their child doing that child a favor? It is painful to have a broken bone set, but if the medic acquiesced to the pleas to stop before the bone was set, would that be good? In each case the child or the injured individual may be thankful at the time, but in the long run, they would be hurt a great deal more. Thankfully we have a wise and a good God who knows better than to stop before He is finished. It is also kind of frightening to believe in such a God because we then have to come to grips with the reality that He may do something for our good that is extremely unpleasant. We have to realize that He uses suffering to produce Christ-like character and hope in us (Ro. 5:3-5). That means there will be times when we may wish that He would be subject to bribes like some kind of "Cosmic Sadist," but if He were, He would not be good. During these times we have to remember what Charles Spurgeon once said, "When you can’t trace God’s hand, trust His heart."

By His Grace,
Taylor

True Joy II

Remember, O my soul,
  It is thy duty and privilege to rejoice in God:
  He requires it of thee for all His favours of grace.
Rejoice then in the Giver and His goodness,
Be happy in Him, O my heart, and in nothing
   but God,
  for whatever a man trusts in,
  from that he expects happiness.

He who is the ground of thy faith
  should be the substance of thy joy.
Whence then comes heaviness and dejection,
  when joy is sown in Thee,
   promise by the Father,
   bestowed by the Son,
   inwrought by the Holy Spirit,
   thine by grace,
   thy birthright in believing?

Art thou seeking to rejoice in thyself
  from an evil motive of pride and self-reputation?
Thou hast nothing of thine own but sin,
  nothing to move God to be gracious
  or to continue His grace towards thee.
If thou forget this thou wilt lose thy joy.
Art thou grieving under a sense of indwelling sin?
Let godly sorrow work repentance,
  as the true spirit which the Lord blesses,
  and which creates fullest joy;
Sorrow for self opens rejoicing in God,
Self-loathing draws down divine delights.
Hast thou sought joys in some creature comfort?
Look not below God for happiness;
  fall not asleep on Delilah’s lap.
Let God be all in all to thee,
  and joy in the fountain that is always full.
~ "A Colloquy on Rejoicing", The Valley of Vision


I have quoted from The Valley of Vision before so some of you may already know this but this work is a collection of Puritan prayers, poems, and devotionals. I love reading from it because each prayer is short yet so rich with good theology and the glory of God. I like this one because it reminds me of a lot of the Psalms that David wrote calling his soul to rejoice in God and bless His name (Psalms 31, 32, 103, and 104 to name a few).

I also like it because it reminds me of what our purpose on earth really is. The first question of the Westminster Shorter Catechism asks, "What is the chief end of man?" and answers "The chief end of man is to glorify God [Isaiah 43:7; 48:11; I Corinthians 10:31] and enjoy Him forever [Psalm 16:5-11; 144:15; Isaiah 12:2]." One of my favorite things about this answer is how it wisely combines enjoying and glorifying God. Do you see it? The "chief end" (singular) has two components--glorifying God and enjoying Him forever. Glorifying God and enjoying Him are not two different ends but two aspects of one end. We cannot have one without the other. True, endless joy is only found in Him and only in enjoying Him can we truly glorify Him.

Jonathan Edwards (a Puritan preacher and American philosopher) wrote on this subject often. One of my favorite things he wrote is in The End for Which God Created the World:

God in seeking His glory seeks the good of His creatures because the emanation of His glory... implies the... happiness of His creatures. And in communicating His fullness for them, He does it for Himself, because their good, which He seeks, is so much in union and communion with Himself. God is their good. Their excellency and happiness is nothing but the emanation and expression of God's glory. God, in seeking their glory and happiness, seeks Himself, and in seeking Himself... He seeks their glory and happiness.

Another quote on this subject, that I have previously written about here, which I love comes from Augustine's Confessions:

Forbid it, O Lord, put it far from the heart of Thy servant, who confesses to Thee--far be it from me to think I am happy because of any and all the joy I have. For there is a joy not granted to the wicked but only to those who worship Thee thankfully--and this joy Thou Thyself art. The happy life is this--to rejoice to Thee, in Thee, and for Thee. This it is and there is no other.

May we always remember that any other joy we might experience is not true joy, but fleeting, and that we can only have true joy in God. Even all those things that God has blessed us with were given to us so that we could have joy in Him through happiness in His gifts. If we ever start to look to the gifts for joy, instead of Him, they will cease to satisfy, but if, while enjoying the gift, we look past it to the Giver, we will find true joy in Him.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Decrease, the Character of the Kingdom

"The character of ministry is not measured by how many follow this minister but by how many follow Jesus." ~ Adam Powers

Adam is a seminary classmate of mine and also a fellow intern at St. Paul's Presbyterian Church. Today he preached a great sermon in our second service on John 3:22-36 which you can listen to here (I would highly recommend it). The above quote is my favorite from his whole sermon. He was focusing on how John the Baptist shows us we will have true joy when Jesus increases and we decrease. Ministries, pastors, authors, etc. are all great things but they are not measured by how many people follow them but by how many people follow Jesus because of the impact of their ministry. John the Baptist's joy was made complete when he saw people going to Jesus (not to him). This was his joy because that is what his ministry was all about, pointing to Jesus.

It reminds me of what the first question of the Westminster Short Catechism says: "What is the chief end of man? The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever." There is one end, singular, but two things are intimately bound up in it: glorifying God and enjoying Him. We cannot have one without the other. Pointing to Jesus will be our greatest joy. When we glorify Him we, like John the Baptist, will find our joy complete.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Four Spiritual Laws (According to Steve Brown)

"...You know people like that: arrogant, elitist, demanding? You don't do that if you know the four spiritual laws. Let me give them to you. Law number one: there's a sovereign God. Law number two: you're not Him. Law number three: He doesn't need you. Law number four: go get a milkshake." ~ Steve Brown

I love how Steve has a way of breaking things down like this. When we think too much of ourselves in reference to the world and God's work in it we start to get off track, put too much pressure on ourselves, and/or become arrogant. I know I do this at times and it is always nice to be reminded that God was doing just fine before I came along and will do just fine after I am gone. Anything done through me is a blessing of His sovereign grace. Keeping that in mind relieves some of the pressure and keeps my ego in check.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Little People, Big Universe, Even Bigger God

"That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives... lived there--on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam." ~ Carl Sagan

In a couple of past posts (here and here) I showed some images of our universe that demonstrated just how small Earth is in the grand scheme of the universe. The American Museum of Natural History has created a video that starts at the top of the world (Everest) and moves out to the farthest observed edge of our universe. It is a great example of just how small Earth is (and, by extension, you and I).



The universe is 156 billion light-years across! Makes me feel kind of small when I think about it. Fortunately, God holds all this in His hand and He likes me a lot.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Hawking's God

"But contrary to what Hawking claims, physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions." Dr. John Lennox, Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, writing for Mail Online

Recently Stephen Hawking, while promoting his new (yet-to-be-published) book The Grand Design, has made a few highly controversial statements. In an interview Hawking stated, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing... Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going." Dr. Lennox responded to Hawking's statement in an article for Mail Online where he says what I have quoted above. I wanted to write about this because I both agree and disagree with Dr. Lennox. I agree with him in that physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe and that laws, of course, do not create anything. In his article, Dr. Lennox goes onto say, "What Hawking appears to have done is to confuse law with agency. His call on us to choose between God and physics is a bit like someone demanding that we choose between aeronautical engineer Sir Frank Whittle and the laws of physics to explain the jet engine." This is where I disagree with him. I do not think that Hawking is confusing law with agency but attributing agency to the laws of physics, replacing a personal God with impersonal laws.

Many years ago in A Brief History of Time (BHT) Hawking stated, "If we discover a complete theory it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason for then we would know the mind of God." When Hawking wrote BHT he seemed to be your average deist who does not believe in a personal God but believes that some transcendent being is necessary for creating the laws of physics and mathematics. In his recent statements, Hawking appears to have changed his theology about God. This is what is creating all the hype about this book. But has he (this is the way Dr. Lennox interprets it) or is he now just being more explicit about who, or what, this "God" is? I believe it is the latter. I do not think that Hawking has changed his theology at all but is being much more explicit than he was in BHT. Now he is specifically stating that a personal God does not exist but that the laws of physics are "God". Look at what he says, "Because there is a law such as gravity..." (emphasis mine). He is not eliminating a need for a first cause (see the Kalam Cosmological Argument) but treating the laws of physics as a brute reality, a transcendent cause that is preexistent. To Hawking, "God" is the laws of physics.

Why is he doing this? Well, again, I believe we can see that in his statement in BHT as well as his recent statements. In BHT he says that discovering a complete theory would allow us to "know the mind of God." In his new book Hawking is proposing a way of looking at the universe where it would be possible for a human to know everything there is to know about the universe (a theory of everything (TOE)). Now we can see what is driving Hawking. If God is personal and transcendent, then the idea that we could come up with a TOE that shows us "the mind of God" is impossible. For example, science would not be able to answer the question of why the universe exists in the first place. However, if "God" is an impersonal set of physical laws that are simply a brute force of reality with no basis (a god) then a TOE is possible. Hawking is picking one cosmological and theological model over another so that it would be possible for him to have a complete theory of everything.

Hawking, like all human beings do at one point or another, has fallen prey to the original temptation of satan. How does satan tempt Eve in the Garden of Eden? "'You will not surely die,' the serpent said to the woman. 'For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God...'" (Genesis 3:4-5). In order to know what God knows, Eve disobeyed the one command He gave Adam and her by eating the fruit. In order to know what God knows, Hawking is taking a theological world-view, which holds that "God" is an impersonal set of physical laws that transcend the universe.

There is a very big problem with what Hawking is doing here, however. The laws of physics constantly remind all scientists that effect cannot be greater than the cause, the lesser cannot produce the greater. How can an impersonal set of laws (the lesser) produce personal beings like humans (the greater)? Why is it that humans have personality, compassion, or relationships? Hawking's TOE cannot answer this question because the impersonal cannot beget the personal. To put the problem in another way that philosopher Kenneth Samples has put it, "How is it that the universe can create beings that can understand the universe but the universe cannot understand itself?" If the universe generates us and we can understand the universe but the universe cannot understand us then we are greater than the universe. This is counter to the laws of physics. Impersonal laws (Hawking's "God") can only produce impersonal results such as planets and stars, but they cannot produce personal, compassionate, relational beings like us.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Living by Prayer

I have made a few posts in the past of prayers from The Valley of Vision. This is a really great devotional tool, probably one of my favorites. It is a large collection of Puritan prayers and poems. They were written hundreds of years ago but still bring my heart to praise before our Sovereign Lord. Today I read one called "Living by Prayer" which I really liked and thought I would share:

O God of the open ear,
  Teach me to live by prayer
  as well as by providence,
  for myself, soul, body, children, family, church;
Give me a heart frameable to Thy will;
  so might I live in prayer,
  and honour Thee,
  being kept from evil, known and unknown.
Help me to see the sin that accompanies all I do,
  and the good I can distill from everything.
Let me know that the work of prayer is to bring
    my will to Thine,
  and that without this it is folly to pray;
When I try to bring Thy will to mine it is
    to command Christ,
  to be above Him, and wiser than He:
    this is my sin and pride.
I can only succeed when I pray
  according to Thy precept and promise,
  and to be done with as it pleases Thee,
  according to Thy sovereign will.
When Thou commandest me to pray
    for pardon, peace, brokenness,
  if its because Thou wilt give me the thing promised,
    for Thy glory,
    as well as for my good.
Help me not only to desire small things
  but with holy boldness to desire great things
    for Thy people, for myself,
    that they and I might live to show Thy glory.
Teach me
  that it is wisdom for me to pray for all I have,
    out of love, willingly, not of necessity;
  that I may come to Thee at any time,
    to lay open my needs acceptably to Thee;
  that my great sin lies in my not keeping
    the savour of Thy ways;
  that the remembrance of this truth is one way
    to the sense of Thy presence;
  that there is no wrath like the wrath of being
    governed by my own lusts for my own ends.

By His Grace,
Taylor

The Law

"We don't obey the law so He'll love us. He already does... We come before the King and say, 'I am Yours. I am Yours until I die or the world end.' That is what the law does. Then when we read the law we find out what it is that He would have us do." ~ Steve Brown, "Whoppers from the World: The Lie of Antinomianism"

I have been accused on occasion of being antinomian. (For those of you who do not know what that is, being antinomian means you teach that those who are saved can do whatever they want and violate the law because it does not matter.) I am really big on teaching grace and think that if you do not get accused of being antinomian from time-to-time then you are not really teaching grace (even the apostle Paul was accused of being antinomian). I agree completely with my friend Steve when he says, "The only people that get any better are those who know that if they don't get any better God will love them anyway." That kind of statement, however, can sound antinomian. It sounds like it does not matter what you do because God will love you anyway. It is not antinomian. The law of God is good (if you do not believe that read Psalm 119, the longest Psalm in the Bible and all about how great the law is) and it is something we should strive to obey. We do not, however, strive to obey it because we are afraid that God is going to punish or because we think we need to obey to make Him love us. God is not a policeman, He is our Father. When we love our parents and we know that they love us unconditionally, we do not strive to obey them because we are afraid of what they will do to us but because we are afraid of what our disobedience will do to them--how it will hurt them.

Steve tells a parable about a friend of his who was a pretty bad teenager. She hung around with the wrong crowd that was pretty sexually promiscuous. One day she was with these friends when her older sister walked by and saw who she was with. Her sister said to her, "If you get pregnant it will kill our father." That really shook up Steve's friend because, even though she was on the wrong track, she loved her father and knew he loved her. Later she was being pressured by her boyfriend to sleep with him and she kept refusing. Finally, he said, "You know the only reason you are rejecting me is because you are afraid of what your father will do to you." Steve's friend replied, "No, the reason I am rejecting you is because I am afraid of what me sleeping with you would do to my father."

The law is a great teacher for Christians. It tells us how God would have us live and what He expects of us. Jesus has already fulfilled it perfectly and that has been credited to our account. We are now in a safe place where we can strive to obey the law and know that even when we fail God loves us as much as He did before. The reason we strive to obey the law is not because of fear of what God might do to us if we disobey but because we are His and our disobedience will hurt Him, the one who loves us and whom we love.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Synthetic Life and the Delicateness of Life

"It shows you how accurate it has to be, one letter out of a million..." ~ Dr. Craig Venter

Many of you heard about the very impressive step that Craig Venter and his team at the J. Craig Venter Institute have made in the quest to create artificial life. It was in the headlines about two months ago. If you did not hear about it, just do a Google search for "A step to artificial life: Manmade DNA powers cell" and a good number of results from many different news agencies will come up. I have wanted to write about this incredible scientific advance for a while but have not been able to find the time until now.

The above statement by Dr. Venter, I think, has great implications for the design debate going on in the scientific community (though he probably did not mean for it to). I will get into that, but first I would like to summarize what he and his team did because it is very impressive work that should be applauded for it has almost limitless potential for possible agricultural, commercial, biomedical, and environmental applications.

First things first: what did Venter and his team do? They truly have created a cell completely powered by synthetic DNA and it was an achievement he and his team have been working on for the past fifteen years. What did they do? For the details one would have to have read the paper that was published in the journal Science, so allow me to break it down for you as best I can.

Let me start with a basic overview. In this research they were working with two different kinds of bacteria, Mycoplasma mycoides (M. mycoides) and Mycoplasma capricolum (M. capricolum). They chose these bacteria because of their relatively small genome size (about one million genetic letters which is about 1,000 genes) and the rapid growth rate of M. capricolum (less time wasted growing bacteria). First, they sequenced the entire genome of M. mycoides. A genome consists of many DNA molecules and the DNA molecules are a collection of genetic letters (abbreviated A, G, C, and T), which hold the genetic information about the organism. Sequencing a genome means determining the order of all the genetic letters, thus creating the "blueprint" for the organism. Second, they synthesized/created a synthetic version of the M. mycoides genome starting with the four basic chemicals of DNA (corresponding to the genetic letters). Third, they implanted the synthetic M. mycoides genome into a M. capricolum bacterium. That genome replaced the host's native genome and took over the operation of the bacterium, essentially changing the M. capricolum bacterium into a (synthetic) M. mycoides bacterium.

Even though I only described three major steps, the process is not simple at all. Allow me elaborate on some of the difficult points.

• Sequencing the entire genome of M. mycoides, even a small genome like this one, is very difficult. They had to take the genome and fragment it (separate it into chunks) and then take each fragment and further fragment them until the whole genome was broken down into its individual letters. (A recent advance in graphene could potentially speed up this process considerably.)
• Synthesizing the genome is even more difficult. They essentially did the above process in reverse. They created small fragments (about 1,000 genetic letters) of the genome, took those fragments and put them together to make larger fragments, then took those larger fragments, and so forth until they had a complete genome. To do this they needed a very good strategy. They looked at the entire sequence (all one million letters), determined the best points to break it up into 1,000-letter fragments, made sure the fragments overlapped slightly (so they could piece them together), and then started creating the fragments and assembling them. To assemble the fragments they used yeast as a kind of "factory" to combine sets of ten 1,000-letter fragments into fragments of 10,000 genetic letters, then combine those 10,000-letter fragments into 100,000-letter fragments, and then, finally, combine those into the one million-letter genome. (Using the yeast as a "factory" is far more complicated than what I just explained because they had to incorporate DNA sequences that caused the yeast to recognize the DNA as its own and they had to do this without altering the M. mycoides genome. They also had to introduce DNA sequences to allow them to do quality control checks after every step to make sure each stage was executed without error.) This is an incredibly ingenious, complicated, and delicate strategy for synthesizing DNA sequences.
• Their strategy for implanting the synthetic genome into a M. capricolum bacterium was equally ingenious and difficult. One of the big hurdles were enzymes known as restriction endonucleases (RE). These are enzymes found in bacteria and archaea that serve as a defense mechanism against the introduction foreign DNA into the cells of the organism (which is exactly what Venter's team was trying to do). These enzymes cleave to specific locations of the DNA helix and cut the DNA at those locations, destroying the foreign DNA. One might then ask, "What about the natural DNA in the host organism? Why is it not destroyed?" Well, natural DNA has a protection system against the RE called the methylase system. This system "methylates" the host's natural DNA by adding a modification enzyme to the RE cleavage sites, which protects it from the RE. In order to get around this, Venter's team developed a strain of M. capricolum with the RE disabled, thus making the M. capricolum susceptible to the (foreign) M. mycoides genome they needed to implant. Then, after implanting it, the synthetic M. mycoides genome produced its own RE that destroyed the host's M. capricolum genome, thus allowing the M. mycoides genome to take over the operation of the M. capricolum bacterium completely. This transformed the M. capricolum bacterium into a synthetic M. mycoides bacterium, which was able to grow into a whole colony of synthetic bacteria.

Even if you got lost in the above explanation, you probably are beginning to realize now how incredibly complicated and difficult this scientific advance was. It took dozens of scientists fifteen years to be able to get this far and there were many setbacks along the way. One setback, the one Venter was commenting on in the above quote, was the result of a mutation (a "typo") that altered one genetic letter out of the million-letter genome. This typo set them back several weeks and completely disabled their synthetic M. capricolum bacterium. The mutation of one genetic letter out of a million caused the organism to be unable to operate and die.

What does mean for the design debate (I mentioned this in the very beginning of this post)? 

1. This advancement shows how complicated and delicate life is and that the work of an incredibly intelligent mind (or a team of incredibly intelligent minds, in this case) is required in order for life to originate. It has shown empirically that to transform life (representing the evolutionary process) or to create life from scratch (representing the origins of life process) requires the intervention of an intelligent agent (if one genetic letter is wrong, as mentioned above, the whole genome is useless). Work like this does not eliminate a need for God; quite the opposite, for it demonstrates how precarious life is and that God is required for life. 
2. This work also demonstrates life's minimum complexity and shows that, even in its lowest possible state, life is extremely complex (far more complex than any naturalistic evolutionary model can account for). 
3. This work creates a completely new category of arguments for design in the universe. The already existing categories of arguments made by scientists that support design are the following: 1) inference to the best explanation, which basically looks at all the models that could account for life and seeks to show that the naturalistic evolutionary models are inferior in their explanation of the facts and 2) argument from design, which basically looks at the apparent design in the universe, notes the similarities to independent human designs, and then argues by analogy that life must be designed. This work introduces a third form of argumentation, which argues that we know now from empirical experience that the making of life requires intelligent ingenuity.

From my Christian point of view this work is very exciting not only because is it just really cool science, not only because it opens up science to a not-too-far-off world of possible applications (bacteria that can create hydrogen for clean fuel, bacteria that can create cheap pharmaceuticals, or even bacteria that can consume oil), but also because it shows in a compelling way, I think, that life requires a Mind--Intelligent Designer--to exist and cannot be the result of random, natural processes. 

By His Grace,

Taylor

Church IV

"Once we know so much about the Bible the danger is thinking that we have Him and walk with Him. This is the danger of every mature Christian." ~ Steve Brown

Steve said this on today's episode of his Key Life radio program. He hits on something I have thought about a lot for the past couple of years, particularly in reference to my seminary education. There is a great danger that I often fall into: confusing a love of knowledge about God for a love of God Himself. I sometimes feel like a man who knows a lot about a city he rarely goes to. Or, to use Steve's example, I am sometimes like a botanist who does not smell the flowers. Knowledge is necessary for personal experience but it is not sufficient for (it does not equal) personal experience. Being someone who loves academia, this is something I am constantly having to confess and ask that He help me to experience Him and increase my joy in Him, not just my joy in knowledge about Him.

I have written several times before here, here, and here about why I love the Church. This is another reason why I love the Church. Being a part of a local body, talking with them, fellowshipping with them, worshiping with them, and seeing the love of Christ in them reminds me of my tendency to treat God as a puzzle to be figured out and helps me to return to joy in Him, personally.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Church III

I have written on my love for the Church twice here and here. One thing I love about the Reformed tradition of the Church is how it has always been a confessional tradition. Today I read Article 27 of the Belgic Confession, which is about the Church and I wanted to share it:

We believe and confess one single catholic or universal Church--
    a holy congregation and gathering of true Christian believers,
    awaiting their entire salvation in Jesus Christ being washed by His blood,
    and being sanctified and sealed by the Holy Spirit.
This Church has existed from the beginning of the world and will last until the end,
    as appears from the fact that Christ is the eternal King who cannot be without subjects.
And this holy Church is preserved by God against the rage of the whole world,
    even though for a time it may appear very small in the eyes of men--
      as though it were snuffed out.
For example, during the very dangerous time of Ahab,
    the Lord preserved for Himself seven thousand men who did not bend their knees to Baal.
And so this holy Church is not confined, bound, or limited to a certain placeor certain persons.
    But it is spread and dispersed throughout the entire world,
    though still joined and united in heart and will,
    in one and the same Spirit, by the power of faith.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Basis

"The Trinity is the basis of the gospel, and the gospel is a declaration of the Trinity in action." ~ J. I. Packer

Martin Luther said that justification is the doctrine by which Christianity stands or falls. With much respect to the one of the most important men in Church history, I think he has not moved deep enough. Justification by faith alone was Luther's great contention with Rome and I am afraid that because of that he placed it at the center of all things. Now, I am not trying to in any way diminish the importance of this great doctrine but I do think putting at the basis of all Christianity is unwise. I agree with Packer's statement, the Trinity is the basis of the gospel and justification by faith alone is part of the gospel. Without the covenant of redemption taking place in the Trinity before time began, without the Father ordaining the plan of redemption, without the Son achieving redemption, and without the Spirit applying the benefits of redemption to the elect, there is no gospel, no justification. In the doctrine of the Trinity is understood in Christ's divinity, the self-sufficiency of God, the glory of God, union with Christ, and the redemption of man. R. B. Kuyper held, "The doctrine of the Trinity is basic to the Christian religion. It is no exaggeration to assert that the whole of Christianity stands or falls with it." I agree.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Joyce and Galarraga

"It brought out the best in everyone. Everyone involved handled themselves in the way we would hope they would, the way we hope we would. Except for us. Except for the fans and the media and the pundits. We freaked the hell out." ~ Will Leitch of New York Magazine

This is a key statement in Leitch's article about the botched call in the Tigers vs. Indians game that denied Armando Galarraga his perfect game and I agree with it. From Joyce's unsolicited admission of his missed call to his tearful apology to Galarraga to Galarraga bringing the lineup card to Joyce in the next game--all parties showed gentlemanly class. The fan buzz and media pieces all over the Internet showed something else and for the most part it was far from classy. It is sad when supposed sports experts say things like "Selig must overrule call" or fans say things like "coverup attitude of MLB regarding this is worthy of the Soviets or Communist China" and "Joyce deserves to be fired" while the parties actually involved act like perfect gentlemen. I will be the first to admit that I do not like umpires. I think they have too much power and not enough oversight which means there is abuse from time-to-time (this time it was not abuse, it was a mistake). I will also be the first to admit that I have done more than my share of yelling at umpires on the TV because of messed up calls but the above things are stepping over the line, even for me.

Where should baseball go from here? Well, contrary to all the fan suggestions, firing Joyce is completely out of the question. That simply shows a depraved need for "bloodlust and vengeance" and if I were Galarraga I would tell those fans in no uncertain terms that I would rather them go be fans of someone else. The thought that this "proves" that baseball "needs" instant replay for all plays is almost equally as bad. Baseball is a game that has always had the human element involved and the human element in calls is part of what makes baseball what it is. Besides, games are already 3 to 3.5 hours long and I would be willing to bet that the people who yell the loudest for instant replay would be the first to complain when the games get longer because of it. Should Bud Selig overturn the call? Absolutely not. Baseball has never retroactively overturned a call and as disappointing as this bad call was it is not a good place to start. If you start retroactively overturning calls then I am sure the Padres would like the chance to clench the NL West again that they were robbed of back in the 2007 tie-breaker game with the Rockies where Matt Holliday was called safe at home when he was really out (as the replay showed). As emotional and disappointing as this botched call was it is no reason to change over 100 years of history. What should MLB do? How about move on? Detroit has moved on saying they will not ask to have the called overturned and MLB is not going to do it anyway. The media and fans need to do the same.

You know what else very sad about this whole controversy? It shrouded the retirement of the one of the shining stars of the past 20 years of baseball, Ken Griffey Jr. A man who has had 13 all-star appearances, 1,836 RBI, and 630 home runs (fifth all time) deserves more than to be drowned out by media overreaction.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Tetrapod Problems

"This is a huge discovery... the breakthrough of the year. It is going to be hard to imagine other discoveries happening throughout the course of the year having this type of implications... It is a paradigm buster." ~ Dr. Frazale Rana

The above quote comes from biochemist Dr. Rana's comments on a paper published in the journal Nature back in early January named "Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland". This paper discusses the discovery of fossilized tetrapod footprints in an abandoned rock quarry in the Holy Cross Mountains (south-eastern Poland). Such "trace fossils" (fossils that display records of biological activity but not the fossils of the organism itself) would not normally be that interesting if it were not for the date associated with the fossils. The paleobiologists who discovered these footprints used several different dating methods to establish that these trace fossils date to 397 million years ago. That date is very disturbing for evolutionary biologists because it means that the alleged transitional species between fish and tetrapods (which date from 385 to 365 million years ago) are, in fact, not transitional species at all since they appear after the tetrapod footprints.

"Tetrapod" is the scientific name for vertebrate animals with for limbs. You and I are tetrapods as are dogs, cats, lizards, etc. Being able to explain how tetrapods emerged in evolution is a very important facet of evolutionary models. It has been alleged by naturalistic evolutionary biologists that the fossil record documents the transition from fish to fishapods (transitional species) to land-base tetrapods. There are three species of fishapod that supposedly document this transition: Panderichthys (roughly 385 million years ago) which evolved into Tiktaalik (about 375 million years ago) which evolved into Ventastega (about 365 million years ago) which evolved into true land-based tetrapods like Acanthostega and Ichthyostega. Now, ever since these fossils were discovered and the "family tree" was drawn there have been many issues that cast serious doubt on this story but none so big as this one. Did you notice the dates? These fishapods (that are supposedly transitional species between fish and tetrapods) first show up in the fossil record about 12 million years after these recently discovered tetrapod footprints. That means they cannot be transitional species because they do not even appear on the scene until after tetrapods were walking the earth.

This is another example of "proof" for naturalistic evolution (that presumably has fossil evidence to support it) that has been overthrown by a single fossil find. This line of fishapods has been touted for quite a long time as documented evidence for evolution but with this new find we see that it cannot be. If that is the case then what other "well established" evolutionary explanations are awaiting overthrow?

By His Grace,
Taylor

The Differences Do Matter

This post is going to be a reversed from my normal format. I will talk briefly and then share a longer-than-normal quote.

I am sure most of the people reading this have seen the popular "Coexist" bumper stickers. According to the providers of the bumper stickers the intent is to promote people finding a way "to live together in peace and harmony". Unfortunately ideologies such as this have been twisted into a false form of "tolerance" that wants people to believe there are no critical differences between religions and that we should accept them as equal. When it goes that far it is, at best, wishful thinking.

Dr. Stephen Prothero, a professor of religion at Boston University, recently released a book called God is Not One where he shows why the differences in religions do matter. Below is a rather long excerpt taken from the Wall Street Journal. I do not agree with everything he says in it but his overall assessment of the situation is accurate:

This is a seductive sentiment in a world in which religious violence can seem as present and potent as God. But it is dangerous, disrespectful and untrue....
Of course, one purpose of the "all religions are one" meme is to stop this fighting and this killing. But this meme, however well intentioned, is neither accurate nor ethically responsible. God may be one according to the Abrahamic religions, but when it comes to the mathematics of divinity, one is not the only number. Many Buddhists believe in no god, and many Hindus believe in 330,000. Moreover, the characters of these divinities differ wildly. Is God a warrior like Hinduism's Kali or a mild-mannered pacifist like the Quakers' Jesus?
I do not believe we are witnessing a clash of civilizations between Christianity and Islam. But it is a fantasy to imagine that the world's two largest religions are in any meaningful sense the same, or that interfaith dialogue will magically bridge the gap between them. Each of the great religions offers its own diagnosis of the human predicament and its own prescription for a cure. Each offers its own techniques for reaching its religious goal, and its own exemplars for emulation. Muslims say pride is the problem; Christians say salvation is the solution; education is a key Confucian technique; and Buddhism's exemplars include the lama and the bodhisattva. If practitioners of the world's religions are mountain climbers then they are ascending very different peaks and using very different tools.
You would think that champions of multiculturalism would warm to this fact, glorying in the diversity inside and across religious traditions. But even among multiculturalists, the tendency is to pretend that the differences between, say, Christianity and Islam are more apparent than real, and that the differences inside religious traditions just don't warrant the fuss practitioners make over them....
This wishful thinking is motivated in part by a principled rejection of the traditional theological view that only you and your kind will make it to heaven or paradise. For most of world history, human beings have seen religious rivals as inferior to themselves—practitioners of empty rituals, perpetrators of bogus miracles, purveyors of fanciful myths. The Age of Enlightenment popularized the ideal of religious tolerance, and we are doubtless better for it. But the idea of religious unity is wishful thinking nonetheless, and it has not made the world a safer place. In fact, this naive theological groupthink—call it Godthink—has made the world more dangerous by blinding us to the clashes of religions that threaten us world-wide.
Faith in the unity of religions is just that—faith, and perhaps even a kind of fundamentalism. And it does not just infect the perennialists. While popular religion writers such as Mr. Smith see in all religions the same truth and the same virtue, new atheists such as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins see in all religions the same idiocy and the same poison. In both cases, Godthink is ideological rather than analytical. It gestates in the dense clouds of desire rather than with a clear-eyed vision of how things are in the ground. In the case of the new atheists, it springs from the understandable desire to denounce the evil in religion. In the case of the perennialists, it begins with the equally understandable desire to praise the good in religion.
Neither of these desires serves our understanding of a world in which our religious traditions are at least as diverse as our political and economic arrangements....
I too hope for a world in which human beings can get along with their religious rivals. I am convinced, however, that we must pursue this goal through more realistic means. Rather than beginning with the sort of Godthink that lumps all religions together into one trash can or treasure chest, we must start with a clear-eyed understanding of the fundamental differences between Judaism and Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism, Daoism and Confucianism.
Some people are convinced that the only foundation on which inter-religious civility can be constructed is the dogma that all religions are one. I am not one of them. In our most intimate human relationships, who is so naive as to imagine that partners or spouses must be essentially the same? What is required in any healthy relationship is knowing who the other person really is. Denying differences is a recipe for disaster. What works is understanding the differences and then coming to accept and, when appropriate, to respect them. After all, it is not possible to agree to disagree until you see just what the disagreements might be. And tolerance is an empty virtue until we actually understand whatever it is we are supposed to be tolerating.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Planetary Habitable Zones

"For the host stars with effective temperatures lower than 4,600 K, the ultraviolet habitable zones are closer than the habitable zones. For the host stars with effective temperatures higher than 7,137 K, the ultraviolet habitable zones are farther than the habitable zones. For a hot subdwarf as a host star, the distance of the ultraviolet habitable zone is about ten times more than that of the habitable zone, which is not suitable for the existence of life." ~ "Habitable zones and UV habitable zones around host stars" by Jianpo Guo, Fenghui Zhang, Xianfei Zhang,  and Zhanwen Han

The "habitable zone" is something that is crucial in the conversation about life on other planets. The habitable zone is the intersection of two cosmological regions that must both be favorable to life: one within a solar system (circumstellar habitable zone) and the other within the host galaxy (galactic habitable zone). The galactic habitable zone defines a region that is close enough to the galactic core to provide a sufficiently high level of heavy elements to form rocky planets (like Earth) and yet far enough away so that high-frequency radiation does not harm or destroy life. The circumstellar habitable zone is usually defined as the region around a star where liquid water can exist on a planet. Recent research, however, has added a new constraint to the circumstellar habitable zone. This new constraint is an ultraviolet (UV) habitable zone. This region is a band around a star where any planets in it will receive enough UV radiation energy to drive the chemical reactions related to life’s origins (assuming a naturalistic evolution model) and yet not too much, which would result in the destruction of DNA. DNA would never be able to survive on a planet that is too close to its host star because of too much radiation, and it would never be able to form on a planet that is too far from its host star because of not enough radiation.

The paper cited above shows that in the vast majority of stars the liquid water habitable zone and the UV habitable zone do not intersect. "Effective temperatures" that the paper refers to are the temperatures of black bodies that would emit the same total amount of electromagnetic radiation as the stars being studied. Basically around any stars with effective temperatures below 4,600 K the UV habitable zone is too close to the star for liquid water to exist (it would all evaporate), and around any stars with effective temperatures above 7,137 K the UV habitable zone is too far from the star for liquid water to exist (it would all freeze). Around such stars there is no possibility for life as we know it. In fact, requiring a planet to fall within both zones (the liquid water and the UV zone) eliminates 80% of all stars as possible candidates for life-supporting planets. This adds to the growing body of evidence that Earth is uniquely fined-tuned for life as we know it.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Measuring Time From DNA

"As we develop better molecular methods, people would like it if the molecular dates reconciled with the fossil record. Then everybody would be happy, but instead the gap is getting wider, and in the end, that might actually be interesting." ~ Michael Donoghue

Michael Donoghue endorsed a paper titled "An uncorrelated relaxed-clock analysis suggests an earlier origin for flowering plants" about the origins of angiosperms (flowering plants) that was recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by a team of researchers from Yale University and The National Evolutionary Synthesis Center. In this paper the researchers talk a lot about a technique known as "molecular clock analysis." This technique is a way that evolutionary biologists attempt to understand the relationships between organisms and the time frames where the organisms (presuming an evolutionary model) diverged from each other on the evolutionary track. Evolutionary biologists will compare DNA sequences from organism that exist today, use that information to attempt to build evolutionary trees, and then use molecular clocks to determine when the organisms diverged from each other on the evolutionary tree.

Let me attempt to explain how molecular clocks work. DNA has genetic "letters," which are abbreviated A, G, C, and T. The linear sequence of these letters contains genetic information (much like a word in language contains information because of its definition). The letters build genetic "words," which harbor the genetic information of the DNA molecule. Mutations can alter the sequence of genetic "letters" (much like a misspelling in a word) and molecular clock analysis attempts to measure the rate of these "misspellings" from mutations. If you compare two different DNA sequences which come from organisms that (presuming an evolutionary model) have a common ancestor and you know the rate of change/mutation of the DNA then you can extrapolate the time frame in which the organisms diverged from each other.

The problem with molecular clock analysis is that you have to make assumptions about the rate of change/mutation of the genetic "letters" in the DNA. Evolutionary biologists will attempt to calibrate the rate of change in the clock by going to the fossil record, looking at when certain organisms appeared in the record (organisms that are assumed to be evolutionary relatives), and then correlating the lapses in time with the changes in DNA to create a rate. They then take this calibrated rate and apply it to the entire evolutionary tree they have built to attempt to determine when organisms may have diverged from each other. The problems with this are: 1) it is notoriously difficult to do and 2) the results achieved by the analysis most often do not agree with what is seen in the fossil record. These researchers (from the teams mentioned above) attempt to get around these problems by varying the rate of mutation over time. They "relaxed" the clock. They vary the rate (often times by a lot and with rates too rapid for an evolutionary model) in order to get molecular clock analysis to match up with the fossil record.

Often times molecular clocks are used as a very important tools in molecular biology and cited as evidence for evolution. I like Donoghue's quote above because he seems to recognize the inconsistency in using molecular clocks to validate evolution. The fact that the "gap is getting wider" is "interesting" because it then either invalidates naturalistic evolution or invalidates the molecular clock method itself. This study shows us how flawed this technique actually is. It shows that there is generally no agreement between molecular clocks and the fossil record and that in order to get agreement researchers are rigging their inputs (relaxing the clock) until they get something that agrees with the fossil record. I am sorry, but this is not the way to do science. You can say that the rates may change over time (as rates often do) but you cannot just assume whatever rate(s) you want in order to get the results you are looking for. You have to have criteria that justifies 1) differing rates over time and 2) the specific rates you are using. What justifies using these different rates? For a scientist to do this they must have objective reasons for doing it. Playing with the data until you get the results you were looking for is not a reason. This hurts the case for molecular clocks being support for evolution. If you play with the data until you get the results you want (for the naturalistic evolution model) you cannot then turn around and say it is evidence for the evolutionary paradigm and this study highlights that particular problem. This paper shows that either molecular clock analysis (as it stands right now) is very flawed, the naturalistic evolution models are flawed, or both.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Church II

I have come with one purpose
To capture for myself a bride 
By my life she is lovely 
By my death she’s justified 

I have always been her husband 
Though many lovers she has known 
So with water I will wash her 
And by my word alone 

So when you hear the sound of the water 
You will know you’re not alone 

Chorus:
‘Cause I haven’t come for only you
But for my people to pursue
You cannot care for me with no regard for her
If you love me you will love the Church

I have long pursued her 
As a harlot and a whore 
But she will feast upon me 
She will drink and thirst no more 

So when you taste my flesh and my blood 
You will know you’re not alone 

Chorus:
There is none that can replace her 
Though there are many who will try 
And though some may be her bridesmaids 
They can never be my bride

This song is by Derek Webb. He is a member of Caedmon's Call and also does side projects on his own. Caedmon's Call is one of my favorite bands and his solo stuff is also very good. I love the lyrics to his songs (and Caedmon's Call's songs) because they are so rich and have so many poetic allusions to biblical stories and/or doctrine. This one in particular I really like because of the bridge lyrics:

   So when you hear the sound of the water 

   You will know you’re not alone 

   ...

   So when you taste my flesh and my blood 

   You will know you’re not alone 

Seeing baptism and taking the Eucharist, among many other spiritual signs and symbols they represent, reminds me of the greater covenant community that Christians are a part of. The Eucharist is a covenant meal, which is an act of covenantal ratification much like the meal shared by the elders of Israel before God in Exodus 24. It proclaims Christ, seals the benefits of union to Christ in believers, spiritually nourishes the believer, and pledges the believer’s fidelity to Christ and His body. (I wrote a paper called "Covenant-Renewing Worship" that speaks some about this.) Baptism is a covenant sign that brings the children of believers, or new believers, into the covenant community so when you "hear" the water you know that you are not alone. 

Last week at church we had two baptisms: the baby of a member couple of the church and a believer's baptism of a young woman who had grown up Muslim (nominal Muslim, but Muslim none-the-less). Seeing both of those really encouraged me. When the baby was baptized I thought, "This is a lucky child because he will grow up in a covenant family that will love and support him." When the believer was baptized I thought, "She is now one of my own." I do not know her personally but she is now a professed Christian and part of the covenant community of the Church and just knowing that another has been brought into the Kingdom is encouraging. They were both encouraging because, like the song says, seeing them reminded me that I am not alone. Like John Wesley says, "Everyone who belongs to Jesus belongs to everyone who belongs to Jesus" (whether we like it or not). 

By His Grace,
Taylor

It's Friday, It is Only Friday...

It’s Friday
   Jesus is praying
   Peter’s a sleeping
   Judas is betraying
   But Sunday’s comin’

It’s Friday
   Pilate’s struggling
   The council is conspiring
   The crowd is vilifying
   They don’t even know
   That Sunday’s comin’

It’s Friday
   The disciples are running
   Like sheep without a shepherd
   Mary’s crying
   Peter is denying
   But they don’t know
   That Sunday’s a comin’

It’s Friday
   The Romans beat my Jesus
   They robe Him in scarlet
   They crown Him with thorns
   But they don’t know
   That Sunday’s comin’

It’s Friday
   See Jesus walking to Calvary
   His blood dripping
   His body stumbling
   And His spirit’s burdened
   But you see, it’s only Friday
   Sunday’s comin’

It’s Friday
   The world’s winning
   People are sinning
   And evil’s grinning

It’s Friday
   The soldiers nail my Savior’s hands
   To the cross
   They nail my Savior’s feet
   To the cross
   And then they raise Him up
   Next to criminals
   It’s Friday
   But let me tell you something
   Sunday’s comin’

It’s Friday
   The disciples are questioning
   What has happened to their King
   And the Pharisees are celebrating
   That their scheming
   Has been achieved
   But they don’t know
   It’s only Friday
   Sunday’s comin’

It’s Friday
   He’s hanging on the cross
   Feeling forsaken by His Father
   Left alone and dying
   Can nobody save Him?
   Ooooh
   It’s Friday
   But Sunday’s comin’

It’s Friday
   The earth trembles
   The sky grows dark
   My King yields His spirit

It’s Friday
   Hope is lost
   Death has won
   Sin has conquered
   and satan’s just a laughin’

It’s Friday
   Jesus is buried
   A soldier stands guard
   And a rock is rolled into place

But it’s Friday
   It is only Friday
   Sunday is a comin’!
~ S.M. Lockridge's famous sermon, from John L Jefferson, pastor of Del Aire Baptist Church, in Hawthrone CA.

I do not have anything deep to say to go along with this. I just wanted to post this short sermon because it gives me chills every time I hear it. I was reminded of it this morning when I started the Friday off badly by turning off my alarm in my sleep and oversleeping. I woke up, looked at the clock, jumped out of bed but then thought, "It is Friday and Sunday is coming."

By His Grace,
Taylor

Church

"…to be connected to the church is to be associated with scoundrels, warmongers, fakes, child-molesters, murderers, adulterers, and hypocrites of every description. It also, at the same time, identifies you with saints and the finest persons of heroic soul within every time, country, race, and gender…because the church always looks exactly as it looked at the original crucifixion, God hung among thieves." ~ Ronald Rolheiser, The Holy Longing

I love the Church. It may sound crazy but I do. All of us knows what it is like to be embarrassed or ticked off by someone in our family but they are our family we love them. Well, the Church is my extended family and there are a lot more of them than in a normal family. There are millions, which means many more opportunities to be embarrassed or ticked off. I heard about a Christian congressman in Florida who wanted to make some law that would force all the science books to be rewritten to say that the earth is the center of the solar system. He claimed that the heliocentric model was all a sham and he tried to prove it from a gross misuse of the Bible. That really burns me up, but he is one of mine. Every time I look at Joel Osteen I want to smack that stupid smile off his face and staple his lips shut, but he is one of mine. Ken Ham's bad science embarrasses me as a Christian scientist, but I cannot disown him because he is one of mine. John Wesley used to really piss me off (even though he has been dead for more than 200 years) until I started to read his journals and things like, "Everybody who belongs to Jesus belongs to everybody who belongs to Jesus."

There are some great things too. I could mention the hundreds of Christian social organizations that fight hunger, sex trafficking, and all other sorts of injustice but that would be too obvious. I would rather write about my professor's fourteen-year-old daughters who love to sit and talk with the elderly at their church because his daughters "like to hear them talk about Jesus". That makes me proud. I would rather talk about my friends whose marriage almost fell apart but they stuck it out because they are true to their vows and they love Jesus. They make me proud. I would rather talk about my hero, Steve Brown, who runs two ministries that could easily take up all his time and yet he still takes the time to mentor young seminarians like me. He gets a lot of flack from many Christians (some in my denomination) because of his radical teaching on grace but he does not retaliate (no matter how much he may want to) and practices what he preaches by giving them grace. He makes me proud.

Entering into a covenant relationship with Jesus means being a part of His bride, which is the Church. He is a lot more accepting than I would be if I were Him, but that is why He is God and I am not. The Church is His bride. She is an ugly bride, no doubt, but she is loved dearly by Him and will one day be fully conformed to His likeness. But until then they are still mine and I can never forget that.

By His Grace,
Taylor

The Infinite and the Finite

Thou art great, and we are small.
  Thou art sovereign, and we are weak.
Thou art infinite, and we are finite.
  Thou art eternal, and we tarry but just a little while.

But with all Thy greatness and with all Thy power,
  Thou dost bend down low,
And listen to the sound of our tears
  As they strike the ground.

This is an old rabbi's prayer and it is so good. My hero Steve Brown uses this from time-to-time to remind us of our finitude in comparison to God's infinitude. It does more than that though. It reminds us of the His immanence. He is the God that is great and we are small. He is the God that is sovereign and we are weak. But, He is also the God who bends down low. He "made Himself nothing" and "became obedient unto death" (Philippians 2:7-8). He suffered so that He could be one who could sympathize with us (Hebrews 4:15). He not only hears our tears but mingles His tears with ours.

By His Grace,
Taylor