Showing posts with label creation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label creation. Show all posts

Thursday, October 8, 2015

Exodus: A Great Salvation -- The LORD is Sovereign

One of my favorite annual periodicals is the Darwin Awards. If you haven’t heard of those, sometime you should look them up. The subtitle for this prestigious set of awards is “Chlorinating the Gene Pool: Commemorating Those Who Improve Our Gene Pool by Removing Themselves from It,” if that gives you any idea of what’s coming. They are morbid (but generally quite amusing) stories from the previous year of people who died, or rather brought about their own deaths, in, shall we say, unintelligent ways. While preparing for this sermon of this post, one story from the 1999 Awards kept coming back to my mind. It’s the story of a lawyer and two of his friends on a fishing trip, and it goes like this:
A lawyer and two of his buddies were fishing on Caddo Lake in Texas. A lightning storm hit the lake and most of the fisherman immediately headed for the shore. But not our friend the lawyer. He was alone on the rear of his aluminum bass boat and his buddies were in the front. This gentleman stood up, spread his arms wide (crucifixion style) and shouted:  “Here I am Lord! Show yourself to me!” Needless to say, God delivered. The other two passengers on the boat survived the lightning strike and are reported to have joined the Ministry immediately.
I couldn’t help but keep thinking of that story as I was preparing for this sermon because as silly as that story is, that is essentially what Pharaoh did ch. 5, which we talked about last sermon. Remember, Pharaoh has refused to let God’s people go and impertinently asked, “Who is the LORD that I should obey His voice?” He, like the lawyer in our story, thinks that YHWH is no threat at all to him, so he challenges YHWH, basically declaring war Him. And, the plagues--which we talked about from a historical perspective in the last post--are God’s response. As God says 7:4-5, “I will lay my hand on Egypt… by great acts of judgment. The Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD,” and Pharaoh will learn this too, though it takes a lot of righteous judgment and a long time because of his stubborn hardness of heart. And, essentially God answers Pharaoh’s question and judges Egypt by manifesting His sovereignty over everything in existence. In fact, His sovereignty is more clearly displayed in this story than almost anywhere else in Scripture.

If you want to find out more of how the plagues display God's sovereignty, you can listen to the sermon here or read the transcript here. I pray that the Holy Spirit will use it to magnify Christ in your heart and mind to the glory of God.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Thursday, June 25, 2015

Two Beautiful Books: Science... err... correction: Nature and Scripture (Appendix)

In the previous six posts, I put forth what I believe to be a biblical view of science and Scripture, and I gave some advice on how to hand apparent conflicts between "science and religion," "science and Christianity," "science and faith," or however we label the tension. In that series, I said several times that I was not trying to tell you what to believe on certain sub-topics of science and Christianity (e.g. the age of the universe) but trying to teach you how to think biblically about science and consistently as a Christian. Well, there are a number of sub-topics on which I am sure you would like more information, so in this post I will list a number of resources that I think you may find helpful. But, if you still cannot find what you are looking for, feel free to comment and ask about something I do not mention here.
I hope these are helpful to you as you think biblically about science and consistently as a Christian. Remember, feel free to comment and ask for a recommendation on a topic not listed here. I may not have a good one that I have read, but it never hurts to ask.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Monday, December 1, 2014

Solus Christus: Where Does It All Begin?

Where does it all begin? Where do the story of redemption and the road to Christmas and Advent begin? Our second meditation of Advent begins long before Jesus’ incarnation. It all begins at the very beginning with the creation of man:
26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
27 So God created man in his own image,
    in the image of God he created him;
    male and female he created them.
28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” 29 And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. 30 And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. 31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. (Ge. 1:26-31)
We must begin with God creating man, for we would not, of course, need redemption and the incarnation wouldn’t be necessary if we didn’t exist in the first place. We also need to remember that God the Father was not there in the beginning alone. John tells us in his gospel that Jesus, as the second person in the Godhead and coeternal with the Father, was there too at the beginning:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. (Jn. 1:1-4)
Furthermore, not only was Jesus present at creation but Paul reminds us that Jesus was the member of the Godhead who actually did the act of creating (the Father commanded, the Son created, and the Spirit brought it to completion and sustained it):
16 For by him [i.e. Jesus] all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (Col. 1:16-17)
That is where the story of Advent begins. Our Lord and Savior—the second person of the Trinity—created the human race long before He became one of us. Indeed, since He is sovereign and omniscient, He created humanity knowing He would, at the fullness of time, have to become human like us and die for His people to accomplish their redemption. Of course, this was all for the glory of God, but it was also for the “joy set before Him,” and that joy was the redemption of His people whom He loves intensely. Think about that: Jesus created the world knowing all along that we would rebel and that He would have to become one of us, suffer, die, and be raised to save His people. How deep, rich, and intense is such love! That is the love with which He has loved His people like you and me.

Dwell on that this day of Advent. Ask God to make that intense love so real to you that you can’t help but go out into the world and live a life overflowing with thankfulness to Him. Ask Him to make that love so real this Christmas season that no material thing can draw your heart away from it.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Monday, December 2, 2013

Solus Christus: Where Does It All Begin?

Where does it all begin? Where do the story of redemption and the road to Christmas and Advent begin? Our second meditation of Advent begins long before Jesus’ incarnation. It all begins at the very beginning with the creation of man:
26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
27 So God created man in his own image,
    in the image of God he created him;
    male and female he created them.
28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” 29 And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. 30 And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. 31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. (Ge. 1:26-31)
We must begin with God creating man, for we would not, of course, need redemption and the incarnation wouldn’t be necessary if we didn’t exist in the first place. We also need to remember that God the Father was not there in the beginning alone. John tells us in his gospel that Jesus, as the second person in the Godhead and coeternal with the Father, was there too at the beginning:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. (Jn. 1:1-4)
Furthermore, not only was Jesus present at creation but Paul reminds us that Jesus was the member of the Godhead who actually did the act of creating (the Father commanded, the Son created, and the Spirit brought it to completion and sustained it):
16 For by him [i.e. Jesus] all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (Col. 1:16-17)
That is where the story of Advent begins. Our Lord and Savior—the second person of the Trinity—created the human race long before He became one of us. Indeed, since He is sovereign and omniscient, He created humanity knowing He would, at the fullness of time, have to become human like us and die for His people to accomplish their redemption. Of course, this was all for the glory of God, but it was also for the “joy set before Him,” and that joy was the redemption of His people whom He loves intensely. Think about that: Jesus created the world knowing all along that we would rebel and that He would have to become one of us, suffer, die, and be raised to save His people. How deep, rich, and intense is such love! That is the love with which He has loved His people like you and me.

Dwell on that this day of Advent. Ask God to make that intense love so real to you that you can’t help but go out into the world and live a life overflowing with thankfulness to Him. Ask Him to make that love so real this Christmas season that no material thing can draw your heart away from it.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Friday, November 15, 2013

The God Who Created Everything

One of my privileges as GCPC's associate pastor is to lead our youth group. I love our youth, and being with them on Sunday nights has become one of the highlights of my week. They are a sharp bunch, who are a joy to teach (and we have a blast playing games together). In our study together, I have been endeavoring to help them become even more solidified in their faith--to take ownership of it for themselves--especially since they are approaching high school and college looms in the not-so-distant future. To that end, we are in a teaching series called "The God Who is There." It's structure and much of its content are based on D. A. Carson's excellent book with the same title: The God Who is There. I have made a number of changes to various parts because of the needs of my youth group and because of some disagreements with Carson. Overall, however, his book is excellent and well-worth your time.

Over the next months (perhaps longer), when I finish a section, I will post some highlights on here, and recently we just finished studying Ge. 1-2 together. Now, there are a lot of directions we could have gone with this creation account, and there are a lot of topics that we could have studied in it. Many of those directions and most those topics can be hotly debated in Christian circles, and I have an opinion on almost all of them that I believe is consistent with Scripture. I suppose we could have spent a lot of time studying the various opinions on those topics and I could have given them mine, but I decided to follow Carson and Francis Schaeffer's advice and narrow the focus. Instead of trying to talk about everything that Ge. 1-2 does or can say, we have focused on what it must say in order for the rest of the Bible to be true and have any intelligibility at all. These chapters set up the rest of Scripture, and there are many doctrines and foundations about God and man established here that are crucial for the rest of the Bible to make any sense at all. We focused on those essential things in our study, and I have left the rest for them to work out with their parents and in their own study.

Focusing on these essentials also gave me the opportunity to teach our youth about giving charity to Christians who disagree with them on non-essential matters. We have talked at length about how these core doctrines are essential foundations in Ge. 1-2 around which all Christians must unite because without them we do not have Christianity at all. We have also talked a lot about how we must give charity to Christians who disagree with us about doctrines that fall outside these essential foundations. Now, that is not to say that we should not have strong opinions about those doctrines. I do, and I have told our youth that I want them to study those topics on their own and with their parents to figure out what they believe regarding them. But, we must not let our opinions divide us from other Christians when those opinions concern non-essential matters. We can have friendly debates about them, but, at the end of the day, we need to stand side-by-side on the core doctrines that Ge. 1-2 must say for the rest of the Bible to be true and give charity to our Christian brothers and sisters on other matters.

Okay, you are probably wondering by now what I believe the core, essential doctrines are. (Here, I have basically followed Carson with only a few minor changes.) There are ten:
  1. Ge. 1:1 -- God simply is: The Bible does not begin by trying to prove God's existence. It begins with God, and He is the presuppositional foundation of everything. Our culture today often demands that we prove God exists because it assumes that man the ultimate measure and center of everything. This way of thinking basically started with Rene Descartes: "I think, therefore I am." That is a very man-centered way of thinking. The Bible, on the other hand, would say, "God thinks (and speaks), therefore I am." It puts God at the center of everything, and we see that right from the beginning. Now, I am not trying to say that we should not be able to give good, reasoned arguments for God's existence. We need to meet people where they are when we talk to them about Jesus, but ultimately a Christian does not consider himself to be the measure of everything or the center of anything. God is the measure of all things and at the center of everything.
  2. Ge. 1:1 -- God made everything that is not God: This simple truth has a couple of important implications:
    1. It means there is an irreducible distinction between the Creator and the creatures. His existence is self-existence and ours is completely derivative of and dependent on Him. Everything in the universe is dependent on God to exist. God, however, does not depend on anything to exist except Himself.
    2. It means this universe is not an accident, and it has a purpose. If there is no God, then there is no purpose to this universe and no purpose to our lives. But, if God exists and created the universe, then it has an ultimate purpose and our lives have a purpose in it. Without God there is no meaning to life. With God, there is deep meaning and purpose to life, and He shows us what that is throughout the rest of Scripture.
  3. Taking the account as a whole -- There is only one God: Most of the creation myths of the ancient world said that there were many gods that battled for power and the universe was the fallout from those battles. The Bible clearly tells us there were not multiple gods at the beginning vying for power. There is one. The Bible and Christianity are essentially and necessarily monotheistic. Yet, even from the beginning we see hints of a complexity to God. He is the triune God, and we get hints of this complexity even in these first two chapters: "The Spirit hovered..." "Let us make man in our image..."
  4. How does God create? What does He do in Ge. 1:28? He speaks. God is a talking God: He spoke to create, and He spoke to man. He is a talking God; not an abstract God. This is important because God is going to speak a lot in the rest of Scripture (indeed, the Bible is God's Word), and He even speaks today through the Bible by the Holy Spirit working in our hearts. The Bible and Christianity have no room for deism or any of its flavors. The Bible presents a very personal God, not one who does not pay any attention to His creation.
  5. Ge. 1:31 (and at the end of the other creation days) -- God made everything good because He is good: In its original state, creation was good and perfect because it reflected the goodness and perfection of its Creator. Now, if you were reading the Bible for the first time and you started in Ge. 1, you would look at the world around you and wonder, "What happened?" We get the answer to that question in Ge. 3. That account and the original goodness of God's creation set up the history of redemption that the rest of the Bible records. They set up Jesus' work from Ge. 3:15 onward, which will one day be consummated when He returns to usher in the new heavens and new earth (cf. Re. 21). The path from this beginning in Genesis to the end prophesied in Revelation is the path we will follow as we learn about the God who is there.
  6. Ge. 1:26-27 -- God created man distinct from all other creatures and in His image: God made humans in His image, and the account emphasizes the special creation of Adam and Eve far more than any other creature. Humans are creatures and have much in common with the other creatures, but humans were specially created as the image of God, which makes them distinct from all other creatures (even angels), gives them unique dignity, and allows them to relate to God. Furthermore, humans are not an accidental stage or a step in the development of life that is moving to something better. They are the apex of God's creation.
  7. Ge. 2:1-3 -- God rested and designated one day in seven for our rest: God rested from His creative activity when He completed it and designated one day in seven to be a day of rest His images. This means that the Lord's Day (the Sabbath) is not just a rule that God gave to sinful people because they needed it as sinners. It means that God wanted man to rest one day in seven even when man was perfect. Rest is important to God. He wants us to work, certainly, and we will talk about that soon, but He also wants us to rest.
  8. Ge. 1:28; 2:15 -- God made man to work: God made man to work and have dominion, which reflects His work and dominion (albeit, derivatively) and makes man His stewards in this world. Work is not a curse. Work is part of how God created us in the first place. The reason our work is so frustrating and sometimes feels like a curse now, is because of sin and the fall. But, work itself is good. When we work, so long as our work does not violate God's commands, we are doing what we were designed to do, and it is glorifying to Him.
  9. Ge. 1:27; 2:24 -- God made humans male and female: God made humans male and female, and God designed them for each other--nothing in this world can complete a man like a woman and nothing in this world can complete a woman like a man. They are different, yet complementary, and we cannot ignore either of those without breaking down human culture. Furthermore, when they come together in a marriage union, they become one flesh--a new unit--which sets up the Bible's view of marriage, the family, and even how we understand Christ's relationship to the Church (cf. Eph. 5:22ff).
  10. Ge. 2:25 -- God created humans perfect: God created humans perfect, innocent, and in harmony with Him and the rest of creation. This "naked" does not just mean they had no clothes on. It means they had nothing at all to hide. They were completely innocent. What would it be like never to have told a lie, had a lustful thought, committed idolatry, or committed any other sin? We cannot imagine such innocence, and it is our lack of innocence that causes us to hide who we really are from almost everyone (if not everyone). Adam and Eve, in their original state, knew none of that. They were completely innocent, and therefore could be naked (emotionally, mentally, spiritually, and physically) and unashamed before each other. The rest of the Bible describes God's work of redemption that is relentlessly pushing towards a time when His people will be in that state if innocence again in the new heavens and new earth (cf. Re. 21-22).
There you have it. Those are what I believe (again, mostly agreeing with Carson) to be the core essentials of Ge. 1-2 around which Christians must unite and without which the rest of the Bible is unintelligible. Do you agree? Is there anything you would say I am missing?

By His Grace,
Taylor

Tuesday, September 24, 2013

Trajectory Towards the Biblical Account and Adam and Eve

First, to all my friends and readers, let me apologize once more for not writing at all in the past couple of months. Things have been quite busy lately and while I love to write, it is has had to take a backseat to my new call as associate pastor at Grace Covenant Presbyterian Church. This past weekend, however, God brought me through a huge milestone--ordination approval by our presbytery--which means all the time I was spending studying has been freed up. I am sure it will not take long for other things to fill it, but I hope one of those is writing regularly again.

Those of you who have read my blog for a while know that I like to follow and comment on the debate about the existence of an historical Adam and Eve. There has been a lot of genetic research in the past few years, which has brought this debate into the popular media. There are some who argue that the genetic evidence shows that Adam and Eve could not have been historical individuals. There are even some Christians that make this argument. I have argued, however, and still hold that their interpretation of the genetic evidence is guided by an a priori commitment to Darwinian evolution and that the data can be interpreted within an orthodox, biblical framework with equal validity. I would also argue that new research over the past couple of years has confirmed that validity of a biblical interpretation of the data. What I want to do in this article is look at the trajectory of the scientific data as a whole over the past several decades and show how it is converging towards the biblical account of human beginnings. (It might be helpful first to read this article or this article for background on the genetic evidence discussed below, though not absolutely necessary.)

The latest data comes from a few papers published in Science in August. All three of these (here, here, and here) argue that all male and female genetic lines can be traced back to two individuals--y-chromosomal "Adam" and mitochondrial "Eve"--who could have lived at the same place and time, which counters many previous arguments that claimed the "genetic Adam and Eve" could not have known each other at all. (Now, evolutionists are quick to argue that these two individuals were not the Adam and Eve of the Bible, but a man and women from a large population of the first humans whose genes just happened to continue on while all others died off. I argue against that here and Dr. Rana of RTB makes a case against that here.) Now, the dating of the original pair in these papers is not consistent with each other, but given the large margin of error/uncertainty when it comes to these types of calculations, it is understandable that their dates might differ. And, when all their error bars are taken into consideration, they could all overlap in the 100,000-150,000-year range. What is important is they all indicate that the genetic Adam and Eve may have lived at the same time and in the same place. (These studies confirm a few early studies from the end of last year and the beginning of this one, which Dr. Rana of RTB discusses here.)

These papers are the most recent body of scientific data, which is part of a long history of evidence that is converging towards a biblical account of human origins. Let me explain. About 30 years ago, the popular interpretation of the scientific data was that humanity originated about two million years ago and from independent pockets of populations of lesser species of the genus homo throughout the world. This multiregionalism data was difficult if not impossible to square with the biblical account of creation, so it was easy to dismiss the Bible as "anti-science" and irreconcilable. But, as data from archaeology and the fossil record was refined, as microbes and human parasites like lice were studied, and as genetic data began to be introduced, the date for humanity's origin became much more recent and the number of independent locations from which humanity may have originated became fewer and fewer. Eventually, multiregionalism was abandoned by the majority of the scientific community in favor of the Out-of-Africa model. In this model, it is believed that humanity originated in East Africa recently (about 100,000-150,000 years ago) and eventually migrated to the Middle East. So, the data has moved from multiple, independent origins of humanity millions of years ago to one fairly recent origin possibly in or about East Africa. In fact, the margin of error could put humanity's origin as far east as the Mesopotamia region or as far south in Africa as modern-day Ethiopia. This convergence towards the recent origin of humanity in one location fits very well with the biblical data that puts humanity's origin in a single location near the Mesopotamia region. Furthermore, in the past 20 years, human migrations have been studied, and the evidence points to a great migration that began fanning out from the Fertile Crescent of the Middle East into all other areas of the earth. This migration event fits quite well with the Tower of Babel described in Genesis 11. In fact, even paleolinguistics is finding evidence for a single proto-human language, which also fits well with the Tower of Babel. And, finally, as discussed above, the data for a genetic Adam and Eve once showed that they existed thousands of years apart from one another, but that data is converging towards the two existing at the same time and in the same location. There is, of course, a margin of error in these dates (and, in fact, I argue here that biblically we might expect them not to match), but even with that error, the data is converging more and more towards a single, recent pair of humans from which all humanity comes.

So, about 30 years ago there was virtually no way to square the data with Scripture, but most Christians wisely did not abandon their Bibles and waited. As we waited, the scientific data and dominant interpretation moved away from very old, multiple, independent human origins towards a single, recent point of origin with a single pair of humans, which is consonant with the biblical account. The migration data shows that even more recently humans began aggressively fanning out from the Middle East into the rest of the world, which is consonant with the biblical account. And, paleolinguistics is uncovering evidence for a single proto-human language for all mankind, which is also consonant with the biblical account. In sum, the trajectory of the past 30 years of data has begun to coalesce towards the biblical account of human origins and migration. What was once virtually impossible to reconcile with the biblical account can now be easily harmonized with Scripture. Scripture said it first, and the scientific data is finally catching up.

Are there questions still to answer? Certainly. Fitting the Flood in, for example, is more difficult (though certainly not impossible, as I argue here). But, I do not think we should expect to have all the questions answered yet. We have been given snapshots of the earliest part of human history in Genesis 1-11, we are getting even broader snapshots of the earliest part of human history through the scientific data, and the trajectory of the data is pointing towards what the Bible has been teaching all along. Given time and patience, I believe the questions will be answered and the Bible will continue to demonstrate its veracity. We should find this harmony and trajectory very encouraging, but really, it is also exactly what we should expect. God created the world and wrote Scripture, which means as we collect more data from the scientific enterprise and interpret that data properly, it will show us that the Bible has been right all along. That is what we should expect. That is what we have seen over the past few decades. And, that is what we will see in the future.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Monday, January 14, 2013

In the Beginning...

Today Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason posted an interesting video making some comments on our interpretation of Genesis 1. It is worth watching:
Now, those of you who have read my blog long enough will know that I agree with Greg when he says that Genesis 1-3 does not support naturalistic, Darwinian evolution. In fact, I do not believe even a theistic evolutionary paradigm can be imposed on Genesis 1-3, which I will get to below. If you just look at my "evolution" tag, you will find a lot posts in which I point out inherent problems in that model.

I also agree with Greg's comments here about considering how the Israelite audience would have viewed the passage. Genesis 1-3 is an historical account of how God created the world, but the emphasis is less on the length of the days and more on beginnings by YHWH (the God of the Bible) in contrast to beginnings by Egyptian gods or according to Egyptian cosmology. I have not read the book to which Greg refers, In the Beginning... We Misunderstood: Interpreting Genesis 1 in Its Original Context, but if you are interested in an excellent book on this subject that also addresses the issue of day-length, I would recommend A Matter of Days by Dr. Hugh Ross.

Now, I mentioned theistic evolution (TE) above. Let me point out several reasons why I do not think it can be supported biblically, on which you can proverbially "chew":
  • It is worthy of note in the beginning that there is no one, systematic expression of TE. Many Christians hold a variety of views, so the follow critiques are general. 
  • Genesis, particularly chapters 1-3, fits the historical narrative genre, not a poetic or allegorical genre. So, while we can differ on the view of day length, the narrative is still historical, particularly on the point of creation of Adam and Eve, which is given specific detail in Ge. 2. For example, Ge. 2:7 has man moving from inanimate dust to animate life as man, but TE has man moving from an animate hominid to an animate human. This is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to get out of the text without first sacrificing biblical inerrancy.
  • Genesis is not the only book in the Bible that deals with creation (Job, Psalms, etc.). With these other texts it is not possible to draw the conclusion that the Bible is not addressing scientific details. It is, and consistent interpretation from the whole of the Bible argues for an historical creation by God.
  • TE severely limits, if not completely denies, God's providential interference in the cosmos. 
    • What about God's Creator-Redeemer relationship with man? TE says that God did not really do anything except get stuff started. If that is true, then the Redeemer relationship with humanity just comes out of "left field." Why did God choose that point to involve Himself in creation? This relationship is much more obviously and coherent with biblical data when Genesis 1-3 is viewed as historical. 
    • If TE is correct, how should we evaluate any of the Bible's claims about miraculous events? They all represent a clear departure from naturalism. Are they all poetic too? Are Jesus' miracles? Is the resurrection of Christ? 
  • Adam and Eve had to be historical figures (for which I have argued here and here). If not, was there an in time and space Fall (Ge. 3)? From where did we get our sinful natures? What about Adam and Jesus' imputation of sin and righteousness, respectively (Ro. 5:12-191 Co. 15:42-49)? For without Adam's, Jesus' does not follow, and God's work of redemption is incoherent. Were Jesus and the apostles wrong for believing in an historical Adam?
  • What about challenges to Biblical inerrancy? If we say that the Bible has "pre-scientific truth," what does that say about the overall truth of God's Word? Was it only true in the ancient world and no longer true today? Is it only true for "faith and practice" and not archaeology and science? How do we then determine what parts are true and what parts are not since biblical scientific claims overlap with faith claims?
  • How special is humanity if TE is correct? If God just got things started then why have a relationship with us at this stage of evolution? Why create at all? The Bible presents humanity as the apex of creation but TE just has us as a step along the path of evolution to something else.
Those are just my theological issues with TE. Those of you who have read my blog long enough know that I have many scientific problems with Darwinian evolution in general (as noted above). In fact those are very strong in my rejection of it. The fossil record, explosive/rapid diversification of life forms, DNA, repetition of biological forms, origins of life, etc. do not support TE or a naturalistic evolution model.

A couple of great resources which I highly recommend to you are Reasons to Believe and Stand to Reason. Both affirm biblical inerrancy, infallibility, and inspiration, and both treat scientific data with great care rather than ignoring it or attempting to explain it away. 

By His Grace,
Taylor

Monday, December 3, 2012

Advent: Day 2

Where does it all begin? Our meditation on Advent begins long before Jesus' incarnation. It begins at the very beginning with the creation of man:
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
27 So God created man in his own image,
    in the image of God he created him;
    male and female he created them.
28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth." 29 And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. 30 And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so. 31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. (Ge. 1:26-31)
God created man. For we would not, of course, need redemption and the incarnation would not be necessary if we did not exist in the first place. Furthermore, we need to remember that God the Father was not there in the beginning alone. Jesus, as the second person in the Godhead and coeternal with the Father, was there at the beginning:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. (Jn. 1:1-4)
In addition to John, Paul too reminds us that Jesus was the member of the Godhead who actually did the act of creating:
16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (Col. 1:16-17)
That is where the story begins. Our Lord and Savior, the second person of the Trinity, created us long before He became one of us.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

The Beginning of the Universe

"He asserts that the universe came from 'nothing' rather than from God. However, the different 'nothings' that Krauss appeals to for his explanations are really 'some things'—'some things' that demand nothing less than the existence and involvement of the biblical God." ~ Dr. Hugh Ross, "Universe from Nothing?: A Critique of Lawrence Krauss' Book, Part 1"

Another set of Big Bang news articles have hit the popular media. This time with headlines like "The Big Bang Didn't Need God to Start Universe, Researchers Say." This is similar to what Stephen Hawking wrote in his book The Grand Design, which I wrote about a while ago. The impetus behind such assertions is the desire to remove God from the equation when it comes to the origins of the universe. This has been a problem for naturalistic scientists ever since the first indications that the universe is expanding. So, let's talk about Big Bang cosmological theory and see if the above claims stand up within that framework.

Why is this such a big deal to Big Bang cosmologists? Well, it is often believed that "Big Bang" automatically means an atheistic world-view, but, while that may seem to be common now, that was not the original response to Big Bang cosmology. In fact, the Big Bang was originally seen by steady-state cosmologists as an inherently religious idea. Geoffrey Burbidge, for example, once lamented that his fellow scientists were running off to join the "First Church of Christ of the Big Bang." Sir Fred Hoyle first coined the phrase "Big Bang" in a 1949 BBC broadcast as a pejorative name because of its religious significance (though he did later recant). Why did they see it as religious? Because saying that the universe has a beginning means that it must have had a Beginner, and they did not want to admit the possibility of a Beginner.

Recently, however, many noted scientists have begun theorizing how the universe could have created itself from nothing. That is, of course, the holy grail of a naturalistic world-view--if you can show that the universe did not need a Beginner, then God is not necessary (at least, that is the assumption). So, we get articles like the one list above and books like Hawking's The Grand Design. As I have already written about Hawking's work, I will make a few comments about the recent articles.

The basic premise of such arguments is that "the Big Bang could've occurred as a result of just the laws of physics being there. With the laws of physics, you can get universes." What I find most interesting about this is that the scientist quoted (Alex Filippenko of the University of California, Berkeley) admits that the laws of physics cannot explain themselves. He even admits that they would require a divine Creator, though he goes on to ask who created the divine Creator, which he believes leads to a never-ending chain of causes. But does it really? Basically, Filippenko is showing the validity and necessity of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which is a classic argument for an uncaused Cause or a Creator. Eventually the chain of causality throughout the history of being has to have a beginning. String Theory posits a type of multiverse to explain the beginning of our universe. Filippenko and Hawking posit that the laws of physics cause the universe to create itself. Both of these simply push the need for a Creator back a step. They simply add another link to the chain of causality. Where did the multiverse come from? Where did the laws of physics come from? Believing they are simply "brute realities" takes as much faith as, if not more than it takes to believe in a Creator (I have written about this here, here, here, and here). Such theories do not solve the problem but are basically mathematical ways of skirting the question.

Furthermore, Filippenko positing quantum fluctuations as a creative event has problems. (Warning, this is going to get a little bit technical.) A consequence of the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics is that quantum fluctuations in the fabric of space-time will generate particles out of "nothing" (it is not really nothing as we will soon see). Seth Shostack from SETI asserts, "Quantum mechanical fluctuations can produce the cosmos." In the article, Filippenko draws on this idea and says, "If you would just, in this room, just twist time and space the right way, you might create an entirely new universe. It's not clear you could get into that universe, but you would create it." The first problem with this, that is not mentioned in the articles, is that while the uncertainty principle allows for the random creation of particles, it also requires that these particles revert back to fluctuations before they can be observed. They will not stick around long enough to create anything, about a quintillionth of a second (that is 0.000000000000000001 seconds)! The second problem is even larger than the first. The article and the scientists call this creation from nothing but it is in no way creation from nothing. It is creation from other "some things" (as the quote from Dr. Hugh Ross above states). When he says, "If you would just, in this room, just twist time and space the right way..." Filippenko reveals a major problem in his theory: quantum fluctuations require space-time (which is something, not nothing) to already exist for any type of particles (or universes) to be created. Rather than coming from nothing, they come from pre-existent physical laws and pre-existent space-time. Space-time must already exist for quantum fluctuations to create anything. So, one must again ask, "Has the need for a divine Creator really been removed from the situation?" Not hardly. If the fabric of space-time is necessary for quantum fluctuations to create anything, then space-time first had to be created by something or Someone else. Again, this pushes the need for a Creator back a step but in no way rids us of that need.

For more on this topic, I would suggest you read Dr. Hugh Ross' review of Lawrence M. Krauss' book A Universe from Nothing. Krauss' book is a much more highly developed argument than the article I have been citing or even Hawking's book. Dr. Hugh Ross does a very good job of laying out the issues with it in part 1 and the theological explanations in part 2.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Monday, September 6, 2010

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

Sunday, February 21, 2010

Refreshing Objectivity

"No one has publicly disagreed with my interpretation of the Apex fossils. But privately, some would prefer I were mistaken, since they (and I, too) would prefer a simpler evolutionary story, one that told us these oldest fossil organisms were capable only of primitive ways of living and that advanced metabolic lifestyles evolved much later. But the evidence seems strong, and what one might 'prefer' shouldn’t matter." J. William Schopf, The Cradle of Life

William Schopf is a professor of paleontology at UCLA. About 15 years ago Schopf and his team found microfossils (now known as the Apex fossils) in the Pilbara Supergroup (the oldest rocks structures on earth) and they have turned out to be the oldest fossils for life on earth. This discovery created a problem for naturalistic evolution, as Schopf expresses above. The reason his discovery was such a problem is that it seemed to show that life appeared suddenly on earth and very complex (as complex as the simple life on the planet today). There in lies the problem because from a naturalistic evolutionary perspective that cannot be the case.

Over the past 15 years Schopf's discovery has been debated heavily amongst origins of life researchers. The hottest opposition was brought against Schopf and his team by a UK team of biologists led by Martin Brasier, a professor of palaeobiology at Oxford. From about 2001 to 2003 Brasier debated with Schopf and attempted to prove that what Schopf and his team found was only the result of unusual chemical processes. The debate was eventually won by Schopf when two other independent teams confirmed his findings.

While the debate over the biological origins of these fossils ended there has been continued debate over their complexity until now. Recently a paper (written by an interdisciplinary team from Australia and Japan) was publish in the journal Astrobiology that has caused further troubles for naturalistic evolution because it reveals the complexity of these fossils. This team used a new 3D image reconstruction technique to analyze the fossils from the Pilbara Supergroup. This new technique allowed them to see that these fossils were much bigger and Schopf's team had thought--about 15 microns which is the size of human cells and much bigger than the simple bacteria that exists today (simple bacteria today measure about 1 micron). They also discovered that these organisms were highly complex with double-membraned cell walls, spheroids contained in the membranes that look like cell nuclei, and "flange-like" appendages that were constant in shape, proportion, and dimension (possibly flagellum like many current bacteria have).

All this is to say that I appreciate Schopf's honesty and objectivity about his discoveries. The evidence in his discovery and recent discoveries shows that the earth's earliest life was highly complex with internal structure, complex membranes, and appendages. It is evidence that is not compatible with naturalistic evolution but is what one would expect from a Creator. He would have preferred the story be different because it cannot be reckoned with naturalistic evolutionary models, but he would not hide behind what he wished to be true. He shows refreshing objectivity that is sadly lacking in many current scientists.

By His Grace,
Taylor