Christian Apologetics UK

The Argument From Cosmic Fine Tuning

2012-02-25T09:13:00.005-08:00

The concept of cosmic fine tuning relates to a unique property of our universe whereby the physical constants and laws are observed to be balanced on a ‘razor’s edge’ for permitting the emergence of complex life. The degree to which the constants of physics must match precise criteria is such that a number of agnostic scientists have concluded that indeed there is some sort of transcendent purpose behind the cosmic arena. British astrophysicist Fred Hoyle writes: “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

Fundamental Constants

The ripples in the universe left over from the original ‘Big Bang’ singularity (often referred to as CMB, or cosmic background radiation) are detectable at one part in 10^5 (100,000). If this factor were even slightly smaller, the cosmos would exist exclusively as a collection of gas -- stars, planets and galaxies would not exist. Conversely, if this factor were increased slightly, the universe would consist only of large black holes. Either way, the universe would be uninhabitable.

Another finely tuned value is the strong nuclear force that holds atoms -- and therefore matter -- together. The sun derives its ‘fuel’ from fusing hydrogen atoms together. When two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass of the hydrogen atoms is converted into energy. If the amount of matter converted were slightly smaller -- say, 0.6% instead of 0.7% -- a proton would not be able to bond to a neutron and the universe would consist only of hydrogen. Without the presence of heavy elements, planets would not form and hence no life would be possible. Conversely, if the amount of matter converted were increased to 0.8% instead of 0.7%, fusion would occur so rapidly that no hydrogen would remain. Again, the result would be no planets, no solar systems and hence no life.

The ratio of electrons to protons must be finely balanced to a degree of one part in 10^37. If this fundamental constant were to be any larger or smaller than this, the electromagnetism would dominate gravity -- preventing the formation of galaxies, stars and planets. Again, life would not be possible.

The ratio of the electromagnetic force to gravity must be finely balanced to a degree of one part in 10^40. If this value were to be increased slightly, all stars would be at least 40% more massive than our Sun. This would mean that stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven to support complex life. If this value were to be decreased slightly, all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun. This would render them incapable of producing heavy elements.

The rate at which the universe expands must be finely tuned to one part in 10^55. If the universe expanded too fast, matter would expand too quickly for the formation of stars, planets and galaxies. If the universe expanded too slowly, the universe would quickly collapse -- before the formation of stars.

The mass density of the universe is finely balanced to permit life to a degree of one part in 10^59. If the universe were slightly more massive, an overabundance of deuterium from the big bang would cause stars to burn too rapidly for the formation of complex life. If the universe were slightly less massive, an insufficiency of helium would result in a shortage of the heavy elements -- again, resulting in no life.

Mass of the Cosmos

The density of protons and neutrons in the cosmos relates to the cosmic mass density. That density determines just how much hydrogen fuses into heavier elements during the first few moments after the origin of the universe. In turn, the amount of heavier elements determines how much additional heavy-element production occurs later in the nuclear furnaces or stars.

What would be the consequence if the respective density of neutrons and protons were significantly lower? Firstly, nuclear fusion would occur with less efficiency. Consequently, the heavier elements such as carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorous, sodium and potassium -- all of which are essential for the emergence of physical life -- would not be formed. Moreover, assuming no additional cosmic density factors such as dark energy, a cosmos which possesses less mass density would prohibit the formation of stars and planets. Why? The expansion rate would be so big that matter would expand too quickly for gravity to pull together the gas and dust to allow their formation. If that were not enough, with only a little extra mass, the cosmos would expand so slowly that all stars in the cosmos would quickly turn into black holes and neutron stars. The density near the surface of such bodies would be so enormous that molecules would be impossible. Therefore, life would not be possible. The radiation from the formed black holes and neutron stars would also render physical life an impossibility at any point in a universe with such a high density.

Conversely, what would be the effect if the density of protons and neutrons in the cosmos were to be significantly higher? Nuclear fusion would be too productive, meaning that all the hydrogen in the universe would rapidly fuse into elements heavier than iron. The ultimate result is the same -- the life-essential elements would not exist. Moreover, if the cosmic mass density were to be greater, gas and dust would condense so effectively under gravity’s influence that all stars would be much more massive than the Sun. Thus, planets would not be life-permitting because of the intensity of the radiation of their respective star, and additionally because of the rapid changes in the stars’ temperature and radiation.

The mass of the universe exhibits cosmic fine tuning to simultaneously permit two features which are essential for permitting life: (1) the correct diversity and quantity of elements; and (2) the appropriate rate of cosmic expansion required to allow life. Such cosmic fine-tuning bespeaks foresight and planning -- indicators of intelligent design.

Our Place in the Universe

There exist many physical factors that must be precisely set for any planet to be hospitable to life. Life must be in the right type of galaxy. There are three types of galaxies (elliptical, irregular and spiral). Elliptical galaxies lack the heavy elements needed to support life. Irregular galaxies have too many supernova explosions. Only spiral galaxies can foster life. The Milky Way is a spiral galaxy.

Life must also be in the right location in the galaxy. We are situated in the right place in the Milky Way. If we were too close to the centre of the galaxy (closer to the black hole), harmful radiation would make life impossible. Conversely, if our planet was too far out in the periphery, not enough heavy elements would be available for the construction of habitable planets.

Life must also have the right type of star. Stars act as energy sources for life. Most stars are too large, too bright or too unstable to support life. The size and age of the sun enhances the earth’s hospitality. If the earth were moved 1% closer to the sun, bodies of water would vaporize, and life would not be possible. If the earth were as much as 2% farther from the sun, its waters would freeze. Earth has a nearly circular orbit, which ensures a nearly constant distance from the sun -- ensuring that seasonal changes are not too severe.

The other planets in our solar system contribute greatly to earth’s habitability. For example, the massive gas giant Jupiter acts as a cosmic vacuum cleaner, protecting the earth from incoming comets. Likewise, Mars protects the earth from incoming asteroids.

If earth did not have a moon of the right shape and size, our planet would not be able to sustain life. The moon stabilizes the earth’s tilt, in turn preventing extreme temperatures and creating a stable, bio-friendly environment.

There are many other factors which influence the habitability of the earth. The few examples here detailed unequivocally demonstrate that indeed the earth is a privileged planet, another indicator of intelligent design.

Is the Universe Designed for Discovery?

In 2004, Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards published their groundbreaking book, “The Privileged Planet”, in which they argued that the conditions most suited for life also provided the best overall setting for making scientific discoveries. In other words, our planet is not merely fine-tuned for life, but it is also finely-tuned for discovery.

One example is the phenomenon known as solar eclipses. People have witnessed solar eclipses for millennia, but only recently have we begun to notice a remarkable correlation: The only place in our solar system where a perfect solar eclipse can be observed happens to be the only place where there are observers. There are hundreds of moons in our solar system, but most moons cannot entirely eclipse the sun. Of all the places in our solar system, only on earth do the sun and moon appear the same size to observers. This is because the sun is both approximately 400 times larger than the moon and roughly 400 times farther away. Solar eclipses have played a significant role in scientific discovery, having helped physicists to confirm Einstein’s general theory of relativity.

The Milky Way, as a spiral galaxy -- in addition to being the only biofriendly kind of galaxy -- is relatively flat. Consequently, it has less gas and dust than others, and fewer stars impede our view of the rest of the universe.

Earth is located not only in the galactic habitable zone, but also in the right place where minimal light pollution and other visual obstructions might impede the view of our surroundings. Moreover, earth’s atmosphere -- which is the only one we know of which can support life -- is also the only one clear enough to allow us to observe the universe.

Such findings place naturalists (who see us and our place in the cosmos as nothing more than accidents) in an uncomfortable position. But it makes a lot of sense to theists, who see us and our place in the cosmos as fully intended by an intelligent creator.

Conclusion

To believe that the facts and figures here detailed amount to no more than happy coincidence, without doubt constitutes a greater exercise of faith than that of the Christian who affirms the theistic design of the universe. Such scientific insights over the last several decades have led the late Robert Jastrow -- a self-proclaimed agnostic -- to write: “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

This blog post was adapted from a previous article published on AllAboutScience.org.

News Bulletin 24 February 2012 -- The Christian Institute

2012-02-25T04:57:00.000-08:00

Did Jesus Deny His Deity When He Said He Didn't Know The Day or Hour of the Second Coming?

2012-02-23T05:08:00.004-08:00

A Short Summary and Critique of Peter Tatchell's Arguments for Same Sex Marriage

2012-02-23T02:44:00.001-08:00

If you ever open a newspaper or turn on the TV you should be aware about the current drive to change the definition of marriage to include same sex couples. I've just finished watching a short discussion on the issue and thought I would weigh in with a brief summary and response to some of the arguments made by the prominent same sex marriage activist Peter Tatchell. This is by no means meant to be an extensive response to the complexities of the subject, but just a few quick points on the matter.

But we love each other...

Marriage is more than just two people loving each other, at its core it is an institution between one man and one women for the principle of having and raising children in a safe and healthy environment. If we are to follow the argument that love alone is the key factor in marriage then we are legitimately entitled to ask same sex marriage advocates why they are not in support and 'tolerant' of plural marriage, and if not why not since they also evidently love each other. Many critics argue that legalised same sex marriage won't necessarilly lead to plural marriage but when nearly every argument flows from the same logic its difficult to argue that this won't be the case.

Its intolerant...

Being tolerant used to mean that you could disagree with something or someone yet still treat them respectfully and without scorn, for instance I don't agree with Muslims that Islam is true. Yet I treat Muslims with respect and have Muslim friends, it is quite possible to disagree agreeably, I don't think anyone would argue that disagreement is synonymous with me being intolerant or being Islamophobic. However if one is to disagree with the case for same sex marriage you are automatically branded as intolerant and homophobic which seems wholly unfair. The fear of being branded as such has meant many people feel pressured to agree or risk being at the brunt of a rhetorical avalanche from same sex marriage advocates. If same sex marriage advocates were so serious about being tolerant its surprising they are ideologically opposed to being tolerant of those who oppose redefining marriage, the inconsistency of the way tolerance is used is telling.

Its about our rights...

It is argued regularly that its about rights, but in fact same sex partners in civil partnerships have all the same rights as those who are married do here in the UK, with the name designating an inherent difference between the two. From a legal perspective civil partnerships have access to all the benefits, responsibilities and rights that married couples do, as seen below

Benefits that are income-related will be considered in regards to joint treatment
Tax, including inheritance tax
Benefits from state pensions will also become a joint treatment
The duty of providing maintenance to your partner and any children of either party
Each party of the union will become a parental figure and thus become responsible for any children either person may have
Inheritance in regards to an agreement of tenancy
Domestic violence protection
Access to compensation of fatal accidents
Succeed to rights of tenancy
The registration of civil partnership will have merit for the purposes of immigration
Hospital visiting rights as next of kin
Like traditional marriage, those that are involved in a civil partnership are exempt from being required to testify in court against one another
Each partner has the responsibility to be assessed for child support, in the same manner as that of civil marriages
Treatment comparable to that of a civil marriage in regards to life assurance
Benefits that arise from Pension and Employment [1]

So as you can see it has nothing to do with desiring equal rights, responsibilities and benefits that married couples have since they already have them. This demonstrates that at its heart this has little to do with rights but with an ideology that wants to enforce its views on society with little regard to the long term effects on society. Such affects as demeaning the institution of marriage itself, legalisation of same sex marriage in Scandinavia and the Netherlands has slowly eroded the value of marriage in these cultures and it would be presumptuous to think that this would not be the case here in the UK [2].

Names are important, they distinguish between different things or people, in this case a civil partnership and marriage, although the rights are similar when it comes to function and the practical aspects of the union we are talking about something very different. Marriage provides an environment that as stated earlier is for the principle of having and nurturing those children to adulthood. Out of principle same-sex couples cannot do this since they must always involve a third person, this is just one of several differences, when things are in fact different it is necessary for there to be a distinction in the terms used to describe different institution's. Hence marriage and civil partnerships are different and it seems legitimate to distinguish between the two of them.

Also it should be added that homosexual people have the same rights to marry as heterosexuals dependant on that person being of the right age, marital status and sex, taking into account the traditional definition of marriage. There have always been limitations, for instance an adult does not have the right to marry a child or an immediate family member. Marriage denotes a life-long partnership between one man and women, that is an inherent part of its definition, seeking to change it is like trying to redefine a decade as something other than ten years.

It's racist...

This is a wholly cheap, and illogical argument that holds no weight and should be avoided by those whom seek to persuade critics of same sex marriage. There is simply no comparison between the fight for American civil rights and the previous bans on interracial marriage and the struggle for recognition of same sex marriage today and to do so is to put it bluntly, historically ignorant.

Nothing in interracial marriage would have redefined traditional heterosexual marriage since it included one man and one women, removing the laws that banned it didn't redefine marriage and instead confirmed it. Race and ethnicity are insignificant in terms of marriage where as gender is clearly significant if marriage is defined as a union between one man and one women only. Clearly, arguing that race, something that can't be changed is in the same category as a type of sexual behaviour is a category mistake since there is evidence that people can and have changed sexual preferences where as it is impossible to change ones race [3].

Some research...

One of the principles of marriage is to promote the stability of a stable home environment for children to be nurtured and to see good examples through their parents about what it means to be a man or a women. Men and women are different and these differences are what create the possibility of forming a life-long union. Marriage is supposed to promote stability, however within the homosexual community monogamy and commitment are not synonymous with the way heterosexual couples may use the terms. Relationships within the homosexual community are noticeably more about sex than about an all encompassing, life-long commitment to just one person. Research again and again has supported the claim that homosexuals are more promiscuous both in and out of a relationship setting, something that has obvious implications if one were to redefine marriage. A Canadian study of homosexual men recorded that only 25% of homosexual men in a committed relationship lasting longer than one year had remained monogamous during that relationship, the studies author had this to say "Gay culture allows men to explore different...forms of relationships besides the monogamy coveted by heterosexuals." [4].

Another study that looked at 156 homosexual relationships by David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison discovered that only 7 couples remained completely exclusive and monogamous during the time together, however those 7 couples had all been together for less than 5 years. This means that all of the homosexual couples that had been together for more than 5 years had made some provision for extra-relational sexual activity in their relationships [5].

Clearly this suggests that monogamy and fidelity are not viewed in the same way in the community and there is no doubt that this will have dramatic implications if it is acceptable for future married couples to function in a way where it is acceptable to remain promiscuous in a stable and committed 'marriage'.

Now some will suggest that people within heterosexual marriages still have extra-marital sexual partners which clearly is not perfect however there is a dramatic and marked difference in rates of fidelity. Fidelity between married couples is between 75-90% yet homosexual men in what was their current relationship was as low as 4.5% [6]. If marriage is contingent upon commitment and marital faithfulness then the differences between how they are viewed are of the highest importance and to pretend that these differences don't exist is to set marriage in the direction of irrelevance it now is in Scandinavia and the Netherlands.

Same-sex couples are also more likely to break up than relationships between heterosexual couples, this has obvious implications when children are brought into the equation [7]. We already know that the best environment is within a stable family environment, so it brings into question whether we should be supportive of an addition to the institution of marriage that we know may increase the likelihood of more broken families.

There is also a pool of research that suggest that same-sex couples are more likely to be victim's of domestic violence and abuse, again within a family unit where children may be involved should we be supporting same-sex marriage when there may be an increased likelihood that children will be witnesses to violence and abuse between their 'parents'? In a survey of 1099 lesbians, over half stated that they had been victims of some form of abuse from a sexual partner [8]. Domestic violence among male same sex couples in some studies has been over double that of heterosexual couples [9]. Now I'm not trying to tar all gay couples with the same brush but such statistics are particularly significant taking into account the seriousness of the proposed changes to society.

In Conclusion...

Peter Tatchell's arguments used in support of same-sex marriage during his short discussion were unconvincing and depended far more on misusing rhetorical buzz-words like tolerance and rights without providing anything of substance that would suggest that redefining marriage is necessary. It is not intolerant to be unsupportive of same-sex marriage especially when a lawful institution already exists in civil partnerships that gives them all the rights and responsibilities they had previously been campaigning for.

The legalising of same-sex marriage and its subsequent redefinition has had dramatic effects in the value of marriage where this has been the case and this should be openly discussed, not hidden from those who generally only hear one side of the story. If we are as a nation to be asked about radically redefining one of our oldest social institutions we should at the very least be well informed about the possible side-effects on our society and families. Clearly heterosexual relationships function differently from homosexual ones, men and women are wired differently physiologically and when two people of the same sex are in a relationship this undoubtedly will play out in the relationship, we ignore this at our peril. Longer-term same-sex relationships differ from heterosexual on several levels, such as duration, promiscuity, commitment and inter-relational violence all of which have obvious effects on how we would think about marriage.

A side note...

I have a range of friends from the LGBT community, I always without reservation treat them equally since we are all regardless of our sexual preferences created in the image of God and as a follower of Jesus I am commanded to treat others as I should expect to be treated [Mark 12:31, Matthew 22:34-40]. I do not hate or look down upon people from the LGBT community I simply do not agree that it is appropriate to redefine marriage for ideological purposes that have been demonstrated to impact both society and the family. The UK provides civil partnerships for same-sex couples and I'm of the personal opinion that, that provides a suitable way for same-sex couples to demonstrate their love and commitment to each other. It is difficult to get tone across when writing but please be assured that I have not meant to be rude, however I found Peter Tatchell's arguments to be less than convincing.

You can watch the discussion for yourselves below

The Coalition for Marriage Website can be viewed here. The Coalition For Marriage draws from a range of both religious and secular beliefs.

[1] http://www.civilpartnershipinfo.co.uk/ [Viewed 23/2/12]

[2] http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/03/10/death_of_marriage_in_scandinavia/ [Viewed 23/2/12]

[3] http://www.wnd.com/2007/07/42379/ [Viewed 23/2/12]

[4] Ryan Lee, "Gay Couples Likely to Try Non-monogamy, Study Shows," Washington Blade (August 22, 2003): 18.

[5] David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1984): 252, 253.

[6] Laumann, The Social Organization of Sexuality, 216; McWhirter and Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (1984): 252-253; Wiederman, "Extramarital Sex," 170.

[7] Kurdek, L. A. (1998). Relationship outcomes and their predictors: Longitudinal evidence from heterosexual married, gay cohabiting, and lesbian cohabiting couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60, 553-568.

[8] Gwat Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier, "Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications," Journal of Social Service Research 15 (1991): 46.

[9] Gwat Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier, "Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications," Journal of Social Service Research 15 (1991): 46.

A People Who Call Evil Good, and Good Evil: James White

2012-02-21T08:42:00.001-08:00

Will Dawkins' Part in Reason Rally Be Supremely "Reasonable"?

2012-02-21T03:25:00.001-08:00

Evidence Jesus Christ Rose from the Dead: William Lane Craig

2012-02-20T13:20:00.002-08:00

Coalition For Marriage Launched

2012-02-20T08:59:00.003-08:00

From here:

"A grassroots campaign group against the redefinition of marriage in the United Kingdom has been launched today.

The Coalition for Marriage (C4M) is a group of organisations and individuals who support the current definition of marriage and opposes any plans to redefine it. The petition can be signed online here: www.c4m.org.uk

Leading public figures including politicians from the Conservative and Labour parties, lawyers, academics and religious leaders, have already signed affirming that marriage is between one man and one woman for life.

Underestimated

A consultation on redefining marriage is set to be launched by the Government next month.

C4M campaigners believe the Government has seriously underestimated the strength of opposition to its plans.

Writing in the Daily Mail, Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, said: “The honourable estate of matrimony precedes both the state and the church, and neither of these institutions have the right to redefine it in such a fundamental way.

Cornerstone

“For thousands of years, the union of one man and one woman has been the bedrock of societies across cultures, all around the world.”

He continued: “Marriage is a cornerstone of our society. Because of this, I believe the general public will oppose the present attempt to fundamentally alter – and undermine – the institution.”

Anti-democratic

Drawing on comments made by the Home Secretary that the government’s consultation will be about “how” and not “whether” to redefine marriage, C4M chairman Colin Hart branded the plans “profoundly anti-democratic”.

He said: “The 24 million married people in this country are not even going to be asked whether they mind their marriage being redefined.”

Mr Hart continued: “The Government is running away from this public debate. They are bulldozing ahead without any thought for the consequences.”

He also said that marriage “is woven into the fabric of our national laws. That can’t be just unpicked in a single stroke”.

Petition

Half a million C4M petition sheets have been printed for distribution across the nation, which is open to anyone resident in the UK and over the age of 16.

Other notable signatories include former Lord Chancellor Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Professor Brenda Almond, President of the Philosophical Society of England, and Fiona Bruce MP."

Go here to sign the petition!

One Long Bluff: A Review of Richard Dawkins' "The Greatest Show on Earth"

2012-02-20T01:46:00.009-08:00

Richard Dawkins’ The Greatest Show on Earth hopes to convey and document some of the evidence which compels him to embrace a Darwinian perspective on origins. Dawkins is also author of The God Delusion and probably today’s best known Darwinian apologist. Dawkins, in his 2009 book, The Greatest Show on Earth, lives up to his legendary reputation of creative tale-telling.

Just how strong are Richard Dawkins’ arguments? Does he present anything new? Do his claims stand up when subjected to careful scrutiny? Richard Dawkins clearly thinks so. In chapter 1 of his book, entitled Only a theory? Dawkins remarks:

Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eye witnesses to the Holocaust. It is the plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzees, somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins of bananas and turnips…continue the list as long as desired. That didn’t have to be true. It is not self-evidently, tautologically, obviously true, and there was a time when most people, even educated people, thought it wasn’t. It didn’t have to be true, but it is. We know this because a rising flood of evidence supports it. Evolution is a fact, and this book will demonstrate it. No reputable scientist disputes it, and no unbiased reader will close the book doubting it.

One wonders, of course, how many times Richard Dawkins believes that he has to rephrase the core contention of his book in order to legitimise it!

Richard Dawkins further remarks:

…Imagine you are a teacher of recent history, and your lessons on 20th century Europe are boycotted…by politically muscular groups of Holocaust deniers. The plight of many science teachers today is not less dire. When they attempt to expound the central principle of biology they are harried and stymied, hassled and bullied.

Such dogmatic rhetoric and ad-hominem name-calling is highly indicative of the level of Dawkins’ argumentation. Nonetheless, it should be noted that no critic of Darwinism seeks the outlawing of the concept of evolution — or even common descent — from the academic environment. Rather, most critics would argue that the significant criticisms of Darwinism — which are, as yet, without resolution — should be referenced such that Darwinism is not taught in an uncritical fashion. Richard Dawkins’ claim, then, that critics want to torpedo the public education system is a simple point of misrepresentation.

The Origin of Life

Richard Dawkins, in The Greatest Show on Earth, has very little to say concerning the most fundamental challenge to standard materialistic thinking, namely the problem of life’s origin. In chapter 13 of his book, Dawkins writes:

We have no evidence about what the first step in making life was, but we do know the kind of step it must have been. It must have been whatever it took to get natural selection started. Before that first step, the sorts of improvement that only natural selection can achieve were impossible. And that means the key step was the rising, by some process as yet unknown, of a self-replicating entity.

Dawkins is overlooking or ignoring a host of key points here. As Dawkins himself concedes, natural selection can only occur in organisms which are capable of reproducing or replicating themselves. But surely any self-replicating mechanism must exhibit a definable minimal level of complexity, let alone the necessitude of functional, and thus sequence specific DNA and protein molecules. As theoretical biologist Howard Pattee explains in his The Problem of Biological Hierarchy: “There is no evidence that hereditary evolution occurs except in cells which already have…the DNA, the replicating and translating enzymes, and all the control systems and structures necessary to reproduce themselves.” In order to invoke a materialistic pathway which can account for the origin of specified information in DNA, the naturalist must invoke a process that itself depends upon pre-existing sequence specific DNA molecules. Yet, the origin of these molecules is precisely what the thesis seeks to explain. And let us not forget that it is not merely the sequence of base-pairs comprising the information in DNA which is the chief concern at this point — but the problem becomes even deeper when confronted with the paradox of the origin of the genetic code itself. For further discussion of the origin of life and the genetic code, please see my articles here and here.

The RNA World

Dawkins’ The Greatest Show on Earth, proceeds to outline the classic Catch-22 paradox which concerns the relationship of DNA to proteins. He writes:

The ‘Catch-22’ of the origin of life is this. DNA can replicate, but it needs enzymes in order to catalyse the process. Proteins can catalyse DNA formation, but they need DNA to specify the correct sequence of amino acids. How could the molecules of the Early Earth break out of this bind and allow natural selection to get started?

How does Dawkins attempt to resolve this enigma? He continues:

Now for the key point of the ‘RNA World theory’ of the origin of life. In addition to stretching out in a form suitable for passing on sequence information, RNA is also capable of self-assembling…into three-dimensional shapes which have enzymatic activity. RNA enzymes do exist. They are not as efficient as protein enzymes, but they do work. The RNA World theory suggests that RNA was good enough enzyme to hold the fort until proteins evolved to take over the enzyme role, and that RNA was also a good enough replicator to muddle along in that role until DNA evolved.

Curiously, Richard Dawkins spends no time in The Greatest Show on Earth attempting to address the numerous criticisms of the RNA-first model. For example, the formation of the first RNA molecule would have necessitated the prior emergence of smaller constituent molecules, including ribose sugar, phosphate molecules and the four RNA nucleotide bases. But both synthesising and maintaining these essential RNA molecules (particularly ribose) and the nucleotide bases is profoundly problematic to perform under realistic prebiotic conditions.

Further, naturally occurring RNA molecules possess very few of the specific enzymatic properties of proteins. Ribozymes can perform a small handful of the thousands of functions performed by proteins. The inability of RNA molecules to perform many of the functions of protein enzymes raises a third and related concern with regard to the tenability of the RNA-first model. To date, no plausible explanation has been advanced as to how primitive self-replicating RNA molecules could have made the transition into modern cellular systems which depend heavily on a variety of proteins to process genetic information. Consider the transition from a primitive replicator to a system for building the first proteins. Even if such a system of ribozymes for building proteins had arisen from an RNA replicator, that system of molecules would still require information-rich templates for building specific proteins. To date, there is no materialistic pathway by which specified information can be readily produced. For further discussion of the RNA world, please see my articles here and here.

The Cambrian Explosion

To Dawkins’ credit in The Greatest Show on Earth, he does provide a reasonably detailed commentary on the geological incident known as the “Cambrian Explosion” (a phenomenon which is curiously omitted in many popular Darwinian texts) in his chapter on “The Missing Link? – What do you mean, ‘missing’?”. Richard Dawkins makes reference to the famous flatworms known as the Platyhelminthes:

This great phylum of worms includes the parasitic flukes and tapeworms, which are of great medical importance. My favourites, however, are the free-living tubellarian worms, of which there are more than four thousand species; that’s about as numerous as all the mammal species put together…They are common, both in water and on land, and presumably have been common for a very long time. You’d expect, therefore, to see a rich fossil history. Unfortunately, there is almost nothing. Apart from a handful of ambiguous trace fossils, not a single fossil flatworm has ever been found. The Platyhelminthes, to a worm, are ‘already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.’ But in this case, ‘the very first time they appear’ is not the Cambrian but today. Do you see what this means, or at least ought to mean for creationists? Creationists believe that flatworms were created in the same week as all other creatures. They have therefore had exactly the same time in which to fossilise as all other animals. During all the centuries when all those bony or shelly animals were depositing happily alongside them, but without leaving any significant trace of their presence in the rocks. What, then, is so special about gaps in the record of these animals that do fossilise, given that the past history of the flatworms amounts to one big gap: even though the flatworms, by the creationists’ own account, have been living for the same length of time? If the gap before the Cambrian Explosion is used as evidence that most animals suddenly sprang into existence in the Cambrian, exactly the same ‘logic’ should be used to prove that the flatworms sprang into existence yesterday. Yet this contradicts the creationist’s belief that flatworms were created during the same creative week as everything else. You cannot have it both ways. This argument, at a stroke, completely destroys the creationist case that the Precambrian gap in the fossil record weakens the evidence for evolution.

Again, Richard Dawkins is missing the point with regards to the fossil record. Before examining the underlying fallacy of Dawkins’ argument, let us take a moment to consider the theological undertones in the above text. Theological arguments — by their very nature — cannot be defended as a scientific statement, and thus ought to be given no place in scientific discussions regarding evolution. The subtitle of Dawkins’ book is The Evidence for Evolution. There should be no need, therefore, to prop up Darwinism by appealing to theologically-related considerations. The age of the earth and the proper interpretation of Genesis is the subject of heated debate among Christians. While I do believe that this is a very interesting and important issue (I personally strongly favour the view that the earth is very ancient), it should not be featuring in scientific discourses concerning the scientific evidence relating to evolution. Moreover, to categorically place all Darwin-skeptics in the same category is misleading.

Leaving that point aside, let us turn to Richard Dawkins’ understanding of the Cambrian explosion. First, even if we were to grant him his premise — namely, the contention that organisms prior to the Cambrian were of a non-fossilisable composition (which is plausible) — this is not the point in question. Indeed, it is to be expected that non-skeletonized predecessors ought to leave few if any fossils. If it were the case, therefore, that one evolving line appeared suddenly in the fossil record, once it reached the stage of being fossilizable, then Dawkins might have a point here. But the real challenge of the Cambrian explosion is the wide variety of fossilizable forms which appeared at more or less the same instant in geological time. Every single phyla represented by modern day organisms — certainly all those with fossilizable parts — were included, yet for none is there any clearly identifiable ancestor. It is explaining the simultaneous and abrupt appearance of those which is one of the leading challenges in evolutionary biology.

Dawkins’ argument here is by no means original. Interestingly, over the last century and a half since the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species, paleontologists have discovered many Precambrian fossils, many of them microscopic or soft-bodied. As Darwinian paleobiologist William Schopf wrote in his The early evolution of life: solution to Darwin’s dilemma, “The long-held notion that Precambrian organisms must have been too small or too delicate to have been preserved in geological materials…[is] now recognised as incorrect.” If anything, the abrupt appearance of the major animal phyla, conventionally dated to about 540 million years ago, is better documented now that in Darwin’s time. Indeed, as more fossils are discovered it becomes clear that the Cambrian explosion was even more abrupt and extensive than previously envisioned.

At any rate, as discussed in some detail here, the Ediacaran fauna are not generally thought to be ancestral to the modern phyla which appear explosively in the Cambrian radiation. The presence of these organisms, therefore, should offer no comfort to Darwinists. As Peter Ward has observed in On Methuselah’s Trail: Living Fossils and the Great Extinctions, “[L]ater study cast doubt on the affinity between these ancient remains preserved in sandstones and living creatures of today; the great German paleontologist A. Seilacher, of Tübingen University, has even gone so far as to suggest that the Ediacaran fauna has no relationship whatsoever with any currently living creatures. In this view, the Ediacaran fauna was completely annihilated before the start of the Cambrian fauna.” (p. 36)

Moreover, many phyla (such as the brachiopods and arthropods) couldn’t have evolved their soft parts first and then added the hard parts (such as the exoskeleton or shell) later — their survival depends in large measure upon the ability to protect or shield their soft parts. Soft and hard parts had to arise together. Finally, the critic of Darwinism need not point to the fossil record as the most compelling decisive blow to Darwinian orthodoxy. Dawkins is free to invoke ad-hoc hypothesis in an attempt to explain away the gaps and challenges presented by the fossil record at the most crucial points. Nonetheless, the fact remains that the fossil record simply cannot be used to document anything relating to the common descent of all life forms — which is one of the two central claims of neo-Darwinism. To state otherwise is to engage in circular reasoning.

Exaggerations and Over-Statements

Richard Dawkins’ The Greatest Show on Earth, explains in great detail how evolution has occurred “before our very eyes”. He makes reference to the replication of the well-known bacterium E. coli as a means by which we can simulate ‘deep time’. He notes that while lizards experience a generation turnover period of about two years, bacterial generations are measured in hours, or even minutes. He points to Michigan professor Richard Lenski’s experiment where 12 identical lines of E. coli were cultured to over 44,000 generations (20 years later). The bacteria were grown in a medium which had a small amount of glucose (a primary carbon source for E. coli) and abundant citrate (a carbon source not normally utilised by E. coli). Every 500 generations, Lenski would take samples of the bacteria, which — as Dawkins puts it — in essence produced a ‘fossil record’ of the different tribes. Lenski observed many changes in the E. coli as they adapt to the culture conditions in his lab. While the fitness of bacteria had increased, it had come at a cost. For instance, all the tribes had lost the ability to catabolise ribose. Some tribes had lost the ability to repair DNA. These bacteria may indeed be more fit in a lab setting, but when placed back into their environment alongside their wild-type counterparts, they would be at a selective disadvantage.

Dawkins goes on to explain that at generation 31,500, one line of E. coli was found to be able to utilise citrate. What Dawkins does not give us, however, is a rebuttal to the numerous pertinent comments which have been given by ID proponents with regards to Lenski’s work. Michael Behe for example, discusses Lenski’s work on pages 140-142 of his book, The Edge of Evolution, and — more recently — in a peer-reviewed article in the Quarterly Review of Biology. Behe has also been keeping tabs on Lenski’s work over on his Uncommon Descent blog. Please also see Casey Luskin’s excellent recent blog entry on this topic on Evolution News & Views.

The case of the citrate transporter seems, to me, to be a weak one because it has been documented that wild-type E. coli can already use citrate under low-oxygen conditions. Under these conditions, citrate is transported into the cell (Pos et al. 1998). The gene in E. coli specifies a citrate transporter. In the presence of high levels of oxygen, it is thought that the citrate transporter doesn’t function or is not produced. Thus, wild-type E. coli already possesses the genes necessary for the transportation of citrate into the cell and its subsequent utilisation. Indeed, Lenski et al. (2008) note that “A more likely possibility, in our view, is that an existing transporter has been co-opted for citrate transport under oxic [high oxygen level] conditions.” Such a scenario could take place by a loss of gene regulation (meaning that the gene is no longer expressed exclusively under low oxygen conditions) or a loss of transporter specificity.

Do Dawkins’ Claims Regarding the Fossil Record Follow Logically?

In The Greatest Show on Earth, Dawkins spends considerable portions of his book expounding the fossil record. For example, in chapter 6 concerning the so-called missing links in the fossil record, he writes,

Creationists are deeply enamored of the fossil record, because they have been taught (by each other) to repeat, over and over, the mantra that it is full of “gaps”: “Show me your ‘intermediates!’” They fondly (very fondly) imagine that these “gaps” are an embarrassment to evolutionists. Actually, we are lucky to have any fossils at all, let alone the massive numbers that we now do have to document evolutionary history—large numbers of which, by any standards, constitute beautiful “intermediates.” We don’t need fossils in order to demonstrate that evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution would be entirely secure even if not a single corpse had ever fossilized. It is a bonus that we do actually have rich seams of fossils to mine, and more are discovered every day. The fossil evidence for evolution in many major animal groups is wonderfully strong. Nevertheless there are, of course, gaps, and creationists love them obsessively.

Richard Dawkins — as a neo-Darwinist — is evidently seeking to demonstrate, and thus uphold, the central tenets of Darwinism. But the central claim of neo-Darwinism is that natural selection, coupled with chance mutation, can mimic what would normally be ascribed to intelligence. The most important issue which we have at hand, therefore, is whether or not life could have evolved by natural processes. The theory of intelligent design merely claims that certain natural phenomena exhibit features which are best attributed to intelligence. The concept of common descent is crucial to the Darwinian paradigm, but its falsehood is by no means critical to the design thesis. To the design hypothesis, as a scientific model, it is a secondary issue whether the various forms of life were created independently or by modification of previously existing forms. While the latter model rejects the theory of evolution as an overall paradigm, it is nonetheless consistent which common descent. Thus, even if one were to concede that the fossil record supports common descent — a notion which I challenge — it would not by any means prove neo-Darwinism.

What About the Missing Link?

Richard Dawkins defines the concept of “the missing link” as “the alleged gap between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom.” He spends much of the rest of his chapter on the fossil record taking on some of the pseudoscientific claims made by some in the name of creationism, for instance, the weak (to put it mildly) argument, ‘I’ll believe in evolution when I see a monkey give birth to a human baby.’ There are plenty of well-meaning creationists out there who utilise this level of argumentation — but to suggest or imply that such reasoning is ‘mainstream’ is very misleading indeed. There are many sophisticated and well-informed critiques of Darwinian orthodoxy in the scientific literature. Richard Dawkins should be responding to them, rather than the under-informed laypeople, who, perhaps should be spending less time teaching apologetics, more time getting their facts straight! (For the record, Darwinists do not believe that humans are descended from modern monkeys, but that modern monkeys and humans shared a common ancestor.).

In the proceeding chapter (chapter 7), Richard Dawkins outlines several fossil organisms which he deems to be feasible intermediates between humans and the common ancestor we share with chimpanzees. One example to which Dawkins alludes is ‘Lucy’. Dawkins remarks,

The most famous fossil…is ‘Lucy’, classified by her discoverer in Ethiopia, Donald Johanson?, as Australopithecus afarensis. Unfortunately we have only fragments of Lucy’s cranium, but her lower jaw is unusually well preserved. She was small by modern standards, although not as small as Homo floresiensis, the tiny creature the newspapers have irritatingly dubbed ‘the Hobbit’, which died out tantalisingly recently on the island of Flores in Indonesia. Lucy’s skeleton is complete enough to suggest that she walked upright on the ground, but probably also sought refuge in trees, where she was an agile climber. There is good evidence that the bones attributed to Lucy really did all come from a single individual…The conclusion from studies of Lucy and her kin is that they had brains about the same size as chimpanzees’ but, unlike chimpanzees, they walked upright on their hind legs…

Indeed, Lucy’s skeleton is very incomplete. Only 40% was found, and a significant percentage of the known bones are rib fragments. As Dawkins notes, very little useful material from the skull was recovered. Ironically, Lucy still represents the most complete pre-Homo known hominid skeleton to date. Dawkins’ assertion that “There is good evidence that the bones attributed to Lucy really did all come from a single individual” is highly precarious. Given the fragmentary nature of many of the bones and the highly incomplete nature of the skeleton, the argument seems highly suspect. Consider, for example, Lucy’s femur or the pelvis, the most prized parts of her skeleton. It is an extremely difficult case to state that all Lucy’s bones are clearly from one individual of one species, and it requires some heavy assumptions.

Leaving the fragmentary nature of Lucy’s skeleton aside, let us assume for the moment that Lucy was a fully bipedal ape – would that necessarily qualify her as a human ancestor? Given that the much earlier fossil record from the Miocene yields bipedal apes that supposedly evolved upright-walking completely independently from the line that supposedly led to humans, it would seem that the answer is emphatically no.

Even if we concede that Lucy walked upright, there is strong evidence to suggest that her mode of locomotion was, in significant ways, very different from that of modern humans. For example, it is almost certain that A. afarensis and other australopithecines were not adapted to a striding gait and running, as humans are. It doesn’t seem very advantageous, and therefore likely, to use bipedality as one’s primary mode of locomotion if one cannot use it to quickly run from predators.

As Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin write in their book, Origins Reconsidered – In Search of What Makes us Human:

“We were sent a cast of the Lucy skeleton, and I was asked to assemble it for display,” remembers Peter Schmid, a paleontologist at the Anthropological Institute in Zurich. … “When I started to put [Lucy’s] skeleton together, I expected it to look human,” Schmid continues. “Everyone had talked about Lucy as being very modern, very human, so I was surprised by what I saw.” … “What you see in Australopithecus is not what you’d want in an efficient bipedal running animal,” says Peter. “The shoulders were high, and, combined with the funnel-shaped chest, would have made arm swinging very improbable in the human sense. It wouldn’t have been able to lift its thorax for the kind of deep breathing that we do when we run. The abdomen was potbellied, and there was no waste, so that would have restricted the flexibility that’s essential to human running.”

Richard Dawkins’ contention, then, that “[Lucy] walked upright on [her] hind legs, as we do…” ignores large volumes of skeletal evidence that Lucy did not in fact walk upright. The only real reason to discard Lucy’s clear anatomical evidence that she climbed trees and knuckle-walked is the Darwinist preference for her to be a fully-bipedal ape that was on her way toward evolving into a modern human. But this is circular.

What About Bad Design?

In chapter 11 of The Greatest Show on Earth, Richard Dawkins alludes to a number of systems which he regards to be badly or ‘unintelligently’ designed. The point he makes is a rather elementary logical fallacy — design does not have to be perfect; it just has to be good enough. The fact remains that living systems exhibit clear marks of the action of an intelligent agent, even if the design is somewhat less than perfect. As an analogy, consider Microsoft office software. Microsoft office applications often possess certain imperfections, but no-body would infer that the programming script was the product of undirected mechanisms. Ultimately, Richard Dawkins is here depending upon the utilisation of theological arguments in order to support his case. The theory of intelligent design states that certain features of the natural world exhibit indicators of intelligent design. Questions relating to the identity or skill of the designer are questions for theologians and philosophers to address, and thus stand independently from biological or scientific concerns.

Nonetheless, let us take one of Richard Dawkins’ examples of bad design, as presented in The Greatest Show on Earth, subject it to scrutiny and see how it holds up. If it can be demonstrated that there exists functional reasons for the relevant instances of apparent ‘bad design’ or if new evidence suggests a pattern of degenerative evolution (that is to say, evidence of decay of an otherwise rational and beneficial original design), then the argument would no longer hold water.

On page 353-355 of The Greatest Show on Earth, Richard Dawkins alludes to the often-cited example of the inversion of the vertebrate eye retina as an instance of ‘bad design’. However, recently identified functional reasons for this design challenge the old Darwinian claim. Biologist George Ayoub has shown, for example, that the vertebrate retina provides an excellent example of what engineers call a constrained optimisation, in which several competing design objectives are elegantly balanced to achieve an optimal overall design.

Light at various wavelengths is capable of inducing degenerative effects on biological machinery. The retina is clearly designed with the inbuilt purpose of withstanding the toxic and heating effects of light. The eye is well equipped to protect the retina against radiation from the outside world. Besides the almost complete exclusion of ultraviolate radiation by the cornea and the lens together, the retina also serves a crucial role in protection against such damage — for example, producing substances with combat the damaging chemical by-products of light radiation.

The photoreceptors, therefore, need to be in direct contact with the retinal pigment epithelium, which plays an essential part in sustaining them. The retinal pigment epithelium, in turn, requires to be in direct contact with the choroids. Both of these are required in order to satisfy the nutritional requirements and thus prevent overheating the retina from focused light (as a consequence of the heat sink effect of bloodflow).

If, conversely, the human retina were ‘wired’ the other way as Dawkins proposes that it should be, these two opaque layers would need to be interposed in the path of light to the photoreceptors , which really would be bad design!

Conclusion: Does Richard Dawkins have the goods?

Richard Dawkins continues in the same vein throughout his book. One favourable review of Dawkins’ book, published in The Guardian, commented that while The Greatest Show on Earth “demonstrates once again [Dawkins’] consummate skill as an explainer,” the science covered by the book mostly rehashed “pretty standard stuff.” The book fails to address the growing problems of biological information, the origin of life, how natural selection coupled with chance mutations can account for the origin of irreducibly complex systems, which continue to defy the Darwinism he preaches. Darwin called The Origin of Species ‘one long argument’ for his theory, but Richard Dawkins has given us one long bluff. The Greatest Show on Earth seeks to defend neo-Darwinism by appealing to theological arguments, by attempting to explain away the challenge of the Cambrian explosion by means of invoking ad-hoc conjectures, by exaggerating the evidence for the potentiality of natural selection, by misrepresenting design arguments, casting down ‘straw-men’, and by avoiding mention of the most sinister threats to the neo-Darwinian model of origins.

Another point which is worth mentioning is that one should not be so taken with the evidence that is consistent with evolution that we think we can ignore the evidence that contradicts it. And this isn’t a balancing act — weighing whether there is more evidence for or against the theory. We know from common experience that even a small amount of clearly contradictory evidence outweighs a large body of consistent evidence. A common thread running throughout Richard Dawkins’ book (The Greatest Show on Earth) is the analogy of weighing up incriminating evidence in a court of law. But in a court of law, no matter how much evidence appears to incriminate someone, it would be entirely outweighed by a reliable alibi that the accused was in a totally different location at the time of the crime. The same is true of science. Even a small amount of attestable data that clearly contradicts evolution is sufficient to demonstrate that it is false, despite a much larger body of evidence that is consistent with it.

The actual evidence shows that major features of the fossil record and cell biology are an embarrassment to Darwinian evolution. Judged by the normal criteria of empirical science, the data used to prop up neo-Darwinism is weak. We know today that there are multiple critical facts which strike hard blows at the conventional understanding of the theory. These are not merely trivial problems or anomalies that are likely to be solved, but fundamental matters that appear to be without prospect of solution.

A previous version of this essay was published on AllAboutScience.org.

Jesus and the Mithras Myth: Lee Strobel

2012-02-19T09:54:00.002-08:00

Refuting the False Claim that the Jesus Story is Based on Dionysus

2012-02-19T06:34:00.001-08:00

A Sunday Quote

2012-02-19T06:26:00.001-08:00

"One of the most disastrous illusions of the internet age is that an amateur plus Google is equivalent to a scholar. A search engine offers information, more or less relevant according to the skill of the searcher. But it does not sift that information; it does not sort fact from fancy, wheat from chaff. It does not explain which facts are relevant and which are beside the point. It does not weigh the merits of competing arguments and tell the user where the balance of evidence lies. A bright amateur armed with the internet may at best be better informed than he would otherwise have been, and he may occasionally catch a real scholar in a factual error. But it will not turn him into a scholar himself. There is no such thing as effortless erudition." Tim McGrew

Who is the Angel of the Lord?

2012-02-18T11:13:00.019-08:00

Throughout the Old Testament, we routinely encounter the mysterious character who goes by the title "The angel of the Lord." By looking at the numerous appearances of this individual, we can piece together clues as to His identity. The first time the angel of the Lord is introduced, he makes an appearance to Hagar, the servant of Abraham's wife Sarai. In Genesis 16:7-13, we read,

⁷ The angel of the LORD found Hagar near a spring in the desert; it was the spring that is beside the road to Shur. ⁸ And he said, “Hagar, slave of Sarai, where have you come from, and where are you going?”
“I’m running away from my mistress Sarai,” she answered.
⁹ Then the angel of the LORD told her, “Go back to your mistress and submit to her.” ¹⁰ The angel added, “I will increase your descendants so much that they will be too numerous to count.”
¹¹ The angel of the LORD also said to her:
“You are now pregnant
and you will give birth to a son.
You shall name him Ishmael,
for the LORD has heard of your misery.
¹² He will be a wild donkey of a man;
his hand will be against everyone
and everyone’s hand against him,
and he will live in hostility
toward all his brothers.
¹³ She gave this name to the LORD who spoke to her: “You are the God who sees me,” for she said, “I have now seen the One who sees me.” ¹⁴ That is why the well was called Beer Lahai Roi; it is still there, between Kadesh and Bered.

What is of particular interest here is that the angel of the Lord speaks as though He is distinct from Yahweh yet also presumes Himself to be the very mouthpiece of God. In fact, he speaks in the first person and says "I will increase your descendants." This is very peculiar. What's more, in verse 13, Hagar identifies the Angel of the Lord as "the God who sees me."

The second time we encounter the Angel of the Lord, He again speaks to Hagar regarding her Son Ishmael. In Genesis 21:17-18, we read,

¹⁷ God heard the boy crying, and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven and said to her, “What is the matter, Hagar? Do not be afraid; God has heard the boy crying as he lies there. ¹⁸ Lift the boy up and take him by the hand, for I will make him into a great nation.”

Notice that again, in verse 18, the angel of the Lord speaks using the first person ("...for I will make him into a great nation"), thus making Himself the very mouthpiece of God.

The third occasion on we encounter the angel of the Lord is the incident involving Abraham and Isaac on Mount Moriah. Just as Abraham is about to offer up his Son Isaac as a sacrifice unto the Lord, we read in Genesis 22:11-18,

¹¹ But the angel of the LORD called out to him from heaven, “Abraham! Abraham!”
“Here I am,” he replied.
¹² “Do not lay a hand on the boy,” he said. “Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.”
¹³ Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son. ¹⁴ So Abraham called that place The LORD Will Provide. And to this day it is said, “On the mountain of the LORD it will be provided.”
¹⁵ The angel of the LORD called to Abraham from heaven a second time ¹⁶ and said, “I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, ¹⁷ I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, ¹⁸ and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me.”

Again, the angel of the Lord uses the first person and assumes Himself to be none other than God Himself. In verse 12, he states, "you have not withheld from me your son, your only son." The angel also claims to be the one who gave Abraham the instruction to sacrifice his Son Isaac (verse 18) and that "I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore."

The fourth occasion on which we encounter the angel of the Lord is in Genesis 32, in which Jacob famously wrestles with God. In verses 1 and 2, we are told,

"Jacob also went on his way, and the angels of God met him. When Jacob saw them, he said, “This is the camp of God!” So he named that place Mahanaim." In verses 22-31, we read,

²² That night Jacob got up and took his two wives, his two female servants and his eleven sons and crossed the ford of the Jabbok. ²³ After he had sent them across the stream, he sent over all his possessions. ²⁴ So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak. ²⁵ When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob’s hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. ²⁶ Then the man said, “Let me go, for it is daybreak.”
But Jacob replied, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.”
²⁷ The man asked him, “What is your name?”
“Jacob,” he answered.
²⁸ Then the man said, “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with humans and have overcome.”
²⁹ Jacob said, “Please tell me your name.”
But he replied, “Why do you ask my name?” Then he blessed him there.
³⁰ So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, “It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.”
³¹ The sun rose above him as he passed Peniel, and he was limping because of his hip. ³² Therefore to this day the Israelites do not eat the tendon attached to the socket of the hip, because the socket of Jacob’s hip was touched near the tendon.

In this passage, Jacob names the place Peniel, saying that it was "because I saw God face to face and yet my life was spared." Hosea 12:4-5 also identifies the angel in this scene as the "Lord God Almighty."
The fifth time we meet the angel of the Lord is the Burning Bush appearance to Moses in Exodus 3. In verses 1-6, we read,

¹ Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian, and he led the flock to the far side of the wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. ² There the angel of the LORD appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. ³ So Moses thought, “I will go over and see this strange sight—why the bush does not burn up.”
⁴ When the LORD saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, “Moses! Moses!”
And Moses said, “Here I am.”
⁵ “Do not come any closer,” God said. “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground.” ⁶ Then he said, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.” At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God.

Curiously, on this occasion, "the angel of the Lord" and "God" are used interchangably. The angel of the Lord here describes Himself as "the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob."

The angel of the Lord also appears to Balaam (Numbers 22) and, in similar fashion, to Joshua (Joshua 5:13-15). We also encounter the angel of the Lord four times in the book of Judges. In Judges 2:1-4, we read,

¹ The angel of the LORD went up from Gilgal to Bokim and said, “I brought you up out of Egypt and led you into the land I swore to give to your ancestors. I said, ‘I will never break my covenant with you, ² and you shall not make a covenant with the people of this land, but you shall break down their altars.’ Yet you have disobeyed me. Why have you done this? ³ And I have also said, ‘I will not drive them out before you; they will become traps for you, and their gods will become snares to you.’”
⁴ When the angel of the LORD had spoken these things to all the Israelites, the people wept aloud, ⁵ and they called that place Bokim. There they offered sacrifices to the LORD.

Remarkably, the angel of the Lord here identifies Himself as the one who brought the Israelites out of the land of Egypt and led them into the promised land. Furthermore, the angel of the Lord identifies Himself as the one who made a covenant with the people of Israel -- one which He will never break.

In Judges 6:11-24, we again encounter the angel of the Lord. We read,

¹¹ The angel of the LORD came and sat down under the oak in Ophrah that belonged to Joash the Abiezrite, where his son Gideon was threshing wheat in a winepress to keep it from the Midianites. ¹² When the angel of the LORD appeared to Gideon, he said, “The LORD is with you, mighty warrior.”
¹³ “Pardon me, my lord,” Gideon replied, “but if the LORD is with us, why has all this happened to us? Where are all his wonders that our ancestors told us about when they said, ‘Did not the LORD bring us up out of Egypt?’ But now the LORD has abandoned us and given us into the hand of Midian.”
¹⁴ The LORD turned to him and said, “Go in the strength you have and save Israel out of Midian’s hand. Am I not sending you?”
¹⁵ “Pardon me, my lord,” Gideon replied, “but how can I save Israel? My clan is the weakest in Manasseh, and I am the least in my family.”
¹⁶ The LORD answered, “I will be with you, and you will strike down all the Midianites, leaving none alive.”
¹⁷ Gideon replied, “If now I have found favor in your eyes, give me a sign that it is really you talking to me. ¹⁸ Please do not go away until I come back and bring my offering and set it before you.”
And the LORD said, “I will wait until you return.”
¹⁹ Gideon went inside, prepared a young goat, and from an ephah of flour he made bread without yeast. Putting the meat in a basket and its broth in a pot, he brought them out and offered them to him under the oak.
²⁰ The angel of God said to him, “Take the meat and the unleavened bread, place them on this rock, and pour out the broth.” And Gideon did so. ²¹ Then the angel of the LORD touched the meat and the unleavened bread with the tip of the staff that was in his hand. Fire flared from the rock, consuming the meat and the bread. And the angel of the LORD disappeared. ²² When Gideon realized that it was the angel of the LORD, he exclaimed, “Alas, Sovereign LORD! I have seen the angel of the LORD face to face!”
²³ But the LORD said to him, “Peace! Do not be afraid. You are not going to die.”
²⁴ So Gideon built an altar to the LORD there and called it The LORD Is Peace. To this day it stands in Ophrah of the Abiezrites.

Again, the angel of the Lord is identified as none other than "the Lord" Himself (verses 14, 16, 23, 25, 27). In fact, Gideon asks for a sign to confirm that it really is God who is speaking to him. Gideon prepares a sacrifice and God consumes it by bringing fire from the rock. What's remarkable is that it is only God who is to be worshipped in this manner. When Gideon sees the fire from the rock, he is terrified. He recognises the implications of having seen God face-to-face (see Exodus 33:20), but he is re-assured that he is "not going to die."

Judges 13:2-25 is the most remarkable of the appearances of the angel of the Lord. The passage reads,

¹ Again the Israelites did evil in the eyes of the LORD, so the LORD delivered them into the hands of the Philistines for forty years.
² A certain man of Zorah, named Manoah, from the clan of the Danites, had a wife who was childless, unable to give birth. ³ The angel of the LORD appeared to her and said, “You are barren and childless, but you are going to become pregnant and give birth to a son. ⁴ Now see to it that you drink no wine or other fermented drink and that you do not eat anything unclean. ⁵ You will become pregnant and have a son whose head is never to be touched by a razor because the boy is to be a Nazirite, dedicated to God from the womb. He will take the lead in delivering Israel from the hands of the Philistines.”
⁶ Then the woman went to her husband and told him, “A man of God came to me. He looked like an angel of God, very awesome. I didn’t ask him where he came from, and he didn’t tell me his name. ⁷ But he said to me, ‘You will become pregnant and have a son. Now then, drink no wine or other fermented drink and do not eat anything unclean, because the boy will be a Nazirite of God from the womb until the day of his death.’”
⁸ Then Manoah prayed to the LORD: “Pardon your servant, Lord. I beg you to let the man of God you sent to us come again to teach us how to bring up the boy who is to be born.”
⁹ God heard Manoah, and the angel of God came again to the woman while she was out in the field; but her husband Manoah was not with her. ¹⁰ The woman hurried to tell her husband, “He’s here! The man who appeared to me the other day!”
¹¹ Manoah got up and followed his wife. When he came to the man, he said, “Are you the man who talked to my wife?”
“I am,” he said.
¹² So Manoah asked him, “When your words are fulfilled, what is to be the rule that governs the boy’s life and work?”
¹³ The angel of the LORD answered, “Your wife must do all that I have told her. ¹⁴ She must not eat anything that comes from the grapevine, nor drink any wine or other fermented drink nor eat anything unclean. She must do everything I have commanded her.”
¹⁵ Manoah said to the angel of the LORD, “We would like you to stay until we prepare a young goat for you.”
¹⁶ The angel of the LORD replied, “Even though you detain me, I will not eat any of your food. But if you prepare a burnt offering, offer it to the LORD.” (Manoah did not realize that it was the angel of the LORD.)
¹⁷ Then Manoah inquired of the angel of the LORD, “What is your name, so that we may honor you when your word comes true?”
¹⁸ He replied, “Why do you ask my name? It is beyond understanding.” ¹⁹ Then Manoah took a young goat, together with the grain offering, and sacrificed it on a rock to the LORD. And the LORD did an amazing thing while Manoah and his wife watched: ²⁰ As the flame blazed up from the altar toward heaven, the angel of the LORD ascended in the flame. Seeing this, Manoah and his wife fell with their faces to the ground. ²¹ When the angel of the LORD did not show himself again to Manoah and his wife, Manoah realized that it was the angel of the LORD.
²² “We are doomed to die!” he said to his wife. “We have seen God!”
²³ But his wife answered, “If the LORD had meant to kill us, he would not have accepted a burnt offering and grain offering from our hands, nor shown us all these things or now told us this.”
²⁴ The woman gave birth to a boy and named him Samson. He grew and the LORD blessed him, ²⁵ and the Spirit of the LORD began to stir him while he was in Mahaneh Dan, between Zorah and Eshtaol.

Manoah is instructed in verse 16 to make his offering to the Lord. The reason given is that "Manoah did not realize that it was the angel of the LORD." Manoah needed this explanation because he was going to offer this to the man, but did not even regard him as an angel, let alone the Lord Himself. Verses 17 -18 remind us of the wrestling match between the angel of the Lord and Jacob back in Genesis 32, in which the angel declines to give His name, instead saying, “Why do you ask my name?” The statement given in verse 18 of Judges 13 ("it is beyond understanding") has also been rendered "it is Wonderful." This bears a striking resemblance to Isaiah 9:6, in which one of the names given to the promised incarnate divine Messiah is "Wonderful." When Manoah and his wife make an offering to the Lord, the angel of the Lord ascends in the flame. This reminds us of the sacrifice of Christ who, being God incarnate, was made a sacrifice unto the Father. The ascension of the angel of the Lord in the flame which rises from the burnt offering on the alter carries much symbolic significance and undoubtedly represents the coming sacrifice of Christ as an atonement for sin.

Like those who had encountered the angel of the Lord before them, Manoah and his wife are fearful for their lives, as they recognise the implications of having seen God face-to-face.

In summary, we have seen that:

The angel of the Lord is repeatedly identified as God.
The angel of the Lord performes miraculous signs.
People expect to die after having encountered the angel of the Lord face-to-face, but none of them actually do die.
The name of the angel of the Lord is "wonderful".

So, to conclude our discussion, who is the angel of the Lord? As we read all of those accounts and piece together the consilience of clues, it becomes evident that the angel of the Lord is none other than the pre-incarnate Christ Himself. This makes sense in the context of the apostle John's description of Christ as "the word" of God (see John 1:1). Moreover, as John's gospel explains in 1: "No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known." And as Hebrews 1:3 declares, "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being." Christ describes Himself as the mouthpiece of God on earth and the revelation to mankind of what God is like (see Matthew 11:27). In fact, all that Jesus is and does interprets and explains who God is and what He does (see John 14:8-10).

Furthermore, it is the angel of the Lord who gives the command for the filthy rags to be taken off Joshua in Zechariah 3, and for him to be clothed in fine garments. The immediate context indicates that this is intended to symbolise the restoration of the priesthood of Israel. The text also symbolises, however, Christ clothing us with the garments of righteousness (Isaiah 61:10).

The angel of the Lord represents a christophany -- a pre-incarnation appearance of Jesus Christ. It also adds yet another example to the powerful and compelling cumulative case from the Bible's remarkable internal coherence and interconnectedness -- a phenomenon which can surely only be explained by the Bible's divine origin.

What About Those Who Have Never Heard? Greg Koukl

2012-02-17T14:28:00.001-08:00

Whats your Worldview?

2012-02-17T07:48:00.002-08:00

What we believe or assume about the world affects how we live in it, what we do, what we don't do and ultimately grounds all the big decisions we make in it. James Sire describes a worldview as:

"A worldview is a set of presuppositions (or assumptions) which we hold (consciously or subconsciously) about the basic make-up of our world."

Our worldview is one of the most important things to test, since if our worldview doesn't stand up to scrutiny then surely we have a responsibility to change it and live in accordance to one which does. What's your world-view and does it stand up to scrutiny?

Although clearly not an exhaustive map, its still interesting to work your way through.

For a good introductory article on worldviews you can read a great article at Probe here.

The GULO Pseudogene and Its Implications for Common Descent

2012-02-17T02:08:00.002-08:00

L-gulonolactone oxidase (GULO), the final enzyme in the biosynthetic pathway of ascorbic acid (vitamin C), is a subject that comes up often in discussions of common ancestry. The functioning GULO gene allows most plants and many animals to produce vitamin C from glucose or galactose. In some taxa, however, the GULO gene does not function in this capacity and is given the "pseudogene" label. The GULO gene is thought to be broken in humans (Nishikimi and Yagi, 1991), primates and guinea pigs (Nishikimi et al., 1994; Nishikimi et al., 1988), as well as in bats of the genus Pteropus (Cui et al., 2011).

When scientists compared the human GULO pseudogene to its functional counterpart in the rat genome, they found that regions equivalent to exons I to VI, as well as exon XI, were absent (Inai et al., 2003). This means that the human GULO pseudogene has only five exons out of the twelve found in the functional rat GULO gene. Other features of note associated with the human GULO pseudogene included one single nucleotide insertion, two single nucleotide deletions, and one triple nucleotide deletion. Researchers also identified additional stop codons. Similar mutations have been identified in the genome of chimpanzees, orangutans and macaques (Ohta and Nishikimi, 1999).

GULO and Common Descent

The GULO pseudogene -- particularly the identical base deletion in exon X at position 97 -- has long been used as an argument for establishing the validity of common descent.

Since 2003, ID proponents have been citing the claim of Inai et al. that parallel substitutious have occurred in the human and guinea-pig lineages. Inai et al. calculated the probability of attaining identical substitutions in those two lineages at the number of sites observed to be 1.83 x 10^-12, hypothesizing the phenomenon of mutational hotspots to account for this occurrence. This claim, however, is no longer tenable. As I mentioned, researchers used the rat sequence as a norm to compare the primate and guinea-pig sequence. It is more likely though that the rat GULO gene has mutated such that it is not representative of the ancestral sequence, rather than the convergence of the primate and guinea-pig sequence. This becomes clear when we consider a broader range of taxa (see here and here).

Inconsistent Use of Statistics

It is interesting to note that the argument for common ancestry based on common mutations affecting a segment of DNA is based on a form of reasoning that is uncannily similar to the specified-complexity criterion employed by advocates of design. Given the premise that mutations occur essentially at random, the inference to common ancestry is preferred over the chance hypothesis. Notice that the inference is justified not solely on the basis of high improbability (attaining the same specific mutations in multiple lineages is no more improbable than any other combination of mutations of the same number).

If the specific mutational combination occurred only once, however -- that is, before the divergence of the two lineages -- one no longer needs to explain how the same specific improbable combination of mutations occurred more than once. In this case, if we assume that there is no function for the pseudogene, as well as other assumptions (e.g. no hotspot mutations), then the common ancestry hypothesis seems preferable. If the event cannot be accounted for by common ancestry, then something fundamentally non-random must account for the phenomenon (this is what led Inai to postulate the existence of genomic hotspots where certain kinds of mutations occur with greater frequency). If Darwinists are happy to employ this kind of reasoning in their own defence of evolutionary theory, why do they object so vehemently to its use by advocates of ID?

After I had raised concerns about the prohibitive improbabilities facing the occurrence of many of the macromolecular functionally interdependent systems found in living systems, the renowned evolutionary biologist and philosopher Massimo Pigliucci wrote to me on an Internet forum,

"No evolutionary biologist I know...actually attaches probabilities to specific evolutionary events of the type you are talking about. There is no way to do that. Similarly, there is no way to attach probabilities to the set of physical laws regulating our universe, for the simple reason that we have no sample population to draw from (which is why typically you estimate probabilities)."

It was a bizarre statement, given the extent to which arguments for common descent depend on probabilistic considerations. Darwinists are quite happy to use probabilistic reasoning when it supports their case, but when a critic wants to use similar reasoning to show the limitations of the Darwinian mechanism, suddenly probabilities become incalculable and irrelevant.

What's more, as Jonathan Wells observes in the appendix of The Myth of Junk DNA, the GULO pseudogene argument is circular. Balakirev and Ayala (2003) and Khachane and Harrison (2009) take pseudogene similarities as evidence of function. When such similarities are explicable by reference to common descent, then it is taken as evidence for common descent. When such similarities are not explicable by common descent, on the other hand, it is taken as evidence of function. Moreover, there are many well documented cases of deep molecular convergence (for a catalogue, see Fazale Rana's contribution -- chapter 21 -- to The Nature of Nature). Again, when these instances are explicable by common descent, it is taken as evidence of shared ancestry. When these instances are not explicable by common descent, it is evidence of convergent evolution -- and thus the efficacy of the neo-Darwinian mechanism. This is classic circular reasoning.

Signs of Function?

There is actually some evidence to suggest that concentrations of ascorbic acid in the human fetus and in the neonate is not wholly explicable by the mother's intake of vitamin C in her diet. For example, a study conducted by Andersson et al. (1956) documented, over a period of five years, no more than two reports of infantile scurvy in malnourished South African Bantu infants. It was found that ascorbic acid plasma concentrations were comparable among infants who had been well nourished.

A further study, by Adlard et al. (1974), found substantially heightened vitamin C concentrations in the fetal human brain as compared to that of the adult. This concentration was found to fall with increased gestational age.

Salmenpera (1984) examined the levels of plasma vitamin C in infants who had been breast-fed as compared with controls who had been supplemented with vitamin C. They reported that the concentration of plasma vitamin C was the same or higher in the former compared to the latter. In fact, the concentration was roughly double the maternal concentration. The author reported, "Surprisingly, the infantile plasma concentration, which was already high compared with maternal concentration, continued to rise despite the decreasing concentration in milk ... the significance of this phenomenon is unknown."

Some researchers have actually suggested that the loss of a functional GULO may have provided a selective advantage for early man. For example, Calabrese (1982) wrote,

"Considerable controversy exists over the role of ascorbic acid in maintaining health and resisting a wide variety of diseases including cancer. It has been contended that the evolutionary loss of ascorbic acid synthesis capability in man has enhanced the occurrence of numerous chronic diseases and was essentially a maladaptive alteration which initially was well tolerated because early man lived in a habitat which supplied foods with amounts of vitamin C equivalent to what they normally may have synthesized. However, as humans migrated into habitats with less availability of vitamin C, the adverse aspects of the loss of ascorbic acid synthesizing capability came to be demonstrated (1,2). In contrast, this paper proposes that the loss of an ability to synthesize ascorbic acid in humans, far from being a neutral or totally negative mutation, may have been a critical preadaptation which markedly enhanced the survival of earlv man with a G-6-PD deficiency living in a malarial infested environment" [emphasis added]

What survival advantage might this have imparted? The paper explains,

"It is proposed that the loss of ability by humans to synthesize ascorbic aicd may have markedly enhanced the survival opportunities of early man living in a malarial infested environment. This hypothesis is based on biomedical evidence which indicates that glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G-6-PD) deficient individuals display enhanced sensitivity to ascorbic acid induced hemolysis which has been fatal at sufficiently hiqh doses and that the G-6-PD deficient trait has been selected for in malarial environments."

The highly toxic hydrogen peroxide is also known to be a biproduct of ascorbic acid biosynthesis (Banhegyi et al., 1997). Perhaps it is possible that vitamin C is produced endogenously -- and is, in fact, vital -- in utero, but that there are good biochemical reasons for supressing the expression of GULO later on -- when, in most cases, an adequate dietary intake of vitamin C has been reached.

Summary and Conclusion

The GULO pseudogene may or may not turn out to harbour some sort of function. With more and more papers coming out documenting a myriad of functions associated with pseudogenes, such a future finding should not come as a surprise. The hypothesis of limited common descent seems to me, for the time being, a reasonable one. Perhaps it is the case that all taxa belonging to the Primate Order are related by descent. Extending this inference to universal common descent, however, runs into substantial scientific problems. Whichever scenario turns out to be correct, it has no bearing on the question of the respective scientific merits of neo-Darwinism and intelligent design to account for the complexity of life.

This article was previously published on Evolution News & Views.

NT Wright on the Resurrection of Jesus

2012-02-16T04:28:00.001-08:00

Epistemology and the Mormon Testimony

2012-02-16T02:26:00.002-08:00

I am sure the first question most reading this is,what is epistemology? Sounds like it could be a swear word in some countries.

Epistemology is how you come to believe the thingsthat you believe. Or how do you know the things you know? It can be as simpleas how do you know you love your family? You would know this maybe from thestrong emotion you get when you see them or think about them, or how do youknow you are married to your spouse? This could be again the emotional link butalso as simple as the certificate you have which declares it to be so.

One of the big errors that can go on when it comesto religious discussion between any faiths, but I would say particularlybetween Born again Christians and Latter-day Saint members is the naturaldesire to discuss beliefs, but not how you come to this belief as there is avery significant difference in this between the two.

This is something the Mormon Missionaries willraise quite quickly when they ask you to

“Praywith all sincerity to see if the book of Mormon is true”.

This sounds very reasonable as what is wrong withpraying, however this question goes very deep in showing how different we arein how we evaluate what is true.

Members of the Mormon church use as their mainauthority for the truthfulness of the Mormon church a personal internalwitness, they refer to this as their testimony.

This comes from Mormon church history stating thatJoseph Smith was wondering which of the Christian churches were true, inreading the bible he came across James 1:5 which says:

Ifany of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally,and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

Joseph took this as to mean pray and ask whichchurch is true, this led him to pray and thus came a vision of God saying allof the churches are wrong, dont join any of them, this paved the way for therestoration through the Latter-Day saint church.

This is also spelt out more clearly in the book ofMormon, Moroni 10:3-5 says this:

Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall readthese things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye wouldremember how merciful the Lord hathbeen unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until thetime that ye shall receive these things, and ponderit in your hearts. And when ye shall receive these things, Iwould exhort you that ye would ask God, the EternalFather, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with realintent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truthof it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the HolyGhost ye may know the truth of all things.

Mormons today state that going on the direction ofthis verse they pray and ask if the Mormon church is true and most if not allmembers claim to have had a spiritual experience when doing this. For some itis a warm sensation in their heart known as “the burning in the bosom”, forsome it is just a sense of being awakened to the truthfulness of the Mormonchurch but all claim this is the moment that they realized the church is true.

This is what LDS member Mark Alan says about it.

Allof my ancestors for several generations back were Mormons, so I was raised aMormon. But there came a time in my life (as there is in all peoples lives)when they start to question the things taught be their parents. I was ateenager and I enjoyed going to church, and doing all the activities that wentalong with that, but I wasn’t sure if everything I had been taught was true.Specifically, I wanted to know if the Book of Mormon really was from God, or ifthe book was made up by Joseph Smith. I knew it had to be one or the other. Idecided I would read the book and pray about it. I had learned that the Book ofMormon has a promise in the last pages. In Moroni 10:3-5 I learned that if Iread with real intent, and prayed about the book, I could learn the truththrough the power of the Holy Ghost. I wasn’t quite sure what to expect. As Iread the book, I started to feel a burning sensation in my heart. I feltpeaceful and happy, and suddenly it all started to make sense. Later I realizedthat the Holy Ghost was testifying to my that what I was reading was true. Here

So as we can see this is a very personal and verysignificant thing for Mormon church members, once a month they have a testimonymeeting on a sunday morning where many will in turn and often emotionally beartheir testimony, which is a declaration that they “know the church is true”.What I want to look at is, is this thinking biblical, where does it come from,and what is the best Christian response?

Is the concept of the Mormon Testimony Biblical?And if not how should you respond when asked to pray about it?

To look at this I have to explore what is ChristianEpistemology? Christians when they come to faith in Christ, giving themselvesto Him in a prayer of faith are putting their trust in Him, this trust mighthave come from reading the bible, it might have come from hearing a preacher,hearing a life story, or it could even come from evidence for Christianity, andthere are many many more things it could come from.

I was a 17 year old teenager living the same lifeas many other teenagers, hating college through the week, getting drunk at theweekend and just living a normal enough life for people around me(not that allteenagers do this). I had no interest or belief in God that I could speak ofand was quite happy that way. For me personally I got invited along to an eventcalled the Alpha course and I went just because it was something different withfree food in a nice place. I expected to be told I waesn’t good enough and Iwould have to shape up to go to heaven.

In reality week by week I was presented withstories of lives changed by a living, active and loving God, week by week thisgot more of my interest but I still wasn’t ready to act on it. Then we lookedat sin, of all the weeks I would have expected to feel bad on this one, butinstead I was shown that as someone separate from God I was lost in my sin, andin my own strength by my own good works I was powerless to change that. Thenthe message of Christs sacrificial amazing grace filled love struck my heartmore than ever before. Then at that weekend, rather than getting drunk Iwas reading a booklet in my bedroom that talked about putting your faith inChrist, so I did it, I simply prayed a prayer of commitment. This didn’t leadto lightening bolts from the sky however I simply became aware of God and Hislove for me and I saw the world from then on in a different way. My attitudeschanged and church and the bible and prayer all became privileges rather thanthings I felt I should do, in a way that was my internal witness that God lovedand accepted me.

It is important to note that the actual internalwitness for me came after conversion, yes my heart was struck by the words thatwere said however it was the words of the gospel that I responded to, and notany emotion or feeling inside me. This ties in with the bible which doesabsolutely teach there there is an internal change or witness, however thisoccurs after we give ourselves to God.

Romans8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit,that we are the children of God:

This happened to me, however as I said this feelingdid not cause me to become a Christian it came after. Why is that important?Because we respond to the word of God not an internal feeling for trueconversion.

Romans10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing bythe word of God.

The bible does not say you can “know” anything istrue from an internal witness it says that you respond by faith towards Christand He then steps towards you. Going on to what the bible says about how tomeasure what is true, the bible says that God’s word is the measure of what istrue.

In the book of Act’s we see a story of Paulpreaching to the berean’s, when presented with a message that was clearlydifferent to what they believed they did what Christians should do to measurewhat is true.

Acts17:11 These were more noble than those inThessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, andsearched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

They searched the Scriptures, and the bible hereeven calls them noble also, they did not pray about it to maybe see how theyfelt about it, they searched the scriptures to see of what they were hearingmeasured up to that.

2Timothy 3:16 says All scripture is given by inspiration ofGod, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, forinstruction in righteousness.

Scripture is where you go as it is profitable fordoctrine, reproof, correction and righteousness. I have always said to MormonMissionaries that if they can show me in the bible that what they believe istrue then I will seriously consider my position. In the end time and time againwhen it has been clearly shown this is not the case then I get told “Well BobbyI know the church is true”. This is in the face of biblical as well as other evidencesand is sadly not biblical, the bible never says pray to see what is true as thereality is these good feelings you feel are not necessarily of God.

As a side note James 1:5 is actually misquoted whenused as a way to measure truth. Firstly it is wrote to Christians so thereforeit is wrote to people who have already found faith anyway and I heavily doubtJames was trying to move them on to other beliefs. Secondly wisdom is nottruth, wisdom is asking God in your day to day live to help you live in a Godlyway, it is not asking God in your day to day life what is true. So when youhave a Mormon Missionary in your living room asking you to pray about thesethings there are two reasons why you should not do it.

1. The bible clearly shows the measure of truth isthe scripture you already have, so what Mormonism says should be measuredagainst the bible. Missionaries have said to me in the past that what theybelieve is biblical. After a few challenges to this one missionary said to me “Wellbobby your destroying my faith in the bible”. I wasn’t quite sure what to dowith that.

2. This is in reality a psychological trap. Thismay sound a bit harsh but lets take away all this bible talk for a minute,think about this. A Mormon missionary says to you “pray with all sincerity thisis true”. What happens if you pray that the book of Mormon is true and actuallyfeel nothing, that must mean its not true right? Or depending how post-modernyou are it might mean its not true for you. So you may do this and think that’sa relief don’t need to change my faith, its not true anyway. So you go back tothe Mormon missionaries and say sorry guys I felt nothing so I guess this isn’tfor me. Hey wait a second they will say, you just haven’t prayed with enoughsincerity you need to pray again! And thats where the circular reasoning comesin as what they are saying is this is true! You just need to keep praying untilyou feel it is! And sometimes people will meet up with the Missionaries forweeks or months, they will like them, like their church and want to be part ofa community like that, however they will be told you have to have your owntestimony, so they will pray week after week waiting for that feeling, and thereality is, they will get a feeling. Or imagine someone brought up in a Mormonfamily, maybe a male expected to go on a mission and their whole culture issurrounded by Mormonism, maybe a male expected to go on a mission, however itis expected they have to have a testimony as that is the basis they areexpected to have, I can’t imagine after 18 years of Mormonism they are notgoing to get a feeling its true.

Proverbs8:26 says: He that trusteth in his own heart is afool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered.

Many may understandably quote Luke 24:32this says: And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us,while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?This verse underlines the danger of my post, which is simply saying thatemotions and feelings are never useful, they are! However they have to bealined with scripture, it cannot work the other way around. You cannot trustyour feelings to determine what is true, there has to be something external.The sad reality is that many LDS scholars have admitted that the book of Mormonhas no external archaeological evidence, and the gospel the Mormon churchteaches is contrary to the bible this sadly means its members are left alonewith an internal feeling and sadly not the gift of righteousness by faith alonein Christ.

So as a born again Christian meeting up with MormonMissionaries please do not agree to pray about the book of Mormon but ratherask them to show you if what they are saying is biblical and see if the Jesusand salvation that they are talking about even remotely resembles the one youknow.

Where does theconcept of Mormon Testimony come from?

Many LDS may or may not know this but JosephSmith’s religious background is Methodist, history records that Smith appliedfor membership in the Methodist church in 1828, interestingly 8 years after therevelation that all otherchurches were false.

However why this is relevant is that the founder ofthe Methodist church John Wesley said this in his journal about his conversion:

‘In the evening I went very unwillingly to asociety in Aldersgate Street, where one was reading Luther’s preface to theEpistle to the Romans. About a quarter before nine, while he was describing thechange which God works in the heart through faith in Christ, I felt my heartstrangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone, for salvation:and an assurance was given me, that He had taken away my sins, even mine, andsaved me from the law of sin and death.’ Here

This is now a very key part of Methodist thinking,on the official Methodist website under the heading of assurance of salvationWesley is quoted here as this being his assurance.

Interestingly both the Methodist and the Mormonwitness have both had the title “Burning in the bosom” used to describe them.In the very least it is an interesting comparison and could account for whereJoseph Smith got this thinking from.

So thank you for reading please leave a commentwith any of your thoughts or comments.

Original article by Bobby Gilpin of UK Partnerships for Christ

What have we done to the Gospel? Paul Washer

2012-02-15T04:56:00.000-08:00

The UK Christianity Crisis

2012-02-14T12:45:00.001-08:00

What is the greatest threat to Christianity in the UK? Secularism? Growing atheism? Loss of Christian tradition? Less people identifying as Christians?

For me, it is none of these. To the contrary, I think the greatest threat to Christianity in the UK is the presence of a 'Christian' tradition. Let me explain what I mean.

Ipsos MORI have just released survey results, taken from those who say they were recorded as Christian in the 2011 census, or who would have put themselves down as Christian.

To begin with, there are a few problems with the study: the obvious one is that this is not actually a survey of people who identify as Christians. Rather, it is a survey of people who were recorded as Christian - a lot of the respondents said they would not have filled in "Christian" if they filled it in themselves. So the results are probably not as bad as they come across. But nevertheless, I think there is serious cause for concern here. Let me give a few examples of questions and responses:

Q19. Which of the following statements best describes YOUR personal view of God?

I believe in God and I believe that Christianity is just one way of knowing him 37%

I believe in God and I believe that Christianity is the only true way of knowing him 17%

I think of God as being the laws of nature and everything in the universe 13%

I don’t believe in God but think there may be some kind of supernatural intelligence out there 10%

I think of God as being whatever caused the universe 9%

I don’t believe in God 6%

None of these 1%

Don’t know 4%

Prefer not to say 2%

So, only 54% of people named as Christians believe in God in any non-pantheistic sense, and 10% of named Christians are explicitly pagan. Not a great start.

Q23. What is the first book of the NEW Testament?

Matthew 35%

Genesis 19%

Acts of the Apostles 3%

Psalms 3%

Don’t know 39%

Prefer not to say 1%

It would be easy to get into self-righteousness here: fair enough, not everyone is great at keeping up with their Bible reading, and some don't have great memories. And, of course, the order of New Testament books is not necessarily of enormous importance. But 35% correct is still pretty low, and the results leave the reader baffled as to why anyone would "prefer not to say"(???).

Q24. Which of the following BEST describes your belief about the resurrection?

Jesus came back to life spiritually but not physically after being dead 39%

Jesus came back to life physically after being dead 32%

I do not believe in the resurrection 18%

None of these 1%

Don’t know 7%

Prefer not to say 3%

I guess this is relatively more encouraging: 71% of people identified as Christians believe that Jesus was resurrected in at least some sense. Given that over 50% of the population were identified as Christians by the census, this gives a result of 30-40% of the UK population believing in Jesus' resurrection. I'm surprised that it's this high, personally, so this was an encouragement in at least some way. But, of course, the problem is that only 32% of Christians believe in the cornerstone of Christianity, of which Paul wrote: "If Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless and you are still in your sins". So, swings and roundabouts.

Q25. Which of the following BEST describes your view about Jesus?

Jesus is the Son of God, the Saviour of mankind 44

Jesus was a man who gave us a role model for how to live 32

Jesus was just a man 13

I do not believe Jesus really existed 4

None of these 1

Don’t know 4

Prefer not to say 3

I suppose this is similar to the last one. Encouraged and puzzled by the result that around 20-25% of the UK population believe Jesus is the Son of God, but more than underwhelmed that only 44% of Christians believe this. Also, 4% of Christians don't believe that Jesus really existed? I'm surprised anyone of any persuasion would believe that - very depressing.

Views on social issues are interesting, at least - there seems to be a clear shift. Only 28% of Christians agreed that homosexual relations were wrong, and a huge 63% believed that a woman should be able to have an abortion if she wants one, provided it was within the legal time limit. Only 23% believed that sex is only acceptable within marriage.

The last set of questions were quite worrying. Here's a selection:

Q48. Overall, how important, if at all, is Christianity in your life?

Very important 21%

Fairly important 39%

Not very important 27%

Not at all important 11%

Don’t know 1%

Prefer not to say 1%

So 38% of Christians regarded Christianity as unimportant. Awkward. The next one's pretty scary:

Q49. When it comes to right and wrong, which of the following, if any, do you MOST

look to for guidance?

My own inner moral sense 54%

Parents, family or friends 25%

Religious teachings and beliefs 10%

Philosophy and reason 7%

None of the above 2%

Don’t know 1%

Prefer not to say 1%

I will leave the commentary on this one to the reader. The final question I'll give is the most concerning, I think:

Q51. Which is the ONE statement that BEST describes what being a Christian means

to you personally?

I try to be a good person 40%

It’s how I was brought up 24%

I have accepted Jesus as my Lord and Saviour 15%

I believe in the teachings of Jesus 7%

It’s a British tradition 4%

It gives me hope in an afterlife 3%

Something else 0%

Don’t know 2%

Prefer not to say 4%

This is where it is really problematic. Brothers and sisters, for whatever reason, we have failed to communicate the news, the gospel of Jesus, to our country. Millennia have gone by with humans striving to be good, trying to earn God's favour and trying to attain salvation by our own deeds. The attempt to be saved, to reach the highest good, by our own merit is a fundamental misunderstanding of grace, and is most often rooted in idolatry, where humans fail to see the absolutely gracious and merciful nature of God, and exchange it for something they feel they can reach themselves.

Christianity teaches us differently, that while we were yet enemies of God, He reached out to us and offered us his redemptive, saving arm, regardless of what we had done. That we have not communicated this to our countrypeople is a travesty, and ought to make us reconsider how we can reclaim the challenge and news of the gospel, and use this scandalous message to help open hearts to Jesus.

Is The Original New Testament Lost? A Dialogue with Dr. Bart Ehrman & Dr. Daniel Wallace

2012-02-14T12:30:00.000-08:00

Richard Dawkins Struggles to Remember "The Origin of Species" Title Against Rev Giles Fraser.

2012-02-14T09:47:00.000-08:00

On the Origin of Mitochondria: Reasons for Skepticism on the Endosymbiotic Story

2012-02-14T05:31:00.002-08:00

I was saddened to learn of the recent passing of biologist Lynn Margulis. Margulis, a scientist whom I admired greatly, was never a stranger to controversy, going so far as to call neo-Darwinism "a complete funk" and asserting that "The critics, including the creationist critics, are right about their criticism. It's just that they've got nothing to offer by intelligent design or 'God did it.' They have no alternatives that are scientific." She was a scientist who wasn't afraid to think creatively, disregarding the scorn of her colleagues. According to the Telegraph, a response to one grant application she made said: "Your research is crap. Don't ever bother to apply again."

Lynn Margulis took a controversial view on how evolution works, stressing the importance of symbiotic and co-operative relationships over competition. This concept of evolution inspired what is now recognized as her most notable idea, the notion that the eukaryotic mitochondrion -- the power plant of the cell -- was acquired by virtue of an endosymbiotic event. Endosymbiotic theory essentially maintains that mitochondria arose by virtue of a symbiotic union of prokaryote cells. The nearest living relative to the mitochondrion is thought to be the alpha-proteobacteria Rickettsia (Emelyanov, 2000; Andersson et al., 1998). Chloroplasts are also thought to have arisen in a similar manner from the photosynthetic cyanobacteria.

In November 2010, I drew attention to a paper in Nature by Nick Lane and Bill Martin, who showed that the prokaryote-to-eukaryote transition was effectively impossible without the energy demands, pertinent to the biggest event of gene manufacture in the history of life on earth, being met by the mitochondrial processes of oxidative phosphorylation and the electron transport chain. The bacterial cell alone could not meet these energy demands.

The evidence that is typically offered for endosymbiotic theory includes the following:

Mitochondria possess a circular genome (lacking in introns and independent from the nuclear DNA) in which transcription is coupled to translation, characteristic of bacterial DNA. There are also some other notable similarities. For example, in both mitochondria and Mycoplasma, the codon UGA specifies the amino acid Tryptophan (Hayashi-Ishimaru et al., 1997; Martin et al., 1980; Inamine et al., 1990; Yamao, 1985), whereas in the conventional code it serves as a stop codon.

Mitochondria divide and replicate independently of host cell division and do so in a manner akin to binary fission, possessing homologues of the bacterial division protein FtsZ (Kiefel et al., 2004).

They are enclosed by a double-membrane.

Mitochondria and bacteria are of a similar size and shape.

Circular Mitochondrial Genome

As noted, one of the core arguments for endosymbiosis points to its circular genome. What is often not noted, however, are the cases where eukaryotic mitochondria have linear genomes with eukaryotic telomeres (Rycovska et al., 2004; Nosek et al., 1998; Fukuhara et al., 1993). Indeed, two strains of the same species of yeast differ with respect to the linearity or circularity of their mitochondrial genome (Fukuhara et al., 1993; Drissi et al., 1994).

In the case of linear chromosomes, the DNA polymerase enzymes are unable to replicate right to the end of the chromosome. This is because the enzymes are unable to replace the lagging strand's terminal RNA primer. Unless there is a mechanism for circumventing this, it will result in the chromosomes shortening after each round of replication (in eukaryotes, the enzyme telomerase attaches extra DNA to the chromosomal ends). This means that the transition from genome circularity to linearity -- a fete in itself given the changes that have to be made to the mode of replication -- must happen in concert with the evolution of a mechanism to prevent progressive chromosomal shortening. Such an evolutionary transition is far from trivial. Biologist Albert de Roos writes,

"[I]n linear mitochondrial chromosomes various different mechanisms to "prevent" shortening exist, ranging from hairpin loops and self-priming to protein-assisted primer synthesis (see here). The telomeric regions of mitochondrial chromosomes do not seem to have a direct phylogenetic relation since they use other proteins and mechanisms than nuclear telomeres. Thus, it is difficult to deduce evolutionary pathways purely based on phylogenetic data on telomeres and mechanisms for end replication."

Furthermore, mitochondrial genes often do possess introns (Lang et al., 2007). These are particularly prevalent in the mtDNA of fungi and plants. The mitochondrial genetic code may also be slightly different from that of bacteria (Jukes and Osawa, 1990).

Mitochondrial DNA Replication

The claim one often hears is that circular mitochondrial DNA replication resembles bacterial binary fission. While this is true, in at least some respects, there are also important differences. For example, many of the key components are of eukaryotic origin and replication beginning at the Displacement (D-) loop (Fish et al., 2004; Clayton, 1996) is not the same as bacterial DNA replication.

Double Membrane

It is frequently asserted that the double membrane of mitochondria provides evidence for its endosymbiotic origin. There are, however, important differences between bacterial and mitochondrial membranes. Albert de Roos observes,

"The bacterial membrane is one of the basic characteristics that distinguish bacteria from eukaryotes, see some examples here. In order for mitochondria to resemble bacterial membranes, they should share characteristics such as a cell wall with peptidoglycan and lipopolysaccharides, gram-staining and antibiotic sensitivity. Some effects of antibiotics have been seen with both bacteria and mitochondria, but the effect is minor while the use of antibiotics is based on the principle that they distinguish between bacteria and eukarytes, including the mitochondrion (here). Until then, the selection of a few apparent similarities while ignoring the many differences does not indicate a bacterial origin for mitochondria. On the contrary, the fact that their membranes are so different as well as the fact that nearly all genes are encoded by the nucleus is primarily evidence against a bacterial origin.
Even though some shared characteristics may be found, we have to realize that bacterial and eukaryotic membranes are fundamentally different. It seems virtually impossible to change all fundamental bacterial membrane characteristics and replace them with a eukaryotic counterpart without loosing membrane integrity. The differences between the membranes of mitochondria and the cell walls of bacteria make the endosymbiotic theory mechanistically difficult. It seems quite clear that bacterial membranes do not change easily into other membranes, and frankly I don't see any scenarios in which to change all these membrane components without drastically affecting fitness."

The Size and Shape of Mitochondria

The argument based on the size and shape of mitochondria is one that has been turned on its head in recent years, being transformed from an argument for endosymbiosis to one against it. These organelles are now acknowledged in the literature to be better understood as dynamic reticular structures (see this link for references).

Electron micrographs displaying cross-sections of mitochondria portrayed the mitochondrion as a sphere. However, when one looks at 3D models of the organelle, the reality is somewhat different. You can take a look at some of these images by going here, here, here, or here.

The Lack of a Mechanism

By far the most potent challenge to the endosymbiotic origin of eukaryotic mitochondria is the lack of a viable mechanism, perhaps most particularly with respect to the transfer of genes from the mitochondrion to the nucleus.

For one thing, there are the variants on the conventional genetic code. This means that, over the course of their transfer to the nucleus, the genes would need to be "recoded" so as to comply with the conventional genetic code. For example, recognizing UGA as a stop codon instead of the codon for Tryptophan (or vice versa) would cause cellular mayhem.

Secondly, mitochondrial proteins made at the ribosomes in the eukaryote cytoplasm need to be identified as such to ensure that they are properly dispatched (this is normally done by attaching a "label" in the form of an extra length of polypeptide to the protein). This would require a coincidental modification of the correct structural gene (which seems unlikely). Biologist Timothy G. Standish notes,

"If genes were to move from the mitochondria to the nucleus they would have to somehow pick up the leader sequences necessary to signal for transport before they could be functional.

While leader sequences seem to have meaningful portions on them, according to Lewin (1997, p251) sequence homology between different sequences is not evident, thus there could be no standard sequence that was tacked on as genes were moved from mitochondria to nucleus.

Alternatively, if genes for mitochondrial proteins existed in the nucleus prior to loss of genes in the mitochondria, the problem remains, where did the signal sequences come from? And where did the mechanism to move proteins with signal sequences on them come from?"

Albert de Roos explains,

"All evolutionary theories must offer an explanation in mechanistic terms of how it should or could have happened in order to be tested. The difficult thing with the endosymbiotic theory is that it proposes no real mechanism and most textbooks show the simplistic picture of a cell that swallows another cell that becomes a mitochondrion. Unfortunately, it is not so simple as that. There is a difference between the process of endosymbiosis and its incorporation in the germline, necessitating genetic changes. What were those changes? What was the host? Was it a fusion, was it engulfment, how did the mitochondrion get its second membrane, how did two genomes in one cell integrate and coordinate? The theory is also strongly teleological, illustrated by the widely used term 'enslavement'. But how do you enslave another cell, how do you replace its proteins and genes without affecting existing functions? The existence of obligate bacterial endosymbionts in some present eukaryotes is often presented as a substitute for a mechanism, but they remain bacteria and give not rise to new organelles. So, before we can speak of the endosymbiotic as a testable scientific theory, we need a mechanistic scenario which is lacking at the moment.
When we do try to envision a mechanistic scenario based on the endosymbiotic theory, we quickly run into problems. Genetic mutations that allow bacteria to thrive in the cytoplasm would not be strategic for survival. Anaerobic cells normally do not survive in environment that contains oxygen, while the endosymbiont would need oxygen in order to present fitness advantage. The two organisms would initially compete for energy sources since bacteria are users of ATP and do not export it. The extensive gene transfer that is needed in the endosymbiotic theory would wreak havoc in a complex genome since frequent insertion of random pieces of mitochondrial DNA would disrupt existing functions. Furthermore, gene transfer is a multi-step process were genes need to be moved to the nucleus, the different genetic code of mitochondria needs to be circumvented, the genes need to be expressed correctly, as well as imported back into the mitochondria in order to be functional. All in all, mechanistic scenarios for the endosymbiotic theory imply many non-functional intermediates or would just be plain harmful to an organism. Therefore, the endosymbiotic theory is in contrast with the concept of gradualism that forms the basis of modern evolutionary theory."

Furthermore, this gene transfer must have taken place at a time extremely early in the history of eukaryotes, substantially reducing the window of time in which gene transfer could have occurred.

Summary and Conclusion

While we find examples of similarity between eukaryotic mitochondria and bacterial cells, other cases also reveal stark differences. In addition, the sheer lack of a mechanistic basis for mitochondrial endosymbiotic assimilation ought to -- at the very least -- give us reason for caution and the expectation of some fairly spectacular evidence for the claim being made. At present, however, such evidence does not exist -- and justifiably gives one cause for skepticism.

This article was originally published on Evolution News & Views.

Will The Archbishop of Canterbury Debate Richard Dawkins?

2012-02-13T14:31:00.001-08:00

What Is Evidence? - Tim McGrew

2012-02-12T14:42:00.000-08:00

Thought I'd share a piece from a philosopher and friend, Tim McGrew, from the Routledge Companion to Epistemology. Tim has done a tonne of work in Epistemology, the Historical Jesus and Philosophy of Religion, and shares a number of insights here, especially with regard to the common sceptical claim that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

Check the whole piece out here, and feel free to read through this taster:

"Another common slogan, also popularized by Sagan, is that Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Much depends, of course, on what counts as extraordinary, both in a claim and in evidence. It cannot be simply that a claim is unprecedented. At a certain level of detail, almost any claim is unprecedented; but this does not necessarily mean that it requires evidence out of the ordinary to establish it. Consider this claim: “Aunt Matilda won a game of Scrabble Thursday night with a score of 438 while sipping a cup of mint tea.” Each successive modifying phrase renders the claim less likely to have occurred before; yet there is nothing particularly unbelievable about the claim, and the evidence of a single credible eyewitness might well persuade us that it is true.

The case is more difficult with respect to types of events that are deemed to be improbable or rare in principle, such as miracles. It is generally agreed in such discussions that such events cannot be common and that it requires more evidence to render them credible than is required in ordinary cases. (Sherlock 1769) David Hume famously advanced the maxim that No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish (Beauchamp 2000, p. 87), which may have been the original inspiration for the slogan about extraordinary evidence. The proper interpretation of Hume’s maxim has been a source of some debate among Hume scholars, but one plausible formulation in probabilistic terms is that

P(M|T) > P(~M|T) only if P(M) > P(T|~M),

where M is the proposition that a miracle has occurred and T is the proposition describing testimonial evidence that it has occurred. This conditional statement is not a consequence of Bayes’s Theorem, but the terms of the latter inequality are good approximations for the terms of the exact inequality

P(M) P(T|M) > P(~M) P(T|~M)

when both P(~M) and P(T|M) are close to 1. There is, then, a plausible Bayesian rationale for Hume’s maxim so long as we understand it to be an approximation.

It does not follow that the maxim will do the work that Hume (arguably) and many of his followers (unquestionably) have hoped it would. Hume appears to have thought that his maxim would place certain antecedently very improbable events beyond the reach of evidence. But as John Earman has argued (Earman 2000), an event that is antecedently extremely improbable, and in this sense extraordinary, may be rendered probable under the right evidential circumstances, since it is possible in principle that

P(T|M)/P(T|~M) > P(~M)/P(M),

a condition sufficient to satisfy the rigorous condition underlying Hume’s maxim and the slogan about extraordinary events. The maxim is therefore less useful as a dialectical weapon than is often supposed. It may help to focus disagreements over extraordinary events, but it cannot resolve them."

Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans: Stephen C. Meyer

2012-02-12T11:49:00.000-08:00

Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - More amazing videos are a click away

A Sunday Quote For Darwin Day

2012-02-12T07:43:00.000-08:00

"A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question." Charles Darwin

Happy Academic Freedom Day everybody! http://www.academicfreedomday.com/

Tim Keller and Mike Cain talks

2012-02-11T05:26:00.000-08:00

This week, Tim Keller and Mike Cain have been giving a series of talks for Oxford University's Mission Week. There are still a couple to be put online at the time of writing, but do feel free to check them out - both are terrific communicators! Watch or listen to them here.

Discovery Institute 2012 Summer Seminars, JULY 6-14, 2012 Seattle, WA

2012-02-10T12:41:00.000-08:00

Two years ago, I had the tremendous opportunity to travel to Seattle, Washington, and take part in Discovery Institute’s yearly summer seminar for undergraduate and graduate students. Truth be told, it was one of the most memorable experiences of my life. I had the chance to interact at a one-on-one level with key ID scholars including William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, Paul Nelson, Richard Sternberg, Stephen C. Meyer, Scott Minnich, Michael Behe, Douglas Axe, Ann Gauger, Jay Richards, and Bruce Gordon (and more!). I also made many good friends from all over the world, most of whom I have remained in contact with even until now. If you are a postgraduate or undergraduate student who is keen on ID and is swithering on whether or not this is for you, then I strongly encourage you to apply! Not only will you get connected with many phenomenal like-minded people, you will never think the same way about ID and evolution ever again! Best of all, if you are accepted for the program, you needn’t pay a cent! Travel expenses, lodging, meals, the lot, are fully funded.

Even if your academic discipline isn’t in the natural sciences, you needn’t worry — there is a program which is specifically geared towards those with a background in social sciences, humanities, law or theology!

Below are the details and information you need to APPLY.

———————————–

Details here:

“The Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute announces two intensive 9-day seminars for college students during the summer of 2012.

The CSC Seminar on Intelligent Design in the Natural Sciences will prepare students to make research contributions advancing the growing science of intelligent design (ID). The seminar will explore cutting-edge ID work in fields such as molecular biology, biochemistry, embryology, developmental biology, paleontology, computational biology, ID-theoretic mathematics, cosmology, physics, and the history and philosophy of science. The seminar will include presentations on the application of intelligent design to laboratory research as well as frank treatment of the academic realities that ID researchers confront in graduate school and beyond, and strategies for dealing with them. Although the primary focus of the seminar is science, there also will be discussion of the worldview implications of the debate over intelligent design. Participants will benefit from classroom instruction and interaction with prominent ID researchers and scholars. Past seminars have included such speakers as Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, Paul Nelson, Jay Richards, Douglas Axe, Ann Gauger, Richard Sternberg, Robert Marks, Scott Minnich, and Bruce Gordon. The seminar is open to students who intend to pursue graduate studies in the natural sciences or the philosophy of science. Applicants must be college juniors or seniors or already in graduate school.

Do you have a commitment to truth and to following the evidence where it leads? Do you have the desire, the vision and the determination necessary to breathe new purpose into the scientific enterprise and influence its self-understanding in ways that will benefit both science and humanity? Apply to become one of a select group of students participating in this exciting workshop.

Admission Requirements: You must be currently enrolled in a college or university as a junior, senior, or graduate student. Required application materials include (1) a resume/cv, (2) a copy of your academic transcript, (3) a short statement of your interest in intelligent design and its perceived relationship to your career plans and field of study, and (4) either a letter of recommendation from a professor who knows your work and is friendly toward ID, or a phone interview with the seminar director.

Room, Board, and Travel Costs: Students selected for these seminars will be provided with course materials, lodging and most meals. Travel assistance will also be provided up to a specified amount.

The C.S. Lewis Fellows Program on Science and Society will explore the growing impact of science on politics, economics, social policy, bioethics, theology, and the arts during the past century. The program is named after celebrated British writer C.S. Lewis, a perceptive critic of both scientism and technocracy in books such as The Abolition of Man and That Hideous Strength. Topics to be addressed include the history of science, the relationship between faith and science, the rise of scientific materialism, the debate over Darwinian theory and intelligent design, evolutionary conceptions of ethics, science and economics, science and criminal justice, stem cell research and abortion, eugenics, family life and sexuality, ecology and animal rights, climate change, the impact of evolutionary theory on theology, the coverage of science controversies by the newsmedia, legal and public policy conflicts over science education, and the relationship between science and the arts. Participants will benefit from classroom instruction and interaction with prominent researchers, writers, and scholars, such as Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, Wesley J. Smith, David Klinghoffer, Jonathan Witt, Jonathan Wells, Jay Richards, and John West. The seminar is open to college/university students who intend careers in the social sciences, humanities, law, or theology.

Admission Requirements: You must be currently enrolled in a college/university, seminary, or law school as a junior, senior, or graduate student. Your field of study should be in the social sciences, humanities, theology, or law. Required application materials include (1) a resume/cv, (2) a copy of your academic transcript, (3) a short statement of your interest in the program and its perceived relationship to your career plans and field of study, and (4) a letter of recommendation from a professor or a phone interview with the seminar director.

Application Deadline: Applications will be accepted until April 13, 2012, although earlier applications may receive priority consideration. Questions or requests for more information should be directed to cscseminar@discovery.org.

Application Procedure: All applications are required to be submitted online at http://www.tfaforms.com/227931 .”

UK Petition: Protect our Children's Innocence Online

2012-02-10T07:53:00.000-08:00

From here:

"Every day children and young people are accessing mainstream pornography on the internet, including the most hardcore, violent and abusive images. Evidence clearly shows pornography has a detrimental impact on children and young people including premature sexualisation, negative body image and unhealthy notions about relationships. This cannot be allowed to continue.

Despite parental concerns and the use of computer filters in the home, the rapid rate at which communications technology is developing, including convergence of the internet on televisions/ games consoles and mobile phone technology, makes it increasingly difficult for parents/ carers to supervise their children's use effectively. Massive profit-driven competition is harming the vulnerable.

To better protect children and young people we are calling on Internet service providers to block pornography by introducing filters at Internet service provider level. This will still give adults the choice to access pornography whilst giving children the freedom to surf the internet safely.

KEY FACTS

Internet becoming integral part of family life in the UK

Approximately 73% of British households now have access to the Internet. (ONS - Internet Access, August 2010)
99% of 12-15 year olds, 93% of 8-11 year olds, and 75% of 5-7 year olds use the Internet regularly ( Ofcom, March 2010). In fact, 74% 5-16 yr olds have own laptop or PC; almost 58% of 5-16 yr olds can now access the internet in their own room (ChildWise Monitor 2012).
Internet controls or filtering software is in place in only 39% of households where a child aged 5-15 uses the internet at home (Ofcom ‘Children and parents: media use and attitudes report’ – October 2011).

Children and young people accessing pornography at an alarming rate

The single largest group of internet pornography consumers is children aged 12-17 (Psychologies Magazine).
1 in 3 10 year olds have seen pornography online (Psychologies Magazine 2010)
81% aged 14-16 regularly access explicit photographs and footage on their home computers. (Psychologies Magazine 2010)

Harmful impact of pornography on children and young people

Dr Linda Papadopolous, "The evidence gathered in the review suggests a clear link between consumption of sexualized images, a tendency to view women as objects and the acceptance of aggressive attitudes and behaviour as the norm." (Home Office report into the sexualisation of children 2010).

John Carr, Children's Charities Coalition on Internet Safety, "In recent years there has been a very dramatic increase in child pornography images made by children and then distributed online or via phones.We have an exhibitionist, celebrity-dominated culture and it's seen as normal and cool to be a porn star." (Stella magazine)

Author Mark Kastlemann said, "Giving porn to a teenage boy is like giving crack to a baby. Addiction is almost guaranteed. No wonder boys aged 12-17 are the porn industry's core target." (came in a presentation given by Richard Bach to an Anglican Mainstream Conference last year)

"Overall, the body of research on pornography reveals.It functions as a teacher, permission-giver, and a trigger of.negative behaviours and attitudes. The damage is seen in men, women and children, and to both married and single adults.pathological behaviours, illegal behaviours and some behaviours that are both illegal and pathological." Mary Anne Layden, Director of Sexual Trauma and Psychological Program, University of Pennsylvania 2010

'Studies cite alarming links between early exposure to pornography and juvenile sex offenders; one study of 30 young sex offenders showed that 29 had been watching X-rated porn from age of 7' (Sunday Telegraph Stella Magazine, 27 November 2011

Facts about the pornography industry and Internet service providers

The pornography industry was worth $96bn (£61bn) in 2006 (reference - ‘Pornland’). In the UK alone, it is estimated to be worth £1bn (Adult Industry Trade Association - 2005)
One of the aims of the porn trade summit, XBIZ EU (2), held in London in September 2011 was ‘to monetize the expanding audience of mobile users.’
The top six UK Internet Service Providers(all UK based) account for over 90% of market share[5]. Yet : only one of them, TalkTalk is willing to block pornographic content at network level, although the default setting is still on, despite the technology being avaialble to do so.

The problem with mobile phones

61% of children aged 7 -16 have a mobile phone that can access the internet, rising to 77% among 11-16s (ChildWise Monitor 2012).
Nearly 9 out of 10 children had no security settings on their phones and only 46% of parents were aware that they were even necessary (YouGov Carphone Warehouse Jan 12 ).
Sexting - 40% of 11 - 14 yr olds have used their mobile phones or computer to send pictures of themselves or receive naked or topless images of friends (SW Grid for Learning Mar 11)

Pornography has detrimental impact on relationships and the family

Counsellors working for Relate report that use of internet porn is a cause of tension and conflict for as many as 40% of their clients who come to them seeking help with sexual problems.[1] Referrals to the Portman Clinic for the problematic use of pornography have increased from 9% in 2001-2 to 16% in 2007-8.[2]
General public agree pornography is harmful to society
A YouGov poll in February 2011 found that 93% of Women and 73% Men (83% average total) felt that the ease with which pornographic content can be viewed on the internet is damaging to children.

HOW YOU CAN GET INVOLVED

Sign the petition
Contact your local MP
Tell your family and friends
Pray"

Go here for more information and to sign the petition!

Also, join the Facebook group here!

"Proselytizing for Darwin's God in the Classroom" (from 2008): John G. West

2012-02-09T07:52:00.000-08:00

Who Wrote the Gospels? Timothy McGrew

2012-02-08T13:16:00.000-08:00

Did They Really Exist? A Biblical and Scientific Defence of Adam and Eve

2012-02-08T09:56:00.000-08:00

The historicity of Adam and Eve is a question which strikes at the heart of the Christian faith. If the primordial pair did not exist, then the historical and Biblical doctrine of the fall becomes extremely difficult to maintain. The apostle Paul clearly linked God's redemptive plan and Christ's atonement for sin with the fall described in Genesis (e.g. see Romans 5:12-21). We read in Romans 5:12-14,

¹² Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
¹³ To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. ¹⁴ Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

In 1 Corinthians 15:20-22, we similarly read,

²⁰ But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. ²¹ For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. ²² For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

Further evidence that Paul took Adam as a literal historical figure can be found in 1 Timothy 2:11-14 where he appeals to this doctrine in order to make an argument concerning the role of women in the church with respect to men. Paul writes,

¹¹ A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. ¹² I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. ¹³ For Adam was formed first, then Eve. ¹⁴ And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

Indeed, Jesus Himself clearly understood Adam and Eve to have been historical figures. In response to questioning from the Pharisees about marriage and divorce, Jesus declared (Matthew 19:4-6),

⁴ “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ ⁵ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? ⁶ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

As if that wasn't enough, the genealogies recorded in 1 Chronicles 1 and Luke 3 treat Adam as an historical figure. The literature associated with second temple Judaism also recognised Adam as an historical individual. The context and genre of the book of Genesis does not give any indication whatsoever that it is intended to be non-literal or ahistorical in the sense that much of apocalyptic literature (e.g. the book of Revelation) is. If we read the book of Genesis as metaphorical, at which point do we stop? The life of Abraham (to whom we are first introduced in Genesis 12) is clearly connected to the history that came before him, going all the way back to Adam. Those who discard Genesis 1-11 as metaphorical but understand Genesis 12 onwards to be historical are being inconsistent. The narrative simply does not allow for this interpretation.

Christians may have disagreements about peripheral matters such as the age of the earth. As I have discussed before, I don't think that Genesis commits one to accepting a young earth position. However, the historical existence of Adam and Eve is another matter -- it is a Gospel issue. Without an historical Adam and Eve, and without an historical fall, the doctrine of the atonement and redemption makes very little sense.

Having presented some Biblical reasons for thinking that Adam and Eve were literal historical individuals, I want to turn my attention to some of the common scientific arguments which are advanced against the notion of an historical Adam and Eve.

Minimum Effective Population Size

It is argued by many that coalescence theory and analysis of single nucleotide polymorphisms/linkage disequilibrium (SNP/LD) show that the mean effective population size for the hominid lineage is 100,000 individuals over the course of the last 30 million years. According to some theories, a genetic bottleneck occurred in the hominid lineage during the Middle Pleistocene with, according to one recent study, a mean effective population size of only 14,000 individuals. A range of values for the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) is given as "450,000-2,400,000 years for the autosomes, and 380,000-2,000,000 for the X chromosome," (Blum and Jakobsson, 2011).

The trouble with such attempts to estimate the effective population size and times of most recent common ancestors is the number of simplifying assumptions which are involved in the calculation. These include:

Fixed population size.
No migration.
Random mating.
Non-overlapping generations.
Constant mutation rates.
No selection.

The problem is that human populations change in size, migration in and out of the population does occur, humans selectively mate, mutation rates are often not constant and selection does occur. Indeed, rates of recombination are also known to differ with respect to location on the chromosome. Attempts at estimating effective population sizes and coalescent times, therefore, are rendered difficult by their high dependency on the assumptions made and the constancy of the pertinent variables. This makes it extremely hard to make dogmatic claims in this regard.

Let's take an example to illustrate this point. One research paper examined 377 short tandem repeat (STR) loci pertinent to 1,056 individuals from 52 different populations (Zhivotovsky et al., 2003). The study inferred that modern humanity arose from a common ancestral population living between 71 and 142 thousand years ago from a relatively small population size (less than 2000 individuals). A previous study estimated this ancestral population size to be comprised roughly of 500 individuals (Zhivotovsky et al., 2000). This non-congruity was apparently resultant from use of varying number of loci by the two studies as well as use of different sample sizes.

The Y-Chromosomal Adam Paradox

It is widely known that molecular dating based on the male-specific Y-chromosomal DNA tends to give somewhat more recent dates for the most recent common ancestosr of modern humans than does molecular dating based on the maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA. This has been argued by some to show that Adam and Eve lived tends of thousands of years apart from one another. Though there are obviously alternative explanations for this phenomenon, one interesting hypothesis relates to the genetic bottleneck pertinent to the great flood described in Genesis. In that case, the most recent male common ancestor would be Noah (Noah's three sons Shem, Ham and Japheth boarded the ark along with their respective wives). The most recent female common ancestor, however, would be Eve. This would quite readily account for the discrepancy between the data yielded from the Y-chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA sequences.

Where Did Cain Get His Wife?

The first thing to take notice of is that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters besides Cain, Abel and Seth. According to Genesis 5:4, "After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters." It is also noteworthy that Genesis 5 records very long life spans, with people living up to an age of 900 years. Given this, Dr. Hugh Ross argues that "the possibility existed for a veritable population explosion. In fact, the world's population could have approached a few billion by the time of Adam's death at the age of 930." There is some Biblical support for thinking that there was a reasonable population size following Cain's murder of Abel. According to Genesis 4, Cain is given a mark "so that no one who found him would kill him." This presupposes that there was a population size sufficient such that (a) there were people who might find Cain in the wilderness; and (b) Cain might be mistaken for someone else.

The possibility that Cain may have married his sister raises the old question of incest. It is not until the book of Leviticus, however, that laws are given against marriage between siblings. Adam and Eve were probably created genetically pure. It is, therefore, likely that the genetic defects resulting from marriage between siblings would not present an issue for the first couple of dozen generations.

Summary and Conclusion

In conclusion, attempts to estimate coalescent times and effective population sizes are fraught with problems, and require that we make a number of unrealistic assumptions. Perhaps it is possible that some of these estimates pertain to the human population sometime after the creation of Adam and Eve. The question of Cain's wife is effectively resolved if we suppose that genetic defects resulting from marriage between siblings was a later development. The existence of an historical Adam and Eve, however, is foundational to a full and proper understanding of the Gospel and Christ's role as the "second Adam". "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive," (1 Corinthians 15:22).

The Gospel of Jesus: Paul Washer

2012-02-08T07:44:00.000-08:00

Does Colossians chapter one mean Jesus is a created being?

2012-02-08T06:48:00.000-08:00

This post comes from a recent discussion with a Jehovahs Witness regarding Jesus deity and Colossians 1:15.

So to give some clarification, the JW's don't use the same Bible many of us do. The organisation released their own version of the scriptures that was finished in 1961 which came to be known as the New World Translation (NWT). The NWT is best known for its rendering of John 1:1 but for those that have dug a little deeper or engaged in discussion with any JW's you may be aware of their controversial rendering of Colossians chapter 1, verses 15-17. It reads as the following:

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist...

Now as you read through this portion of scripture you will notice that contained within brackets is the word other, this is probably the clearest example of how we can see how their translation has been corrupted and changed intentially to support their theological assumptions. What this shows us is that they have clearly translated and added to scripture to support their doctrines which have no space for Jesus being the fathers ontological (Equality in nature, essence and attributes.) equal as part of the trinity.

Now what was said to me was that if Jesus is the firstborn of all creation then doesn't that show that he was created. Well as I shall go on to explain before we even get into what firstborn actually meant in the ancient world I'd like to focus quickly on why the JW's have put other into the text. This is simply because even if we understand to mean literally firstborn in creation the rest of the text of Colossians completely contradicts that as a conclusion hence the need for additions in their text. I'll even be nice and use their own translation without the additions to prove my point.

1:16 (NWT) because by means of him all things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities

What it shows us is that Jesus was responsible for creating the universe, both the things that are seen and that which isn't. To suggest that him whom created everything was himself created would lead to the illogical conclusion that he created himself. This is why the translators of the NWT feel obligated to add the word other in brackets and therefore showing us that it has no textual basis for its insertion, rather it serves only theological motivations.

1:17 (NWT) Also, he is before all things and by means of him all things were made to exist...

So Jesus was before all things and he made all things to exist, it is pretty clear what is being said here and again shows how theological assumptions have played a major part in the rendering of the above text. The thinking here is clear from both verse 16 and 17 especially in Jewish thought and could be framed as the following argument.

a) Only God creates from nothing and sustains the universe
b) Jesus creates from nothing and sustains the universe
c) Therefore Jesus is God

Clearly the divine attributes of Jesus are obvious for us to see and are typical of how much of the New Testament approaches the deity of Jesus. So we can see why the additions have been added by the NWT translators, without the additions regardless of what is meant by the word firstborn it is obvious that what is being conveyed by the author about Jesus is quite different from the JW's Unitarian beliefs.

As we have seen the word 'firstborn' can't really mean what they want it to, they fail to take into account that the context of a Greek word can have variations on its meaning. The word firstborn in the Hebrew context that Jesus was living in meant that the firstborn son was in a position of pre-eminence (Position of superiority), it didn't necessarily mean the literal firstborn son. It shows us that Jesus is heir of all creation in the sense that what is the fathers is also the sons, this would have been clearly understood in the Ancient Near Eastern culture this was written in. This can be seen in an example below:

I will make him my firstborn, greatest of the kings of the earth (Psalm 89:27)

God is talking about David here and the pre-eminent position God was placing him in even though David was actually the last-born son to his father Jesse. Another example can be seen below:

Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord, Israel is my firstborn son, (Exodus 4:22)

We can again see examples of the use of pre-eminence, but instead this time its in regards to the nation of Israel, which again demonstrates that the word firstborn depending on context has more to do with being the heir in a relationship. The context of the Colossians 1:15 passage suggests quite clearly that the JW's definition of the term firstborn is unnecessary and unwarranted as are the additions to scripture regarding the word other in brackets suggesting that Jesus is a created being.

CALLING ALL PHILOSOPHERS IN EUROPE

2012-02-07T13:02:00.000-08:00

Passed on from Paul Copan:

"Dear fellow Christian philosophers and apologists,

Do you know any European evangelical philosophers? We need your immediate help in connecting them to the Philosophers Network in Europe---and to submit papers (by 1 March 2012) or, at the very least, just to attend the conference near Budapest, Hungary (19-24 May 2012). A number of philosophers from the Evangelical Philosophical Society are lending support to this endeavor: William Craig, Scott Smith, Douglas Groothuis, and Bruce Little. (I myself am looking forward to speaking at this forum the following May.)

Keep in mind these important points:

1. This Network is European in its vision and content. It is being spearheaded by the European Leadership Forum, and it is not an American outpost.

2. This year--indeed, this month--is crucial for forming this continent-wide Network. If nothing materializes this year, then this effort will be not be revisited for a good while. So we need your prompt assistance in getting the word out to your European evangelical friends/contacts who have a philosophy degree (masters or doctorate).

3. In addition to the philosophy, this effort there will be an apologetics Network that is developed as well. What is crucial as that we have as many European evangelical philosophers and apologists as possible attending May 2012 meeting."

Additional details:

The European Leadership Forum is pleased to announce the debut of the European Christian Philosophers Network at the 2012 Forum in Eger, Hungary (19-24 May).

This Network will aim to support and encourage European Christian philosophers as they seek to incorporate their faith into their research projects, teaching, and mentoring. Because of this, the primary focus of the Network at the Forum will be the examination of philosophy from a specifically Christian perspective. Speakers who will be featured in the 2012 Network are William Lane Craig, Doug Groothuis, Bruce Little, Mike Ovey, Jerry Root, Mats Selander, R. Scott Smith, and Ralph Henk Vaggs. The full Network programme, including more about each speaker, is available online at www.euroleadership.org/philosophers

In addition to the fellowship and learning opportunities the Philosophers Network will provide, the Forum is pleased to offer the following to Network participants:

1) SCHOLARSHIPS
Scholarships are available to Network participants and will be awarded according to need. Scholarship recipients will pay a maximum of 50 Euros in conference fees and cover their own travel costs. To apply for a scholarship, please send an email with the subject heading, “Philosophers Network Scholarship,” to Kevin Saylor at ksaylor@euroleadership.org

2) CALL FOR PAPERS:
The 2012 Network will feature a twenty-minute time slot each day for one of four selected participants to present a philosophy paper. The four individuals chosen to present each will receive a scholarship covering their full conference fees (excluding travel expenses). Any interested participant should be a PhD student in philosophy and submit one paper limited to 2,000 words for a 15- minute presentation. The reading of each paper will be followed by evaluation and discussion by Network speakers and participants. Papers selected will exemplify the highest standards of philosophy written from a historic Protestant point of view. All papers should be submitted to Kevin Saylor at ksaylor@euroleadership.org by 1 March 2012.

If you wish to see for yourself how God is raising up leaders in Europe to fight for truth in a secular age, then please consider applying to attend the Philosophers Network at the 2012 European Leadership Forum.

· To learn more about the European Leadership Forum in general, visit www.euroleadership.org

· To register for the Forum and the Philosophers Network, visit www.euroleadership.org/register

· For any additional questions, please email ksaylor@euroleadership.org

Front-Loading & Theistic Evolution: Stephen C. Meyer

2012-02-07T02:04:00.000-08:00

Whale Evolution vs. Population Genetics: Richard Sternberg

2012-02-06T13:47:00.000-08:00

Whale Evolution Vs. Population Genetics - Richard Sternberg PhD. in Evolutionary Biology - More bloopers are a click away

Did Jesus Deny His Deity in His Conversation with the Rich Ruler?

2012-02-06T02:27:00.000-08:00

In Luke 18:18-29 (and the parallel account in Mark 10:17-31), we read the narrative of the rich young ruler coming to Jesus and asking, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus responds by saying "Why do you call me good? No one is good -- except God alone."

Jesus continues, "You know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honour your father and mother." The young man replies, “All these I have kept since I was a boy.” Jesus, however, knowing that he valued his wealth and riches more than God, instructs the man to sell all his possessions and give the money to the poor, and then to come and follow Jesus. At this, the man walks away greatly saddened because he has no interest in giving up his wealth.

Many of those who seek to deny the deity of Christ (such as Muslims) will often appeal to this passage as an example of Jesus allegedly renouncing his deity. Is this the case, however? Was Jesus really denying that He is God in stating, "Why do you call me good? No one is good -- except God alone."The first important thing to notice is that Jesus Himself claims not only to be "good" but also to be perfect and completely without sin. Consider, for example, John 10:11 ("I am the good shepherd") or John 8:46 ("Can any of you prove me guilty of sin?"). We are also told by Paul that Jesus was without sin, for example in 2 Corinthians 5:21 ("God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God"). Thus, this situation with the rich young ruler is actually an affirmation of Jesus' deity. The argument may be summarised in syllogistic form as follows:

Premise 1: According to Jesus, God alone is good.

Premise 2: According to Jesus, Jesus is good.

Conclusion: Therefore, according to Jesus, Jesus is God.

So what is going on in this incident with the rich young ruler? Jesus, I believe, is teasing out the implications of the young man's statement. It is a rhetorical question designed to make the man thing long and hard about Jesus' true identity.

Those who use this example as a proof text for justifying their denial of the deity of Jesus need to allow all of Scripture speak, and read the passages they quote in the context within which they appear. When one handles the text of Scripture honestly and responsibly in this regard, the true identity of Jesus becomes very clear: He is the eternal Son of God, and the second person of the Trinity.

The Meaning of John 10:30 and its Relevance to the Trinity: James White

2012-02-06T01:38:00.000-08:00

The Jesus of the Bible vs. the Jesus of the Qur'an: James White

2012-02-05T15:11:00.000-08:00

Did Muhammad Properly Understand the Trinity?

2012-02-05T09:25:00.000-08:00

In a recent post, I explained and defended the historical Christian concept of the Trinity. In this blog post, I want to consider the conception of the Trinity held by the writer of the Qur'an -- whom I presume to be Muhammad -- and examine whether this individual properly understood the view he so strongly repudiated.

Firstly, let's briefly recap. What is the historic definition of the Trinity? In a nutshell, the doctrine states that within the one being or essence that is God, there exists three co-equal and co-eternal (yet distinct) divine persons -- namely the Father, Son and Holy Spirit -- who share that essence fully and completely.

Let's turn our attention to the Qur'an to find out whether its author properly understood this doctrine which is central to the Christian faith. If he did not, then it may be concluded that the Qur'an's author was not (as Muslim's allege) the infallible Allah. Rather, it is demonstrably a work of fallible human authorship.

The doctrine of the Trinity is relatively frequently repudiated in the Qur'an, either directly or indirectly. In what follows, I will list the main instances and examine whether they manifest clues in regard to Muhammad's understanding of what the Christian concept of the Trinity entails.

Surah 2:116 - "They say: 'God hath begotten a son': Glory be to Him, Nay, to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and on earth: everything renders worship to Him.

Surah 6:101 - "To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth: How can He have a son when He hath no consort? He created all things, and He hath full knowledge of all things."

Surah 19:35 - "It is not befitting to (the majesty of) God that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! When He determines a matter, He only says to it, 'Be', and it is."

Surah 19:88 - "They say, '(God) Most Gracious Has begotten a son!'"

Surah 37:151-152 - Is it not that they say, from their own invention, 'God has begotten children'? But they are liars!"

Surah 39:4 - Had God wished to take to Himself a son, He would have chosen whom he pleased out of those whom He doth create: but Glory be to Him! (He is above such things.) He is God, the One, the Irresistable.

Surah 16:51 - "God has said: 'Take not (for worship) two gods: For He is just One God: Then fear Me (and Me alone)."

Surah 9:30 - "Then Jews call Uzair a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the Son of God. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the Unbelievers of old used to say. God's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!"

Surah 23:91 - "No son did God beget, nor is there any god along with Him: (if there were many gods),

From the examples given above, we can clearly see two things. Firstly, Muhammad misunderstood the relationship of the Son with respect to the Father. The Sonship of Christ is not like earthly human relationships. The Son never came into being. In fact, he is co-eternal with the Father. Moreover, the Son is not the offspring of the Father in the sense that the latter took to Himself a consort and physically impregnated her. No Christian has ever claimed this. Second, it appears that Muhammad misunderstood the Trinity as encompassing multiple gods. Again, however, this is not what the Christians now -- or of Muhammad's day -- believed. Rather, they believe that there is one divine essence and three distinct divine persons.

However, I saved the best bit for last. Consider Surah 5:72-76:

"They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. The Messiah (himself) said: O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Lo! whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah, for him Allah hath forbidden paradise. His abode is the Fire. For evil-doers there will be no helpers. They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three; when there is no God save the One God. If they desist not from so saying a painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve. The Messiah, son of Mary, was no other than a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) had passed away before him. And his mother was a saintly woman. And they both used to eat (earthly) food. See how We make the revelations clear for them, and see how they are turned away! Will they not rather turn unto Allah and seek forgiveness of Him? For Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. Say: Serve ye in place of Allah (min dooni Allahi) that which possesseth for you neither hurt nor use? Allah it is Who is the Hearer, the Knower." [emphasis added]

There are two interesting things to notice about this passage. Firstly, there is the statement that Christians claim that "Allah is the third of three; when there is no God save the One God." This is especially telling since -- as I stated previously -- Christians believe in one God and only one God! Christians believe that there is one God but that He is complex in His unity: That is, within the one divine essence there exists three co-equal divine persons. This is not the same as claiming that there are three gods.

The second curious thing about this passage is its statement that "The Messiah, son of Mary, was no other than a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) had passed away before him. And his mother was a saintly woman. And they both used to eat (earthly) food." Why would the Qur'an state that Jesus and Mary "both used to eat earthly food"? Could it be that Muhammad believed that the Christians were proclaiming Mary to be part of the Trinity and thus elevating her to the status of deity?

We are given an important clue in this regard when we turn to Surah 5:119, in which we read,

"And behold! God will say: 'O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah?' He will say: 'Glory to Thee! Never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, Thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, thou I know not what is in Thine. For thou knowest in full all that is hidden."

From this, we can deduce that Muhammad not only misunderstood what Christians meant by the Trinity, but He believed Mary to be a part of it! By the time the Qur'an was written, the Triune concept of God as understood by the Christians was well known. If the Qur'an really is the inspired word of God, why was it unable to correctly represent this view?

A Sunday Quote

2012-02-05T06:51:00.000-08:00

"It’s insufficient for youth groups and Sunday school classes to focus on entertainment and simpering devotional thoughts. We’ve got to train our kids for war. We dare not send them out to public high school and university armed with rubber swords and plastic armor. The time for playing games is past." William Lane Craig

Come to Christ; He is Mighty to Save! Paul Washer

2012-02-04T13:34:00.000-08:00

The Potter's Freedom: Reflections on the Sovereignty of God

2012-02-04T12:33:00.001-08:00

The question of the relationship between God's sovereignty and man's responsibility on matters concerning salvation is a conundrum that has perplexed theologians and Bible scholars for centuries. On one extreme reside the hyper Calvinists who see God's sovereignty as entailing no necessitude for evangelism. On the polar extreme reside the open theists who maintain that God's foreknowledge -- as well as his predetermination of future events -- is limited. It is my position that both of those extremes are at odds with Scripture and historic Christianity. In this blog post, I want to consider the issues of divine sovereignty, free will, election, predestination, the nature and extent of the atonement, and man's responsibility in salvation.

I will begin by presenting an outline and defense of my own perspective on the matter, and will subsequently discuss some common objections to this view.

A Reformed Understanding of the Sovereignty of God

I take a reformed/Calvinist position on the sovereignty of God in salvation. On this view, Christ did not die merely to make salvation possible. Rather, he came to obtain eternal redemption (Hebrews 9:12). According to Luke 19:10, "the Son of Man came to seek and save the lost." This is similar to Paul's statement in 1 Timothy 1:15: "Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst." What is important to note here is that Christ's mission in coming into the world was not merely to make salvation available for sinners to attain. Rather, Christ actually completed his mission.

Imagine yourself standing on the Day of Judgement before God. What separates you, the believer, from your non-believing neighbour? Is it that you were more spiritually sensitive? Is it that you had a greater intellectual capacity to follow logical and evidence-based arguments? Was it that you were raised in a Christian home and attended Sunday School each week? Notice that in each of these cases, the difference is something inherent in you. This, however, is contrary to the teaching of Scripture that men are radically depraved and are in need of God's grace. Romans 3:19 declares that every mouth will be silenced before God in light of His righteous law. None of us have kept it and we are all equally deserving of God's judgement. The difference, then, between you, the believer, and your non-believing neighbour, both standing before God, cannot be something inherent in you, but as a result of God's salvific grace -- so that none of us can boast in ourselves. As we read in Ephesians 2:8-9, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast." Grace, by definition, is not fair -- it is totally undeserved. Moreover, a governor who graciously decides to release a prisoner on death row is under no obligation whatsoever to free everyone on death row.

Scripture -- in particular the book of Hebrews -- makes a clear connection between the atonement and Christ's advocacy on our behalf before the father (e.g. see 1 John 2:1-2). Christ's intercession before the father is on behalf of everyone for whom He died. It is dubious theology to suppose that Christ would die for individuals who would not attain salvation. And Christ's mediation before the father cannot be on behalf of those for whom he did not shed his blood on the cross for there would be no grounds on which to seek the Father's mercy. Furthermore, no-one for whom Christ intercedes can be lost. To say otherwise implies that there is dissension within the Godhead -- with the Father continually rejecting the pleas of the Son for the salvation of certain people. Such a notion is, however, utterly unbiblical. Indeed, in Christ's famous high priestly prayer recounted in John 17, Jesus declares in verse 9,
"I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours."

Indeed, in Romans 8:32-34, we read,

"³² He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? ³³ Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. ³⁴ Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us."

Who does this passage when it uses the pronoun "our?" The passage tells us -- it is "those whom God has chosen." Again, the intercessory work of Christ is presented as between the Father and God's elect. Moreover, as the passage explains, if Christ is your intercessor, who can possibly bring a charge against you? If Christ's intercessory work is on behalf of all men, then why aren't all men saved? Has Christ's intercessory work failed?

Jesus also says in John 6:37 that "All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away." In verse 44 of the same chapter, we read, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day." This implies that not only can no one come who is not drawn, but all those who are drawn are raised up at the last day. The first of those contentions is supported by Romans 8:7-8:

^"7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. ⁸ Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God."

The latter is supported by the golden chain of redemption in Romans 8:29-30:

²⁹ For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. ³⁰ And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

In other words, all of those who are foreknown by God are predestined; all of those who are predestined are also called; all of those who are called are also justified; and all of those who are justified are also glorified.

A similar passage is found in Ephesians 1:11-14, in which we read,

¹¹ In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, ¹² in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. ¹³ And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, ¹⁴ who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.

We are given further indication as to the scope of Christ's atonement in Matthew 20:28: "Just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” The "many" for whom Christ gave his life as a ransom parallels the words of Isaiah 53:11: "By his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities." Jesus states that He is specifically laying down His life for His people in John 10. In verses 11 and 15 we read, "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep....just as the Father knows me and I know the Father---and I lay down my life for the sheep." Not all men are of Jesus' sheep, as we learn in John 10:26: "But you do not believe because you are not my sheep."

A similar verse is John 15:13: "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." It is clear that not all of humanity are Jesus' "friends". Likewise, Matthew 1:21 states, "She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins." Notice both that Christ will save his people from their sins (not simply make salvation available) and the particularity of the people for whom this salvation will be effective (namely, his people).

Paul writes in Galatians 2:20 that "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." This is the common confession of every believer. Every member of God's elect was crucified with Christ. Conversely, those who are in Hell -- eternally separated from the favourable presence of God -- cannot claim to have been "crucified with Christ."

One final verse I shall mention in this section is Acts 13:48's statement that "all who were appointed for eternal life believed."

The Calvinist position, which I have articulated above, can be summarised using the following acronym:

Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistable Grace
Perseverence of the Saints

Then How Can God Blame Us? For Who Resists His Will?

One of the most frequent objections I receive to the viewpoint articulated above concerns man's responsibility in salvation. "How can God blame us, for who resists his will?", the critics ask. In response to this objection, the best Scripture to turn to is Romans 9, in which the apostle Paul takes this question head on. Let's take a look at verses 14-24:

¹⁴ What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! ¹⁵ For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
¹⁶ It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. ¹⁷ For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” ¹⁸ Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
¹⁹ One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” ²⁰ But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” ²¹ Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
²² What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? ²³ What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— ²⁴ even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

This is without question one of the most humbling passages in Scripture. It tells us that God is absolutely sovereign over our salvation. He is the potter; we are the clay. God chooses who will be unconditionally saved (grace) and who will face condemnation (justice). Either way God's name is glorified.

This passage is also the clearest description in Scripture regarding God's sovereignty in matters of salvation. Arminians typically object to citation of this passage by claiming that the passage is describing God's election of nations, rather than individuals, for salvation. They usually justify this interpretation by pointing out that Paul's citations in Romans 9:12 of Genesis 25:23 and Malachi 1:2-3 in verse 13 are both with reference to nations. When Paul writes "Jacob I loved, Esau I hated," he is speaking of the nations typified by those two persons.

The problem with this interpretation is that Romans 9 does apply to individuals. While it is true that Paul quotes from passages that originally referred to nations, Paul's intended application in Romans 9 is not limited to nations. In fact, he proceeds to consistently make the application to individuals. The Arminian interpretation fails to make sense of Paul's utilisation of two singular present active participles ("desire" and "effort") in verse 16. The desire and effort is on the part of an individual. Pharaoh likewise is a singular individual. The objector of verse 20 is also singular, as is the lump of clay of verse 21. The passage makes use of the plural in verse 22 ("the objects of his wrath" but, again, this does not refer to nations. The most common Arminian interpretation of this passage seems to collapse for these reasons.

Arminian Proof Texts

One of the common texts that Arminians turn to is 1 John 2:2, in which we read, "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." However, when one reads the parallel passage in John 11:51-52, one learns that John intends "the whole world" to be taken in the same sense as given in Revelation 5:9-11. In other words, Christ's death atones people "from every tribe and language and people and nation."

Another common one is Revelation 3:20: "Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me." A glance at the context, however, reveals that it is the door of the church that is in mind -- not the door of the unbeliever's heart.

A further frequently cited verse is Matthew 23:37: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing." Curiously, in my experience, this is one of the most misquoted verses in the Bible. Typically, when quoting this verse off the top of their head, people will replace "your children" with "you". This subtly changes the meaning of the verse. The verse clearly distinguishes between "you" and "your children." This makes sense when one looks at the wider context of Matthew 23. For example, in verse 13, we read, “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to." This chapter, then, is a polemic against the Jewish religious leaders, who are attempting to thwart the purposes of God by preventing those who are trying to enter the kingdom of God from doing so.

Another passage to which Arminians appeal is 2 Peter 3:8-9:

⁸ But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. ⁹ The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

Verse 9, of course, appears within the context of God's patience/longsuffering. Peter's letter is also addressed specifically to Christians. It thus follows that the "you" of verse 9 refers to believers. I would understand the "anyone" and "everyone" which follows to be referring specifically to God's elect.

What About Evangelism?

Some object to the Calvinist position by claiming that it undermines evangelism. After all, what is the point of sharing the Gospel if God has it all worked out already? It must be granted that the Calvinist point of view entails a different focus in evangelism than does the Arminian view. God has invited us to have the tremendous honour of being a part of His salvation plan in proclaiming the Gospel to the nations. This honour is something we all often take for granted. But God did not need to use us -- He could have used angels to accomplish His will. Instead, he chose to use us. I, for one, am certainly thankful that God's work is not dependent or contingent on my debating skills, or on any ability on my part for articulating the Gospel. It also means that I have nothing to boast about when I lead people to Christ. Salvation -- and indeed the sanctification which follows -- is a supernatural work of the Holy Spirit, and a glorious act of God's mercy and grace. As a reformed Christian, I do evangelism as a service to God's kingdom and to bring glory and honour to His name.

'Apologetics Anonymous' - Why is apologetics necessary in the UK

2012-02-04T10:01:00.000-08:00

This was recorded last week at Centrepoint Church, Guildford and is a basic introduction into what apologetics is and why its important here in the UK and how we can get equipped for mission. To listen just click here.

'To be ignorant and simple now - not to be able to meet the enemies on their own ground - would be to throw down our weapons, and betray our uneducated brethren who have, under God, no defense but us against the intellectual attacks of the heathen. Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered.' - C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory p. 50

Metamorphosis: The Beauty and Design of Butterflies

2012-02-03T00:14:00.000-08:00

Isaiah 53: The Suffering Servant Poem (Written ~700 B.C.)

2012-02-02T06:53:00.000-08:00

For a defence of the Messianic nature of this prophecy, please see my previous article here.

Does the Chromosome 2 Fusion Evidence Prove Our Shared Ancestry With Chimpanzees?

2012-02-02T01:32:00.000-08:00

Those of you who follow discussions surrounding evolution and intelligent design will doubtless have heard of the argument for human-chimp shared ancestry based on evidence for a fusion event with respect to chromosome 2. This argument is put forward quite famously by Brown University biologist Ken Miller in this video:

Briefly, the chromosomal fusion argument for human-chimp common descent begins with the observation that humans possess 23 pairs of chromosomes, whereas apes possess 24 pairs, thus allowing one to predict that -- evolution being true -- a chromosomal fusion must have taken place at some point in our lineage. And, indeed, this is what we observe. Chromosome 2 possesses two centromeres. It also possesses a section where there are two telomeres in the middle of the chromosome, which are oriented in such a way so as to suggest that the ends of the two chromosomes were fused together. Every telomere in human and great-ape chromosomes has the six base-pair sequence TTAGGG repeated over and over approximately fifty to one hundred times in tandem. Such telomeric repetitive units, when they are found not in the telomeres at the end of the chromosome, but rather in the middle of the chromosome (perhaps near the centromere), are referred to in the literature as "interstitial telomeric sequences" (or ITS's). At the supposed fusion site in chromosome 2, the sequence in the upper strand abruptly changes from TTAGGG repeats to CCCTAA repeats (the complementary sequence of the inversion). This is taken to indicate that the DNA in a telomere of one chromosome and the DNA in a telomere of the other chromosome broke and subsequently the two chromosomes fused at the broken ends. This site is referred to in the literature as 2q13 ("2" referring to the chromosome number, "q" referring to the long arm, and "13" referring to the position on the arm).

Furthermore, chromosomal centromeres possess a characteristic DNA called alpha satellite sequences. Secondary alpha satellite DNA (over and above that which is associated with the active centromere), which has been found in the case of chromosome 2 (see Avarello et al. 1992), is taken as further evidence for this fusion event.

But just how sound is this argument?

For one thing, there are, in fact, plausible alternative explanations for this observation. For example, envision a scenario where our genus Homo, originally possessing 48 chromosomes, underwent a chromosomal fusion event within its own independent lineage. Sure, the banding patterns of chromosome 2 are similar to two of the autosomes in the chimpanzee lineage. But then we are only coming back to the argument from similarity, which supports common descent no more than it suggests common design.

Secondly, some of the arguments for supposing that chromosome 2 did indeed arise from a fusion event have been significantly weakened in recent years. One very interesting peer-reviewed paper, appearing in the journal Cytogenetic and Genome Research in 2009, by Farre, Ponsa and Bosch, reported:

Although their function has not yet been clearly elucidated, interstitial telomeric sequences (ITSs) have been cytogenetically associated with chromosomal reorganizations, fragile sites, and recombination hotspots. In this paper, we show that ITSs are not located at the exact evolutionary breakpoints of the inversions between human and chimpanzee and between human and rhesus macaque chromosomes. We proved that ITSs are not signs of repair in the breakpoints of the chromosome reorganizations analyzed. We found ITSs in the region (0.7-2.7 Mb) flanking one of the two breakpoints in all the inversions assessed. The presence of ITSs in those locations is not by chance. They are short (up to 7.83 repeats) and almost perfect (82.5-97.1% matches). The ITSs are conserved in the species compared, showing that they were present before the reorganizations occurred.

So, what is the significance of the cited paper? Though there are many documented instances of these interstitial telomeric sequences in the genomes of humans and chimps, the 2q13 interstitial telomeric sequence is the only one that is able to be associated with an evolutionary breakage point or fusion. The other ones fail to line up with primate chromosomal breakpoints.

As the authors of the paper note,

The availability of complete genome sequences (Hubbard et al., 2007) offers the opportunity to characterize the regions flanking the breakpoints of chromosomal reorganizations at the molecular level. However, to our knowledge, only the head-to-head ITS located in the human 2q13 region, which is a relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion, is precisely associated with an evolutionary breakpoint (Ijdo et al., 1991). Here, we used bioinformatic tools to analyze, in the current genome releases, the presence of short ITSs in the chromosomal inversions that do not involve terminal regions and that occurred between human and chimpanzee and between human and rhesus macaque during evolution."

The pro-ID evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg has also briefly weighed in on the paper here. Sternberg notes,

How, precisely, are miles and miles of TTAGGG of significance? From the standpoint of chromosome architecture, the repetitive elements en masse have the propensity to form complicated topologies such as quadruplex DNA. These sequences or, rather, topographies are also bound by a host of chromatin proteins and particular RNAs to generate a unique "suborganelle" -- for the lack of better term -- at each end. As a matter of fact, the chromatin organization of telomeres can silence genes and has been linked to epigenetic modes of inheritance in yeast and fruit flies. Furthermore, different classes of transcripts emanate from telomeres and their flanking repetitive DNA regions, which are involved in various and sundry cellular and developmental operations.
[...]

ITSs reflect sites where TTAGGG repeats have been added to chromosomes by telomerases, that these repeats are moreover engineered -- literally synthesized by the telomerase machinery, that ITSs have a telomere-like chromatin organization and are associated with distinct sets of proteins, and that many have been linked to roles such a recombination hotspots.

Thus, the take-home message is this: To make much of the 2q13 interstitial telomeric sequence and portray it as typical of what is observed in chimp and human genomes may be considered careful cherry-picking of data.

And what about the secondary alpha satellite sequences found in chromosome 2? Is that not best understood as a genetic residue from a previously functioning centromere on a separate chromosome? Perhaps. But the situation is not quite as clear as is often made out. Neo-centromeres, for example, are rare events which result in the formation of a new centromere (see, for example, Warburton 2004). One suggestion, however, that the additional centromere in chromosome 2 did not arise by this process is the fact that neo-centromeres are usually not associated with the characteristic centromeric repetitive alpha-satellite DNA. But these neo-centromeres are poorly understood, and it may come to pass that a mechanism is discovered that can make these neo-centromeres full of alpha-satellite DNA.

One particularly interesting study, from Baldini et al. (1993), reported the presence of secondary alpha satellite DNA on human chromosome 9! To further complicate matters, Luke and Verma (1995) subsequently reported on the occurrence of secondary alpha satellite DNA in all primates. In 1997, a research group published another interesting study (Samonte et al., 1997). These researchers hybridized twenty-one different chromosome-specific human alpha satellite DNA probes to the full complement of chromosomes from the chimpanzee, gorilla and the orangutan. They reported that most of the human probes failed to hybridize to the equivalent ape chromosome. Instead, they gave positive signals on non-corresponding chromosomes. Thus, they concluded, alpha satellite DNA sequences show little conservation in primate lineages.

In summary, the argument for human-chimp common ancestry, based on the chromosome 2 fusion evidence, is inconclusive. Given the sheer lack of a viable naturalistic mechanism to account for the evolution of life on earth, I am inclined to be rather skeptical of the claims of common descent -- particularly in its universal sense.

This article was excerpted from a longer article on Evolution News & Views.

Climbing Mount Improbable: What's the Problem?

2012-02-01T14:20:00.000-08:00

On Same Sex Marriage: A Response to Stephen B.

2012-02-01T06:00:00.000-08:00

Over on the CrossExamined blog, where I am also a regular contributor, a comment from Stephen B. has offered a response to my previously published article concerning same sex marriage. Stephen writes,

"Sorry Jonathan, but this is not a category error, and your objection doesn’t work.
Here’s the comparison:
White man marrying black woman / man marrying man.

If you want to describe it in terms of ‘actions’ then the former is marrying someone of the opposite race; in the latter it is marrying someone of the same gender.
If you want to describe it in terms of ‘behaviour’ then the former could be described as ‘being attracted to the opposite race’; in the latter it’s same-sex attraction.

Your objection does not make a ‘like-for-like’ comparison. You compare the action in the one to the behavior in the other.

It would be equally fallacious to say “There are lots of people who stop finding other races attractive, whereas there are no former men’.

A like-for-like comparison would either be to point out that:
a) Race doesn’t change and gender doesn’t change; or
b) Race attraction can change and gender attraction can change.

Either way, there is no category error being made and a comparison to anti-miscegenation laws are quite valid. Objections such as ‘Not many inter-racial couples are choosing to get married’ would be equally irrelevant, whether true or not."

Stephen, race is not foundational to the concept of marriage. Gender, however is. Permitting interracial marriage does not necessitate a fundamental redefinition of the very heart of what marriage is. There is zero evidence to suggest that, say, having an Asian mother and a Caucasian father is detrimental to a child's upbringing and development. There is plenty of evidence, however, to suggest that a child's upbringing is impaired by the absence of either a mother or a father. I may write a follow-up post reviewing some of the pertinent literature in this regard.

I stand by my assertion that interracial marriage is quite different from homosexual marriage. Indeed, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruling of the Baker v. Nelson 1971 case (which over-turned restrictions on interracial marriage) stated:

"[I]n commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely on race and one based on the fundamental difference in sex."

The court ruling was subsequently appealed to the US Supreme Court, though it did not receive a hearing. The court stated "appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question."

Polls also show that African Americans are largely opposed to the proposed redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples (see, for example, here). In fact, a 2004 article in The Charlotte Observer noted that "Blacks Resent Comparison of Gay Rights to Civil Rights" and that "The gay rights movement is not the same in this regard because it is focused on securing rights for one group of Americans. It is not a civil rights movement but rather a special rights movement to secure rights for those who have chosen to be defined by their sexual preference."

Stephen B. continued his response by quoting my statement that “Likewise, they have equal rights to marry anyone of the opposite gender,” noting,

"Which brings us straight back to the anti-miscegenation argument that all white people have an equal right to marry other white people, and all black people have an equal right to marry other black people. And yes, that argument was made at the time. It's a disingenuous claim to equal rights. You might as well ban Catholicism and say they have an equal right to practice Protestantism."

One needs to consider at this point what the purpose of marriage actually is. The purpose of marriage, at least so far as the state is concerned, is primarily to produce a suitable nurturing environment for establishing families and for raising children -- and ultimately for bringing forth the next generation. In her Varieties of Sexual Experience: An Anthropological Perspective on Human Sexuality (p. 248), Suzanne G. Frayser states that "Marriage is a relationship within which a group socially approves and encourages sexual intercourse and the birth of children." The only kind of relationship which can bring forth the next generation is between a man and a woman. As the gay American writer Michelangelo Signorile tellingly wrote in OUT magazine in May of 1996,

"The trick is, gay leaders and pundits must stop watering the issue down -- "this is simply about equality for gay couples" -- and offer same-sex marriage for what it is: an opportunity to reconstruct a traditionally homophobic institution by bringing it to our more equitable queer value system, ... a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture... Our gay leaders must acknowledge that gay marriage is just as radical and transformative as the religious Right contends it is."

In conclusion, there is more to the debate over same-sex marriage than often meets the eye. While certain people doubtless have propensities towards, or desires for, particular types of behaviour (such as homosexuality), to claim that we ought to have the right to act upon every desire or impulse that we have is irrational. Self-restraint with respect to some behaviours is a necessary ingredient for a civilised society. As Frank Turek explains, "[t]he legalization of homosexual marriage threatens traditional marriage — the national immune system that protects our civilization from destruction." For a more detailed discussion of this topic, I refer readers to Frank Turek's Correct Not Politically Correct: How Same Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone and Glen Stanton and Bill Maier's Marriage on Trial: The Case Against Same Sex Marriage and Parenting.

Is Banning Same Sex Marriage Discrimination?

2012-02-01T01:53:00.000-08:00

[Note: This is an exchange which took place between myself and an anonymous correspondant regarding a recent article I published on Blogos.org (and re-posted here). The correspondant's comments are appended below and immediately followed by my response.]

Dear Blogos Editor,

First of all, congratulations on your new site. I'm glad and excited for your new venture and pray that God would bless and prosper your mission. As a Christian, I stand side by side with you all in contending with the faith. God bless you all.

However, I must disagree with you in one point in the fact that you say banning gay marriage is not discrimination. If I were to ban interracial marriage, and tell two people they cannot be married based on their race, it would be discrimination. The Lord himself shows discrimination, he chooses to save those who believes in his Son, and reject those who do not. There's nothing wrong with a government being discriminate in some cases, as long as its based on an objective set of morals. In this case, that would be the Word of God. If we want America (or any country) to judge on spiritual matters, they must judge ALL spiritual matters, which means we must also persecute heretics, and we both know from history how that works out. If a society would want to base their government off the Bible, I would be excited, but wary. But the nation that has been murdering infants for over 50 years and that has done some very deplorable things in warfare, needs whole-scale moral reform, not just knit picking to ostracize certain sinful groups, and promoting others. That is my opinion. God bless.

Anonymous

Dear Anonymous,

Regarding my recent article concerning the issue of same sex marriage in Scotland, you expressed disagreement with what I wrote. You remarked,

"I must disagree with you in one point in the fact that you say banning gay marriage is not discrimination. If I were to ban interracial marriage, and tell two people they cannot be married based on their race, it would be discrimination."

This is not quite what I said. Maintaining the traditional concept of marriage as an exclusive life-long union between one man and one woman does discriminate. However, it is not discrimination against persons, but against behaviour. As I previously stated, all laws are discriminatory in this sense. As I explained in my previous article, there are a number of reasons why the institution of same-sex-marriage is not conducive to society's best interests. Homosexuals have -- or at least should have -- equal rights to anyone else when it comes to such things as employment, benefits, medical care, etc. Likewise, they have equal rights to marry anyone of the opposite gender. It is not merely equal rights that homosexuals seek, but rather special rights -- that is, the right to fundamentally redefine the age-long institution of marriage. You also committed a category error with respect to your comparison of same-sex-marriage with interracial marriage. Again, this is an issue of discrimination against behaviour, and not against persons. There are plenty of former homosexuals; whereas there are no former Africans. Similarly, denying a schoolboy the right to get changed in the girls' changing rooms is not discrimination against boys but rather against a particular behaviour. In any civilised society, certain restrictions on what is permissable have to be set in place.

You further commented,

"The Lord himself shows discrimination, he chooses to save those who believes in his Son, and reject those who do not. There's nothing wrong with a government being discriminate in some cases, as long as its based on an objective set of morals. In this case, that would be the Word of God."

I don't think any of the arguments in my previous article made appeal to the Word of God.

You continued,

"If we want America (or any country) to judge on spiritual matters, they must judge ALL spiritual matters, which means we must also persecute heretics, and we both know from history how that works out."

There are three things that any government can do in relation to a given behaviour or activity. They can (i) prohibit an activity; (ii) permit an activity; or (iii) promote an activity. The institution of same-sex-marriage attempts to make the move from merely permitting an activity to actively promoting it. As I stated in my article, the majority of homosexuals living in areas where same-sex-marriage is legal do not get married. Why? The purpose of their campaign is not primarily for the purpose of marriage, but rather for legitimisation of their practice.

You concluded,

"If a society would want to base their government off the Bible, I would be excited, but wary. But the nation that has been murdering infants for over 50 years and that has done some very deplorable things in warfare, needs whole-scale moral reform, not just knit picking to ostracize certain sinful groups, and promoting others."

Again, the arguments I described in my previous post made absolutely no appeal to the Bible. I quite agree, however, that Christians ought to be careful not to single out homosexuality as if it were the 'chief of all sins'. The world is in need of moral reform, and this includes matters such as abortion. The church also needs to be careful not to be found guilty of double standards. As Jesus explained in Matthew 7:4-5, "How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye." The church must be careful to walk in purity and integrity, and not fall into sin.

- Jonathan McLatchie

Britain’s Moral Decline

2012-02-01T00:41:00.000-08:00

The British BBC News last week reported on research conducted at the University of Essex finding that "Britons are less honest than they were a decade ago." According to the article, "the survey of more than 2,000 adults found that people were apparently more tolerant of lying and extramarital affairs than they were in 2000." The study also suggested that younger people have less integrity than older people, that women have marginally more integrity than men, and that occupation and social class has no statistically significant influence on integrity.

To each of the participants, the study (which was previously conducted in 2000) assigned an "integrity score" based on their answers to questions relating to the justifiability of activities such as deceit, pocketing money recovered from the street, and paying for public transport. In the previous study, 70% of participants stated that extramarital affairs were wrong. In the 2011 study, conversely, this figure fell to 50%. In 2000, 40% of participants asserted that pocketing money recovered from the street was wrong. This figure fell to under 20% in the 2011 study.

Professor Paul Whiteley, director of the Essex Centre for the Study of Integrity, said,

“If social capital is low and people are suspicious and don’t work together, those communities have worse health, worse educational performance, they are less happy and they are less economically developed and entrepreneurial. It really does have a profound effect...If integrity continues to decline in the future, then it will be very difficult to mobilise volunteers to support the Big Society initiative,”

The article further reports,

“Prof Whiteley also said he thought part of the reason young people were found to be more likely to be dishonest than older people was because "the role models are not very good".

"If you think about it, you know, footballers that cheat on their wives; some journalists that hack into phones; behaviour in the City, where people are selling financial instruments they think are no good but do not say so. These kind of things," he said.”

It is sad to read such reports of the decline in moral standards in Britain and elsewhere. It is remarkable than 2000 years ago, the apostle Paul would warn Timothy,

"There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— having a form of godliness but denying its power," (2 Timothy 3:1-4).

As I reported previously, the Scottish government is currently making a decision with regards the potential legalisation of same-sex-marriage in the not-too-distant future. Christians must continue to take a stand for that which is right in God's eyes. As we are commanded in 2 Peter 3:11-12, we "ought to live holy and godly lives, as [we] look forward to the day of God and speed its coming."

This article was originally published on Blogos.org.

Why I Love Jesus But Reject Islam: Ivey Conerly

2012-01-31T08:36:00.000-08:00

Note: If you are unfamiliar with the background to this, please watch:

Why I Hate Religion But Love Jesus

Why I Hate Religion But Love Jesus (Muslim Version)

A Christian Response to Kamal Saleh's Islamic Video

Who Wrote the Gospels?

2012-01-31T05:34:00.000-08:00

One often hears the claim, made frequently by skeptical scholars and laypeople alike, that we have no grounds on which to think the four canonical gospels were actually written by the people to whom they are ascribed. The original documents, we are told, were written in anonymity, the attributions being added by scribes at a later date. This claim is made frequently by the notorious textual critic Bart Ehrman. Is Ehrman's assessment correct here, however? Do we have any evidence which might indicate the authorship of the four gospels?

Ehrman is actually mistaken in his assertion that we know the original documents did not bear the name of their author. As Ehrman knows full well (he's constantly reminding us), we don’t have the original documents in our possession (as is the case for all sources of that time period) and so we couldn’t possibly know for sure one way or the other. But I think there is positive indication that the gospels were written by the persons to whom they were attributed by the early church (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John).

One example would be the fact that two of the gospels are ascribed to such minor characters as Mark and Luke -- neither of whom, by any accounts, were themselves eyewitnesses. Had a forger wanted to acquire credibility for his writing he would undoubtedly have attributed it to someone like Peter, Thomas or James (as the later second and third century Gnostic gospels did).

Actually, there is some compelling evidence (both external and internal) that Mark penned the eyewitness accounts of Peter. For example, Justin Martyr, writing around A.D. 150, spoke of Mark's Gospel as "the memoirs of Peter." He suggested that Mark wrote down his material when he was in Itasly (which concurs with other early tradition which indicates that the gospel of Mark was penned in Rome for the benefit of the Christians there. Iraeneus (writing approx. A.D. 185) referred to Mark as "the disciple and interpreter of Peter." Most famously, Papias, the bishop of Hieropolis (writing approx. A.D. 140) wrote,

"And the presbyter [the Apostle John] said this: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherfore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some sayings as he remembered them. For one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements."

It is curious, then, that Mark's gospel did not become “the gospel according to Peter” but, rather, “the gospel according to Mark”.

I also think that the gospel traditionally attributed to John claims that authorship. It refers throughout to the certain “disciple whom Jesus loved”, a disciple who is clearly John but who is never mentioned by name. Given that John is a very prominant disciple in the three other gospels (the synoptics name the Apostle John approximately 20 times), this is very curious indeed, and suggests that the author assumed his readers would know who the author was. In the final chapter of John’s gospel, he writes, “This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down.” In addition, there is some strong external corroboration for the Johanine authorship of John's gospel. Irenaeus (A.D. 130-200), who was a student of Polycarp (A.D. 70-160), who in turn was student of the apostle John, testifies to the Johanine authorship of John and asserts that it was written when John was in Ephesus and when he was well on in years.

There is also some supportive evidence, I think, for the traditional authorship of Luke. Apart from being another fairly minor character (and not one of the twelve disciples), we also know that Acts of the Apostles is written by the same individual as Luke’s gospel. From Acts 16 onwards, the narrator routinely employs the pronouns “we” and “us”, which suggests that the narrator is in close contact with Paul and his companions. Moreover, much of the information relayed in Acts is unlikely to be known by an individual who had not completed that trip -- or, at the very least, been in contact with someone who had. Indeed, Paul, in his letters, refers to his companion Luke three times (Colossians 4:14; 2 Timothy 4:11; Philemon 1:24).

The evidence for the authorship of Matthew's gospel is weaker than for the other three. Matthew's gospel would certainly have to have been written by someone who was familiar with the time and place (e.g. see Peter William's lecture here). The Gospel's authorship, as is the case for all four gospels, goes unchallenged in the early church. In his Ecclesiastical History, the church historian Eusebius (A.D. 265-339) quotes Origen (A.D. 185-254), stating,

"Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publician, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism."

To conclude, there is no good reason to doubt the traditional authorship of the four gospels, and there are various internal and external indicators to suggest that the traditional authorship is correct. I could continue in the same vein, listing such evidences, for some time. For a fuller discussion of the topic, I refer readers to Richard Bauckham’s book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony.

What is the Origin of Digital Information Found in DNA?

2012-01-30T15:14:00.000-08:00

John Lennox to Lecture in Edinburgh Next Monday

2012-01-30T08:36:00.000-08:00

From here:

Gunning for God: Why the New Atheists are Missing the Target

John Lennox of Oxford University argues the case against the views of 'new atheists' such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, both of whom he has debated in person. He argues that their methodology is both flawed and unscientific, and does not give a sound basis for ethics. Followed by an opportunity to ask questions and refreshments.

Phone: 0131 451 4508
Email: m.boulogne@hw.ac.uk

Date: Monday 6th February
Time: 6:30pm
Venue: Heriot-Watt University: James Watt Centre 1, Edinburgh.

Is There a Conflict Between Science and Faith?

2012-01-29T23:39:00.000-08:00

The Makings of an Intelligent Design Theorist: Biochemist Mike Behe On How He Came To Doubt Darwinism

2012-01-29T12:49:00.000-08:00

A Sunday Quote

2012-01-29T09:18:00.000-08:00

"Faith is not a leap in the dark; it's the exact opposite. It's a commitment based on evidence... It is irrational to reduce all faith to blind faith and then subject it to ridicule. That provides a very anti-intellectual and convenient way of avoiding intelligent discussion." John Lennox

The Trinity Defended

2012-01-29T08:44:00.000-08:00

The doctrine of the Trinity has come under increasing attack over recent years from a variety of groups. Some of these groups (such as Muslims and Jehovah's witnesses) deny that this doctrine is even found in Scripture. They are often quick to point out that the word "trinity" is to be found nowhere in the Bible. This is correct. While the phraseology is not found in Scripture, however, the concept most certainly is.

In this article, I want to provide a definition of this important doctrine, explaining what exactly the Trinity is, as well as what is isn't. I shall then examine the Scriptures to see whether they provide adequate substantiation of this concept.

So, what exactly do we mean when we talk about the Trinity? Writing in the early third century, in his Against Praxeas, Tertullian is credited with first employing the words "Trinity", "person" and "substance" to convey the idea of the Father, Son and Spirit being "one in essence -- but not one in person". Indeed, Tertullian writes,

"Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are, one essence, not one Person, as it is said, "I and my Father are One," in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number."

This concept was established as church orthodoxy at the famous Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325. The Nicene Creed speaks of Christ as "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father."

It is this definition that I am going to assume in the discussion that follows. Succinctly, then, the doctrine of the Trinity may be defined thusly: Within the one being or essence that is God, there exists three co-equal and co-divine distinct persons -- namely the Father, Son and Holy Spirit -- who share that essence fully and completely. This concept is not to be confused with polytheism, which maintains that there are multiple gods. While orthodox Christianity emphatically holds there to be only one God, we nonetheless understand God to be complex in his unity. The concept is also not to be confused with the ancient heresy of modalism, which maintains that God exists in three different modes. The Son has never been the Father and the Holy Spirit has never been the Son or the Father. Modalism is refuted by the picture given to us in all four gospels (Matthew 3:16-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22; John 1:32-34) in which the Holy Spirit descends on Jesus in the form of a dove and a voice is heard from Heaven "This is my beloved Son. With him I am well pleased." Similarly, it should be noted that the Father, Son and Spirit do not each make up merely a third of the Godhead. Rather, each of the three persons is God in the full and complete sense of the word.

Having shown that Scripture emphatically rejects the notion that the Father, Son and Spirit are synonymous persons, only five propositions remain to be demonstrated in order to provide Biblical substantiation for the concept of the Trinity. Those propositions are:

There is only one eternal God.
The Father is the eternal God.
The Son is the eternal God.
The Holy Spirit is the eternal God.
Although the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are non-synonymous persons, the concept of the Trinity does not violate the law of non-contradiction.

Let's take a look at each of these in turn.

The Bible Teaches Monotheism

The Biblical support for monotheism is extremely strong, and supporting references are far too numerous to list here. Nonetheless, let us content ourselves with a few examples.

Deuteronomy 6:4:

Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.

Isaiah 43:10-11:

¹⁰ “You are my witnesses,” declares the LORD,
“and my servant whom I have chosen,
so that you may know and believe me
and understand that I am he.
Before me no god was formed,
nor will there be one after me.
¹¹ I, even I, am the LORD,
and apart from me there is no savior.

Isaiah 44:6-8:

6 “This is what the LORD says—
Israel’s King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty:
I am the first and I am the last;
apart from me there is no God.
⁷ Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it.
Let him declare and lay out before me
what has happened since I established my ancient people,
and what is yet to come—
yes, let them foretell what will come.
⁸ Do not tremble, do not be afraid.
Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago?
You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me?
No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.”

1 Corinthians 8:6

Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Isaiah 45:5

I am the Lord, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me.

The Deity of the Father

This is the least controversial of the five points, and many of the verses cited above would suffice to demonstrate it. Indeed, in the high priestly prayer of the Lord Jesus, recorded in John 17, Jesus says to the Father (verse 5), "Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." The Father is similarly referred to as God in John 3:16, in which we read, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

One could continue in this vein for some time. But since nobody is denying this contention, let us move on to consider the Biblical support for the perfect and complete deity of Christ.

The Deity of the Son

The Biblical support for the perfect and complete deity of Christ is similarly very strong. For example, Phillipians 2:5-11 states,

⁵ In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
⁶ Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
⁷ rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
⁸ And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
⁹ Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
¹⁰ that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
¹¹ and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

According to Jude 1:4,

For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.

Titus 2:13 similarly states that we...

...wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

The apostle Peter similarly addresses his second epistle (2 Peter 1:1) to...

...those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours.

Colossians 1:15-20 speaks of Jesus thusly:

¹⁵ The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. ¹⁶ For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. ¹⁷ He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. ¹⁸ And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. ¹⁹ For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, ²⁰ and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

The passage uses the word "firstborn" in this context in the sense that Christ is the heir and all things are His rightful inheritance, not in the sense that he is himself a created being.

Colossians 2:9 similarly asserts that "in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form."

Even in the Old Testament, in Isaiah 9:6-7, we read,

⁶ For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
⁷ Of the greatness of his government and peace
there will be no end.
He will reign on David’s throne
and over his kingdom,
establishing and upholding it
with justice and righteousness
from that time on and forever.
The zeal of the LORD Almighty
will accomplish this.

Citation of this passage is sometimes countered by claiming that the passage distinguishes between the "Mighty God" and the "LORD Almighty." Such an objection is easily refuted, however, when one looks at Isaiah 10:21 and finds the title "Mighty God" being ascribed to Yahweh.

There are many more such references as well. When cultists come to your door, however, they will often attempt to find some wiggle room by crafty manipulations of the Greek. If (like me) you are not well acquainted with Greek, and are thus not competent in demonstrating their abuse of it, this can be quite daunting. There is, however, a means by which you can circumvent such discussions and still persuasively defend the deity of Christ. It is to this that I now turn.

There are numerous occasions in Scripture where titles that are ascribed to Yahweh are also attributed to Christ. One example of this is the title of "the alpha and the omega" or "the first and the last." This title is ascribed to Yahweh in Isaiah 44:6 and 48:12, as well as in Revelation 1:8. It is attributed to Jesus, however, in Revelation 1:17-18. It is very clear from the context that it is Jesus who is speaking because he subsequently says, "I am the Living One; I was dead and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades." Similarly, Revelation 2:8, in the letter to the Church in Smyrna, says "These are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died and came to life again." This title is also attributed to Jesus in Revelation 21:6, as well as in 22:13. Verse 16 of Revelation 22 makes it very clear that it is Jesus speaking, for he says, "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

A further example is the "I AM" title which Jesus ascribes to Himself in John 8:58 (“before Abraham was born, I am!”). The Greek (ego eimi) uses the very same phraseology used in the Septuagint in reference to Yahweh (e.g. Exodus 3:14; Isaiah 43:10). Indeed, the soldiers who come to arrest Jesus in John 18 draw back and fall to the ground upon the very utterance of the words "I AM" from Jesus' lips. This highlights the theological significance of this phrase. The Jews in John 8 certainly understood what He meant, for they picked up stones to stone Him.

Another self-designation of Jesus in the New Testament is the famous "Son of Man" title, a clear reference to Daniel 7:13-14, in which we read the following:

¹³ “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. ¹⁴ He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

Here, Daniel describes a divine-human figure who would be given authority, glory and sovereign power, and would be worshipped by people of all nations and people of every language. When Jesus claimed to be the Son of Man before the high priest Caiaphas (Matthew 26:64-66), Caiaphas tore his clothes, charged him with blasphemy, and condemned him as "worthy of death." The reason? Caiaphas new exactly what that title meant -- it was a direct claim to deity, a crime punishable by death.

What's particularly telling about this claim is that the Son of Man is worshipped by all people. Yet worship is to be given only to Yahweh, as we learn in Deuternonomy 6:13. This verse is quoted by Jesus during his temptation in the desert. In Luke 4:8, Jesus rebukes Satan, saying, "It is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.’" Furthermore, Isaiah 42:8 says,

I am the LORD; that is my name!
I will not yield my glory to another
or my praise to idols.

This leads us to consider yet another of Jesus' sayings. In John 17:5, Jesus says, "And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began." In addition to his claim to pre-exist creation, Jesus here is also claiming to share the glory of the Father.

John 20:28 reports an incident where, following Jesus' resurrection, Thomas -- upon seeing the nailprints in His hands and feet -- worships him calling Him “My Lord and my God!” Jesus nowhere rebukes this act of worship. This stands in contrast to when John fell at the feet of an angel and tried to worship him (Revelation 22:8-9) and was strongly rebuked: “Don’t do that! I am a fellow servant with you and with your fellow prophets and with all who keep the words of this scroll. Worship God!” See Daniel Rodgers' article here for a rebuttal to some of the common objections to this verse.

We also read in Hebrews 1:6, "And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.”

Hebrews 1 contrasts the relationship between the Father and the angels with the relationship between the Father and the Son. In verses 7-12, we read the following:

⁷ In speaking of the angels he says,
“He makes his angels spirits,
and his servants flames of fire.”
⁸ But about the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
⁹ You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.”
¹⁰ He also says,

“In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
¹¹ They will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
¹² You will roll them up like a robe;
like a garment they will be changed.
But you remain the same,
and your years will never end.”

The writer of Hebrews here quotes two Old Testament passages (Psalm 45:6-7 and Psalm 102:25-27 respectively), both of which clearly refer to Yahweh, and applies them to Jesus.

One final example I will consider is found in John 12:37-41:

³⁷Even after Jesus had performed so many signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him. ³⁸ This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet:
“Lord, who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”
³⁹ For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere:
⁴⁰ “He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their hearts,
so they can neither see with their eyes,
nor understand with their hearts,
nor turn—and I would heal them.”
⁴¹ Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about him.

Here, John quotes two passages from the Old Testament and asserts that Isaiah said these things when he saw the glory of Jesus. The first of these passages is from the famous suffering servant passage of Isaiah 53. The second of those refers to Isaiah 6, in which Isaiah beheld the glory of Yahweh seated on his throne in the temple.

Again, in this vein one might continue for a long time. But let us now turn our attention to the status of the Holy Spirit.

The Deity of the Spirit

The Holy Spirit is another doctrine which has come under attack, with some groups (e.g. the Jehovah's witnesses) denying the personhood of the Holy Spirit and asserting instead that it is merely an impersonal active force. In this section, I aim to demonstrate that this view is untenable and contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture.

One very clear reference to the deity and personhood of the Holy Spirit occurs in Acts 5:1-10, in which Ananias and Sapphira are charged with lying to the Holy Spirit and struck down dead as a consequence. Peter rebukes Ananias, saying, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit...You have not lied just to human beings but to God.” Here, not only does the personhood of the Holy Spirit become apparent (one cannot lie to an impersonal entity), but the Holy Spirit is also equated with God Himself.

Another example lies in Acts 13:1-2, in which the Holy Spirit speaks and calls out Paul and Barnabas, sending them out for the work ordained for them. In this passage, the Holy Spirit clearly assumes divine authority. We read,

¹ Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. ² While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” ³ So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.

A further passage we might look to is Ephesians 4:30, in which we are instructed "do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption." Here, the Holy Spirit displays attributes of personhood -- one cannot grieve an impersonal force.

The Holy Spirit is endowed with a will in 1 Corinthians 12:11: "All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines." 1 Corinthians 2:10-11 also ascribes knowledge to the Holy Spirit:

The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. ¹¹ For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.

Mark 3:29 indicates that it is even possible to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit! Only God is able to be blasphemed.

Psalm 139:7-10 also indicates that the Spirit of God is omnipresent:

⁷ Where can I go from your Spirit?
Where can I flee from your presence?
⁸ If I go up to the heavens, you are there;
if I make my bed in the depths, you are there.
⁹ If I rise on the wings of the dawn,
if I settle on the far side of the sea,
¹⁰ even there your hand will guide me,
your right hand will hold me fast.

We also learn in Hebrews 9:14 that the Holy Spirit is eternal ("Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God").

Does the doctrine of the Trinity violate the law of non-contradiction?

Some attempt to argue against the Trinity by asserting that the concept is in violation of the law of non-contradiction. How can God, they ask, be both one and three at the same time? The law of non-contradiction asserts that something cannot be 'a' and 'non-a' at the same time and in the same sense. I do not think the Trinity violates this principle, however, since the doctrine maintains that God is one in a sense and three in a different sense. He is one in substance or essence but not one in person. Indeed, many would argue that, in fact, a multiplicity within the Godhead is the only way in which God's love can be an eternal attribute (within a monadic concept of God, to whom did God show affection before creation?).

Ravi Zacharias explained it like this:

Handling Objections

Most of the objections to the concept of the Trinity stem from a misunderstanding thereof. Some point to instances where the Son is described as subordinate to the Father (e.g. John 5:30; John 14:28; 1 Corinthians 15:28). It is, however, both correct and consistent with the Trinity that there exists a subordination within the Godhead. Just as a wife submits to her husband (Ephesians 5:22; Colossians 3:18; 1 Peter 3:1), so the Son submits to the Father.

Another objection maintains that the Trinity is never alluded to in the Old Testament. However, this is incorrect. For one thing, God often speaks with reference to Himself using pronouns such as "we" and "us". There are also numerous preincarnation appearances of Christ (Christophanies), and the coming Messiah is predicted on numerous occasions. The Son of God receives mention in several places, such as in Proverbs 30:4, in which we read:

Who has gone up to heaven and come down?
Whose hands have gathered up the wind?
Who has wrapped up the waters in a cloak?
Who has established all the ends of the earth?
What is his name, and what is the name of his son?
Surely you know!

The Spirit also features in the Old Testament. For example, Genesis 1:2 says that "the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

Conclusion

To conclude, the concept of the Trinity -- the proposition that God, though being one in essence, is comprised of three divine persons -- is thoroughly grounded in Scripture. The Bible attests to the complete and perfect deity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Though the Father, Son and Spirit are distinct and non-synonymous, the doctrine does not violate the law of non-contradiction since theology concerning the Trinity maintains that God is one in a sense and three in a different sense. Christians can thus confidently assert and defend the Triune nature of God, a doctrine extremely unlikely to have arisen as a human invention in the context of monotheistic Judaism.

Why Apologetics? Dan Strange

2012-01-29T07:37:00.001-08:00

Dan Strange Apologetics from Oak Hill College on Vimeo.

Duelling Professors: John Lennox and Peter Atkins Debate the Existence of God

2012-01-28T10:44:00.001-08:00

Are the Biblical Genealogies Helpful in Establishing the Age of Man?

2012-01-28T06:34:00.000-08:00

In 1650, James Ussher, the archbishop of Ireland, produced a detailed Biblical timeline, going all the way back to the creation of man and the Universe. Based largely on the genealogies given in Genesis 5 and 11, this chronology famously placed the creation of Adam and Eve in the year 4,004 B.C. Indeed, such a view is espoused by many Bible-believing Christians, even today. But just how sound is this view? Are Christians really committed to the view that the creation of man happened no more than 6,000 years ago? It is my personal view that using the Biblical records in this manner is ultimately misguided, and misunderstands the nature of ancient genealogies. One crucial assumption, which is employed in Ussher’s calculation, is the notion that the relevant genealogies are complete: That is to say, they contain no gaps or missing names. But are these genealogies actually complete as Ussher supposed? Here, I attempt to show that such an assumption is unfounded.

Much of the misunderstanding surrounding these genealogies results because we are reading them in modern English and in the context of modern western culture. The genealogies were written in ancient Hebrew and represent ancient Jewish culture. For one thing, the Hebrew word for “son” (ben) can mean “son”, “grandson”, “great grandson” or “descendent”. And, likewise, “father” (Hebrew ab) can mean "father", "grandfather", "great-grandfather" or "ancestor". For example, in Genesis 28:13, God says to Jacob, “I am the LORD the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac”. But Abraham wasn’t the father of Jacob. Isaac was the father of Jacob. Abraham was the father of Isaac, thus making Abraham the grandfather of Jacob. That being said, however, the verb used in Genesis 5 and 11 is the Hebrew “yalad” and is translated “became the father of” in the NIV and “begat” in the KJV. So, it does not even use the word “father” (ab), but rather “yalad” (which is similarly flexible in its meaning). This verb can mean giving birth to someone who is ancestral to the next person named (with many generations skipped). One example of this is the genealogy of Moses in Exodus 6. These genealogies report that Amram and his wife Jochebed “begat” (Hebrew yalad) Moses (two times) and refers to him as “son” (Hebrew ben). Thus, on at least two occasions, it uses the very same verb as used in Genesis 5 and 11. But what is important to notice here is that Amram and Jochebed lived at the time when the Jews entered Egypt while Moses was 80 years old during the exodus some 430 years later. This entails that approximately 350 years (and likely a minimum of 6 generations) lies between Amram/Jochebed and Moses. Thus, literally, it should be rendered ‘Jochebed begat a son (unnamed) who was ancestral to Moses’.

For a thorough discussion of this fascinating topic, I refer readers to this excellent paper by Dr. John Millam. The article lists the following examples where one can definitively say that the genealogies have been telescoped in this manner:

"Matthew 1:8 compared to 2 Chronicles 21:4-26:23
Matthew 1:8 has Jehoram listed as the father of Uzziah but there were several generations between these men. The names Ahaziah (2 Chronicles 22:1), Joash (2 Chronicles 22:11), and Amaziah (2 Chronicles 24:27) come between Jehoram and Uzziah.
Matthew 1:11 compared to 2 Chronicles 36:1-9
In Matthew 1:11 we read that Josiah is the father of Jeconiah (Jehoiachin). In 2 Chronicles, we see that Josiah is the father of Jehoiakim (2 Chronicles 36:4) and grandfather of Jehoiachin (2 Chronicles 36:8).
Luke 3:35-36 compared to Genesis 10:24, 11:12; 1 Chronicles 1:24
Luke contains the name Cainan between Shelah and Arphaxad that is missing in Genesis 10:24 and 11:12 and 1 Chronicles 1:24. Since all of the genealogies are true and Luke is the one with more names, then Luke must be more complete and the rest more telescoped.
Ezra 7:1-5 compared to 1 Chronicles 6:3-15
The genealogy of 1 Chronicles 6:3-15 lists the descendents of Aaron down to Jehozadak (Jozadak). Ezra 7 lists Ezra’s own genealogy going back to Aaron. Where the two genealogies overlap, 1 Chronicles contains 22 names and Ezra contains 16 names, making Ezra’s genealogy no more than 70% complete. Both genealogies span a time period of about 860 years from the exodus to the fall of Jerusalem, which suggests that both genealogies are in fact highly telescoped. A thorough search of the Old Testament reveals that there were many high priests during this time period who are not included in either of these two genealogies, which provides additional evidence that these genealogies are not complete. The following high priests are known from the OT but are not included in these genealogies: Jehoiada (2 Kings 12:2), Uriah (2 Kings 16:10-16), possibly two Azariahs (2 Chronicles 26:17, 20; 31:10-31), Eli (1 Samuel 1:9; 14:3) and Abiathar (2 Samuel 8:17).
1 Samuel 16:10-13 compared to 1 Chronicles 2:13-15
In the 1 Samuel passage, the prophet Samuel goes to Jesse to anoint one of his sons as the new king of Israel. Jesse has his seven eldest sons pass before Samuel but each is rejected. Finally, David, the 8^th son is brought in and is anointed by Samuel as king. We find in 1 Chronicles, however, that David is listed as the 7^th son of Jesse. One of David’s brothers is omitted from the list to allow David to occupy the favored 7^th position. This may seem a bit odd to modern readers but this was an accepted genealogical practice."

One question which often comes up is the literary construct of the genealogical reports. For example, according to Genesis 5:9-11, “When Enosh had lived 90 years, he became the father of Kenan. And after he became the father of Kenan, Enosh lived 815 years and had other sons and daughters. Altogether, Enosh lived 905 years, and then he died.” Some have suggested that the understanding, proposed above, of Biblical genealogies faces difficulty in accounting for the fact that the text would still read: “When Enosh had lived 90 years, be became the ancestor of Kenan…Enosh lived 815 years and had other descendants.” The dates, it is argued, would remain unchanged, even when considering this interpretation - whether Enosh became the father or ancestor of Kenan at age 90, it is argued, is irrelevant to the calculation. In light of what I have tried to show above, however, it is my view that the correct rendering of the text runs along the lines of: “At age 90, Enosh gave birth to a son whose descendants would include Kenan.” Thus, the 90 years refers to when Enosh became a father, not when Kenan was born. While this may seem very peculiar (or even wrong) in English, one must always keep in mind that we are dealing with an ancient Hebrew genealogy.

In conclusion, to try to place dates on Biblical events, squarely on the basis of the genealogies alone, faces significant obstacles, and springs from a misapprehension of the nature of ancient Hebrew genealogies. It is also important to bear in mind that this argument does not concern or address the age of the earth (nor, for that matter, the proper interpretation of Genesis 1). Rather, all it shows is that the Christian need not feel committed, as many contend that we are, to placing the creation of Adam roughly 6,000 years ago. Moreover, such a conclusion may be accepted by young-earth and old-earth advocate alike (I personally fall into the latter of those camps). On the flip side of the coin, the non-believer need not be turned off Christianity by the apparently extremely recent origin of modern humans. There is simply no compelling Biblical mandate for supposing that this is the case.

Peter Atkins to debate UK Apologetics blogger

2012-01-28T06:32:00.000-08:00

So, I've just heard that Peter Atkins has agreed to debate with me on the question, "Does God Exist?" The debate will take place in Oxford on April 27th, 2012. I, for one, am very excited about this, with the opportunity to debate a distinguished proponent of atheism and also to contend for the faith in a largely secular and apathetic city. Prayers that people would consider the claims of Christ as a result of the debate would be enormously appreciated, as would prayers for my preparation (it's just a few weeks before my university finals) and confidence in debate!

Any readers are more than welcome to come - look forward to seeing you there!

Calum

NT Wright Lectures on the Historicity of Jesus' Resurrection

2012-01-27T04:56:00.000-08:00