I'm still a heretic

In the latest edition of Christianity Today, there is a review of a book that criticizes YEC. I’ve also read a couple of follow-up discussions at several websites, and it seems that since I don’t believe in a “young earth”, I am not a Bible believer, I am a scoffer, I am a misguided fool, I am a blasphemer, I am confused, I must deny whole portions of God’s Word and I hold to a twisted ideology. Oh, and don’t foget a charlatan and apostate, who is intellectually dishonest, and NOT a Christian.

I’m so glad we have all of that settled, including my one-way ticket to hell. Actually, it’s not the first time this has happened to me, that so-called brothers in Christ attacked my faith like that. Whenever I enter those discussions I make a bet with myself on how long it will be before the ad-homs start flying, and I usually lose because I overestimate the goodwill and fellowship of those who call themselves Christian.

We criticize atheistic evolutionists for their unwillingness to enter dialogue, for their hand-waving dismissal of anything that contradicts their beliefs, for closing the scientific apparatus to anything that doesn’t hold to their assumptions. And the criticism is valid. But why do some Christians insist on doing the same when it comes to the YEC position? I perceive the atheist attitude as being a sign of weakness, that such aggression and name-calling are the only techniques left after the house of cards come tumbling down. Must we now conclude that the YEC position is equally as fragile? Surely not.

Calling me names does nothing to my faith, and does nothing to God’s truth either. But it does affect my impression of those whom I enter into discussions with. I can call names as much as the next guy, but that is a waste of time, and an insult to God. In an area as sensitive as this, which seems to cause much division among Christians, it is especially an affront to our Savior that we cannot show goodwill and honesty towards brothers. Frankly, it just causes many to not want to have discussions like that any more. I now have to hide my beliefs because I know where it will lead….not to fruitful discussion but to the accusations above.

So I would urge that we show some tolerance and understanding amongst ourselves before launching into attacking others in such a brutal and insulting fashion. This manner of debate seems to have become a staple of modern America, answer your detractors by calling them the worst names you can think of and you will have won the debate. Facts, research and careful analysis seem to have mostly gone by the wayside as a result of this culture of attack. It’s easier to rattle off a two-line putdown than to conduct some research to see if the other person actually has a valid point or not, and to prepare a careful and thoughtful response. Pulling down a link is still easier should the conversation continue past the first exchanges.

We are so fortunate that we stand on the shoulders of giants that went before us, and that some serious scholars take the time today to try and gain insight into the mysteries of our Lord. That type of wisdom can never come from being proud and insulting mockers of brothers, but can come only from being humble before God.

So next time, before you mock and insult a brother or sister in Christ, think what effect you may have on that person. I can promise you, it is not a positive effect. Pray and be still before God before you speak dismissively and angrily. You may just honor God more that way.

The D-word

The storm rages (or fizzles) on. Intelligent design is creationism in disguise, theistic evolution is true but one cannot prove it by detecting design, and naturalistic evolution is still the ad-populum argument for atheism.

But what is design (the D-word) really? And can we argue that it is creationism in disguise?

There are of course a few definitions for design, but it seems to be appropriate in these discussions to define it as someone or something, with a predetermined outcome in mind, put forth some specifications for what that outcome should look like. As an engineer myself, I used to do that all the time…calculate and draw up designs from a statement of work, or, to use a military term, a required operational capability. But there had to be a starting point, some idea of where we wanted to go before we could add the numbers etc. Building and testing what was designed was a whole other mess.

I’m not always impressed with ID (Intelligent Design) being labeled as “creationism”. As a creationist, I don’t think it goes far enough. It kind of hinges on the edge of being useful. Because the one thing that evolution proposes that ID doesn’t, is a mechanism by which what we see (and what we are) has come to be. I can design things all day long, but without an artisan to put those designs into a working physical form, those designs are completely useless. One can see why there are supporters of theistic evolution, however flawed that compromise might be.

I guess one could argue that detecting design is a useful exercise, and may disprove one of the assumptions of the naturalistic movement, that of ontological naturalism…or does it? In efforts to keep ID immune from accusations that it is nothing but thinly disguised creationism, it has been proposed that a designer might be aliens. Which of course begs the question, where did the aliens come from? And in the absence of evidence, it is a similar commitment to that of a creator God. In other words, we are no closer to solving the ontological dilemma.I will add that the same holds true for the naturalistic atheist side, a belief in a multiverse is equally without proof.

In the end, we know very little. Do I think that the universe was designed? Sure. Do I think we can detect that it was designed? Sure. Do I think that we are all the result of a mindless random process? Most assuredly not. Do I have an alternative process by which we came to be? Sure, but it sure as heck isn’t scientific by current standards.

See, the problem is that something had to kick it all off. Something had to come from nothing, somewhere in the past, regardless of what position you hold. Time cannot be eternal past. Is the argument then how things developed from the first coming into existence until now, billions of years later, or is it the first appearance of existence, or both? We have options…

1. Something came from nothing. No go, because, nothing, well, means nothing.
2. Something came from something. What is/was the second something?
3. God created the universe from nothing. And here we have to stop and ask about mechanism. Because although one can design things with an outcome in mind, without hands and materials it is meaningless.

And this is where I feel that the current discussion ends. We simply don’t know. Design theory sure as heck ain’t gonna tell us. Non theistic evolution grinds to a halt pre-life. We simply cannot comprehend how something can come from nothing. Our whole life revolves around cause and effect.

As a creationist I of course believe that God created it all. He said it and it came to pass, instantly. God’s perspective of course is a lot different. He did not design with an outcome in mind. The outcome was there at the same time as the design, as God eternal is outside of our time dimension. God did not first put out a statement of work, and then calculated a drew the whole universe out, and then called up His Heavenly artisans to chop, hammer and fit together the whole universe. No, it was all complete in both design and existence at the same time. Of course, being subject to the temporal world, we perceive it a lot differently.

So while I believe that ID is useful to expose the limitations of non-theistic evolutionary mechanisms, it does not go far enough in trying to determine how design became existence.

Atheist faith

I am involved in a small discussion with the resident atheist over at our team blog. The discussion has moved to what atheists hold to by faith, among other things. Feel free to drop by.

Christian Skepticism

The "Creationism" Conflict

With the nomination of Gov. Sarah Palin came the usual slew of liberal attacks on everything from her pro-life stance and actions, to the DUI her husband had in 1986…22 years ago. All of these attacks are of course because the left does not really want to discuss the issues, but prefer to fling insults instead. To Senator Obama’s credit, he did say that her family issues were off limits. It’s just that his supporters are not listening.

But the one attack, breathlessly uttered with wide eyes and beads of anticipatory sweat rolling down their foreheads, as if this is the disqualifier of all disqualifiers, is that she is *gasp*…a creationist. Now while that remark may stand as an accusation among the secular left, for many Americans it is the natural result of her well-published Christianity. But the “accusation” does not stop there. Nope, it gets worse. She actually once said that she wouldn’t mind seeing “creationism” taught alongside other theories of origin in schools. Talk about being radical…

I don’t claim to know what Gov. Palin believes about creation. It falls under that section of things that really does not bother me that much. If she has faith alone in Christ alone for her salvation, then that settles it for me. And it appears that she does.

But what does bother me is the hypocrisy, or at the very least, the intellectual dishonesty of those who level “creationism” as a charge. Look, it is real simple. As a parent, or as someone who has attended schools and colleges, I want to know that I’ve been taught the truth, and that my children will be taught the truth. No distortions, no lies, no nonsense.

So the question then, to those who level this charge of “creationism”, what have you done to disprove that the universe has been created? Regardless of the various creation beliefs out there, this is the fundamental question. Because if the universe was in fact created, then wouldn’t we want our children to know that truth? Now some may say that we have some idea of how we came to be through the big bang and subsequent development, but that is a category mistake. Because that does not answer the question of origins. It merely describes the processes governed by natural laws that happened over a finite time period based on an limited view of the universe and some extrapolation and interpretation of evidence, after the beginning. Kinda like a history class, where the victors get to write the history we are taught.

Logically, something cannot come from nothing. Nothingness has no existence or being. It cannot create anything because it is not. So we have to assume that the universe had a cause. Or else, we may have ourselves fitted with a matching set of intellectual eyepatches, and continue to whine about the fact that we don’t want to know this, and we also don’t want our children to know this.

In the overall scientific context, origins make up a relatively small part of all studies. And is so because we mostly wish to have science make a difference to our lives through innovation and application. Mentioning in a science class that the very beginning is down to two options, creation of some sort, or whatever alternative theories secularists wish to posit, should not be that big a deal. And it will have zero influence on the scientific efforts of those who wish to innovate and apply science in the service of mankind, be they atheist, agnostic or religious.

Yes, there are some who want to use the science classroom as a pulpit for evangelization. That is another category error, one cannot resolve presuppositions of that nature in the science class. On the other side it leads to the slippery slope argument, where secular scientists want to make us believe that juxtaposing two theories of absolute origins will lead to us being back banging rocks in the stone age.

Both sides have to lighten up. No, we should not be teaching any of the pet theories of either creationists or atheists in the science classroom. Because we want to have our children know the truth. Right now, the best scientific evidence points to a universe that is around 14 billion years old. No-one knows what happened before then. In fact, no-one can know what happened before then, because there was no before. Time began then. (A sidenote about the theory of evolution: Is it the best evidence we have right now? It may be, but I am biased to believe that it is not all that it is cracked up to be. But it is not a critical element of absolute origins, at least not for the purposes of my argument here, so it is irrelevant to my discussion.)

There are only two possibilities. An eternal God caused the universe to come into existence, or there was some other cause. Right now, as with the best scientific evidence for an old universe, the best evidence is that an eternal being caused the universe to come into existence. Through an act of creation. Because there are no real feasible and intellectually honest alternatives.

Atheists are free to deny that. As some Christians are free to argue that the universe is 6000 years old. But that does not make it true, nor does it mandate the teaching of that in the science classroom. We should be teaching whatever best evidence we have now. Will this lead to less research and a throwing up of hands in hopeless despair when it comes to absolute origins, saying Goddidit, and leaving it at that, as some the atheist peanut gallery would lead us to believe? No, of course not. We are commanded to rule over creation, and that includes understanding it. From beginning to end. I’ve not yet met a Christian scientist who’ve reached a seemingly dead end and gave up saying that it’s down to divine fiat, and stopped his research. Is it possible that we will never know exactly how something came from nothing, even by virtue of creation? Sure, but it does not mean that we will stop trying to learn as much about it as we can.

Would such a statement about absolute origins violate the separation of church and state? I can hardly see that it would, since it does not assume the character of a church per se, nor does it lead to the promotion of a church or churches, nor does it lead to the creation of a church in school. The battle cry of the atheist is not separation of religion and state, or Creator and state, merely church and state. Their problem is that those atheists do not want the exclusive right to trumpet their masked illogic and religious belief in the non-existence of a Creator taken away. Well, until they can prove that the universe came to be without intervention from a Creator, the doubts will exist, whether they like it or not, and the most logical one should be taught, in the name of truth.

Leveling “creationism” as a charge then, holds little merit. It demonstrates the agenda of the one making the “accusation”, and at the very least demonstrates his ignorance. Generally, it shows bigotry and hatred towards those who believe in an eternal Creator.

Governor Palin is to be commended for standing up for her beliefs, and for wanting our children to be taught the truth, or, at the very least, be able to see the alternatives where some believe there is ambiguity and let them decide for themselves. If that is a disqualifier, then every secularist who demands exclusivity should be excluded from running for office as well, because they want to withhold the truth from our children. And us.

Theistic evolution?

Roddy Bullock writes an insightful article on the topic of theistic evolution here. I also have my doubts about theistic evolution, since it seems like an untenable compromise. To hold consistently to theistic evolution means to abandon central beliefs in either theism or evolution. My general experience is that it leads to a deistic position on the religious side, or an intelligent design argument on the origins side.

I agree with Roddy that it obviously dilutes God to hold a compromise position. What he does not clearly illustrate is how his position, that of ID, necessarily leads to theism. Maybe it just was not within the scope of this article, but I do think that one could present a stronger alternative argument.

Still a good article, nonetheless  and a good read.

If you can't beat them, ban them

The Council of Europe is contemplating a ban of creationism, because it “is not based on facts, does not use any scientific reasoning and its contents are pathetically inadequate for science classes.” and “The total rejection of science is definitely one of the most serious threats to human rights and civic rights.”

The whole report can be read here.

Of course, this is nothing more than the normal ad-hominem attacks that we have become used to, and is yet another institutionalized attack on Christianity.  For now, the council has decided not to vote on the topic, but it is bound to rear its head again.

It is indeed sad to see that the secularization of Europe is nearly complete, and even sadder to see that the only religion really fighting that is Islam. Christianity seems to have crawled under a politically correct “seen-but-not-heard” rock all over Europe. What happened to the continent which gave us the great European theologians, those who gave us our Christian heritage? Where are the Christians? Why are they not visibly proclaiming the gospel?

Where are the Christian leaders?

The leaders of Europe must stand warned. And should the leadership of any country try to follow suit, contemplate the following:
Psa 2:1  Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain?
Psa 2:2  The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD and against his anointed, saying,
Psa 2:3  “Let us burst their bonds apart and cast away their cords from us.”
Psa 2:4  He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision.
Psa 2:5  Then he will speak to them in his wrath, and terrify them in his fury, saying,
Psa 2:6  “As for me, I have set my King on Zion, my holy hill.”
Psa 2:7  I will tell of the decree: The LORD said to me, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you. Psa 2:8  Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession.
Psa 2:9  You shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.”
Psa 2:10  Now therefore, O kings, be wise; be warned, O rulers of the earth.
Psa 2:11  Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
Psa 2:12  Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him. 

Not only will God withdraw His favor from those leaders and countries who deny Him, but He will destroy them.

Make no mistake, banning creationism is an attack on the Creator. It has little to do with science, or the teaching of intelligent design. This is pure and simple intellectual arrogance stemming from atheistic presuppositions, as can be seen from the statement that “science” is the only hope for human and civic rights. In trying to ban the Creator, these hypocrites are doing exactly the opposite of what they claim to be protecting. What about the human and civic rights of those who believe in the Creator? Of course, that does not matter, they can be marginalized without recourse.

I continue to fear for the future of Europe. Secular humanism has taken over, and is ruling socially. In the not too distant future, it seems the Creator will be outlawed, and the fall will be complete.

Fossil evidence

I am having a conversation here in the comment section at Triablogue about the suitability of the fossil record as proof for evolution. Touchstone, the other person in the conversation, seems to be a staunch theistic evolutionist, and we can see some of the difficulties this position faces. I can understand his desire to believe in the virtues of science, but one also needs to retain perspective as to what is being said, and the conclusions drawn. Evolutionary theory is an inherently atheistic theory, unless one holds to some modified version, such as our friend is doing in this case, in which case it runs into problems of its own.

Ultimately, science was also given to us by God to explore and understand His creation, and to better glorify Him by ruling the creation. Any efforts that undermine that understanding are futile at best, and heretical at worst.

Questions on natural selection

Over at the Uncommon Descent blog, there is quite a good discussion going on around a paper published by two Finnish scientists about whether evolution is directed or not. Scroll down in the comments to read some interesting discussions about natural selection.

Is directed evolution Darwinian?

Darwin said:“Several writers have misapprehended or objected to the term Natural Selection… [Natural selection] implies only the preservation of such variations as arise and are beneficial to the being under its conditions of life… It has been said that I speak of natural selection as an active power or Deity; but who objects to an author speaking of the attraction of gravity as ruling the movements of the planets? Every one knows what is meant and is implied by such metaphorical expressions; and they are almost necessary for brevity. So again it is difficult to avoid personifying the word Nature; but I mean by nature, only the aggregate action and product of many natural laws, and by laws the sequence of events as ascertained by us.”

Darwin here conflates two things, natural laws, and the human descriptions of those laws. Natural laws exist independently of human description. Whether humans had described the laws of gravity or not, it existed. He then proceeds to assert that natural selection falls in that category. There is no non-circular proof that natural selection is indeed as axiomatic as gravity. For that to hold true, natural selection must be self-evidently true, in all cases, everywhere. As we have seen with the breakdown of physical laws at the quantum level, that is not even true for gravity.

One of the commenters there rightly asks the question:”What is natural selection a cause of?” The circularity of natural selection has long been proposed by opponents of evolution, and denied by its supporters.

Natural selection boils down to fitness of organisms and the survivability of those organisms in specific environments. The selection is the preservation of those organisms best suited to survive, and therefore reproduce more, ensuring that, over time, those organisms outlive those that are not quite as adapted to survive.

Not quite as simple, though. Firstly, the circularity is apparent. Natural selection selects that which is most fit to survive. Which are most fit to survive? That which is selected.

Secondly, Lewontin (2003), points out
“In modern evolutionary theory, however, “fitness” is no longer a characterization of the relation of the organism to the environment that leads to reproductive consequences, but is meant to be a quantitative expression of the differential reproductive schedules themselves.”

So is selection natural or guided? Is it random or by script? If the reproductive differentials are quantified, as Lewontin pioints out, then how do they claim non-random randomness? Or is it guided by “Nature”, the metaphorical force that Darwin made literal? Isn’t it totally superfluous?

For the atheistic philosophers, it takes the place of a guide, and does away with the need for any underlying intelligence in the universe, and therefore they will continue to play dumb on the inherent flaws of natural selection. It is their prior religious commitment, not rational thought, that selects natural selection for survival.

Irrelevance of evolutionary evidence

Once again, the evolutionists are out in full force to protect the failing theory all over the world. Emboldened by the rhetoric of Dawkins and his ilk, and armed with their normal arsenal of ad-hominems, they claim victory. A bit prematurely, if I may say so.

The truth is that contrary to the claims of these miracles of determinism, the theory of evolution is under unprecedented pressure, from both philosophical and scientific sides. That is why we see a concerted attack from the enemies of the truth to try and legislate their opposition to the truth into law.

And it all starts with a simple assumption, the assumption of materialism. Once one holds that the materialistic is all there is, then there simply is no room for anything that cannot be explained in materialistic terms, or at least, that is how the philosphy goes. A small problem for the proponents of materialism is that their pet belief cannot be explained in materialistic terms. It cannot be observed, nor measured, nor falsified. They can quote ancillary evidence, but infinite regress is the probable result. Eventually it leads to radical skepticism or appeals to the metaphysical.

But even more depressing for the evolutionists must be the collapse of their house of cards. The growth of biochemistry since the 1950′s has made irrelevant the majority of evidence cited in favor of evolution. Gaps in the fossil record or continuous lineage? Doesn’t matter. Anatomical phylogeny? Irrelevant. Speciation? Cambrian explosion? Homology? Tree of life? Common ancestry? Observe, demonstrate and prove the evolutionary biochemical pathways for the preceding assertions, then we will start to see something that approaches scientific proof for evolution. The simplest of organisms and organs are immensely complex at the molecular level. It requires intricate, specific and sequenced interaction between molecules to perform functions once regarded as simple.

Here is an example of what happens at the molecular level: Inner life of the cell
The development of those processes needs to be described in evolutionary terms, i.e. mutation and selection, with specific attention to the development and interaction of each of the elements, from the universal common ancestor. Nothing like that has even been seriously attempted, yet this is where all of the functions and characteristics of life are determined. Sure there has been some light speculation, yet the emphasis has been on storytelling as opposed to proof from an evolutionary perspective.

This is why the anatomical and fossil evidence for evolution is simply irrelevant. It was relevant before the advent of biochemistry, when scientists did not know any better. Now there is no excuse, biochemical evolutionary pathways, that underlie the anatomical, must be shown, or else the arguments weaken significantly, to the point of saying that humans can think because of the shape of their skull. Yet today we continue to be bombarded with fossil and anatomical arguments as if biochemistry has nothing to say about the matter.

But coming to admit the 800-pound gorilla of the lack of biochemical evolutionary proof would mean retreat, at the very least, until some proven explanations exist. And the commitment to materialism will not allow retreat, because it may mean defeat in the long run. So it is onward, banking on the ignorance of the general populace, expressed as ad-hominem and atheistic legislation.

As for me, watching that video, once again shows me that even before I watched it, I knew:
Psa 139:13 For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. Psa 139:14 I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.
Psa 139:15 My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth.

We are indeed wondefully made, carefully put together for the glory of God alone.

More on abiogenesis and evolution

If you want to strike a raw nerve with supporters of the theory of evolution, ask them about the origin of life. I already spoke about this, but it seems to be such a controversial topic that it may be worth sharing some further thoughts.

For the origin of life, biological evolution accepts the existence of an organism with certain characteristics as axiomatic. However, something can only be considered axiomatic if it is self-evident or explained. That is the reason that colleges include origin of life in their courses on evolution. As we all know though, the origin of life is neither self-evident nor well explained at the moment.

The question then is, how reliable can your theory be if one of the axioms are unknown?

And I can hear the protests, have heard them many times: “We don’t need to know it, all we are doing is describe the subsequent happenings.” The problem with that line of reasoning is that at the very least life had to have certain characteristics that directly originated from pre-life for the evolutionary mechanisms to work as postulated. The demarcation between life and non-life then becomes a little foggy, and the boundary between the origin vs the existence of life vague, and boils down to the question how that can be experimentally proven? I.e. how do we experimentally prove what is part of biological evolution and what is not? By the definition given by evolution supporters, that would be the requirement for it to be scientifically valid.

Should one wish to assert that nature and living creatures can create new information, one has to account for what the first bit of information changed by mutation and selected by nature looked like. One cannot describe what it looked like without going to the logically prior step, which was non-life. The origin of life is the first of a series. The terms of reference for the first in a series can never be totally irrelevant in establishing a sequence or series if you establish that no such first term of the series could exist when constrained by the same terms of reference. (Thanks GeorgeR)

The terms of reference cannot be different for the first in the series than it is for the rest. Evolution is an origins science. The first in the series had to come about by the same mechanisms as the successive. For example, the most primitive life form needs around 100 proteins to function. How did it get from 90 proteins to 100 proteins? One cannot assume a first life form for changes to act on unless it contains the elements needed, i.e. DNA, RNA and proteins, and without assuming that the mechanisms at work necessarily existed. How can one assume that the evolutionary mechanisms are at work in successive generations, but they are not present or workable during the first? To logically make those assumptions, they must be proven to have existed, otherwise one indulges in some serious question-begging.

In evolution, the elements needed for the mechanisms to act on are supposedly exactly the same between life and prelife, it’s only a critical mass that differs.

And that remains a huge obstacle for evolutionists. They have an axiom which is not self-evident nor easily explained, therefore they want us to simply ignore it.