Several good articles for today:

http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=27-03-035-f (Lunatic, Liar, Lord.. or Legend)

http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2014/05/of-leprechauns-mermaids-and-loving.html (Leprechauns, Mermaids, and Loving Homosexual Couples)

http://hipandthigh.wordpress.com/2014/05/01/evaluating-old-earth-responses-to-young-earth-arguments-1/ and http://hipandthigh.wordpress.com/2014/05/09/evaluating-old-earth-responses-to-young-earth-arguments-2/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thoughtlife/2014/04/david-platt-dont-squander-your-singleness/ 

http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/hope-for-the-despairing-heart

Here are some interesting articles I came across this weekend, about the neurological differences between conservatives and liberals.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/inquiring-minds-john-hibbing-physiology-ideology

http://www.psypost.org/2014/04/positive-negative-thinkers-brains-revealed-24209

 http://2012election.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004818

The first two are recent, the last one is a summary of several related results from the past decade.  While the effects appear to be genuine, the proposed rationales underlying the effects seem a little implausible to me...

From the first article -

"It all adds up, according to Hibbing, to what he calls a "negativity bias" on the right. Conservatives, Hibbing's research suggests, go through the world more attentive to negative, threatening, and disgusting stimuli—and then they adopt tough, defensive, and aversive ideologies to match that perceived reality."

I could grant that some people are naturally more genetically inclined to focus on negative things, or positive things, but I think that people can also adjust their patterns of thinking.   For example, Philippians 4:8 says - "Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things."

This Biblical command is given to all Christians, not just those from a particular genetic background!  After years of practicing Philippians 4:8, it would seem that this habit could eventually deeply affect the brain activity and neuronal connectivity.

Also, some of the effects seen in the studies could be explained in other ways.  For example, the fact that the "liberals" showed less physiological activation when presented with threatening or disgusting images could be due to a larger previous exposure to Hollywood movies containing similar images among the "liberal" group (i.e., a movie-induced desensitization), which might also partly account for their political views.

Also, the fact that people's political views can (and often do) change over the years advocates against a "genetically-determined" view of political alignment.

From the 3rd article, point 7,

"Collectively, when compared to Republican sympathizers, Democrat sympathizers showed greater psychological distress, more frequent histories of adverse life events such as interpersonal victimization experiences, fewer and less satisfying relationships, and lower perceptions of the trustworthiness of peers and intimate affiliates."

I find this believable... basically, that Democrats may tend to come from more troubled home backgrounds on average (though certainly there are many exceptions).  This fits with the fact that urban areas tend to be Democratic (liberal) while rural areas tend to be Republican (conservative).

From the 3rd article, point 14,

"In general, liberals are more open-minded, creative, curious, and novelty seeking, whereas conservatives are more orderly, conventional, and better organized."

This makes sense... that one's political views are correlated with other facets of one's daily life such as how "organized" one is, or how much one "seeks novelty".

Implications for followers of Jesus would seem to be:

1. Understand how you are personally 'wired' (i.e. what genetic and environmentally-induced tendencies you have)... This will help you understand what instructions in the Bible you will naturally lean towards, and which parts you will naturally shy away from.
2. Continue following the Jesus described in the historical Scriptures (the Bible), including BOTH the aspects that you naturally resonate with and the aspects that you find hard to accept.

 

I have wanted to write the 3rd, 4th, and 5th posts in this series for some time, but it has been hard to find the time for it...

As a temporary filler for point 3 (evolution can't explain the origin of functional genetic information, for example in the Cambrian Explosion (the section of the fossil record showing a sudden increase to all the animal types we see today)), please consider reading Stephen Meyer's book "Darwin's Doubt".

I am about 2/3 of the way through it, and it is an EXCELLENT book.

(Continuation of the "discussion with a scientist friend series", see  http://tim223.xanga.com/770288549/dialog-with-a-scientist-friend-part-1/  )

 

Sue: Last week you said that you had several reasons why you believe in an invisible God.  You mentioned one of them: the fact that there is matter/energy and order in the universe.  What are some of your other reasons?

Tim: Sure.  Another reason that I believe in God stems from the question of how life began.  The Bible says that God created all the plants and animals in various "kinds", or families.  These then gradually experienced genetic variation over the years.  For example, Rottweilers and Chihuahuas would both come from a single "dog" kind created by God in the beginning. On the other hand, the naturalistic explanation for how life began is... well... there actually is no accepted explanation.  There are four or five theories, but scientists are divided about them, and there are major problems with each of them.

Sue: So you're saying that you believe in God because scientists have not yet figured out how life began?

Tim: Well, there are these two main explanations for how life began: either God created life, or somehow a living cell formed by chance (called "abiogenesis") and then evolved into all life we see around us today.  After more than a hundred years of investigating different scenarios for how a living cell could have formed by chance, scientists still have no plausible theory.  So I conclude that the Bible's account is more scientifically viable.

Sue: What are the different scientific theories of abiogenesis that you find hard to believe?

Tim: It seems to me that there are two basic ways in which naturalists have tried to answer the abiogenesis question.  One is to say that "the origin of life was a very lucky accident", the other is to say "the origin of life was very easy and straightforward and bound to happen sooner or later".  This latter idea is called self-organizing complexity, and suggests that there might be simple scientific principles such that life would be 'guaranteed' to eventually arise.  For example, hurricane cloud formations spontaneously form a complicated-looking spiral shape, but this shape is not designed... it is simply due to Coriolis forces.  The problem is that such spontaneous self-organization has never been seen to happen for cells and cellular components in the lab.  This is because cellular parts are truly complicated and need a complex sequence of precisely arranged proteins and nucleotides to work properly. In contrast, hurricane spirals or rock crystals or other self-organizing patterns have a very simple pattern.  So very few scientists believe that life self-organized anymore.

Sue: Didn't the Miller-Urey experiment prove that the basic building blocks for cells can arise spontaneously given some lightning in a prebiotic soup?

Tim: The Miller-Urey experiment showed that very small amounts of amino acids would form, in very carefully controlled conditions where the compounds were continuously removed from the apparatus to prevent them from being broken down.  Actually, only 7 of the 20 amino acids necessary for life were ever found, and of those 7, it was always a racemic mixture, whereas cellular proteins require purely homochiral amino acids. http://creation.com/origin-of-life-the-chirality-problem   So really their experiment showed how improbable it is that even the building blocks for proteins could form by chance chemical conditions (much less the proteins themselves). http://creation.com/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis

Sue: Ok, what about the 'RNA-world' hypothesis?  I've heard that it is a popular explanation for abiogenesis.  Also there are 'DNA-first', 'protein-first', and 'metabolism-first' hypotheses.

Tim: Right. The 'RNA-world' hypothesis is that somehow an RNA molecule formed which had the ability to catalyze the formation of copies of itself.  Once this "self-replication" process began, eventually mutations began to occur and the "fitter" molecules (more resistant to degradation) survived, and over time it turned into a living cell.  Unfortunately, the lab experiments for this have only shown RNA molecules which can catalyze already-existing pieces of itself (e.g. it can catalyze the polymerization of a 15-base-pair fragment of itself and a 17-base-pair fragment of itself into the full 32-base-pair molecule, as long as the fragments are purely homochiral)... such molecules are not able to build themselves up gradually. Likewise the DNA-first hypothesis has seen even less laboratory evidence for successful self-polymerization (no more than 4 or 5 base-pairs have ever been seen to spontaneously self-polymerize) or self-replication, or spontaneously generating a working DNA/RNA system.  Both DNA and RNA need special chaperone and handler proteins when they are in solution together, otherwise they will stick to each other and prevent creation of a working translation system.  http://crev.info/2011/08/110802-cell_chaperones/  A single DNA gene would be unlikely to have been formed by chance, but even an assumed "simplest-possible cell" would need at least 387 protein-coding and 43 RNA-coding genes. http://creation.com/how-simple-can-life-be The protein-first hypothesis is equally unlikely, for at least three reasons.  First, the peptide bonds are thermodynamically unfavorable, and thus do not spontaneously occur.  Second, even if a protein was to spontaneously polymerize, only a very small percentage of random amino acid sequences produce stable folded proteins (for example, a short 150-aa protein has only a 10^-75 chance of folding stably).  Third, even if a protein happens to form and stably fold, it is even less likely that the sequence happens to form the correct shape for the appropriate biological function needed (probability on the order of 10^-164, according to Stephen Meyer, "Signature in the Cell", page 217). http://tim223.xanga.com/753422666/god---imaginary-friend/?nextdate=1522396684&direction=n#1522396684 http://creation.com/loopholes-in-the-evolutionary-theory-of-the-origin-of-life-summary The metabolism-first hypothesis suggests that a steady system of chemical reactions developed first, and gradually over time this system began to become more complicated, until eventually DNA and RNA arose in the process (since the energy gradient was already there).  While chemical reaction systems can certainly arise, any gradual change in the reactions is not able to accurately preserve the 'information' of the reaction chain... it is unable to pass-along the information accurately to future metabolic reaction systems.  So this approach doesn't work either.  Some kind of information-carrying molecules are needed. http://crev.info/2010/01/metabolismfirst_origin_of_life_won146t_work/

Sue: Why does the first cell have to arise fully formed, by "random chance"?  Couldn't it have first formed in a simplified version, and then gradually evolved to become more complex, like the cells we see today?

Tim: Well, for 'evolution' to occur, there is a lot that is necessary inside this first 'proto-cell'.  It would need to have a way of accurately passing along its genetic information to its progeny, and methods of acquiring nutrients, inter-cellular communication, and especially mechanisms for replicating itself.  Although many scientists hope that someday a 'proto-cell' like you're describing will be shown in the lab, the scientific knowledge we currently have suggests that it will never happen.  Constructs are either too simple to live and reproduce, or too complicated to have been formed by chance... there doesn't seem to be anything in between.

Sue: But given enough time, just about anything could happen!   I mean, even if it took a billion years, and a billion galaxies, there is so much time and so many opportunities for life to have arisen, that it's just bound to have happened.  Actually, the very fact that we're here talking about it proves that it did happen!

Tim: Actually, no, that would be circular reasoning, to say that the first life "must have arisen by chance, otherwise we wouldn't be here talking about it."  I could say just the same thing about God creating life.

Sue: Alright, but given enough time, surely it could have happened somewhere in the universe.

Tim: Let's do a thought-experiment for a moment.  If you found a note on the lab bench saying "Hi Sue", and I told you that I thought it had been produced by random natural processes, how would you respond?  Let's say I proposed that the air-conditioning fan happening to blow a pencil off the shelf onto a nearby piece of paper, and then blew the paper onto your bench.

Sue: I would say that's a silly hypothesis.  Of course it must have been written by a human.

Tim: Why?

Sue: Well, whenever I've found written notes in the past, they've always been written by humans.

Tim: But what if I told you that this note was really from a random non-intelligent source, and I said to you "even though it sounds improbable, consider how much time has elapsed in the universe, and how many galaxies there are... so surely it is possible that in at least one location and time, exactly this random event has occurred..."?

Sue: Ha ha.  So you're saying that my objection about the first cell falls into the same category?

Tim: Yes... You're correct that we need to consider not only the "unlikelihood" of an unlikely event happening, but also the "probablilistic resources" available.  If there were a billion fans blowing a billion pencils onto a billion pieces of paper, in a huge building right next door, it might be more plausible.  But with just one fan, it is not plausible.  In this case, the probabilistic resources are still smaller than the unlikelihood.  Along the same lines, various mathematicians have suggested "upper bounds" to rule out impossibly improbable events.  For example, Dembski suggested that if the number of elementary particles in the universe (~10^80) could interact with each other continuously as fast as possible (the Planck time, 10^-43 seconds) for the amount of time since the (alleged) Big Bang (10^16 seconds ago), this would give a limit of 10^139 maximum possible interactions.  Thus, any event or chance molecule formation which was less probable than 10^-139 should be considered impossible.  The formation of even one functional protein by chance is less likely than that.  So we ought not to believe that it formed by chance.

Sue: So that leads you to believe that God created life?

Tim: Yes, it is another piece of evidence...  Scientifically-speaking, there is no plausible theory for how the first cell could have arisen.  On the other hand, the Bible explains that God created all kinds of life, in the beginning.  Just like you should legitimately conclude that a person wrote a note on your bench, we should conclude that our origins are not random... we are from God.  As the Bible says, "We are His people, the sheep of His pastures."

Sue: But I can't believe that, because it's not scientific.  It's not scientific to say that "God created life".  God is invisible.  He is not measureable or observable.

Tim: If you found a penciled note on your desk, would it be 'scientific' to conclude that it was written by an intelligent person rather than formed by blind random chance processes?

Sue: That's different, because humans are observable.

Tim: How would you define "scientific"?

Sue: The study of physical, observable objects through repeatable, empirically-verifiable experimentation.

Tim: So you're saying that you can't believe in God, because he is not scientific... by which you mean, not currently observable...?

Sue: Yes.

Tim: It turns out that God has made Himself observable, through certain historical interactions. But also, why should you assume that if you can't observe God, that means He doesn't exist?  That's like saying, "I didn't see anybody write that note on my bench; therefore I believe it must have had a chance origin."

Sue: No, it's different in principle.  The author of the hypothetical note on my bench would be visible, so I can believe in him or her.  But God is invisible.

Tim: I'm not following your logic.  I agree with you that we should not believe in things that we have no evidence for.  But what if there is evidence that an invisible, unobservable God does exist?  For example, the presence of life on earth, which all of our naturalistic scientific theories can't explain?  Not to mention the existence of matter/energy and order, that we discussed last time... and several other reasons to believe in God which I can share in the future.  Why should God's being "unscientific" (invisible) force us to conclude that He doesn't exist?  Isn't it possible that a Being could exist who might not be accessible to our scientific methods?

Sue: Well, I prefer to only believe in things that I can see and verify scientifically, repeatedly, in the lab.

Tim: Like abiogenesis?

Sue: Even though it hasn't yet been shown in the lab, in principle it could be, some day.  So I would rather believe in abiogenesis than in God, because I prefer to stick with the visible world.  Besides, I think that you are committing a "God-of-the-gaps" fallacy by believing that since we haven't yet figured out exactly how random physical processes could create the first cell, therefore God did it.

Tim: Have you considered that you might be committing a "chance-of-the-gaps" fallacy in the same way?  It sounds to me like you are saying, "No matter how improbable, I will continue to believe that somehow, time and chance produced the first living cell."  This is essentially assigning infinite powers to 'Chance', to do anything and everything.

Sue: Ha ha.  Well, ok, I'm committing the chance-of-the-gaps fallacy, and you're committing the God-of-the-gaps fallacy.  Is there any way to break out of our presuppositional lockdown?  Also, I am running out of time here, but maybe we can continue this discussion in the future.

Tim: Sure... there are three more main reasons why I believe in God, which I'd be glad to share more about in the future: (1) evolution can't explain the origin of genetic information, (2) Jesus' life, death, and resurrection from the dead, and (3) the existence of objective morality.  I think that the history surrounding Jesus in particular is able to break us out of our 'presuppositional lockdown'... because in Jesus, the invisible God made Himself known in tangible human flesh...   Until next time then!

 

To be continued...

Sue: I wish I could believe in God and all, but as a scientist I can't.   I see how your beliefs makes you Christians really happy and peaceful because you think that God is taking care of you, but as a scientist I have to be honest and follow only whatever I can measure and see.

Tim: So what parts of the Bible in particular do you think you can't believe, as a scientist?

Sue: Well, the whole idea of believing in an invisible God up there somewhere, that you can't see or hear or touch or measure... I can't do that.  And miracles... you know, the Bible talks about Jesus walking on water and raising people from the dead, and even raising himself from the dead... As a scientist, I can't believe that stuff.  It goes against everything we know from modern medicine and science.

Tim: Actually, I completely agree with you that we should follow wherever the evidence leads.  The Bible doesn't ask us to believe anything blindly without evidence.  I think the evidence is actually much stronger that the God of the Bible exists, than that He doesn't.

Sue: Well, that's fine for you, Tim.  Those beliefs just don't work for me.

Tim: Have you ever actually read the Bible?

Sue: Only little bits of it... I'd like to read the whole thing, one of these days... but I haven't yet gotten around to it... I'm so busy with all my lab experiments and writing of grants and papers, etc.

Tim: I think there are several areas in which it's actually MORE scientifically-reasonable to believe in the God of the Bible than to disbelieve in Him.

Sue: Like what?

Tim: First, let's ask about how we might "know" about different types of things.  If I want to know about an atom, or a rock, or a chunk of metal, I can take it into a lab and do all kinds of experiments on it.  I can heat it up, and cool it down, and react it with various types of chemicals, and find out all about its physical properties.  Right?

Sue: Sure.

Tim: A piece of metal generally always behaves the same way, every time I do an experiment on it.  It is inanimate... it does 'whatever I tell it to do'.  I have full control over finding out whatever information I want to know about it.  By contrast, a living cell is a little different. If I want to find out about how a particular type of cell works, I have to be more gentle... I have to give it just the right culture media, and temperature, and gasses, and then I can carefully probe around with a microscope and introduce various micro-concentrations of chemicals into its environment to try to get it to act a certain manner in repeatable ways.  But if the cell dies, I can no longer answer the question of how that living cell works... I could then only ask about its constituent molecules.  Right?

Sue: True.

Tim: How about another step up.  If I want to find out "all about a particular person", like yourself, laboratory methods are no longer the approach to take!  Instead, I must try to get to know you through observing how you act in different circumstances, or asking you questions and listening to how you answer.  If I want to find out your favorite foods, for example, the fastest and most accurate way would be to simply ask you.  But notice that it is now possible that you could withold information from me.  If you don't want to answer my question, you could keep silent, or you could give me a false answer.  In the case of the rock, it has no choice about whether to be known by me.  But in the case of a person, I must humbly ask, and the person may or may not reveal information about herself or himself, and it may or may not be accurate.  But I can also observe how the person acts, and get some information that way.

Sue: Sure.  But what does all this have to do with the existence of God?

Tim: The God of the Bible, if He exists, is much "higher" and more complicated than you or I, just like we are more complicated than rocks.  In the case of God, since He is a spirit and is generally invisible, there is no possible way for you or I to get to know Him, UNLESS He chooses to make Himself known to us.   We cannot put God into a test-tube and perform experiments on Him to see what He is like.  We can't sit him down in a chair across from us and ask him questions to find out what He is like.  We can't even see Him!  The only way we could get to know about God is if He somehow made Himself visible, or left some kind of message for us to read, or something like that.  It so happens that He has done exactly this... the Bible is the written message which He has caused men to write by His guidance, and Jesus Christ is the human being in whom the invisible God made Himself known in our world, so that we could get to know Him.

Sue: Interesting. But all of this is predicated on the assumption that God exists.  How do you know that God exists?

Tim: Sure.  Here's a question for you - Do you believe in perpetual motion machines?  Or let me ask it another way.  If some person came to you with a black box and said, "This box puts out twice as much energy as you put into it.  If you put in 100 watts of electrical power, it will put out 200 watts of electrical power.  This box will make you rich.  I will sell you this box for only $99."  Would you believe it?  Would you buy the box?

Sue: Probably not.

Tim: Why not?

Sue: It is well known scientifically that in the long termyou can't get out more power than you put into something, in an otherwise closed system.  It's related to the first law of thermodynamics.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics)

Tim: Ok, I would agree with you.  I wouldn't buy the box either.  So what does this principle mean about the universe?  If we say that energy/matter cannot spontaneously arise out of nothing, then how did the universe spontaneously arise out of nothing?   The Bible says that in the beginning, God created the universe.  But if there is no God, how did the matter/energy universe begin to exist?

Sue: What if the universe is eternal?  Why are you so sure the universe had a beginning?

Tim: Well, doesn't the second law of thermodynamics say that entropy is constantly increasing in any closed system, such as our universe?  That means that the usable energy is constantly decreasing.  Since there is still usable energy available (that's why we're still alive), that means the universe must have been "wound up" with energy and order, a finite time ago.

Sue: Ok, well, who knows, the laws of physics might have been different back then, before the Planck time and the Big Bang.  Dr. Hawking thinks that there are imaginary time dimensions, meaning that the universe is essentially repeating itself in an endless loop. Some scientists think there might be an infinite number of parallel universes in a 'multiverse', constantly appearing and disappearing with balancing energies and entropies, and we just happen to live in this particular one.  Anyway, it's impossible to know exactly what the laws of physics were back then.

Tim: Notice what you're saying... you're saying that if God doesn't exist, the physical laws and processes which we can observe today in the lab are unable to explain how our universe came into existence.  There are all sorts of hypothetical speculations about how it might have occurred without God as the Creator, but there are no ways to measure or verify any of these speculations in the lab.  They are, in fact, unscientific speculations.  That is why I think that it is more scientific to believe that God created the universe than to believe that it popped into existence out of nothing.

Sue: Let me get this straight.  You're saying that it is "more scientific" to believe in an invisible spirit-person, whom you can't see, or touch, or hear, or measure?

Tim: I'm saying that there are really only two explanations for how we came to be here.  Either it all arose spontaneously out of nothing, or God created it all as the Bible describes.  And I'm saying that the physical laws we can see and measure in the lab today are not consistent with the idea that it all popped into existence out of nothing.  So the only alternative is to conclude, scientifically, that Someone outside of this physical universe created us.

Sue: That's hard to believe.  It's a lot easier to believe that scientists will soon figure out how the universe came into existence without God.  You know, there are a lot of physicists who are working on this very question right now.

Tim: Yes, but I'd rather believe what I have evidence for right now, rather than saying "someone, someday, might discover something which would justify my current belief".  Don't you think this is more reasonable?

Sue: It depends.

Tim: Actually, this problem goes even further.  If the physical laws were fundamentally different back then, and the universe truly popped into existence out of nothing, that actually destroys the whole rationale for science!

Sue: How so?

Tim: If we assume that the fundamental laws of the universe could drastically change at any moment, and matter/energy could be arising out of nothing in our scientific experiements, we would have no good reason to do experiments.  The whole basis for experimentation and the scientific method assumes a stable, orderly universe, established by God, that we can asymptotically know.  Think about it, Sue.  If you were about to perform a scientific experiment, and the laws of physics do sometimes spontaneously fluctuate, why would you trust the results of your experiment?

Sue: Well, if it works the same way every time, then it is reliable.  If I've done the same experiment 50 times in a row and it gave me the same results, I can trust that it will give me the same result on the 51st time... and I can publish the results so that other scientists can try it too.

Tim: I think there are two problems with that logic.  First, you only THINK that your experiment gave you the same results 50 times in a row.  What if the physical laws happened to fluctuate such that actually the results of your experiment were all over the place, but your equipment just so happened to malfunction as the laws were fluctuating so that it gave you the same readings each time?  Second, even if the laws of the universe stayed the same for 50 experiments in a row, what's to stop them from suddenly fluctuating on the 51st time?  It turns out that if we say "the laws were different back then" in our explanation of how the universe arose, that completely destroys the foundational assumptions necessary to perform science today.

Sue: Well, I hear what you're saying, Tim.  I don't really agree, but I'll think about it.  Actually, to be honest, there are other reasons why I can't believe in God, not just scientific and philosophical reasons.

Tim: Do you mind if I ask you what those reasons are?

Sue: Well... all my colleagues and scientist friends would think I'm crazy if they were to find out that I'd started believing in God.  They would secretly laugh at me and think I've become kooky.  And I couldn't publish this stuff about God in journals like Science or Nature... they would turn down my papers, and the scientific community would hear that I've started believing crazy stuff like invisible spirits and gods, and I would stop getting my grants funded.  It would completely ruin my career, Tim.  Sorry, but it's just not an option.

Tim: I hear you.

Sue: And my family... my family would be ashamed of me... they've sacrificed so much to help me reach this point in my career, as a scientist... and now for me to turn my back on all of my training and start believing in an invisible God just because some book talks about Him... I can't disappoint my family like that, Tim.  I'm sorry.

Tim: I know it would be very hard.  All I'm saying is to be honest.  Follow where the evidence leads.  It may be painful, but in the long run it is always better to follow the truth.

Sue: I've got to go now.  Maybe we can talk again some other time about this.

Tim: Sounds good.

 

To Be Continued...

 

("Sue" is definitely a real person... actually there are about 30 friends with whom I've had similar conversations... this article series is for all of them... and everyone else... I hope others will benefit from this fictional dialog... and if you have points you'd like to see addressed, let me know in the comments section!  Also, I'm trying not to give the agnostic/atheist friend any "straw-man" arguments... but if you think I accidentally did, let me know.)

Here's a great post linking to other posts about a physics conference last week in which secular physicists were dismayed about the fact that they still can't figure out how the universe could have popped into existence from nothing.  Physicists are now admitting that "All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning."   And they don't know what started this beginning.

http://crev.info/2012/01/cosmologists-forced-to-in-the-beginning/

For those of us who have read the Bible and know the God of the Bible, the answer is quite simple.   God started it.

This is not a "God of the gaps" argument; rather, it is a testimonial inference (and/or "inference-to-the-best-explanation") which fits perfectly with all known scientific evidence.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."  Genesis 1:1

Three topics for tonight: (1) Buddhism vs Christianity, (2) Ruth/Boaz, and (3) "Human zoos" exhibit.

 

 

1. Buddhism vs Christianity:  (if I am mischaracterizing anything, please let me know!)

- Buddhism is a philosophical system, so its success is unaffected by the historical genesis of the movement.  Christianity is just the opposite: it is based in the historical life, teachings, claims, death, and resurrection of its central figure, Jesus Christ.  If  the alleged historical facts surrounding Jesus are false, then Christianity crumbles.  But if the facts are true, then Christianity completely destroys the Buddhist philosophical worldview... not because Buddhism/Buddhists are stupid (in fact they are often very intelligent), but because they are misinformed... they do not have the crucial historical information which, if only they knew it, demonstrates their beliefs to be false.

- Buddhism teaches that everything is linked in a cause-and-effect/karmic relationship, meaning that there is no separate "God" "out there" who created the Universe, rather, everything proceeds like clockwork.  Further, Buddhism says that DESIRE is the source of all unrest and striving... and that if only people could REALIZE (get 'enlightened') this 'truth' (that the fully-causally-connected universe is all that there is), they would begin to relax and stop craving and acquire inner peace.  Meditation/etc (and the other various 'steps'), says Buddhism, are the path toward that peace.  Eventually, after several reincarnations, one can achieve total 'oneness' with the universe and dissolution of (the illusion of) self, achieving complete peace/harmony.

- Buddhism is PARTIALLY RIGHT according to the Bible, in that "lust" (literally "over-desire", craving) is the source of much discord.  Notice these Bible texts:
James 4:1-2 "What is the source of quarrels and conflicts among you? Is not the source your pleasures that wage war in your members? You lust and do not have; so you commit murder. You are envious and cannot obtain; so you fight and quarrel. You do not have because you do not ask."

Up to that last sentence, a Buddhist could agree.  But that last sentence???   "Ask" WHO? 
A Buddhist would say, faced with need or sorrow, "I just need to understand that there is no ultimate good or evil; it's all merely an illusion; it's all merely a cause-and-effect mechanistic universe",... not, as the Bible recommends, "I just need to ask God for His help".

2 Peter 1:2-4
"Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord; seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence. For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust."

A Buddhist could agree on that last phrase, that lust causes corruption, but would immediately disagree on the best way to remedy the situation.  The Bible clearly states that it is the "TRUE" "knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord" which sets one free from lust and corruption.  Ultimate reality is not a cold impersonal clockwork cause-and-effect universe, but a living, loving, wise, omnipotent, (tri-)personal, God, who has created the universe and us, and who offers us eternal happiness with him.

1 Peter 1:13b
"...fix your hope completely on the grace to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ."
Psalm 37:4
"Delight yourself in the LORD; And He will give you the desires of your heart."

Unlike Buddhism, which recommends ceasing from all desire, Christianity recommends DESIRING GOD with all one's heart.   Christianity / the Bible says that DESIRING GOD is the best way to become truly happy... because only God can truly satisfy the human heart.

So it is established that Buddhism and Christianity are "different" and cannot possibly both be true.  But is it possible to know whether one or the other is "correct"?

A Buddhist or Hindu might say (and I have heard them say), "there are so many religions and philosophies out there... how do you know what's right?"  or  "..there is no way to know which one of them is correct."   From their perspective, that makes sense, because it's all philosophy-based, and although one can say "I like this philosophy better than that philosophy", there's no objectively 'true', cross-personal, philosophy which is demonstrably better than all others.

But Christianity is true, and Buddhism and Hinduism are false... and demonstrably so!  ...not because the philosophies of Christianity are better than the philosophies of Buddhism or Hinduism... not because Christians are nicer or smarter people than Buddhists or Hindus...   simply because of the historical revelation of God (the one, true, Creator God) (the God of the Bible), primarily in Jesus Christ.  God came down to earth (celebrated at Christmas), walked around, taught, lived, died, and rose again... and it is because of that historical fact that we can know that the pantheistic/atheistic philosophies such as Buddhism are false...

 

 

 

2. I recently re-read the book of Ruth, and as always it was delightful.  Here are some thoughts about Boaz (etc), one of the main characters.

Notice, as you read the excerpt below, Boaz's generosity to those who do not seem to have any claim upon it...

 Ruth 1:22 So Naomi returned, and with her Ruth the Moabitess, her daughter-in-law, who returned from the land of Moab. And they came to Bethlehem at the beginning of barley harvest.
 2:1 Now Naomi had a kinsman of her husband, a man of great wealth, of the family of Elimelech, whose name was Boaz. 2 And Ruth the Moabitess said to Naomi, "Please let me go to the field and glean among the ears of grain after one in whose sight I may find favor." And she said to her, "Go, my daughter." 3 So she departed and went and gleaned in the field after the reapers; and she happened to come to the portion of the field belonging to Boaz, who was of the family of Elimelech. 4 Now behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem and said to the reapers, "May the LORD be with you." And they said to him, "May the LORD bless you." 5 Then Boaz said to his servant who was in charge of the reapers, "Whose young woman is this?" 6 The servant in charge of the reapers replied, "She is the young Moabite woman who returned with Naomi from the land of Moab. 7 And she said, ‘Please let me glean and gather after the reapers among the sheaves.’ Thus she came and has remained from the morning until now; she has been sitting in the house for a little while."
 8 Then Boaz said to Ruth, "Listen carefully, my daughter. Do not go to glean in another field; furthermore, do not go on from this one, but stay here with my maids. 9 Let your eyes be on the field which they reap, and go after them. Indeed, I have commanded the servants not to touch you. When you are thirsty, go to the water jars and drink from what the servants draw." 10 Then she fell on her face, bowing to the ground and said to him, "Why have I found favor in your sight that you should take notice of me, since I am a foreigner?" 11 Boaz replied to her, "All that you have done for your mother-in-law after the death of your husband has been fully reported to me, and how you left your father and your mother and the land of your birth, and came to a people that you did not previously know. 12 May the LORD reward your work, and your wages be full from the LORD, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to seek refuge." 13 Then she said, "I have found favor in your sight, my lord, for you have comforted me and indeed have spoken kindly to your maidservant, though I am not like one of your maidservants."

Some thoughts / discussion questions - 
- Do you think Boaz's generosity was to all "outsiders", or only to Ruth?  (more on this soon)
- Notice that "she HAPPENED to come to the portion of the field belonging to Boaz"...  Cf. Romans 8:28, nothing happens by chance... especially to those who are seeking God...
- Notice Ruth's apparent very high reputation ("has been fully reported to me...") (cf. 3:11 "all my people in the city know that you are a woman of excellence"), even as a Moabitess (an 'outsider', a 'heathen' by birth/culture, one who would normally be disdained within Israel's culture)... 
- Notice in v. 12, that coming to live within Israel was roughly equivalent to believing in the LORD (the God of the Israelites) as the true God / the most powerful God.  In Ruth's case this was especially true because she specifically stated her belief in God in chapter 1, and left behind all her family and opportunity for remarriage/financial security in order to learn more about God.  Ruth's choice was the exact opposite of the choice described in Tim Keller's book "Counterfeit Gods"...  her choice was the one recommended by Otto Konig's messages about surrender... she left "everything" behind (except Naomi, but Naomi was more of a burden on Ruth than vice versa) in order to seek God.  Hence, one of the points of Ruth is that the "wages"/"refuge"/reward of the LORD is huge and well worth leaving everything behind for.
- Ruth 1:1, 2:9, 2:22, etc - it was a dangerous time to be without a male protector in Israel.  Like today's Congo and other places.  Ruth chose this life voluntarily to follow God and help Naomi, instead of moving back in with her father like her sister did.
- Regarding gleaning - there was no "welfare" system back then... instead, there was something better: God's law instructed that landowner farmers were to leave the corners of their sown fields for the poor to harvest.  In this way the problem of poverty was addressed, and also the problem of indigence (the poor had to work for their food too... it was not simply given to them).  In this case Ruth worked all day.
- But the landowners obviously had quite a bit of leeway in how they implemented God's command.  In this case Boaz went out of his way... see verse 16 below...

Ruth 2:14 At mealtime Boaz said to her, "Come here, that you may eat of the bread and dip your piece of bread in the vinegar." So she sat beside the reapers; and he served her roasted grain, and she ate and was satisfied and had some left. 15 When she rose to glean, Boaz commanded his servants, saying, "Let her glean even among the sheaves, and do not insult her. 16 Also you shall purposely pull out for her some grain from the bundles and leave it that she may glean, and do not rebuke her."

 17 So she gleaned in the field until evening. Then she beat out what she had gleaned, and it was about an ephah of barley. 18 She took it up and went into the city, and her mother-in-law saw what she had gleaned. She also took it out and gave Naomi what she had left after she was satisfied. 19 Her mother-in-law then said to her, "Where did you glean today and where did you work? May he who took notice of you be blessed."

- 22 liters of barley grain in one day...
- Boaz apparently had a similar heart as Job, as follows:

        29:11 For when the ear heard, it called me blessed,
        And when the eye saw, it gave witness of me,
        12 Because I delivered the poor who cried for help,
        And the orphan who had no helper.
        13 The blessing of the one ready to perish came upon me,
        And I made the widows heart sing for joy.
        14 I put on righteousness, and it clothed me;
        My justice was like a robe and a turban.
        15 I was eyes to the blind
        And feet to the lame.
        16 I was a father to the needy,
        And I investigated the case which I did not know.
        17 I broke the jaws of the wicked
        And snatched the prey from his teeth.
       
        30:25 Have I not wept for the one whose life is hard?
        Was not my soul grieved for the needy?
       
        31: 16 If I have kept the poor from their desire,
        Or have caused the eyes of the widow to fail,
        17 Or have eaten my morsel alone,
        And the orphan has not shared it
        18 (But from my youth he grew up with me as with a father,
        And from infancy I guided her),
        19 If I have seen anyone perish for lack of clothing,
        Or that the needy had no covering,
        20 If his loins have not thanked me,
        And if he has not been warmed with the fleece of my sheep,
        21 If I have lifted up my hand against the orphan,
        Because I saw I had support in the gate,
        22 Let my shoulder fall from the socket,
        And my arm be broken off at the elbow.
        23 For calamity from God is a terror to me,
        And because of His majesty I can do nothing.
       
        31:32 The alien has not lodged outside,
        For I have opened my doors to the traveler.

Back to Ruth: 2:19: So she told her mother-in-law with whom she had worked and said, "The name of the man with whom I worked today is Boaz." 20 Naomi said to her daughter-in-law, "May he be blessed of the LORD who has not withdrawn his kindness to the living and to the dead." Again Naomi said to her, "The man is our relative, he is one of our closest relatives." 21 Then Ruth the Moabitess said, "Furthermore, he said to me, ‘You should stay close to my servants until they have finished all my harvest.’" 22 Naomi said to Ruth her daughter-in-law, "It is good, my daughter, that you go out with his maids, so that others do not fall upon you in another field." 23 So she stayed close by the maids of Boaz in order to glean until the end of the barley harvest and the wheat harvest. And she lived with her mother-in-law.
Ruth 3:1 Then Naomi her mother-in-law said to her, "My daughter, shall I not seek security for you, that it may be well with you? 2 Now is not Boaz our kinsman, with whose maids you were? Behold, he winnows barley at the threshing floor tonight. 3 Wash yourself therefore, and anoint yourself and put on your best clothes, and go down to the threshing floor; but do not make yourself known to the man until he has finished eating and drinking. 4 It shall be when he lies down, that you shall notice the place where he lies, and you shall go and uncover his feet and lie down; then he will tell you what you shall do." 5 She said to her, "All that you say I will do."
 6 So she went down to the threshing floor and did according to all that her mother-in-law had commanded her. 7 When Boaz had eaten and drunk and his heart was merry, he went to lie down at the end of the heap of grain; and she came secretly, and uncovered his feet and lay down. 8 It happened in the middle of the night that the man was startled and bent forward; and behold, a woman was lying at his feet. 9 He said, "Who are you?" And she answered, "I am Ruth your maid. So spread your covering over your maid, for you are a close relative." 10 Then he said, "May you be blessed of the LORD, my daughter. You have shown your last kindness to be better than the first by not going after young men, whether poor or rich. 11 Now, my daughter, do not fear. I will do for you whatever you ask, for all my people in the city know that you are a woman of excellence. 12 Now it is true I am a close relative; however, there is a relative closer than I. 13 Remain this night, and when morning comes, if he will redeem you, good; let him redeem you. But if he does not wish to redeem you, then I will redeem you, as the LORD lives. Lie down until morning."

- Ruth was apparently very submissive or obedient (to Naomi)
- The custom described in 3:4-13, of levirate marriage, is another good invention (sanctioned by God in the Mosaic Law) for how that particular theocratic agrarian society could cope with the death of a husband (primary breadwinner in the agrarian culture)
- Yet, Boaz could have said 'No'...  as did the un-named "closer-relative"...  Why did Boaz not worry about "jeopardizing his sons' inheritance"? (4:6 below)  Was Boaz unmarried?  The text neither confirms nor denies this...?
- Boaz, in saying yes, is promising far more than grain or financial assistance to Ruth...  He is promising himself... everything he owns...
- Yet it was Naomi who initiated this!  Not Ruth, and not even Boaz...
- What in the world does Boaz mean by "You have shown your last kindness to be better than the first"???   What was the first "kindness"-- Ruth's decision to glean in Boaz's field???  Apparently so.  This reveals the almost rediculously generous and humble heart of Boaz...  (The beggar decides to accept aid from him --> "Wow, you (beggar) are so kind to have done so!")...  or perhaps, revealing a shy love for Ruth?  A secret hope that she (probably between 15-20 years old) might ask Boaz to redeem her instead of the closer relative or instead of getting married to some young guy?  "You have shown your last kindness to be better than the first by not going after young men, whether poor or rich."

3:14 So she lay at his feet until morning and rose before one could recognize another; and he said, "Let it not be known that the woman came to the threshing floor." 15 Again he said, "Give me the cloak that is on you and hold it." So she held it, and he measured six measures of barley and laid it on her. Then she went into the city. 16 When she came to her mother-in-law, she said, "How did it go, my daughter?" And she told her all that the man had done for her. 17 She said, "These six measures of barley he gave to me, for he said, ‘Do not go to your mother-in-law empty-handed.’" 18 Then she said, "Wait, my daughter, until you know how the matter turns out; for the man will not rest until he has settled it today."

- Boaz apparently never let an opportunity pass, to give generously to someone in need!  "Do not go to your mother-in-law empty-handed" --> "six measures of barley"...!!   Was this how he treated every needy person?  Or was there already a special dose of generosity in his heart toward Ruth?

Ruth 4:9 Then Boaz said to the elders and all the people, "You are witnesses today that I have bought from the hand of Naomi all that belonged to Elimelech and all that belonged to Chilion and Mahlon. 10 Moreover, I have acquired Ruth the Moabitess, the widow of Mahlon, to be my wife in order to raise up the name of the deceased on his inheritance, so that the name of the deceased will not be cut off from his brothers or from the court of his birth place; you are witnesses today." 11 All the people who were in the court, and the elders, said, "We are witnesses. May the LORD make the woman who is coming into your home like Rachel and Leah, both of whom built the house of Israel; and may you achieve wealth in Ephrathah and become famous in Bethlehem. 12 Moreover, may your house be like the house of Perez whom Tamar bore to Judah, through the offspring which the LORD will give you by this young woman."
 13 So Boaz took Ruth, and she became his wife, and he went in to her. And the LORD enabled her to conceive, and she gave birth to a son. 14 Then the women said to Naomi, "Blessed is the LORD who has not left you without a redeemer today, and may his name become famous in Israel. 15 May he also be to you a restorer of life and a sustainer of your old age; for your daughter-in-law, who loves you and is better to you than seven sons, has given birth to him."
 16 Then Naomi took the child and laid him in her lap, and became his nurse. 17 The neighbor women gave him a name, saying, "A son has been born to Naomi!" So they named him Obed. He is the father of Jesse, the father of David.
 18 Now these are the generations of Perez: to Perez was born Hezron, 19 and to Hezron was born Ram, and to Ram, Amminadab, 20 and to Amminadab was born Nahshon, and to Nahshon, Salmon, 21 and to Salmon was born Boaz, and to Boaz, Obed, 22 and to Obed was born Jesse, and to Jesse, David.

- Many scholars think that the book of Ruth was edited into its final form during the reign of King David, putting down in writing the family history of the great king.  Matthew brings out the fact in his genealogy (Matthew 1) that at least 4 of the women in King Jesus' genealogy came from "dubious" backgrounds, and Ruth as a foreigner fits the pattern.  But she was a godly foreigner, who sought the God of Israel.
- Matthew also makes known that Boaz's mother was Rahab, the prostitute from Jericho!   Perhaps this was an unusual family heritage for Boaz?  Did he have a normal childhood, or was he disdained by his peers?  More speculation: was Salmon one of the two spies who entered Jericho and first met Rahab?  What would it be like to have a top-ranked soldier/intelligence officer as a father?   Did Boaz know Joshua?  Did Boaz serve in the army during the actual Canaanite conquest?  Interesting, that Boaz's mother AND wife were both non-Israelites who 'converted' / sought out the God of Israel (while many of Boaz' peers were converting in the other direction, seeking out the Caananite gods).

- Finally, consider how Boaz's character is a 'type' or 'picture' or 'foreshadowing' of Christ... in extreme generosity, in reaching out to those 'outside' the flock of God, in becoming a 'redeemer' and supporter and husband of a 'foreigner', who had no claim or rights to God's love or the family of God (the Israelite nation, at that time).  An honorable, esteemed, man of integrity, whose name means "Strength", a "man of great wealth", willing to 'go all-in' and 'jeopardize his own inheritance'...  why?  out of pity?  out of romantic love?  out of 'agape' love?  A mixture of all of those motives?
The analogy breaks down because Ruth was by all accounts a high quality, godly, woman.  In our case, by contrast, Jesus Christ loved us and sought us out and died for us and prepared an inheritance for us "while we were still sinners", totally undeserving of love or favor.  Christ's love is far higher, greater, better, than Boaz's.

 

(I'm running out of time so this entry will be much shorter for now.)

3. Regarding this article about "Human Zoos" of 150 years ago ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16295827 ), the article tries to tie it to "Christian evangelism and cultural superiority".  Ha!  What a quote.. what a misleading linkage of words.  The museum tries to tie these Zoos to "othering", a concept from literary studies in which one culture emphasizes the difference between itself and another culture. 
However, many questions arise, like: "Does the museum consider its own perspective (and culturally-conditioned postmodern beliefs) superior to the culture of 150 years ago?  If so, on what basis?"
If one examines the literature more closely, these zoos and the milieu of that time were based NOT on "Christian evangelism", but on Darwinism and its precursors!  On the theory of evolution.   For more details, see http://creation.com/evolutionary-racism and http://creation.com/racism-questions-and-answers .

 

I once came across this thought-provoking question:  "What evidence do you have for God in your life that couldn't be explained as God being your 'imaginary friend'?

For example, some people say "I used to be sad and depressed and my life didn't have meaning, but now that I have God and talk to Him every day, my life is full of meaning and joy and peace."  There's nothing wrong with that, for them (and indeed I've experienced God's joy and peace and love in my own life), but it's not very convincing in an objective way to other people who don't already believe in God... it can easily be explained as God being one's 'imaginary friend' or 'imaginary confidante', who helps one to get through the emotional hurdles of life, while actually being a figment of one's own imagination.

Or, consider the popular Christian hymn "He Lives" by Alfred Ackley, which ends: "...you ask me how I know He lives? He lives within my heart!"  Basically this hymn is saying that one's main reason for believing that Jesus rose from the dead is a subjective, personal, emotional experience or feeling.  While Alfred may have felt this way (at least sometimes), and that to him this may have seemed quite convincing, to other people it is not  convincing. 

Likewise I have had missionaries from other religious groups tell me fervently that the reason they know their doctrines are correct are that they felt a 'burning in their bosom', a psychological/emotional feeling of certainty.  Unfortunately, since I have reason to believe that these missionary friends were mistaken in their beliefs, their emotional feelings do not carry much objective weight for me (or other people).   I have also heard people saying that when talking about God to other people, it is best to "tell your story", because "people can argue with facts, but they can't argue with your own personal experience or testimony."  The same problem arises - sure, maybe people won't argue with you about your personal experience, but neither do they have any solid objective reason to believe either.

So I think there are much better ways to answer the question "What evidence do you have for God in your life that couldn't be explained as God being your 'imaginary friend'?

The three strongest pieces of evidence that God exists, in my opinion are:

1. Creation
2. Jesus' Resurrection
3. Morality

1. Creation - where did we come from?  There seem to be three main questions here: (1) Where did matter/energy come from originally?  (2) How did life start?  (3) Where did the genetic information comprising the diverse myriads of living animal kinds/species come from? 

Interestingly enough, there seem to be only two major contenders for the answer to this question: either (A) God created the world and all life, or (B) (B1) matter/energy spontaneously popped into existence out of nothing, (B2) life somehow arose from nonliving chemicals in a warm muddy prebiotic puddle somewhere billions of years ago, and (B3) random mutations coupled with natural selection and associated mechanisms (gene duplication, endosymbiosis, etc) produced all the life forms we now see.

Unfortunately, both of these contenders are difficult to accept.  (A) is difficult for many people to accept because it involves a 'miracle', or an unpredictable/unique event which is not currently observed or describable using natural laws, and thus it makes people nervous.  Also, if such a God exists and created us, He might very well be in a position of authority over us, which is galling.

Richard Lewontin describes the fear regarding (A):  "Either the world of phenomena is a consequence of the regular operation of repeatable causes and their repeatable effects, operating roughly along the lines of known physical law, or else at every instant all physical regularities may be ruptured and a totally unforeseeable set of events may occur.... We can not live simultaneously in a world of natural causation and of miracles, for if one miracle can occur, there is no limit."
Richard Lewontin, Scientists Confront Creationism [New York: Norton, 1983], p. xxvi

On the other hand, (B) is difficult for many people (including me) to accept because scientific evidence strongly implies that these things (B1, B2, and B3) are impossible or have vanishingly small probability of having occurred.  Regarding (B1), we do not see matter/energy spontaneously popping into or out of existence in our daily lives or in laboratory experiments, thus it is problematic to handwave and say it occurred in the beginning.  (Some people point to the 'spontaneous appearance' of subatomic particles in particle accelerator 'quantum vacuums', but a high-energy 'quantum vacuum' of particles and anti-particles is quite different than the literally "nothing" that supposedly existed before the Big Bang.)   And if we really believed (B1), then Lewontin's fear would be even more applicable - at any instant all physical regularities would be expected to suddenly change; we would live in a completely unpredictable world.  We can not live simultaneously in a world of spontaneously-appearing universes and of normal, predictable, everyday life, for if one spontaneous uncaused Big Bang can suddenly occur for no reason, there is no limit.

Regarding B2, there is still no explanation (much less demonstration!) of how life could arise from nonliving chemicals.  "We're working on it," the evolutionary theorists say, "just give us a few more years, and we'll eventually figure out how it could have happened."  (See my previous post at http://tim223.xanga.com/743479966/dont-tell-the-creationists/ )  Another quote from Lewontin -
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.  We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science 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 mystifying to the uninitiated.  Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
Lewontin, Richard, "Billions and Billions of Demons", New York Review, 1/9/1997, p31
Why can't you, Richard?  Rather arbitrary and problematic.

Regarding B3, the problem is that mutations can readily be shown in the lab to 'break' the genetic code, but not to add more functional information to it.  Just as splattering ink onto a newspaper page has a tiny chance of adding readable, coherent, and accurate news information (but a larger chance of making the newsprint unreadable), random mutations have been shown to degrade the working of cells, but not to add genetic code for new functional proteins.

Thus the consideration of origins is a strong piece of objective data pointing to the fact that God is very real, and that He created us.

2. Jesus' Resurrection - This is the most powerful piece of real-world, tangible, evidence that the God of the Bible truly exists.  If Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead three days after his crucifixion as he predicted he would, his teachings about the God of the Bible would be fully confirmed.  And the accounts of his resurrection are so early and historically corroborated that it becomes difficult to believe any other conclusion, after examining the evidence.  Paul considered the Resurrection so crucial to Christianity that he said "if Christ has not been raised from the dead, ... your faith is in vain... [and] we are above all men most to be pitied"!

For a quick intro to why the New Testament accounts of Jesus are accurate, see http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/rediscover2.html .  The key is that the accounts (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) about Jesus were written and distributed within the lifetimes of people who knew Jesus, so they would not have been believed if they contained falsehoods or exaggerations.  Also, the news of Jesus' resurrection was being widely proclaimed in Jerusalem within just a few days and months after the event, which was why the Christian church started in Jerusalem even under heavy persecution.  The question is worth considering: "Would someone be willing to die for something they knew to be a lie?"  The eleven (and hundreds more) disciples of Jesus were all thrown in jail, beaten, and eventually killed in various locations for their insistence that they had seen Jesus after he had died and then risen from the dead, proving that He was indeed the divine Son of God that He claimed to be.  Many people have been willing to die for their faith, but that is not the same as asking whether someone would be willing to die for something they knew to be a lie. 

Thus the historical evidence that Jesus lived, taught about God, died, and came back from the dead is extremely strong, and shows that God is very real, and has provided tangible, physical, real-world evidence to help those of us who are naturally skeptical to believe in Him.

3. Morality - As developed well by C.S.Lewis in "Mere Christianity" and Tim Keller in "The Reason For God", the fact that we all tend to live as if we believed in a real objective moral standard is evidence that such a standard does exist, and that a divine transcendent Moral Lawgiver (God) indeed exists.

For example, if you're in line at the checkout counter and someone suddenly jumps in front of you in line, you naturally feel a twinge of moral outrage.  "That's not right!"  This outrage is much larger for worse crimes, such as murder, rape, or genocide.  We all have moral impulses - we believe instinctively that some things are right and other things are wrong.  Furthermore, we do not treat these as mere "preferences", but as objective standards.

The most popular explanation by naturalists is to simply deny that morality objectively exists (cf. Michael Shermer in his debate last year with Greg Koukl, and Michael Ruse and others), and say that they are merely biological/neurological impulses that have evolved evolutionarily to help the human race survive.  That is to say, objective morality does not exist; moral statements are simply statements of personal preference, at which individuals have been genetically predisposed to arrive.  There is no transcendent "ought", there is only "is", although that "is" might take different forms.  It might take the form of "morality means you are programmed to perform acts of altruism to enhance the survival of your genes/species" (Richard Dawkins), or "morality entails the optimal 'flourishing' of mankind and can be 'discovered' by scientific observation" (Sam Harris), or "morality is simply an illusion" (Michael Ruse, Edward Wilson, etc).  See this excellent review for details - http://www.equip.org/articles/atheists-and-the-quest-for-objective-morality

The problem is that all people live as if morality is objective, transcendent, and cross-personal.  But in order to coherently justify this belief, a transcendent objective Moral Lawgiver must exist.  Not simply because "He will punish you if you do wrong" (though that is true), but in order to have a basis for WHY one OUGHT to do what is right.  Some object (cf Plato's "Euthyphro") that in order to say that "God is good", there must either exist some standard of goodness outside of God to measure Him by, or else one must adopt "divine command theory" and claim that "whatever God says/does is right by definition."  But there is another view which avoids those two positions - namely that God's character defines what is good.  He IS good; His character defines goodness, and He also naturally always acts and speaks in accordance with His good character, so that we can say his actions and words are also good.

Thus, if you believe that some things are truly objectively "right" and other things are truly objectively "wrong", your belief only makes sense if God exists (and is not simply an "imaginary friend").

Your thoughts are welcome as always...

 

Here is an interesting article called "The War Against Girls", a good book review of "Unnatural Selection" by Mara Hvistendahl.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303657404576361691165631366.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read#printMode

Here's an excerpt:

"Despite the author's intentions, "Unnatural Selection" might be one of the most
consequential books ever written in the campaign against abortion. It is aimed,
like a heat-seeking missile, against the entire intellectual framework of
"choice." For if "choice" is the moral imperative guiding abortion, then there
is no way to take a stand against "gendercide." Aborting a baby because she is a
girl is no different from aborting a baby because she has Down syndrome or
because the mother's "mental health" requires it. Choice is choice."

 

Here is another interesting article called "The Search for the Historical Adam".

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/article_print.html?id=92509

It summarizes the state of the continuing controversy about whether God created the human race directly in the persons of Adam and Eve, or whether God "used evolution" over millions of years to bring us to where we are today.  The same compromises and arguments are occurring, with the theistic evolutionists / progressive creationists / old-earthers saying "it really doesn't matter" and the rest of us Bible-believers saying "it really does matter."

The article is unfortunately biased toward the theistic evolution point of view, but it does spotlight the incredible pressures in the intellectual spheres in the creation/evolution discussion these days.

Great quote from Tim Keller -

"[Paul] most definitely wanted to teach us that Adam and Eve were real historical figures. When you refuse to take a biblical author literally when he clearly wants you to do so, you have moved away from the traditional understanding of the biblical authority.  If Adam doesn't exist, Paul's whole argument - that both sin and grace work 'covenantally' - falls apart. You can't say that 'Paul was a man of his time' but we can accept his basic teaching about Adam. If you don't believe what he believes about Adam, you are denying the core of Paul's teaching."

 

And finally, a closing quote from the most awesome book of all, the Bible... Ephesians 1:3-12.   I see so many of my nonChristian friends inwardly hungry for significance (especially men) or for love (especially women), all day long... vainly seeking in this or that activity or place.  If only they could know and experience our great God!  ...the God who loves us fiercely, beyond measure, and will never stop loving us, and Who has called us to true, eternal, significance through being adopted by Him:

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace which He lavished on us. In all wisdom and insight He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory."

 

I was thinking today that the miracles recorded in the Bible as being performed by God actually seem quite "optimal".   If they were 'stronger' (e.g. ?) they might be more 'impressive', but less 'believable'.  If they were 'weaker' (e.g. 'God healed my back pains'), they might be more believable, but less impressive.  But such as they are (e.g. healing of a man born blind), they have the optimum balance of strength and believability.

If they were more observable/regular (e.g. 'anyone who goes to the top of the mountain of zinzibar at full moon will be healed of all diseases') or more universal (e.g. if Jesus healed ALL lepers throughout the world, not only those who came to him and asked for healing), they might be more quickly taken for granted and despised.   If they were less observable (e.g. if Jesus had not appeared after His resurrection to hundreds of credible eyewitnesses), they would be less believable.

They are also quite different than the occult/sorcery miracles.   If you read/watch a typical wizardry story or movie, they're all about power for the sake of impressing people and/or waging war...  casting spells on people, forcing people to do what you want them to do, adjusting life to give oneself more luxury.   But the miracles of God were typically items of rescue, provision, and healing.  People in dire straits who were about to be slaughtered unjustly, or about to die of some irreversible illness, or lacking food/water, or drowning, or whose only son had just died, etc, called out to God for help, and God performed a miracle to help them.

Beautiful.  True.  Beautiful that they are true.