Random Thoughts

Just a few things to make you go "Hmmm?"

• According to the book Freakonomics, Paul Feldman receives payment for only 89% of the bagels he puts out and sells on the honor system. Many point to this to say that people are inherently good, that's a solid 'B' in any 100 point grading system. But if you want to get into Harvard a solid 3.0 isn't good enough. Why then, when God so clearly says the standard is 100% perfection (Matthew 5:48), do we choose to live as though 89% is good enough? (By the way, when God grades, he allows you to use Christ's test scores and since this is allowed, it's not cheating.)

• When I read the excerpt from "The Language of God" on the ABC New website, I was initially struck by this thought, there are many who would like to believe they have managed to be true "mainstream scientists", that is believing that evolution, an old earth and the like are established facts of science; but who are still true believers in the Biblical God of Genesis. I am not making any statement regarding Dr. Collins' point of view, I have not read the entire book. But when you choose to believe the evidence of science over the bible that you claim is written by a perfect, transcendent, loving God, aren't you putting faith in the science ahead of faith in God? Seems to me, you can't serve two masters. Personally, when faced with two conflicting conclusions, I choose to believe the one that makes explanation of the Biblical text simpler. Yes, I choose to believe, but that is what faith is. And if I profess to put my faith first and foremost in the Biblical God, isn't such a choice the logical decision?

It's Complicated.

Recently. I spoke with a man who had taught high school for over twenty years. Our conversation involved the science around origins and he showed me how some equations are incredibly simple. He maintained that this was a proof of an engineer at work. But I went further into more complex issues about the early universe. Theories held by evolutionists and reasons I believe in a literal six day creation. At this point he said that he believed there was little point in my pursuit of origins. Either you believed in creation or you didn't. Moreover he thought that high school students would never pay attention to such complicated matters.
So, is he right, should I abandon high school students? Are theories about origins too complicated? Should they be left only to the academics at college?

Absolutely Not!

1. If Christians abandon the complicated world of science we surrender the intellectual ground and effectively admit that intelligent, thinking people do not believe the God of the Bible.
2. As a country, our high schools no longer lead the world. What we need are young men and women who are equipped to solve the complicated problems that face us, not simpletons who want simple answers given to them.
3. Finally, philosophy, real philosophy is a complex, difficult matter. But just as it's complicated, it is also vitally important. Whether one is aware of it or not, everyone has a philosophy, and that philosophy influences their actions and decisions every day. The vast majority of our high school students have been fed a philosophical diet founded on evolutionary science. If Christians do not act to counter this with valid, well founded science showing the evidence for a creator God we are sacrificing our culture, our country, our society to the moral relativism that is the only alternative to anarchy in an evolutionary philosophy.

Circumstantial Evidence

I took chemistry as a freshman in college. During the first semester, we studied the electron clouds that surround atoms. More specifically, we learned (or were supposed to learn in my case) about the various, different shaped electron shells. I was having a difficult enough time understanding it all when the instructor made the following statement, or words to this effect. "We don't really know if these shapes actually represent the probability of the electrons position. However, when we apply these probabilities to our mathematical models of how atoms interact, these shapes provide the best explanation of the behavior we observe." Me, I'm sitting in my chair, thinking, "I've just spent two weeks trying to understand this and now you're telling me, we don't even know if it's true!" I had no hope of understanding the issue. Eventually I passed chemistry--barely. But I never did understand those electron shells.

Why did I tell this story? Because it is a fundamental instruction in how much of the unobservable sciences proceed. We extrapolate our knowledge from models built to explain what we observe. As far as I know, no one has ever seen an electron, not with any available magification methods. What we do know is how certain atoms interact with other atoms and the streaks left behind in collision chambers when atoms hit each other at very high speeds. From these observations, we attempt to define models which explain the behavior we see.

In researching "myths" surrounding the science of origins, I came across a Scientific American article titled "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense" (Rennie, John, Scientific American. 18 June 2002.) At the end of his article, Mr. Rennie makes the following statement, "'Creation science' is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms." In context of the article, the implication is that the universe must exist entirely due to naturalistic mechanisms because science cannot study any other means. While I agree with the stated boundaries of scientific inquiry, I do not agree that there can can be nothing beyond these boundaries, or even that anything beyond these boundaries is either unknowable or of no consequence to us.

Before I go further, let me remind the reader, that I do not wish to foment any dissension among the participants in this discussion. Though I disagree with many of Mr. Rennie's conclusions, his article is actually well thought out and well written. In fact, Mr. Rennie raises several legitimate questions that origins scientists should take very seriously. (More about this later.)

To dismiss creation science solely on the basis of its reliance on a supernatural creator is as unjustified as the creationist presumptions with which Mr. Rennie takes issue. But why are they unjustified? Since science by its very nature cannot determine anything of a supernatural being, isn't naturalistic mechanisms all we are left with or at least all we can know? Well, first, we must back up and realize that the previous question is misleading. In legal parlance, it "assumes facts not in evidence". (I watch a lot of TV legal shows.) Secondly, the ability to observe or prove scientifically does not automatically preclude the existence of a supernatural being.

Why is it assumed that science can have no opinion about the existence of a supernatural being? I freely admit, that science cannot directly observe, much less reproduce the effects a supernatural being might have on the world. By its very nature, the supernatural encompasses those things which actually (not just apparently) defy the laws of the universe. However, just as evolution though not directly observed can be inferred from circumstantial evidence; so too may science not only study the effects of a supernatural being, but in fact, infer something about the nature of such a being.

The challenge to scientists, is to produce reasonable and defensible evidence within the physical universe of an extra-universal beings impact. Our charge is to find the "fingerprints" of God.

For Christians:
Especially to the Bible-believing Christian, I want to point out that we should be more hopeful than any other at being able to find God's fingerprints all over the world. In Romans 1:20, we are told, "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." (New International Version). If this is true, then whether on a majestic or microscopic scale, we should be able to find God's fingerprints, pointing us ever back to Him. What an amazing privilege it is to pursue God by studying His creation!

What is "Life" anyway?

In my last post, I proposed that we need to re-examine how life emerged from non-life some time in the past. But what do we mean "life"? What trait distinguishes the living from the non-living? If we are going to investigate how life emerged, we need to understand what it is we are investigating. Despite the broad use of the terms and apparent self-evidence of a definition of "living", it is, in fact, very difficult to state with scientific rigor a definition that does not bring with it, some presupposition about the nature of living things.

In the past, something was only considered to be alive, if it was able to move on its own. This eliminated the entire plant word from consideration. In a similar vein, respiration, the consumption of food and production of waste, seem ill adapted, as this eliminates viruses, which are arguably, one of the most virulent forms of life on the planet.

I propose a very simple definition: "A system is considered to be a living system, if in the general case, members of the system class possess the ability to produce another distinct living system." Despite the obvious self referential nature of this definition, it is the very reproductive capability of life that makes it unique. All other chemical processes pale in comparison to the process by which one living thing creates another distinct version of itself.

The definition makes a few very important distinctions. First, the general case for a class of systems (individuals sharing a set of traits) is key to whether or not a system can be considered living. If the normal state of members of the class is the ability to reproduce, then an individual within the class which cannot reproduce may be considered living by virtue of its membership in the class.

Second, no requirement exists for a living system to produce a copy of itself or even of a system similar to itself. All that is required is that the system produce another system capable of producing another system. In this way, both evolutionary and species stable models of life's origins can be considered.

Lastly, this definition implies nothing about the source of the system. Whether the system was produced by naturally occurring means, or as the result of intelligent, directed efforts (e.g., man-made), it has no bearing on consideration whether the system is living. Some may believe that this omission invalidates the definition, but I would argue that understanding living systems that are designed is critical to understanding living systems that exists apparently without a designer.

How life began is still unproven!

How did life begin? It's a simple question. It assumes only two things, that life exists now and that it didn't at some time in the past. For such a simple question, with so little to define before exploring the possibilites, why is it that after 5,000 years of recorded history and 300 years of dedicated scientific study, we still can't answer it with scientific proof?

I think that the main problem is we abandoned the question a long time ago. Instead we assume our answer to the question is correct and interpret everything else in light of that answer.

Both Evolutionists and Creationists fail to unbiasedly approach the study of how life first formed. Perhaps the evolutionist considers the emergence of life from non-living materials a settled issue. But until the mechanism for abiogenesis is discovered and proven, the question of how life emerged is still open. I am not denying the possibility that life appeared in this way, but until the mechanism can be demonstrated, to act as if the question is closed is nothing more than an assumption and should be viewed as such.

Creationists are no less guilty of approaching the topic with bias and predetermined conclusions. In fact, many creationishts make the scientifically unfounded assumption that life cannot arise naturalistically and spontaneously. Yet the only proof they offer is the lack of proof that life did arise from non-living materials. And when they are confronted by this, they hide behind this statement: "Since the creation of life was a unique and supernatural event, there is no scientifically valid method for proving special creation." Frankly, this is a cop-out! Everyday, we make judgments concerning the origin of things around us, deciding whether an item was produced by naturalistic means, or by a conscious, creative act. Authors have been identified from their work, because structure and nature of the work leaves evidence of the author within the text itself. How much more should there be observable evidence throughout creation that testifies to life's author.

The emergence of living things is probably one of the most amazing and least understood things in the universe. The only way we are ever going to get to the bottom of the question (scientifically speaking), is if people on both sides of the Creation/Evolution debate find a way to work together and share their research. And it is not enough to work together on "common ground" we have to work together on the most contentious problems. When each side brings its perspective to the issue and the other listens and considers how it fits within his own perspective can we achive the catalyst of knowledge that may allow us to crack the question and truly answer, scientfically and definitively how life emerged.

Why does science need to be "Redeemed"

Redeeming Science for Christ may be considered by some to be a fool's errand and by others to be incredibly presumptious. But I think there is a dearth of voices urging the Christian and scientific communities to work together instead of against one another. Too many commentators today spend more time attacking each other's philosophical motivation than they do studying a theory's scientific merit. By "Redeeming Science for Christ", I hope to reengage Christians and the "mainstream" scientific community. I have no utopian illusion of a world where disagreements disappear, but I believe we can have reasonable discussions about Theories of Origins that focus on the scientific merits of the research and conclusions, not on the possible motivations of the researchers. We need to increase the interaction between Christian and non-Christian researchers in these fields.

If we are going to make this kind of discussion possible, the people on both sides of the argument are going to have to take make some changes. Everyone who endeavors to find evidence of how the universe, life or humans came to be must conduct their research with the highest degree of integrity and scientific rigor. The data must be presented in whole, not in part and conclusions must be open to review and skepticism. Christians, especially, must be above reproach in their research. Not because of the world's reaction to our theories, but because we serve a God who demands the best in every thing we do.

We must also learn to respect one another despite our different faiths or philosophies. Christians are not theocrats who want to return our schools and governments to the Dark Ages of superstition and ignorance. By the same token, "Scientists" are not members of an evil society dedicated to the eradication of judeo-christian morality from the world. The sooner we all realize this, the sooner we can get on with what we have in common which is an honest, abiding desire to know and understand where we came from.

Finally, we need to be prepared for information that doesn't fit our world view. Christians must be willing to thoughtfully and honestly consider scientific evidence that contradicts their biblical faith. Galileo challenged the church's view and they feared his discovery would depose the authority of the church on scientific matters. By opposing Galileo, the Church deposed themselves. Now, hundreds of years later, the heliocentric view of the solar system is accepted science, and Christians find no contradiction to it in the Bible. When Christians embrace scientific theories that contradict their faith by examining and seeking to understand them, they open the possibility of bringing science to a different conclusion rather than removing themselves from the discussion altogether.

Non-christians need to accept that some things are beyond scientific proof, but are just as real as any experiment or observed phenomena. Hitler's Aryan super-race was a direct descendent of the evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin. The outrage and disgust felt by the world when the holocaust was exposed were as real as the atrocities themselves and come from a moral understanding of the value of all life; concepts which are outside of the ability of science to prove. If science claims unverifiable things are not real, then it stands in league with Hitler and justifies mass murder in the name of a theory of speciation. But I have yet to meet a scientist today who fails to recognize that Hitler's Holocaust was morally corrupt and completely reprehensible.

We need to recognize that we disagree and change the tone from a vicious debate to a reasonable discussion. Who knows, maybe if we scientists from both sides of the argument work together their differing viewpoints may catalyse into an insight that alone neither would have achieved.

Personal Bio

I was born a poor...
Not really, I was raised in the typical, middle-class, suburban family; not perfect, but pretty good overall. Grade school and high school were easy for me and science was my favorite subject. I ate up everything with gusto. Evolution was the established fact of biology and the big bang was the obvious answer to the beginning of the universe. I had facts, explanations, examples; enough evidence to win any argument. Besides, I was good at arguing. I knew innately how to twist my opponents words and manipulate the conversation to ask questions that could only be answered the way I wanted. And, as if I wasn't already a good enough person, I went to church and attended the youth group meetings regularly. As far as I knew, the scales were most definitely balanced to the "Good Deeds" side of the equation. I was certain heaven awaited me. But being "born again", that was for the fanatics and missionaries to Africa.

Then, I went to the US Naval Academy. The first thing that happened, was church dropped out. I mean, how could God possibly expect me to attend church on Sunday morning when that was the only day of the week we were allowed to sleep in past 5am. But then I found Officer's Christian Fellowship. It was like being back in the youth group and it got me away from the stress of being a plebe on Wednesday nights. In November, I found out about the January OCF retreat. I was in! And I was going for the most important reason that you attend a retreat: to meet girls. Now, give me a break, I was 18, male, and had been stuck for 6 months in a world where the only girls I saw wore the same black uniform I did or were on the other side of a ten foot high brick wall. The odd thing was that as we were driving there, I made a decision to spend the entire weekend focussing on God. And as much of a miracle as that was, what happened during the weekend was the real miracle.

The weekend was spent on Joshua, but for some reason, the speaker retold the story of Adam and Eve. The amazing part was I believed every word of the story and a light dawned in my brain as if I could think clearly for the first time. At that moment, I knew that Genesis was right and evolution was wrong. I didn't know how, and I had years and years of school and study and knowledge railing against the idea, yet I believed. That weekend I surrendered my life to Jesus Christ. Once I actually understood what I had done, I began to devour anything I could find on the accuracy and authority of the bible and on the sciences of origins. I found more than enough evidence to convince me that the Bible is absolutely reliable. In the sciences, I found that the "established fact" of evolution is not nearly as stable as it is presented. I believe now, that the weight of the scientific evidence supports the Genesis account of creation. The more I study, the more I find that not only supports Genesis, but continues to amaze and astound me about the wondrous God of the universe.

This brings me to my current condition. I am starting a new vocation, teaching about the science and theology of origins. I hope to encourage others to study the sciences. God didn't create this world and hide from us. He reveals himself through His word and through the magnificent creation that is all around us. Christians shouldn't be afraid of science. We need to embrace it, even when the data seems to contradict our faith. I know that in the end, the data will support God. How could it not? He created all the data.