The Babel Fish, God, and Faith

"Hebrews 11:1 says, 'Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.' Knowledge. Assurance. Confidence. These are elements of faith. What gives us knowledge, assurance, and confidence? Reasoning through the evidence." ~ Melinda Penner, "Faith and Reason"

In honor of Towel Day, I would like to take a look at the Babel fish argument from Douglas Adams' entertaining and nerdy book, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. If you have not read it and you like sci-fi, I would definitely recommend it. It is a classic.

In the book there is a creature called the Babel fish. Adams describes this amazing creature for us:

The Babel fish is small, yellow, leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the universe. It feeds on brain wave energy, absorbing all unconscious frequencies and then excreting telepathically a matrix formed from the conscious frequencies and nerve signals picked up from the speech centres of the brain, the practical upshot of which is that if you stick one in your ear, you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language: the speech you hear decodes the brain wave matrix.

Adam's goes on to say, "Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful could evolve purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God." Wait! The non-existence of God? Yes, that is what he wrote, and he describes his argument in the form of a conversation with God that goes like this:

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

Now, Adams might have been joking (I doubt that), but if so, that has not kept others from seriously using this argument in an attempt to prove God does not exist. We must ask, then, is that reasoning really valid? The key is the assertion that is made about God: "I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith." Is that really true? Is faith a blind belief in something with no evidence for that something? Is that what God wants us to do? Does He want us to look around and say, "I see no proof for His existence but I am going to believe anyway. Look at the strength of my faith!"? Is that Scriptural? Not hardly. That is not at all Scriptures view of faith:

• He. 11:1 -- "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." I start with this because it is the closest thing to an explicit definition of faith given in Scripture. Faith is assurance and conviction of something unseen. As the above quote points out, assurance and conviction do not come from a denial of proofs and evidence; proofs and evidence are precisely how we get assurance and conviction. All of the biblical people mentioned in the following vv. of He. 11 did not just blindly believe in God. God had shown (proved) Himself to them, their families, and their people in many ways. Their faith rested on that evidence.
• Jb. 12:7-8 -- "But ask the beasts, and they will teach you; the birds of the heavens, and they will tell you; or the bushes of the earth, and they will teach you; and the fish of the sea will declare to you." Job does not tell his friends to irrationally believe in God. Job says to his friends, "Look to nature and you will see 'the hand of the LORD'."
• Ps. 19:1 -- "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork." The heavens declare and the sky proclaims, i.e. they give evidence and proof of God and His work. God designed the universe to show that He exists and to display His glory to man. The Belgic Confession (a classic Reformed confession of faith) tells us that we know God by two means (two "books") and then states, "First, by the creation, preservation, and government of the universe, since that universe is before our eyes like a beautiful book in which all creatures, great and small, are as letters to make us ponder the invisible things of God: his eternal power and his divinity, as the apostle Paul says in Romans 1:20."
• Ps. 97:6 -- "The heavens proclaim his righteousness, and all the peoples see his glory." There it is again: "The heavens proclaim" and "all the peoples see." See, i.e. belief in God is not blind.
• Ro. 1:20 -- "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." Paul tells us that God is clearly perceived in nature. Why? So men are without excuse in their unbelief, i.e. there are clear reasons to believe God exists and God has purposefully placed them there so men are without excuse. The Westminster Confession of Faith (another historic Reformed confession of faith) states at its very beginning, "[T]he light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable..."
• Lk. 1:1-4 -- "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught." Luke did much research in order to create an orderly account of Jesus, using evidence from eyewitnesses in order that Theophilus may have certainty. Luke's intention in writing his gospel was for his readers to see the evidence and be certain of the truth of the gospel.
• Jn. 20:30-31 -- "Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." Like Luke, John wrote his gospel so that his readers could have evidence (proof!) of the things that Jesus did and from that evidence believe.

Neither God, Scripture, nor historic Christian thought claims that God refuses to prove that He exists because that would somehow deny faith. Neither God, Scripture, nor historic Christian thought claims that faith is blind or that proof denies it. The situation is quite the opposite actually: faith is based in sound evidence from the historical witness, the Scriptures, and nature. Because Adams' key assertion is invalid, the whole Babel fish argument fails.

Here are a few good articles written by Stand to Reason on faith:

• Is Faith a Blind Leap?
• Faith & Wishing
• Does Faith Require God to Be Hidden?
• Did Jesus Commend Faith That Is Blind?
• Are Faith & Reason Compatible?
• Is Faith a Feeling?

Finally, faith is involved in scientific inquiry just like it is in religious belief. Do not be duped into thinking that science is all objective reason with no faith and that somehow makes it superior to Christian belief. I have written about that here, here, here, and here.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Humans, Persons, and the Context for Infanticide and Abortion

"Of course, sin ordinarily tries to bag a good of some kind: people want power or pleasure or wealth or self-esteem or happiness. Their sin consists in seeking these things in hurtful ways or excessively or preeminently or even exclusively. But as human life degenerates, as people explore deeper and deeper recesses of evil, they begin to seek pleasure not in such created goods as sex or material plenty or the exercise of dominion. They seek it instead in the very dynamics of sin.... They take satisfaction from showing who is boss, from showing that no one else will legislate for them. Or they take the vandal's pleasure in the destruction of beauty and wholeness. This contrariety, as opposed to blank carelessness, is the first ingredient of sin done 'for the hell of it.'

"People who joy in evil show that some wire has gotten crossed in them; their moral polarity has switched. Such corruption climaxes, as the Roman historian Livy says in a famous statement, in the transforming of human love from a benevolent disposition to a fatal attraction. Livy is describing the debauchery of the last century of the Roman republic, but he might just as well have been describing the hunger that makers of slasher films are trying to feed. What Livy describes is the inevitable destination of uninterrupted human evil. 'Of late years,' he says, 'wealth has made us greedy, and self indulgence has brought us, through every form of sensual excess, to be, if I may so put it, in love with death.'" ~ Cornelius Plantinga Jr., Not the Way It's Supposed to Be: A Breviary of Sin (pp. 50-1)

When my son was born, I must admit, I was not prepared for how much I would love him. I have never been a person who was fascinated by children or even had much of an interest in them. I did not hold babies, dote over them, or volunteer for the church nursery (okay, I worked it once but it was under duress). Do not get me wrong, I thought children were great, just from a distance. I actually felt guilty while Erika was pregnant because I was not as excited as I thought I should have been. Again, do not get me wrong, I was happy to know my first child was coming, but I was not nearly as excited as most other people I knew. I kept telling myself it would all change when he is born and others told me that too. And, while I knew that was true, I was still unprepared for how much I would love him and the power that love would have over me. Now, even when I go a few hours without seeing Gabriel, I want to be with him, to see his beaming smile, and to give him a hug (to all my family and friends, yes, I said it, a hug).

I say all that to attempt to demonstrate why I do not want to write this blog post right now. I do not want to think about Kermit Gosnell. I do not want to think about the atrocities he performed. I did not want to think about the atrocities performed in abortion clinics all over the world in the name of "women's rights" or "family planning" or "women's health." I have avoided writing about the Gosnell case because it hurts too much to think about someone killing my son right after he was born. Thinking about it makes my chest physically hurt, and I cannot help but think about it whenever I hear about this murderous rampage. I think about babies born, crying and terrified of this new, cold world, and then I think about someone taking that helpless human and killing them. I think about babies who need immediate care, just like my son needed immediate care when he was born, and their cries bringing instruments of death instead of nurturing love. I think, "What if that were my son?" and "How can someone be so cold and cruel to helpless, needy babies?" It hurts, and I have avoided writing about it because I want to avoid thinking about it. It is easier to avoid thinking about it. However, if I stick my head in the sand, then I am no better than the cowards in the majority of mainstream media who have avoided reporting this story. Fortunately, social media (one of its few redeeming uses) has spread this case across the Internet, even though many media outlets have been avoiding it like the plague (here, here, and here are few who have the courage to report it).

In my unwilling but persistent thoughts about this case, I have often come back to the question of why or how someone can think aborting a child or murdering the newly-born child can be acceptable. Murder is always atrocious but when it is a helpless child that needs the world to nurture it (not kill it), that question becomes even more acute. What would cause someone to take a crying, helpless baby and severe its spinal cord? What would cause someone not to feel remorse when they hear a baby's cries immediately stop and their body go limp because of an action they took? What would cause them to do it over and over again? As Plantinga says in the above quote, when unchecked, the corruption of sin eventually leads to pleasure sought in the very dynamics of sin. It led to the Roman citizens to become "in love with death," and one could say the exact same thing about America. Sure, we do not have gladiator battles anymore, but we have legalized abortion, sanctioned the death of over 40 million babies, and continue to defend it under the guise of "women's health" or "family planning." But, why is America in love with death? Why would Gosnell casually murder babies "precipitated" (i.e. born) in his office? What is the cause? I have not been able to come up with an answer. And, Plantinga is helpful here too:

Inquiring into the causes of sin takes us back, again and again, to the intractable human will and to the heart's desire that stiffens the will against all competing considerations. Like a neurotic and therapeutically shelf-worn little god, the human heart keeps ending discussions by insisting that it wants what it wants.

The trouble is that this is only a re-description of human sin, not an explanation of it--let alone a defense of it. Our core problem, says St. Augustine, is that the human heart, ignoring God, turns in on itself, tries to lift itself, wants to please itself, and ends up debasing itself... the person who curves in on himself, who wants God's gifts with God, who wants to satisfy the desires of a divided heart, ends up sagging and contracting into a little wad....

Moreover, even when we have sorted and classified the motives of a sin, we still haven't fully explained it. Why not? The reason is that to identify a motive is to discern only what pushes a person in the direction of some act, not why he actually commits it. We still do not know why a person succumbs to the motive. After all, lots of people feel motivated to steal others people's possessions but manage to avoid giving in to these motives.... The fact is that we know more contexts than motives of human evil, and we know more motives than causes, we almost never know all three... Only God knows the percentages in these matters. Only God knows the human heart. (pp. 62-3)

Only God knows the deep, dark recesses of Gosnell and other abortionists' hearts. We can identify motives and contexts in which these people might make their decisions, but why they choose to act when others do not is a mystery. Even Paul admits this, calling it the "mystery of lawlessness." (And, if I am honest, I have to admit that it is only by God's grace that I have not moved in the same direction as Gosnell or any of the others. God knew my deep, dark sin--indeed, He still knows it--and replaced the stone I mistakenly called a heart with the true thing. One thing I need to remember in my rage is that Gosnell is not beyond the power of the gospel. If God could move my heart, He can move his.)

Even though an actual cause may beyond my ability to assess, I think I can give the context, or at least part of the context, in which these decisions take place. In short, it is the philosophical move away from inherent value in humans (i.e. because we are made in the image of God) to functionalism. Functionalism is the idea that rights come from a set of criteria that a human (or something else like dolphins) has to meet in order to be considered a person. The argument proceeds like so: First, the assertion is made that persons (not humans) deserve rights. Second, a distinction is drawn between "humans" and "persons" based on a set of criteria (e.g. rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness), which is, of course, debatable and largely determined by the opinions of a few. Finally, if the human (or something else) meets the set of criteria, then they are said to be a person and deserve rights. If they do not, then they have no rights (or at least no rights equal to the rights of persons). This distinction between "human" and "person" based on a set of criteria gives us the context for abortion. One can (and indeed our culture has) narrow the criteria for personhood to exclude the unborn. When something is a "fetus" and not a "baby" (which suggests personhood), then the rights of the person (the mother) trump the rights of the non-person (the baby) and it becomes okay to "terminate" the pregnancy. As Mary Elizabeth Williams (about whom I have written in the past) has argued, "...a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She's the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always." (Emphasis added) She calls the unborn baby a "human life" but did you catch the adjective at the end (I hope so; I italicized it)? The "non-autonomous entity" does not have the same rights as the mother. Why? Because of the distinction drawn by functionalism. Being human is not enough.

Unfortunately, functionalism does not stop at the general abortions pro-life advocates are used to protesting. This road leads right to Gosnell and beyond. Peter Singer (professor of bioethics at Princeton!) has argued that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood and, therefore, "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person." Singer is not the only one. A few Australian ethicists have argued for "after-birth abortions" on the basis of functionalism and newborns lacking personhood. This, of course, is the logical extension of pre-birth abortions because there is no moral or personal distinction between the unborn child and the newly-born child. Moving down the birth canal does not change the personhood of the baby. (Of course, this logical extension should lead our culture to realize killing the unborn is wrong, but we are a culture "in love with death.") According to functionalism, babies still lack the criteria necessary for personhood. They are, at best, "potential persons."

If you make a distinction between "person" and "human" and then set up a (arbitrary) set of criteria to qualify as a person, then you end up with Gosnell, Singer, and others like them. And, do not make the mistake of thinking these ideas are simply in the "high academic" circles. Planned Parenthood has argued that the fate a baby born in a botched abortion (i.e. breathing, crying, and fighting for life just like the ones Gosnell murdered) should be determined by the mother and physician. "Personhood" is a linguistic sleight-of-hand used to exclude some humans from the protected class, and it does not stop with infants. When a list of criteria has to be met and that criteria is determined by society, then anyone is in danger (especially the inconvenient, like the mentally handicap and degenerating elderly). This move has been done in the past and has been used to defend genocide, slavery, sex-trafficking, and all other sorts of human atrocities. The Nazis had a word for it: Untermensch, "sub-human." And, it leads cultures into downward spirals, like Plantinga describes above, which eventually end with a people who are "in love with death." Only a philosophical and presuppositional commitment to the inherent rights of a human because they are made in the image of God will place us in a context where abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia are unacceptable. Oh sure, we could make abortion illegal, but no progress will be made in relieving the demand for abortions until culture starts seeing humans as made in the image of God and inherently deserving of "unalienable rights" which have been "endowed by their Creator."

Now, about now you might be thinking, "What exactly does it mean for a human to be 'made in the image of God?'" That is a good question and it is one that I will address next week, for this post is already too long.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Theism vs. Naturalism, NOT Bible vs. Science

"These days naturalism is extremely fashionable in the academy; some say it is contemporary academic orthodoxy... Still, naturalism is certainly widespread, and it is set forth in such recent popular books as Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker, Daniel Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea, and many others. Naturalists like to wrap themselves in the mantle of science, as if science in some way supports, endorses, underwrites, implies, or anyway is unusually friendly to naturalism." ~ Alvin Plantinga, "Evolution vs. Naturalism"

You may have seen the above info-graphic floating around the Internet lately (click on it to view the larger, readable version). It presents six stories that explain how the world was created, and it is essentially designed to shame any religious creation account (in particular it is aimed at Christianity, for how many books do you see written about the Hindu, Shinto, Chinese, or Norse creation accounts' scientific viability?) by implicitly asserting that they are irrational, "anti-science," and only have their sacred text as evidence for their account. "The text just says so, so it must be true," is how they present those who adhere to a religious creation account. It presents "science" as the sixth alternative and attempts to make it look obviously superior to the Bible's creation account (let's just cut to the chase, shall we?) and in complete opposition to it, as if there is a Bible vs. science battle. There is a lot said in the popular media today that characterizes the debate over evolution, embryonic stem research, etc. as "religion vs. science" (as if the two are mutually exclusive), and this info-graphic is another attempt to convince the reader that the Bible is opposed to science. It characterizes the Bible and Christians who advocate its worldview as "anti-science" de jure (as a matter of law), which also labels them as "anti-reason," "anti-evidence," and just plain ignorant. However, like most info-graphics floating around the Internet, it presents a straw-man, reductionist, and logically fallacious argument that crumbles when some simple observations are made.

Is there a battle between religion and science? Does the debate really lie there? Are Christians "anti-science"? Well, if we are honest we have to admit that at times and in isolated incidents this is true. I have met Christians who think that science is opposed to Scripture, thus making it their enemy, and I have made it one of my goals to show Christians that this is not the case. Christians can choose to make science an enemy; scientists can choose to claim that religion and science are like oil and water, but it is not necessary to draw that conclusion. That kind of thinking comes from a faulty view of science (why I put it in quotation marks above) and the idea that philosophical naturalism (i.e. physical nature as the sole reality) has the monopoly on the scientific enterprise. These two interrelated fallacies lie behind the conclusions and pejorative remarks in the above info-graphic.

First, the graphic claims that science gives a creation account that starts with the Big Bang, continues through the evolution of all life on earth, and ends up with humans evolving from hominids. That, however, is not strictly a claim of science. You see, the graphic works from a faulty definition of science that changes it from a tool to a worldview. Science is an epistemological tool that helps one gain knowledge about the physical world around us. It is a methodology by which we can gain knowledge about the physical world through observation and experimentation. The graphic, however, lists "science" along side five other worldviews and treats it as if it were another worldview. In the second row it gives a fairly random list of a few pieces of data about which science has given us information (the so-called "evidence") and in the first row, an interpretation of that data that is based on a purely naturalistic worldview. It does all this under the heading of "science," and yet only the second row properly fits under the heading "science." The first row is scientific data absorbed into and interpreted by the naturalistic worldview (i.e. a philosophy). So the graphic labels the sixth column as "science" but only because it is working from a faulty definition of science.

This leads us into the second fallacy. The graphic treats science as if it and naturalism are the same thing, identical. It merges science, which is a tool, with one worldview (naturalism) and then makes the implicit claim that other worldviews are opposed to science. It treats science as a worldview, but science is not a worldview, it is a tool to be used by worldviews. The graphic treats science as if the naturalistic worldview has the monopoly on its methodology and all other worldviews are left with only hear-say. Now, naturalism does make science its exclusive method for discovering truth, but that does not mean that science is the exclusive property of naturalism. What should really be at the top of the sixth column is "naturalism," not "science." Naturalism gives the explanation of "how the world came to be" that the info-graphic lists in the first row of the sixth column. Certainly, it uses the scientific tool, but it interprets the data within its worldview, and it is not the only worldview that can validly use the tool of science. The data they list in the evidence row under the heading of "science" can easily be interpreted within the Judeo-Christian worldview, and in fact it merges well with the Bible's creation account (which is in many more places in Scripture than just Genesis 1-2) and can be used as evidence for it as well. You see, the graphic attempts the frame the debate as a clash between Christianity and science when the debate is really a clash between philosophical theism and philosophical naturalism, and science is a tool readily available to both worldviews.

Here lies a major problem with the way the term "science" is sometimes used today. Many atheists, like Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens, would have us believe that science is opposed to religion, but that is only because they make a philosophical commitment to naturalism first and then claim exclusive rights to the scientific enterprise. They commit to naturalism as dogma before they even look at the evidence, and then they claim their interpretation of scientific data (within philosophical naturalism) is the only valid interpretation. I am not the only one to notice this, and even some atheists point it out this problem. Some have admitted the failures of naturalism and others may not go that far but at least admit their commitment to naturalism de jure. Harvard Geneticist (and atheist) Richard Lewontin admits this in his review of Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark in the NY Review of Books:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Do you see the admission? "It is not that the method and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world... we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes... that materialism is absolute...."

When the commitment is absolute, one could even call it a "religious" commitment to naturalism (or materialism). Do they know naturalism to be the absolutely true worldview? No, they simply want us to take their word for it and make the same dogmatic commitment they have made. If one put naturalism in the sixth column of the above graphic, which is what belongs there instead of "science," then the "it says so" line would be in the evidence row for it too. Why should we believe that nature is the sole reality? Naturalism (or materialism) just says so. Why should we believe there is no uncaused personal Creator who brought universe into existence? Naturalism just says so. Why should we believe the cosmic constants, which are finely-tuned for life, just popped into existence? Naturalism just says so. Why should we believe there is no God, spiritual realm, or anything beyond the physical? Naturalism just says so. Why should we never let a "Divine Foot in the door"? Naturalism just says so.

Do not be fooled by info-graphics and arguments that attempt to frame the debate as the Bible vs. science. The clash is not there. The clash is in competing worldviews, and naturalism does not have the monopoly science.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Science vs. Religion: Thoughts on Handling Apparent Conflicts

"While many Christians and non-Christians see the two [love of science and a desire to serve God] as in perpetual conflict, I find they integrate well. They operate by the same principles and are committed to discovering foundational truths. My passion... is helping Christians see how powerful a tool science is to declare God's glory and helping scientists understand how the established scientific discoveries demonstrate the legitimacy and rationality of the Christian faith." ~ Dr. Jeffrey Zweerink, UCLA Assistant Researcher and RTB Scholar

When people find out that my educational background is in physics and that I just graduated from seminary, I am often asked about the alleged conflict between science and religion/faith. When the questions come from a fellow Christian, they generally ask how I can merge the two without giving up my commitment to the inspiration, authority, inerrancy, and infallibility of Scripture (all things to which I am completely committed). This is a very important question and usually I find it comes from people hungry to hear something besides "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" or "religion simply causes fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and suffering." I enjoy being asked the question because it gives me a chance to try to help others realize there is no inherent conflict between science and the Christian faith, and that the alleged conflict is simply played up by many of the so-called "new atheists" and media hype.

What is a Christian to do when they come across "scientific fact" that seems to conflict with Scripture? Below are several things that I keep in mind when I see headlines or read the latest "new atheist" rant. Not all these things will be possible all the time, but they are things to look for and keep in mind that will help us sort these issues out (this is by no means an exhaustive list and I or others may modify or add to it later):

• Remember the world in which we live... and do not be surprised: I sometimes find myself astonished that someone would treat me with contempt or patronize me like a child when they find out I am a Christian and a scientist, and then, when I come to my senses, I remember that I should expect nothing less. This is exactly what Jesus told us to expect. Christians are a people whose highest allegiance is God Himself and His written Word is the highest authority in our lives. We, however, live in a world whose highest allegiance is any number of idols, particularly human reason. These ultimate allegiances are going to come into contact and, as the man used to sing, "something's gotta give." But, neither side is willing to give up their allegiance. The world looks to reason as the only self-authenticating authority and will not tolerate Christians who look to the Bible as the only self-authenticating authority (of course, Christianity does not deny the value of reason but places it in its rightful place: under God). So, do not be surprised when the alleged conflict is amplified or someone claims your belief is "unwarranted." This is part of the world in which we live.
• Check the source and wait: Sometimes discoveries made by scientists are either reported by the media too early (and incorrectly) or later debunked by further testing and experimentation. In the first case, take note of what you are reading in media articles and from where the information came. Did it come from a published, peer-reviewed article or from a presentation at a scientific conference? There can be a big difference in the reliability of the data. At conferences, researches share raw, infant ideas that can range from Nobel prize concepts to junk and dead ends. Sometimes unpublished, un-peer-reviewed claims are portray as scientific fact when even the researchers would not say that. If you have the knowledge and ability to check the claims, do it. If not, wait and see if further information on the subject comes up after the research has made it through the peer-review system (make use of Google Alerts). If the media story does come from a reputable journal, try to check the reporting and claims by doing your own research or asking a friend who might have expertise in the area. If that is not possible, I would recommend asking my friends at Reasons to Believe, but, as a distant second, I offer my assistance (at times I talk about scientific discoveries from a biblical perspective, some examples are here, here, here, here, and here). When all else fails, wait and follow the story (again, make use of Google Alerts)  Sometimes mistakes can happen, like the recent neutrino debacle (read the before and after) or claims can be over blown, like the Ida circus stunt. When so many people are trying to make a name for themselves, this is the nature of the beast and eventually bogus claims are exposed. 
• Try to separate the data from the interpretation of the data: This can be a huge help when trying to deal with scientific claims that apparently contradict Scripture. There is a difference between scientific data and interpretation of that data. The data is the raw information brought to light by a study or a discovery and that data has to be interpreted with a model or paradigm to figure out what it means and where it fits. Everyone interprets data within a model or paradigm (whether we know it or not) based on our beliefs and worldview. A scientific model refers to the schematic description of a system (or set of data) that accounts for observations and inferences as well as origin and history. It is a paradigm that attempts to offer reasonable explanations for the entire scope or history of a particular system in nature, as well as for its relationship to other phenomena. Particle physics has the Standard Model, for example. There are other models, like naturalistic evolution. Data taken in by various fields of science is generally interpreted within the accepted model. What you are likely reading in a media article (even a journal article) is not the data itself (for that would not sell advertising) but an interpretation of that data. Christians need to separate the data from its interpretation and interpret it within a biblical model. If we really believe God created the universe and wrote Scripture, then we know the data will fit within a biblical model, we just have to do the work of separation and interpretation. Sometimes the interpretations will be almost identical; other times there will be significant differences. For example, see my articles on the historicity of Adam and Eve. Now, again, this can be a very difficult thing to do for someone who does not have access to journal articles (to get the data) or the necessary training to understand and interpret the data. As mentioned above, try to check the claims by doing your own research or asking a friend who might have expertise in the area. If that is not possible, again I would recommend asking my friends at Reasons to Believe, but, again as a distant second, I offer my assistance.
• Remember that everyone is biased... everyone: If there is one good thing that postmodernism has done for society, it is to shown that everyone is biased and no one has the ability to lay aside completely their personal presuppositions. We interpret every piece of data not only in a model (see above) but according to our own presuppositions. As stated above, one of the common modern presuppositions is that human reason is a self-authenticating authority. Another might be that evolution is a scientific fact. We need to look for the hidden presuppositions in bold statements and ask how they might be affecting a person's interpretation of the data. We should not berate others because they have biases (for we all have them), but we should try to help them see how their biases are affecting their interpretation and how other interpretations from other presuppositions are equally valid.
• Remember that God is the God of general and special revelation: Article 2 of the Belgic Confession states: "We know Him [God] by two means: First, by the creation, preservation, and government of the universe, since that universe is before our eyes like a beautiful book in which all creatures, great and small, are as letters to make us ponder the invisible things of God: His eternal power and his divinity, as the apostle Paul says in Romans 1:20. All these things are enough to convict men and to leave them without excuse. Second, He makes Himself known to us more openly by His holy and divine Word, as much as we need in this life, for His glory and for the salvation of His own." What the authors of this great confession were pointing out is that God is the God of all truth, whether it comes from nature or Scripture. This means that science and Scripture will perfectly harmonize when we are interpreting both correctly. The apparent contradictions crop up when we or others are misinterpreting one or both "books." All apparent contradictions are just that, apparent, and not real. Sometimes it takes a lot of hard work and time to figure out where we or someone else has gone wrong in interpretation, but we must never forget that any contradictions are a manifestation of human fallibility, not inherent to God's Word or world. 
• Be humble: Remember, you and I are just as fallible, biased, and sinful as the most hardened, virulent "new atheist." The only difference between us and them is that we have God's grace, forgiveness, salvation, and Holy Spirit (not from anything in us but as a gift so no man can boast, Eph. 2:8-9). The only reason that you and I understand and believe the Scriptures is the Spirit's illumination (1 Co. 2:9-12), therefore be humble when responding to critics, evaluating someone's work, or discussing apparent contradictions with others.
• Pray: When Nehemiah stood before the King Artaxerxes to request permission to go to Jerusalem and rebuild the walls around the new Temple, he was in a tenuous spot. He could have been killed for his request. In 2:4 the king asks the question "What are you requesting?" and before Nehemiah responded Scripture tells us that he prayed. In that moment, few seconds, he prayed for wisdom and God gave it to him. We need to pray for wisdom when trying to figure these things out. Sometimes they are very difficult (if they were not, there would not be all the controversies we find ourselves in today). We need to pray that God will help us sort out the truth from interpretation, the facts from presuppositional errors; and we need to pray that He will help us come to a proper understanding of both His Word and His world. 
• Remember that God is still God, even if you cannot figure it out: Friends, let us be honest, we are not going to figure everything out. Even the best scholars sometimes have to say, "I don't know." We must remember that even if something seems contradictory and after all our research we still cannot figure it out, God is still God and Jesus is still coming back. I hate not being able to figure something out as much as the next guy, but sometimes (rarely but sometimes) we need to admit it is too much for us, trust God, and go get a milkshake. 

By His Grace,

Taylor

Adam and Eve: A Tale of Two Cases

A couple of months ago I wrote a blog post about the historicity of Adam and Eve called "Who Was Adam?". In it I posted an excerpt from a blog of a friend of a friend and my response to her post where I showed that it is not the scientific data that calls into question the historicity of Adam and Eve but an evolutionary interpretation of the data. Since then, my post has been published on The Aquila Report, a Reformed news service, and I have talked about the issue at length with many people. I wanted to follow that post up with some clarification on the issue and further defend the biblical view. When the pertinent data is looked at from the two points (an evolutionary or biblical) of view we get a "tale of two cases".

First, I think we need to clarify a few things when it comes to the use of terms that one might hear thrown around when this issue is talked about. There have been several Christian scientists who deny the historicity of Adam and Eve because they claim that it "would be against all the genomics evidence that we’ve assembled over the last 20 years, so not likely at all..." (Dennis Venema, Trinity Western University) Some have flat out said that, "genetics convincingly shows that there was never a time when there were just two persons." (Darrel Falk and Kathryn Applegate, BioLogos) Francis Collins of the Human Genome Project says, "Adam and Eve as the literal first couple and ancestors of all humans do not fit the evidence." But what do they mean when they say, "genetics convincingly shows" or "against all genomics evidence"? What genetic evidence are they referring to? This is a very important question because a lot is riding on this evidence.

The problem with this generalized claim is that genetic evidence has four components to it. There are four types of DNA that gets lumped into the phrase "genetic evidence" and some of it makes the interpretation of Collins, Venema, et al. very uncertain (we will get to why that is below). The four types of DNA are as follows:

• Autosomal DNA -- This is the DNA that makes up most of your genome and is a random combination of both of your parent's DNA. Since this autosomal DNA (atDNA) is a random combination of your parent's DNA (and their's is a random combination of their parents, ad infinitum) everyone's is completely unique. (This may also be referred to as "nuclear DNA" but that term is less precise.) For a good explanation of this type of DNA see this video.
• Chromosomal DNA Types -- At the genetic level, what determines our sex is our chromosomes. Males have a X and a Y chromosome. Females have two X chromosomes. Each contains DNA: 
• X Chromosomal DNA -- This is the DNA that makes up your X chromosome (X-c) that you get from your mother. It is a random combination of her two X chromosomes, so, like the autosomal DNA, it is unique, though it does not change as quickly as autosomal DNA. For a good explanation of this type of DNA see this video. 
• Y Chromosomal DNA -- This is the DNA that makes up the male Y chromosome (Y-c) and it is only passed from fathers to sons. Since there is only one Y-c, there is no random recombination of genes so the only thing that can cause change in the Y-c is mutation. This means it often not unique and changes very, very slowly. For a good explanation of this type of DNA see this video.
• Mitochondrial DNA -- This final form of DNA comes from the mitochondrial of your cells and it only comes from your mother. Male or female, it does not matter, your mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) only comes from your mother. So, like the Y-c, there is no recombination of genes so the only thing that can cause change in the mtDNA is mutation. This also means, like the Y-c, it is often not unique and changes very, very slowly. For a good explanation of this type of DNA see this video.

We need to demand specificity from anyone making the claim that "genetic evidence" shows something. What kind of genetic evidence are they referring to? This will become important below.

Another term that gets used by scientists that often confuses people is "human". Now, you might think should be simple but it is not. An evolutionary biologist will use the term "human" to refer to any type of hominid from the homo genus like homo erectus or homo rudolfensis, not just homo sapiens (the taxonomic name for what species you and I are). This confuses the matter because scientists may refer to an ancient "human" fossil, footprint, or gene and they may not be referring to our species at all. This term also gives rise to the phrase "ancient modern human" used to refer to a homo sapien that lived in pre-historic times. This phrase not a contradiction in terms, but a further specification biologists use to refer to homo sapiens--a modern human species that lived long ago. I say this to make sure you aware of what is really being talked about when you read a science article in the popular news. If they say "human" they may not mean the species that you and I belong to and it may require more investigation on your part to figure out what they are really referring to. You can be sure that when I use the term "human" I mean a human like you and me, not any kind of animal that may have walked erect.

Second, we need to clarify that data that is being referred to by these scientists quoted above and that I will refer to below. There are two important types of data that come into play. The first I have already talked about in my previous post on this subject, and it is the mtDNA and Y-c data that shows that the entire human race can be traced back to one single mtDNA sequence for females and one Y-c sequence for males, a single pair of humans. (For a more detailed explanation of this see my first post on the subject.) As I just mentioned above, the mtDNA and Y-c change very slowly because the only mechanism for change is mutation. Therefore, scientist can trace the mutations of DNA take from all types of people throughout the globe back to a single first sequence for males and females. It is the single method of change--mutation--and the slow rate of change that makes this possible. (This would be impossible with atDNA, which is why it is important to know what kind of DNA someone is referring to!) The second type of data looks at the genetic diversity of humanity in the atDNA in humans. This data is drawn from mathematical models and attempts to take the present diversity of human atDNA and calculate how long it would take to get to the present state of diversity. These models have showed that in order for humanity to get to its present state of genetic diversity, it would have to have started out from a small population of humans (on the order of thousands) and not a single pair. These two sets of data appear to be in conflict, which is where our tale of two cases begins.

There are two possible ways of looking at this data. In these two interpretations different types of genetic data are given priority, which, again, is why it is important to know what genetic data someone is referring to when they say, "the genetic evidence says...".

Case #1 -- The Interpretation of Venema, Collins, et al.:
The mathematical modeling from the atDNA is given priority and it is assumed that humanity could not have originated from a single pair. This assumption is then imposed on the data that comes from the mtDNA and the Y-c. The question is then asked, "How could we have one ancient modern human mtDNA sequence and one Y-c sequence for all of us when humanity did not arise from a single pair?" Their answer is the "one lucky mother" hypothesis. They hold that there was originally thousands of mtDNA sequences and Y-c sequences in the first ancient modern humans but somewhere along the way all lines of these types of DNA died off except the one mtDNA and one Y-c that exist today in the present population. These sequences were from the "lucky" man and woman whose DNA was passed on while all other lines of DNA died out.

Case #2 -- The Biblical Interpretation:
In this case, the mtDNA and Y-c evidence is given priority because of the faults in the mathematical modeling and because of highly improbably "one lucky mother" hypothesis. In this case, the model is assumed to be incomplete (see below) and so it cannot be given the weight of mtDNA and Y-c tracking (which, remember, is a much slower process and much easier to trace backward). These ancient sequences are taken to actually point to a single man and single woman who were the progenitors of the entire human race. No special hypothesis is necessary for this interpretation, simply an acknowledgement of the limits of mathematical modeling with atDNA.

So, which of these cases seems more likely? It should be obvious by now that I choose case #2. Why? Well, I would like to expound upon the faults in the mathematical modeling and the "one lucky mother" hypothesis that I mentioned above:

• First, the mathematical models, while sophisticated, do not take into account very important data and therefore the results are unreliable. Remember, with atDNA, there is a random recombination of parental genes so there are many more things coming into play than just mutations--many things which the model leaves out. For one, it assumes that environmental factors do not drive genetic diversity. Environmental factors are things like location, food supply, isolation, diseases, and anything else that can drive a population to change. Recent studies (like this one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1766376/) have shown this this is a dangerous assumption and can greatly skew the data. These models also assume monogamy throughout human history, and we all know that this is not a valid assumption. Now, before you think the scientists are just being sloppy, consider how difficult it would be to include these factors into a model. How many sexual partners do you assume each human has? How do you know what environmental pressures were on an ancient human population for which we have no historical record? You cannot and so these models cannot realistically include these things. However, this just goes to show that their results should be used with great reservation. 
• Second, the "one lucky mother" hypothesis has a critical flaw in it. If one assumes that ancient humanity began with a small population of thousands, then for this hypothesis to work one has to find a catastrophic yet very selective mechanism that will kill off all genetic lines except for one male's and one female's. It must be catastrophic enough to kill off thousands of lines and all their progeny and yet it must also be selective enough to kill off all but one for the females and one for the males. What event or process could be so terrible that it would kill off all genetic lines and yet also so selective that it would leave one and only one genetic line for each sex? Even theorizing about such a mechanism is nearly impossible. 

So, we must choose between case #1 and case #2. Case #1 puts more weight on mathematical models that are incomplete (see above) and must come up with a complicated mechanism for killing of all genetic lines but those of one male and one female. Case #2 acknowledges the issues with mathematical modeling and takes the mtDNA and Y-c data at face value without having to postulate extraordinary events to explain the data. If Ockham's razor means anything at all any more, we must acknowledge that case #2 is likely the correct explanation of the data.

What would keep intelligent men like the ones mentioned above from acknowledging that case #2 is more likely the correct explanation of the data? Presuppositions. We must remember that all of us look at this data with our bias that we bring to the table. I look at the data having faith that what Scripture says is historical and theologically important and therefore I choose case #2. Theistic evolutionists, like the Christians mentioned above, look at the data already believing that evolution is a fact and therefore choose case #1 because it fits that presupposition better. Am I any different from them in this regard? No, I readily admit that my bias influences my decision, but the point is that case #2 is 1) an equally valid interpretation of the data and 2) fits the data well with fewer complications and less reliance on incomplete modeling.

Scripture is my highest priority and I make no apologies for that, but it is also true that the data itself does not go against Scripture. It actually fits quite well with Scripture. This is what we should expect if we truly believe that God is the author of all truth, whether it comes from the infallible authority of Scripture or the scientific realm. For, as Paul says in Romans 11:36, "from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be glory forever. Amen."

By His Grace,
Taylor

Who Was Adam?

"Collectively, the consensus that emerges from this work indicates that humanity originated recently (about 100,000 years ago) from East Africa (near the location theologians ascribed to the Garden of Eden) from a small population. Amazingly, studies using mitochondrial and Y chromosomal DNA markers trace humanity’s origin back to a single man and woman." ~ Dr. Fazale ("Fuz") Rana, "A Burgoo of Human Origin Discoveries"

Today I responded to a post on the blog of a friend of a friend: Reflections on God's Word. In this post the author, Maria, talks about the move by some Christians, Francis Collins in this case, to dismiss Adam and Eve as historical figures. Dr. Collins, of the Human Genome Project, has looked at the genetic data and concluded that he believes Adam and Eve were not historical. Maria proceeds to flesh out the biblical implications of this in her post and points out why a historical Adam and Eve are important to orthodox Christian doctrine. Here is a portion of what she said:

...Collins has concluded from this study, as reported in a book he recently co-authored (The Language of Science and Faith), that “Adam & Eve as the literal first couple and ancestors of all humans do not fit the evidence”.

This assumption is disturbing on two accounts: First of all, those who support the findings and support theistic evolution minimize the impact of their assertions.  Second and more fraught with potential harm, is the implication for much of Biblical Theology and directly the trustworthiness of the Bible.  I will address the second of these issues.

The author of the “Christianity Today” article, Richard Ostling, correctly articulates what is at stake:

• Humans’ unique status as image bearers of God

• The doctrine of original sin and the fall

• The genealogy of Jesus in Luke 3

• Jesus’ teaching that all of the Old Testament points to Him (Luke 24)

• Paul’s teaching that links the historical Adam with redemption through Christ

This issue is different from the debate among evangelical Christians who argue Old Earth vs. Young Earth.  In that arena, it is clearer that there are at least two possible interpretations.  The Bible refers to days (yowm) spent in creating the world.  In Hebrew ‘yowm/Strongs H3117’ can mean 24 hours, a year or a long period of time.  So the creation account is open to discussion without raising the trustworthiness of the Bible as an issue.

But if there is not a literal and historical Adam, then here are the implications:

• God did NOT decide as a Trinitarian unit to make man in His image, male and female (Gen 1:27)

• God did NOT have a conversation with Adam in Gen 2:16-17

• Eve did NOT talk with Satan as serpent in Gen 3:1-5

• Eve did NOT sin in Gen 3:6

• No sudden guilt, shame and cover-up happened in Gen 3:7

• No face-to-face encounter between God and the first couple took place in Gen 3:8-9

• Adam & Eve did not try to pass the buck, playing the blame game in Gen 3:11-13

• Gospel Hope was not first preached in Gen 3:15

• No penalty for sin was announced in Gen 3:16-19, thereby explaining what is wrong with our world

...

You should go read the rest of her post here. It is a good biblical and philosophical defense of the trustworthiness of God's Word and Adam as a historical figure. Go ahead, go read it and then come back here..........

Now that you are back, I would like to share with you how I responded to her post. I thought it appropriate and necessary to respond from the scientific side of things as well. I wanted Maria, and all her readers, to know that it is Dr. Collins' interpretation of the data that is against a historical Adam, but his interpretation is not the only valid interpretation (as my quote in the beginning points out). Here is what I said:

Great article, I was directed here by a mutual friend–Adam Powers. I do not want to minimize the great points you made above but I also wanted to give a little perspective on Dr. Collins’ statement/opinion. I hope that this will encourage you in that you not only make a good Biblical and philosophical argument but that the scientific data are not against you.

Dr. Collins is truly a Christian, I believe, though I disagree with him about theistic evolution. One thing we must keep in mind with people like Collins who look at the genetic evidence is that they are looking at it with evolutionary presuppositions already in mind.

There are many studies that have emerged recently (like these: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7181/abs/nature06611.html, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/319/5866/1100.abstract, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/277/5323/176.short) that indicate the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of all humans can be traced back to one single sequence on the order of about 100,000 years ago. (We all get our mtDNA from our mothers only so even though I am a male my mtDNA still came from only my mother.) Other work done on the Y chromosome (Y-c) shows that all males can be traced back to a single Y-c (studies like this one: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v378/n6555/abs/378379a0.html) on the order of about 60,000 years ago.

Collins looks at this data and, because of his evolutionary presuppositions, thinks that this one sequence was just the “one lucky mother” whose DNA was passed on, while all the other DNA from the first “evolved” females died out. He interprets the Y-c data the same way. However, there is no evidence to favor this interpretation over one that looks at the data and says, “All humanity can be traced back to a single man and a single woman.” The second interpretation is simply much more difficult for Collins to fit into his evolutionary presuppositions, so he chooses the first. It is not the data that demands Christians throw out the idea of a historical Adam, it is Collins’ interpretation of it based on his presuppositions. The data equally support a historical Adam and Eve interpretation.

One might look at the dates and think, “Wait, how could the historical Eve be 100,000 years ago and the historical Adam be 60,000 years ago?” Scientists have asked a similar question. You might hear a geneticist say, “Did Adam know Eve?” and by that he means, “Did the woman who we get our mtDNA from know the man we get our Y-c from?” I think the Bible can easily fit well with this data. For us men, biblically who is the oldest male ancestor we could possibly trace our lineage back to? You might be tempted to say, “Adam” but is that really right? Actually, the oldest male we could possibly trace the Y-c back to is Noah. Why? Because of what is called a “population bottle neck”–the world’s population dropped to 8 people and then started over again. Noah and his three sons all had the same Y-c so there is no way to trace the Y-c beyond Noah farther back to anyone else. However, since it is reasonable to assume that Noah’s wife and his sons' three wives came from four different lineages, geneticists can trace the mtDNA beyond Noah. So, of course the dates would be different. In fact, the Bible (indirectly) predicts that these dates would be different!

Now, I am not trying to start an argument on your blog about the length of creation days (as you said, that can be debated without questioning the trustworthiness of the Bible) or whether or not the biblical genealogies are complete (which I also think can be debated without questioning the trustworthiness of the Bible). What I am trying to do is show that Collins’ interpretation of the data is not the only valid interpretation. It is equally valid, and I think more supportable, to say that human origins can be traced back to one man and one woman–Adam and Eve. So, far from ruling out a historical Adam, the genetic evidence supports it as one of the valid interpretations of the data.

I would like to suggest a book to those who would like to do more research on this topic: Who Was Adam? by Dr. Hugh Ross and Dr. Frazale Rana. It is an excellent resource by two men whose intellect far exceeds my own that dives deep into the scientific data and shows how modern discoveries do not discount and actually support a historical Adam (contra Dr. Collins).

By His Grace,
Taylor

A Matter of Faith IV

“Anybody who has been seriously engaged is scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: 'Ye must have faith.' It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with.” ~ Max Planck

Max Planck is one of the most important physicists in the last 200 years. He is considered to be the father of quantum theory. He has societies, institutes, and schools named after him. With the exception of Einstein, it would be difficult to find a scientist who has had more influence on modern science. I quote him here to reinforce a point I have attempted to make several times in the past. Since I have already talked about this subject quite a few times I am not going to repeat myself but rather direct you to my first, second, and third posts on this matter and hope that Planck's words reinforce what has already been said.

By His Grace,
Taylor

A Matter of Faith III

"Boiled down to essentials, a nervous system enables the organism to succeed in the four F's: feeding, fleeing, fighting and reproducing. The principal chore of nervous systems is to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive…. Improvements in sensorimotor control confer an evolutionary advantage: a fancier style of representing is advantageous so long as it is geared to the organism's way of life and enhances the organism's chances of survival. Truth, whatever that is, definitely takes the hindmost." ~ "Epistemology in the Age of Neuroscience", Patricia S. Churchland (emphasis Churchland's)

I like the above statement no so much because I necessarily think that if conforms to reality, but because it is a wise statement about the implications of a naturalistic evolutionary system. What Churchland points out that I agree with is from a naturalistic perspective truth "definitely takes the hindmost," i.e. naturalistic evolution does not guarantee true beliefs only beliefs that contribute to survival. This brings up a variation on the Argument from Reason, which I have written about previously here and implicitly here. From a naturalistic perspective how can one trust one's beliefs about science or one's logical reasoning that leads to one's naturalistic point of view if the process that produced one's mind does not guarantee or even "care" about truth? If it be admitted that naturalistic evolution does not care about truth then it is a self-defeating explanation in that it cannot guarantee the reliability of the reasoning processes that leads to it.

The point of all this is not so much to make an argument against naturalistic evolution, but to point out that it takes faith to believe in the theory. It takes faith to hold that naturalism (a process that cares nothing for truth) can produce trustworthy systems such as the scientific method, assumptions about the uniformity of nature governed by laws, or abstract reasoning and the laws of logic.

Evolutionists proclaim loudly that theistic belief is bankrupt and foolish, however, it would seem the proverbial shoe is on the other foot. From a theistic perspective one can be consistent in one's beliefs and say that one trusts one's reasoning because that reasoning ability has been endowed by an intelligent designer. From an atheistic perspective one cannot be consistent in one's belief because the very reasoning processes that produce those beliefs are products of an untrustworthy process.

By His Grace,
Taylor

A Matter of Faith II

"What Dawkins and other true believers in Darwinism cannot explain is how their faith will lead to a better world in any way. Their philosophy is an ugly negation of other people's faith, not because they themselves are beyond faith, but because they are so sure their faith is true they believe it justifies any action they take in order to assure the triumph of their beliefs over all others." ~ Orson Scott Card

The above quote was taken from an article by Orson Scott Card discussing the documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. The documentary was quite good, for the most part, and I would recommend that you see it whether you hold to Intelligent Design (ID) or Darwinian evolution.

What I think is wise from the above quote is that Card points out something that Darwinian theorists and atheists constantly deny, that they have faith as those who believe in religion. Sure their faith is not in a Higher Being, but they have faith that the Laws of Physics are truly consistent and rational. They have faith that random events created rational minds able to truly understand the Laws of Physics. They have faith that mechanical causation somehow brought about organic life in some fashion ("on the backs of crystals" as is claimed by Darwinists in Expelled). They have faith that science will somehow discover how matter came into existence in the first place, "science is working on it" according to Richard Dawkins. They have faith that they have Darwinian evolution has makes its "no longer necessary to believe in God." They have faith that God does not exist.

The faith is certainly there. Some Darwinists and atheists are willing to admit it, most are not. Let us hope that the influence of those who are honest about their faith with spread to those who are unwilling to admit it.

Will their faith lead to a better world? Expelled shows that their faith leads to a world of academic orthodoxy that one must adhere to or face punishment by the dominating regime. It does not appear to be leading to a better world in the realm of science. What makes us think it will have positive ramifications in other arenas?

By His Grace,
Taylor

To Read the Old or the New?

"...if he must read only the new or only the old [Christian works], I would advise him to read the old... he is an amateur and therefore much less protected than the expert against the dangers of an exclusive contemporary diet... It is a good rule, after reading a new book, never to allow yourself another new one till you have read an old one in between... We all... need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period... None of us can fully escape this blindness..." ~ C. S. Lewis

I think this is very wise advise. We are all, in one way or another, a product of our age and therefore have similar blind spots which lead to similar mistakes. When we read a work from a different culture and a different time we can finally, in various ways, step outside of our cultural biases and see truth from another perspective. Indeed other ages had their own biases, but they are in at least some ways different from our own. They may have missed things we can see clearly, but they may also see things clearly that we miss and this is vitally important if we desire to glorify God in wisdom and truth. A diverse diet of old and new Christian works can give us brief glimpses of our biases and can reveal truth to which we may be blind if left to our own reason.

By His Grace,
Taylor

A Matter of Faith

"All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. You couldn’t be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed... to be a scientist, you had to have faith that the universe is governed by dependable, immutable, absolute, universal, mathematical laws of an unspecified origin." ~ Paul Davies

What a profound statement from someone who is so anti-theistic. It is amazing in this age to see a naturalistic scientist admit that science, at its very foundation, must be taken on faith but he is absolutely right. Science proceeds on the assumption that the universe is governed by rational laws, yet when you follow reason back to the very foundation of science, the laws of physics, reason abandons you for within a naturalistic framework there is no rational explanation for why these laws can be rational. The laws of physics are considered a "given" that "just appeared" at the formation of the universe. Random occurrences cannot explain the rational bedrock that science uses to reason everything else. The Argument from Reason points out that naturalism cannot provide an adequate explanation of why we trust that the universe is governed by rational laws and why we trust that we have the mental capacity to discover and understand said laws.

So science and religion are not mutually exclusive spheres as some would like to believe. Religion does take faith, but I and many others believe that there is scientific, historical, archaeological, and philosophical evidence that makes this leap of faith not quite as large as atheists would have us believe. Atheists and naturalistic science also take leaps of faith but very few can admit it like Davies does. That is a start.

By His Grace,
Taylor