Another Co (God and me) Incident

One of the ministries I contribute to regularly is Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (http://www.rzim.org/), and every other month or so they send an audio CD with updates on the ministry or one of their many excellent speakers delivering a message.

About a month ago, I received a CD with Dr John Lennox giving his comments on the fatal logic errors in Dr. Stephen Hawking's recent book, The Grand Design, where Hawking purports to show that the existence of physical laws like the Law of Gravity are sufficient to ensure the universe would come into existence without any aid from outside influence or intelligence (God).

I loved that CD playing it at least 20 times in my daily 40 min commutes to/from work. Dr Lennox' insights and comments revealed simple truths that somehow had escaped me even after all my study in philosophy, religion, and apologetics. I shared the CD with many people. I kept telling myself I needed to listen to it at my computer where I could easily pause/rewind, so I could capture the many thoughts/ideas and names Dr Lennox mentioned ... but I just never got it done.

In addition to the occasional CD's, RZIM also mails periodic ministry updates in a small pamphlet, "Just Thinking". On a recent morning I happened to notice one lying on the desk near my keyboard that I had not opened, so I decided to take it as I left for work with the intention of reading it during lunch.

That morning while driving to work, a still small inner voice reminded me I had not transcribed the Lennox CD, yet.

At lunch I broke the seals on the pamphlet and opened to the first article, "Stephen Hawking and God" by John Lennox. Though this was not the identical presentation as the CD, it had all the important points - and it had a bibliography!

Evolving to God's Image?

Which is the correct interpretation of Gen 1:26 - "Let us make/create man in our image" or "Let us evolve this goo so that it will eventually come to our image"? If the later, does evolution make us "better" and more God-like? Have we arrived there yet? Do we finally just evolve into pure immaterial soul and out of time into eternity? I think the jury has already condemned us.

Blinders on! Blinders off!

A 250 word article I submitted to my local newspapers. There will be more on this subject.


You’ve seen pictures of New York city carriage horses wearing blinders. This is a good thing; otherwise, the horse may get distracted and frightened by cars whizzing past.

When students walk into a science classroom with “nature’s all there is” as the underlying truth assumption for all “facts”, they’re being asked to don blinders, too. This is not a good thing – unless the students understand they are being asked to put the blinders on, and they remember to take them off leaving the classroom and entering back into a real world that cannot be adequately explained or lived in by “nature’s all there is.”

Look for the blinders preeminent Harvard biologist, Richard Lewontin, acknowledges: “It’s not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation (nature’s all there is) of the phenomenal world, but … we are forced by our a priori (before any evidence is considered) adherence to material causes to … produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

Lewontin candidly admits science’s primo principle, “nature’s all there is”, is a philosophical assumption that will make up and believe anything to NOT see the Divine. Science has made its little box and pulled its head inside.

Are we teaching horses or students? “Nature’s all there is” (Blinders ON) or “follow ALL evidence wherever it leads” (Blinders OFF)?

Teaching evolution in the classroom can be dangerous

Below is an article I wrote that was published in a local newspaper. 

It was written in support of Louisiana passing a Science Education Act giving teachers the academic freedom to introduce other relevant materials when teaching controversial subjects such as evolution, global warming, stem cell research, etc. As you might expect there were a lot of the typical science vs religion, separation of church and state, sneaking Creationism into the classroom, and shell-game pro-evolution/pro-science articles mixing micro and macro evolution with no distinction articles published in addition to a very slanted Associated Press article that should have been put on the editorial page but was not. 

My article takes a different slant by simply saying that it is dangerous to our children's lives (and the world) if they are simply spoon fed one particular view and do not know how to think critically about all the evidence and be able to follow it wherever it leads. 

Predictably, teachers have already been warned of possible lawsuits if some student is offended by the presentation of alternate materials. So much for academic freedom! 

 In some way, Ben Stein's recent movie, No Intelligence Allowed, precipitated this legislation although the issue has been fermenting for quite a while. This is an excellent movie with a lot of gotcha's straight from the mouth of some of the high evolution priests - like Richard Dawkins admitting there might be something to Intelligent Design ... but the intelligent designer must have been aliens. 

 Here is the article: 

 Teaching evolution in the classroom can be dangerous. Why? Because some students may really get the message and apply it to their lives! 

Macro-evolution theory (bio diversity explained by undirected and purposeless natural causes) is an explanation of life and, if true, has very definite implications on how we should live our lives and view others. 

Paleontologist and evolutionary biologist, Stephen Jay Gould, explained the logical result of evolution: "We are here because one odd group of fishes had a peculiar fin anatomy that could transform into legs for terrestrial creatures; because comets struck the earth and wiped out dinosaurs, thereby giving mammals a chance not otherwise available (so thank your lucky stars in a literal sense); because the earth never froze entirely during an ice age; because a small and tenuous species, arising in Africa a quarter of a million years ago, has managed, so far, to survive by hook and by crook. We may yearn for a 'higher' answer—but none exists. This explanation, though superficially troubling, if not terrifying, is ultimately liberating and exhilarating." 

There’s no more desperate or universal human cry than for meaning and purpose, but, as Gould and many others have said, life has no ultimate meaning and purpose. You’re the accidental product of an undirected and totally natural evolutionary process. You get to invent your own purpose! 

When teachers, scientists, and other authority figures teach young, inquisitive, and idealistic students macro-evolution, don’t we expect them to trust what they’re being taught is true? Should we then be surprised when some learn the lesson all too well attempting to find their liberation in life’s ultimate meaninglessness?

 Sprinkle that onto today’s youth, already assaulted by an unremitting stream of fast food, “have it your way,” consumption-driven, escapist, selfish, pleasure-soaked culture of death, and surprise, surprise, we get school violence, disrespect, suicide (after all, your meaningless life is worthless), teen pregnancies, and absent fathers. 

If the evolutionists are right, “Survival of the fittest” translates into “Do unto others before they do unto you!” Rather than crazy, maybe Klebold and Harris really proved to be the brightest students of all for their 1999 Columbine massacre. 

 This should matter to you. Ideas have consequences. Some ideas produce cures for cancer; others, slaughter millions. 

Men will seize any justification for the evil they are determined to do, and evolution is a very convenient excuse for the trivialization of human worth. 

The 20th century was the bloodiest of all centuries. Three regimes alone – Lenin, Stalin, and Mao Tse-Tung – murdered over 100,000,000 people pursuing their naturalistic philosophy. Adolf Hitler was greatly influenced by evolution. He, and the doctors, scientists, and academics who followed him transformed “survival of the fittest” into justification for eugenics – the extermination of those deemed weak, inferior, and unfit to live. 

Unfortunately, we forget the mind numbing concentration camp images of heaps and heaps of human bodies piled high like so much fire wood. 

Naturalistic philosophy can only shrug at the ease with which flawed beliefs led vast numbers of seemingly normal and rational people to do such horrific evil. This is not to imply that all evolutionists will become Nazis or Communists, but, when science rejects open and honest debate and does not disavow and correct misinterpretation, then a loaded pistol is left out in the open. 

 Macro-evolution theory is not solely to blame for the ills of our culture, but it has become the religion of the secular/naturalistic philosophies driving our cultural institutions - and all this by shutting down serious discussion of counter evidence and the inherent limitations of science’s natural-only assumptions. 

Young people need to be trained to honestly evaluate ideas and the forces and assumptions behind them. This is particularly important as some of today’s greatest issues are ethical ones – embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, human-animal cloning, etc. 

These decisions need to be made by an informed public and not a closed scientific community that answers only to the highest bidder. 

Studying life theories - macro-evolution, Intelligent Design, and even Creationism - presents a wonderful opportunity for teaching our youth how to follow all the evidence wherever it may lead in the pursuit of truth. Their lives and futures are at stake.

The Greatest Wonder of Genesis Creation

Many want to debate whether the creation account of Genesis 1 has God creating everything in 6 literal 24 hour days. 

 To me, the most amazing question if God spoke [willed] everything into existence in 6 literal 24 hour days is, "What did He do with the other 23 hours and 59.9999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 ... you get the idea ... 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999 ... minutes of each day?"

the Evolutionist's Library

Did you hear about the evolutionist who, after much study and thought, threw away his entire library of books - Shakespeare, e.e.cummings, Robert Frost, Isaac Asimov science fiction, chemistry and biology books - and replaced them all with one book? 

He replaced them with a dictionary. 

After all, books are just collections of words, and a dictionary is the comprehensive collection of words. No need of the extraneous books.

In fact, the dictionary is a special Evolution dictionary as the words are in random order. 

When "nature" is all there is, reductionism is the inevitable result of the scientific search for explanations. As Richard Dawkins said, "We're just dancing to our DNA."

My DNA made me do it!   How's that as an answer for evil?  

The god of the Mirror

Very interesting 10 segment video of a debate between Christopher Hitchens (God is Not Good) and Dinesh D'Souza (What's so Great About Christianity) at King's College NYC on You Tube. 

The first segment is here. 

 There has been a recent glut of "God/religion is bad" books by the likes of Richard Dawkins and Hitchens. As I have read commentaries and books on these, watched videos as the above, and based on my own experience with local atheists (including my semi-atheist younger self), two thoughts have been firming up in my mind.  

One thought is that even when these people are willing to assume God's existence, they form their ideas, writings, and speech around the god of the mirror - not the God of the Bible, but a god fashioned in their own image. 

So, when Christopher Hitchens rails about how immoral god is, he is absolutely right. He's seeing his own image in the mirror. It's like those who choose to marvel at man's engineering and scientific greatness in building a magnificent telescope rather than be awestruck at the wonders revealed. 

Then, notice the cool calculated vehemence and loathing coming through in Hitchens. Add to that the fact that these writers have all but given up on trying to support their positions with credible arguments and evidence - reason is thrown out the window. 

I recommend Alister and Joanna Collicutt McGrath's book, The Dawkins Delusion, where he and his wife expose the non-existent arguments of Richard Dawkins in his book, The God Delusion. On the cover of The Dawkins Delusion, atheist Michael Ruse is quoted: "The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist, and the McGraths show why." 

 It's right out in the open. It seems we have turned a corner; the wraps are coming off; gasoline is being thrown on the fire. 

Opportunity knocks.

Evolution - Dead Man Walking

This was submitted to local newspapers for publication:

The man thought he was dead. Trying to convince him otherwise, the doctor asked, "Do dead men bleed?" "No," the man thoughtfully responded. The doctor pricked the man’s finger drawing blood. Amazed, the man exclaimed, "Dead men do bleed!" A bad starting thesis, "I am dead", can corrupt evidence and conclusions.

Preeminent evolutionary biologist, Richard Lewontin explains science’ devotion to naturalism: "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs … not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation … we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door …"

Real power is in ideas, not weapons. In the twentieth century, ruthless Hitlers, Stalins, Maos and Pol Pots pushed evolution’s practical consequence, "life has no intrinsic value," and men died by the tens of millions. The naturalism of scientific method fed men’s naturalistic ambition, "might makes right." Evolution’s theory, "red in tooth and claw," ran red over the ground.

So, life is a cosmic accident; we are products of blind chance. If true, then Stalin is not responsible for his crimes. He was just dancing to his DNA explains the evolutionist. Should you be concerned about the scientific theory of evolution?

Lewontin let the cat out of the bag. Science’ obsession with materialistic answers is not scientifically required at all - it’s a philosophical commitment. The real controversy to be taught is not science vs. faith but science’ faith in naturalism. Remember the "dead man"?

I Agree with Atheist Richard Dawkins

I'll bet that title got your attention! Obvoiusly, as a Christian, I don't agree with everything infamous evolutionist/atheist Richard Dawkins has said, but there are a few things I believe he got right - unwittingly. It's kind of like Caiaphas saying, “You know nothing at all, nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish” (Jn 11:49-50, NASB), and the crowd crying out for Jesus' death at his trial before Pilate, “His blood shall be on us and on our children!” (Mt 27:25, NASB).

Examples:

"By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out." This one is rather tame. Who wouldn't agree - you would be surprised! Many people think minds are meant to always be open. I disagree. Minds are meant to close on facts guided by the light of truth. Openness is just a mind-phase enroute to closing.

"I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world." I agree because Dawkins obviously does not include Christianity in his definition of religion (remember, religion is man seeking after God/Godlessness - Christianity is God seeking man) since the early pioneers of modern science were Christians. These men/women were propelled by their belief in a God of order who revealed Himself in the complexity and order of His creation. For them, uncovering the mysteries of the universe was akin to touching the mind of God. Unfortunately, ignorance (much willfull) on matters of religion is epidemic in our culture and most do not see this distinction nor know their science history. True science goes where the evidence leads ... but, wait a minute, isn't Dawkins an evolutionist?

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence." Once again, as above, it is obvious that Dawkins excludes Christians from those of faith and for the same reasons. I'm sure there is a word that describes ghost words. In our culture today, the word faith has an unseen, but clearly understood, preceeding ghost word - blind. Of course, from the context of his quote, it is clear this is what Dawkins is referring to. Anyone who has actually studied the Christian Bible knows that the Biblical concept of faith is more a reasonable faith or trust - definitely not blind. Unfortunately for Dawkins, though, this kind of leaves him hanging on the horns of his own quote. What kind of faith does it take to believe that Darwin's theory of macro evolution is true -- in spite of the lack of evidence in support of it and the growing body of contradictory evidence?

I may continue this later ...

You may want to go here and check out more of Dawkin's quotes.