How Did Life Begin?
Introduction
1. Purpose of apologetics
2. The biggest problem facing evolutionists is molecular biology and the rise of life out of non-living matter.
I. Prescientific Theories of Spontaneous Generation
A. Aristotle
1. Aristotle even believed that under the proper conditions putatively “simple” animals such as worms, fleas, mice, and dogs could spring to life spontaneously from moist ”Mother Earth."
2. Others believed that life had existed on earth for ever. This view is not supported by scientific observation today.
B. Middle Ages
1. Such "spontaneous generation" appeared to occur primarily in decaying matter. For example, a seventeenth century recipe for the spontaneous production of mice required placing sweaty underwear and husks of wheat in an open-mouthed jar, then waiting for about 21 days, during which time it was alleged that the sweat from the underwear would penetrate the husks of wheat, changing them into mice. Although such a concept may seem laughable today, it is consistent with the other widely held cultural and religious beliefs of the time.
2. Maggots were thought to spontaneously generate from rotting meat
C. The death of spontaneous generation
1. Francesco Redi (1668) proved that maggots came from eggs laid by flies on the meat. The invention of the microscope only served to enhance this belief. Microscopy revealed a whole new world of organisms that appeared to arise spontaneously.
2. Lazzaro Spallanzani (1745) replicated experiements which were thought to prove spontaneous generation, but sealed the flask, not allowing outside microorganisms in.
3. The young French chemist, Louis Pasteur (1859) boiled meat broth in a flask, heated the neck of the flask in a flame until it became pliable, and bent it into the shape of an S. Air could enter the flask, but airborne microorganisms could not - they would settle by gravity in the neck. As Pasteur had expected, no microorganisms grew. When Pasteur tilted the flask so that the broth reached the lowest point in the neck, where any airborne particles would have settled, the broth rapidly became cloudy with life. Pasteur had both refuted the theory of spontaneous generation and convincingly demonstrated that microorganisms are everywhere - even in the air.
II. Abiogenesis
A. What is abiogenesis?
1.
1 Certain simple molecules underwent spontaneous, random chemical reactions until after about half-a-billion years complex organic molecules were produced. .
2 Molecules that could replicate eventually were formed (the most common guess is nucleic acid molecules), along with enzymes and nutrient molecules that were surrounded by membraned cells. .
3 Cells eventually somehow “learned” how to reproduce by copying a DNA molecule (which contains a complete set of instructions for building a next generation of cells). During the reproduction process, the mutations changed the DNA code and produced cells that differed from the originals. .
4 The variety of cells generated by this process eventually developed the machinery required to do all that was necessary to survive, reproduce, and create the next generation of cells in their likeness. Those cells that were better able to survive became more numerous in the population (adapted from Wynn and Wiggins, 1997, p. 172).
2. The major links in the molecules-to-man theory that must be bridged include
(a) evolution of simple molecules into complex molecules,
(b) evolution of complex molecules into simple organic molecules,
(c) evolution of simple organic molecules into complex organic molecules,
(d) eventual evolution of complex organic molecules into DNA or similar information storage molecules, and
(e) eventually evolution into the first cells. This process requires multimillions of links, all which either are missing or controversial.
B. Primordial Soup
1. Four and a half billion years ago the young planet Earth... was almost completely engulfed by the shallow primordial seas. Powerful winds gathered random molecules from the atmosphere. Some were deposited in the seas. Tides and currents swept the molecules together. And somewhere in this ancient ocean the miracle of life began... The first organized form of primitive life was a tiny protozoan [a one-celled animal]. Millions of protozoa populated the ancient seas. These early organisms were completely self-sufficient in their sea-water world. They moved about their aquatic environment feeding on bacteria and other organisms... From these one- celled organisms evolved all life on earth (from the Emmy award winning PBS NOVA film The Miracle of Life
2. History of the theory
a. Russian scientist A.I. Oparin in the 1920s. The theory held that life evolved when organic molecules rained into the primitive oceans from an atmospheric soup of chemicals interacting with solar energy.
b. Later Haldane (1928), Bernal (1947) and Urey (1952) published their research to try to support this model, all with little success.
c. Then came what some felt was a breakthrough by Harold Urey and his graduate student Stanley Miller in the early 1950s. The most famous origin of life experiment was completed in 1953 by Stanley Miller at the University of Chicago.
The Miller/Urey experiments involved filling a sealed glass apparatus with methane, ammonia, hydrogen gases (representing what they thought composed the early atmosphere) and water vapor (to simulate the ocean). Next, they used a spark-discharge device to strike the gases in the flask with simulated lightning while a heating coil kept the water boiling. Within a few days, the water and gas mix produced a reddish stain on the sides of the flask. After analyzing the substances that had been formed, they found several types of amino acids. Eventually Miller and other scientists were able to produce 10 of the 20 amino acids required for life by techniques similar to the original Miller/ Urey experiments.
For example, equal quantities of both right- and left-handed organic molecules always were produced by the Urey/Miller procedure. In real life, nearly all amino acids found in proteins are left handed, almost all polymers of carbohydrates are right handed, and the opposite type can be toxic to the cell.
The reasons why creating life in a test tube turned out to be far more difficult than Miller or anyone else expected are numerous and include the fact that scientists now know that the complexity of life is far greater than Miller or anyone else in pre-DNA revolution 1953 ever imagined. Actually life is far more complex and contains far more information than anyone in the 1980s believed possible.
3. Problems:
a. Assumes that the atmosphere of the early earth was different from our present atmosphere. Very little scientific evidence exists for this assumption; it is postulated simply because it is necessary for the theory to work.
b. It is a theory that is based upon assumption, not observation. Life is assumed to have arisen from non-living matter, so a mechanism is sought to validate that assumption.
c. No geological evidence exists to support this theory.
d. No experiment has been conducted that has even been able to produce the building blocks of living matter, such as proteins. All experiments so far have fallen way short.
e. Even if an experiment could produce protein molecules, it would not prove that it actually happened. In fact, it would prove that intelligence is needed to produce protein molecules.
f. It is not enough to show that the building blocks of life can be created in a scientific experiment. Life is more than random molecules just as a house is more than a pile of bricks. There must be information, an intelligence that arranges those molecules and animates them. Then these entities need to be able to grow and reproduce. This is an incredible feat that could not happen by mere chance.
3. Before the explosive growth of our knowledge of the cell during the last 30 years, it was known that “the simplest bacteria are extremely complex, and the chances of their arising directly from inorganic materials, with no steps in between, are too remote to consider seriously.” (Newman, 1967, p. 662). Most major discoveries about cell biology and molecular biology have been made since then.
4. Cytologists now realize that a living cell contains hundreds of thousands of different complex parts such as various motor proteins that are assembled to produce the most complex “machine” in the Universe—a machine far more complex than the most complex Cray super computer. We now also realize after a century of research that the eukaryote protozoa thought to be as simple as a bowl of gelatin in Darwin’s day actually are enormously more complex than the prokaryote cell. Furthermore, molecular biology has demonstrated that the basic design of the cell is essentially the same in all living systems on earth from bacteria to mammals... In terms of their basic biochemical design... no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth (Denton, 1986, p. 250).
5. We now realize that the Urey/Miller experiments did not produce evidence for abiogenesis because, although amino acids are the building blocks of life, the key to life is information because, although amino acids are the building blocks of life, the key to life is information (Pigliucci, 1999; Dembski, 1998). Natural objects in forms resembling the English alphabet (circles, straight lines and similar) abound in nature, but this does not help us to understand the origin of information (such as that in Shakespear’s plays) because this task requires intelligence both to create the information (the play) and then to translate that information into symbols. What must be explained is the source of the information in the text (the words and ideas), not the existence of circles and straight lines.
6. Yet another difficulty is, even if the source of the amino acids and the many other compounds needed for life could be explained, it still must be explained as to how these many diverse elements became aggregated in the same area and then properly assembled themselves. This problem is a major stumbling block to any theory of abiogenesis: ...no one has ever satisfactorily explained how the widely distributed ingredients linked up into proteins. Presumed conditions of primordial Earth would have driven the amino acids toward lonely isolation.
7. The warm pond and hot vent theories also have been seriously disputed by experimental research that has found the half-lives of many critically important compounds needed for life to be far “too short to allow for the adequate accumulation of these compounds” (Levy and Miller, 1998, p. 7933). Furthermore, research has documented that “unless the origin of life took place extremely rapidly (in less than 100 years), we conclude that a high temperature origin of life... cannot involve adenine, uracil, guanine or cytosine” because these compounds break down far too fast in a warm environment. In a hydrothermal environment, most of these compounds could neither form in environment. In a hydrothermal environment, most of these compounds could neither form in the first place, nor exist for a significant amount of time (Levy and Miller, p. 7933). III. Did Life Come from Another Planet?
C. The probability of life arising by chance
1. A major issue then, in abiogenesis is “what is the minimum number of possible parts that allows something to live?” The number of parts needed is large, but how large is difficult to determine. In order to be considered “alive,” an organism must possess the ability to metabolize and assimilate food, to respirate, to grow, to reproduce and to respond to stimuli (a trait known as irritability).
2. As Coppedge (1973) notes, even 1) postulating a primordial sea with every single component necessary for life, 2) speeding up the bonding rate so as to form different chemical combinations a trillion times more rapidly than hypothesized to have occurred, 3) allowing for a 4.6 billion—a trillion times more rapidly than hypothesized to have occurred, 3) allowing for a 4.6 billion- year-old earth and 4) using all atoms on the earth still leaves the probability of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance is 1 in 10,261. Using the lowest estimate made before the discoveries of the past two decades raised the number several fold. Coppedge estimates the probability of 1 in 10119,879 is necessary to obtain the minimum set of the required estimate of 239 protein molecules for the smallest theoretical life form. At this rate he estimates it would require 10119,831 years on the average to obtain a set of these proteins by naturalistic evolution (1973, pp. 110, 114). The number he obtained is 10119,831 greater than the current estimate for the age of the earth (4.6 billion years). In other words, this event is outside the range of probability. Natural selection cannot occur until an organism exists and is able to reproduce which requires that the first complex life form first exist as a functioning
3. It appears that the field of molecular biology will falsify Darwinism. An estimated 100,000 different proteins are used to construct humans alone. Furthermore, one million species are known, and as many as 10 million may exist. Although many proteins are used in most life forms, as many as 100 million or more protein variations may exist in all plant and animal life.
Even using an unrealistically low estimate of 1,000 steps required to “evolve” the average protein (if this were possible) implies that many trillions of links were needed to evolve the proteins that once existed or that exist today. And not one clear transitional protein that is morphologically and chemically in between the ancient and modern form of the protein has been convincingly demonstrated. The same problem exists with fats, nucleic acids, carbohydrates and the other compounds that are produced by, and necessary for, life.
4. Abiogenesis is only one area of research which illustrates that the naturalistic origin of life hypothesis has become less and less probable as molecular biology has progressed, and is now at the point that its plausibility appears outside the realm of probability. Numerous origin-of-life researchers, have lamented the fact that molecular biology during the past half-a-century has not been very kind to any naturalistic origin-of-life theory.
III. Did life come from outer space?
A. Popular ideas
1. Mission to Mars, War of the Worlds, UFOs
2. Asteroids, meteorites and space dust
B. Problems with this view
1. It merely pushes the problem further back in time, but it doesn’t solve it
2. If life can’t spontaneously arise here, it can’t anywhere else
Conclusion
1. How life arose from non-living matter is the greatest problem faced by evolutionists today. Very few talk about how life began because they know that they have no answers. This is the weakest point in the argument of naturalism and I feel that it is insurmountable. It takes more faith to believe that life was generated from non-living matter than to believe that God created life.
2. Life is a gift from God. God breathed into man and he became a living being. The spark of life is the result of God’s touch. All life bears the special mark of God.
3. You are alive because God gave you life. Your life is totally in his hands. You are dependent upon him for your very existence. Every breath you take is a gift from God. Don’t take life lightly but realize how precious it is and live it for the glory of God.
Showing posts with label Faith. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Faith. Show all posts
Saturday, July 4, 2009
How Did the Universe Begin?
How Did the Universe Begin?
Introduction
1. Cosmological Questions
1) Is the universe finite or infinite in content and extent?
2) Is the universe eternal or does it have a beginning?
3) Was the universe created?
4) If it wasn’t created, how did it get here?
5) If it was created, how was this creation accomplished, and what can we learn about the agent and the events of creation?
6) Who or what governs the laws and constants of physics?
7) Are such laws the product of chance or have they been designed?
8) How do these laws relate to the support and development of life?
9) Is there any noble existence beyond the known dimensions of the universe?
10) Is the universe running down irreversibly or will it bounce back?
2. Cosmological Argument: “The effect of the universe must have a suitable cause.”
1) Everything that begins to exist must have a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore there must have been a cause for the universe.
I. Five Models of the Universe (Chart)
A. Eternal Universe
1. Steady State
2. Quantum Mechanical Model (Stephen Hawking)
B. Universe had a Beginning
1. Creation from something
2. Order out of chaos
3. Creation from Nothing (Genesis 1)
II. Evidence for the Big Bang
A. Why scientists resisted the Big Band
1. Arthur Eddington
“Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of nature is repugnant to me. I should like to find a definite loophole. We must allow evolution an infinite amount of time to get started.”
2. Albert Einstein
He was threatened by the implications of his theory of relativity because it carries a threat of an encounter with God. Through the equations of General Relativity we can trace the development of the universe backward to its origin. He introduced the concept of the Cosmological Constant to avoid this implication by yielding a Static Model of the universe. He dreamed of a universe that was infinitely old. Later, Einstein considered this to be the greatest blunder of his career. He ultimately gave grudging acceptance to the necessity of a beginning and the presence of a superior reasoning power, though he never accepted the existence of a personal God.
B. Definition of the Big Bang Theory
1. George Gamow: “The Big Bang theory holds that the primeval fireball was an intense concentration of pure energy. It was the source of all matter that now exists in the entire universe. The Big Bang theory predicts that all the galaxies in the universe should be rushing away from each other at high speeds as a result of that initial Big Bang.”
C. Background Microwave Radiation and Big Bang Ripples
1. Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at Bell Telephone Labs in 1965:
Observation of the background microwave radiation of the universe convinced most scientist of the validity of the Big Bang theory. Further observations of Big Bang Ripples in 1992 have made acceptance of the Big Bang theory nearly unanimous. The data points to a beginning of the universe about 14 billion years ago.
Arno Penzias in NY Times interview: “The best data we have concerning the big bang are exactly what I would have predicted if I only had the five books of Moses, the Psalms and the Bible to go on.”
Why are some Cosmologists predisposed to an old universe? “Some people are uncomfortable with purpose. In order to come up with things that contradict purpose, they tend to speculate about things they haven’t seen.”
2. NY Times April, 1992: Big Bang Ripples discovered by COBE Satellite
“Most important discovery of the century.” Stephen Hawking
“It’s like looking at God.” Headline
“These findings make the hypothesis that God created the universe more respectable today than anytime within the last 100 years.” George Smoot, head of COBE team
3. Red Shift
Hubble and others realized that the most obvious explanation for the "red shift" was that the galaxies were receding from Earth and each other, and the farther the galaxy, the faster the recession.
All galaxies are accelerating away from each other, and the farther a galaxy is away from us, the faster it is accelerating away from us. This can only be explained if the universe began as a small point and exploded outwards.
III. Explanation of the Big Bang
A. Hugh Ross:
“By definition, time is that dimension in which cause and effect phenomenon take place. If there is no time, there is no cause and effect. If time’s beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem suggests, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and preexistent to the time dimension of the cosmos. This conclusion is important in our understanding of who God is, and who or what God is not. It tells us that the Creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe. It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe.”
B. Leon Lederman, The God Particle
“In the very beginning there was a void, a very curious vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning, but this story is about the beginning of the universe and unfortunately there are no data for that beginning; none, zero. We don’t know anything about the universe until it reaches a billionth of a trillionth of a second, a very short time after the creation in the Big Bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe someone is making it up; we are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the very beginning.”
C. Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time
“The actual point of creation lies outside the scope of the presently known laws of physics.”
“It is difficult to discuss the beginning of the universe without introducing the concept of God. My work on the origin of the universe is on the borderline between science and religion, but I try to stay on the scientific side of the border. It is quite possible that God acts in ways that cannot be described by scientific laws.”
Are science and Christianity competing philosophies? “Of course not. If that were true, then Isaac Newton would not have discovered the law of gravity.”
“Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes the universe to describe them?”
“The idea that God might want to change his mind is an example of a fallacy, pointed out by Saint Augustine, of imagining God as a being existing in time. Time is a property only of the universe that God created; presumably he knew what he intended when he set it up.”
John 17:24; Eph. 1:4; 1 Pet. 1:20; Rev. 13:8
IV. Stephen Hawking and the Quantum Mechanical Model
A. Explained
He takes a very simplified model of the universe that uses imaginary time. In his model, the universe does not have a sharp point of beginning but a rounded point, so that there is no single point of beginning.
B. Refuted
Imaginary time is useful for solving mathematical equations, but it cannot be used to describe the real world. It is not valuable scientifically because it has no empirical basis, makes no scientific predictions that are not made by simpler models, and it has no research agenda. It simply seeks to evade the cosmological argument, cause and effect, the fact that if there is a beginning of the universe there must be a creator.
“When we go back to the real time in which we live we will encounter singularities.”
V. Science and Christianity: Scientists speak out
A. Alan Sandage
“The nature of God is not to be found within any part of the findings of science; for that one must turn to the Bible.”
Can a person be a scientist and also a Christian? “Yes. I am a Christian. The world is too complex in all its parts and inner connections to be due to chance alone. I am convinced that the existence of life, with all of its order in each of its organisms, is simply too well put together. I am staggered by the high information content of even the simplest biological self-replicating biochemical system.”
B. Donald Paige:
“The mathematical simplicity of the universe is possibly a reflection of the personal simplicity of the gospel message, that God sent His Son Jesus Christ to bridge the gap between Himself and each of us who have rejected God or what He wants for each of us by rebelling against His will and disobeying Him. This is a message simple enough to be understood even by children, quantum cosmologists and the rest.”
C. Chris Eischam:
“The God of Christianity is not only the ground of being, He is also incarnate. Essential therein is the vision of the resurrection of Jesus Christ as the new creation out of the old order and the profound notion of the redemption of time, through the life and death of Jesus Christ. I think it will be a very long time before particle physics has anything to add to that. What I have found in Jesus Christ is infinitely more profound than anything I have found in particle physics, or expect to find.”
Conclusion
1. The universe began at a point in time in the Big Bang. This was an immensely powerful, yet a very carefully controlled and planned release of matter, space, energy and time. It was very carefully fine-tuned and operated within the laws and constraints that govern the physical universe. The power and care of this explosion exceeds human ability and potential by multiple orders of magnitude.
2. A creator must exist. The Big Bang ripples, Red Shift, and Background Radiation point to a creation ex nihilo. The big Bang is consistent with the creation event described in the first few chapters of the book of Genesis.
3. This creator must have awesome power and wisdom. The quantity of material and energy within the universe are truly immense, and the information and intricacy manifested in any part of the universe, and especially in a living organism, is beyond our ability to comprehend. And what we do see is only what God has shown us within the four dimensions of space-time that we inhabit.
4. If the universe has been created, then there is a creator. If there is a creator, then we are his creatures, owned by him and subject to him. Therefore, the purpose of life is to know and love our creator and glorify him by living in conformity with his nature and will.
Introduction
1. Cosmological Questions
1) Is the universe finite or infinite in content and extent?
2) Is the universe eternal or does it have a beginning?
3) Was the universe created?
4) If it wasn’t created, how did it get here?
5) If it was created, how was this creation accomplished, and what can we learn about the agent and the events of creation?
6) Who or what governs the laws and constants of physics?
7) Are such laws the product of chance or have they been designed?
8) How do these laws relate to the support and development of life?
9) Is there any noble existence beyond the known dimensions of the universe?
10) Is the universe running down irreversibly or will it bounce back?
2. Cosmological Argument: “The effect of the universe must have a suitable cause.”
1) Everything that begins to exist must have a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore there must have been a cause for the universe.
I. Five Models of the Universe (Chart)
A. Eternal Universe
1. Steady State
2. Quantum Mechanical Model (Stephen Hawking)
B. Universe had a Beginning
1. Creation from something
2. Order out of chaos
3. Creation from Nothing (Genesis 1)
II. Evidence for the Big Bang
A. Why scientists resisted the Big Band
1. Arthur Eddington
“Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of nature is repugnant to me. I should like to find a definite loophole. We must allow evolution an infinite amount of time to get started.”
2. Albert Einstein
He was threatened by the implications of his theory of relativity because it carries a threat of an encounter with God. Through the equations of General Relativity we can trace the development of the universe backward to its origin. He introduced the concept of the Cosmological Constant to avoid this implication by yielding a Static Model of the universe. He dreamed of a universe that was infinitely old. Later, Einstein considered this to be the greatest blunder of his career. He ultimately gave grudging acceptance to the necessity of a beginning and the presence of a superior reasoning power, though he never accepted the existence of a personal God.
B. Definition of the Big Bang Theory
1. George Gamow: “The Big Bang theory holds that the primeval fireball was an intense concentration of pure energy. It was the source of all matter that now exists in the entire universe. The Big Bang theory predicts that all the galaxies in the universe should be rushing away from each other at high speeds as a result of that initial Big Bang.”
C. Background Microwave Radiation and Big Bang Ripples
1. Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at Bell Telephone Labs in 1965:
Observation of the background microwave radiation of the universe convinced most scientist of the validity of the Big Bang theory. Further observations of Big Bang Ripples in 1992 have made acceptance of the Big Bang theory nearly unanimous. The data points to a beginning of the universe about 14 billion years ago.
Arno Penzias in NY Times interview: “The best data we have concerning the big bang are exactly what I would have predicted if I only had the five books of Moses, the Psalms and the Bible to go on.”
Why are some Cosmologists predisposed to an old universe? “Some people are uncomfortable with purpose. In order to come up with things that contradict purpose, they tend to speculate about things they haven’t seen.”
2. NY Times April, 1992: Big Bang Ripples discovered by COBE Satellite
“Most important discovery of the century.” Stephen Hawking
“It’s like looking at God.” Headline
“These findings make the hypothesis that God created the universe more respectable today than anytime within the last 100 years.” George Smoot, head of COBE team
3. Red Shift
Hubble and others realized that the most obvious explanation for the "red shift" was that the galaxies were receding from Earth and each other, and the farther the galaxy, the faster the recession.
All galaxies are accelerating away from each other, and the farther a galaxy is away from us, the faster it is accelerating away from us. This can only be explained if the universe began as a small point and exploded outwards.
III. Explanation of the Big Bang
A. Hugh Ross:
“By definition, time is that dimension in which cause and effect phenomenon take place. If there is no time, there is no cause and effect. If time’s beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem suggests, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and preexistent to the time dimension of the cosmos. This conclusion is important in our understanding of who God is, and who or what God is not. It tells us that the Creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe. It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe.”
B. Leon Lederman, The God Particle
“In the very beginning there was a void, a very curious vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning, but this story is about the beginning of the universe and unfortunately there are no data for that beginning; none, zero. We don’t know anything about the universe until it reaches a billionth of a trillionth of a second, a very short time after the creation in the Big Bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe someone is making it up; we are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the very beginning.”
C. Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time
“The actual point of creation lies outside the scope of the presently known laws of physics.”
“It is difficult to discuss the beginning of the universe without introducing the concept of God. My work on the origin of the universe is on the borderline between science and religion, but I try to stay on the scientific side of the border. It is quite possible that God acts in ways that cannot be described by scientific laws.”
Are science and Christianity competing philosophies? “Of course not. If that were true, then Isaac Newton would not have discovered the law of gravity.”
“Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes the universe to describe them?”
“The idea that God might want to change his mind is an example of a fallacy, pointed out by Saint Augustine, of imagining God as a being existing in time. Time is a property only of the universe that God created; presumably he knew what he intended when he set it up.”
John 17:24; Eph. 1:4; 1 Pet. 1:20; Rev. 13:8
IV. Stephen Hawking and the Quantum Mechanical Model
A. Explained
He takes a very simplified model of the universe that uses imaginary time. In his model, the universe does not have a sharp point of beginning but a rounded point, so that there is no single point of beginning.
B. Refuted
Imaginary time is useful for solving mathematical equations, but it cannot be used to describe the real world. It is not valuable scientifically because it has no empirical basis, makes no scientific predictions that are not made by simpler models, and it has no research agenda. It simply seeks to evade the cosmological argument, cause and effect, the fact that if there is a beginning of the universe there must be a creator.
“When we go back to the real time in which we live we will encounter singularities.”
V. Science and Christianity: Scientists speak out
A. Alan Sandage
“The nature of God is not to be found within any part of the findings of science; for that one must turn to the Bible.”
Can a person be a scientist and also a Christian? “Yes. I am a Christian. The world is too complex in all its parts and inner connections to be due to chance alone. I am convinced that the existence of life, with all of its order in each of its organisms, is simply too well put together. I am staggered by the high information content of even the simplest biological self-replicating biochemical system.”
B. Donald Paige:
“The mathematical simplicity of the universe is possibly a reflection of the personal simplicity of the gospel message, that God sent His Son Jesus Christ to bridge the gap between Himself and each of us who have rejected God or what He wants for each of us by rebelling against His will and disobeying Him. This is a message simple enough to be understood even by children, quantum cosmologists and the rest.”
C. Chris Eischam:
“The God of Christianity is not only the ground of being, He is also incarnate. Essential therein is the vision of the resurrection of Jesus Christ as the new creation out of the old order and the profound notion of the redemption of time, through the life and death of Jesus Christ. I think it will be a very long time before particle physics has anything to add to that. What I have found in Jesus Christ is infinitely more profound than anything I have found in particle physics, or expect to find.”
Conclusion
1. The universe began at a point in time in the Big Bang. This was an immensely powerful, yet a very carefully controlled and planned release of matter, space, energy and time. It was very carefully fine-tuned and operated within the laws and constraints that govern the physical universe. The power and care of this explosion exceeds human ability and potential by multiple orders of magnitude.
2. A creator must exist. The Big Bang ripples, Red Shift, and Background Radiation point to a creation ex nihilo. The big Bang is consistent with the creation event described in the first few chapters of the book of Genesis.
3. This creator must have awesome power and wisdom. The quantity of material and energy within the universe are truly immense, and the information and intricacy manifested in any part of the universe, and especially in a living organism, is beyond our ability to comprehend. And what we do see is only what God has shown us within the four dimensions of space-time that we inhabit.
4. If the universe has been created, then there is a creator. If there is a creator, then we are his creatures, owned by him and subject to him. Therefore, the purpose of life is to know and love our creator and glorify him by living in conformity with his nature and will.
Privileged Planet
Intelligent Design in the Cosmos
1. Privileged Planet: Optimized for Life
A. The Denial of Privileged Status
• The Copernican Principle: “The earth occupies no preferred place in the universe”
• The Principle of Mediocrity: “Our position and status in the universe are mediocre, they are unexceptional.”
• Hubble Telescope: The magnificence of the Universe
• SETI: Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence
• Astrobiology: Are habitable planets rare or common in the universe?
• But does life on earth really exist for no reason or purpose?
• The number of stars vs. the number of factors necessary for life…
B. Factors Necessary for Life
1) Liquid Water
2) A planet’s distance from its star: the circumstellar habitable zone
3) Orbiting main sequence G2 dwarf star
4) Protected by gas giant planets
5) Within galactic habitable zone
6) Nearly circular orbit
7) Oxygen-rich atmosphere
8) Correct mass
9) Orbited by large moon
10) Magnetic field generated by a liquid iron core
11) Plate tectonics
12) Ratio of liquid water and continents
13) Terrestrial planet
14) Moderate rate of rotation
All these factors have to be met at one place and time in the galaxy
N x fsg x fghz x fcr x fsp x fchz x np x fj x fc x fo x fm x fcp x fmn x fw x ft x fl x fi x fr x flc x flt
1011 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 = 10-15
1
1,000,000,000,000,000
Why did this happen? Is chance a reasonable explanation?
2. Privileged Planet: Optimized for Observation
• The factors that make observation possible coincide with the factors that make complex life possible
• “The same narrow circumstances that allow us to exist also provide us with the best overall setting for making scientific discoveries.”
1) The relative size and distances of the sun and moon to the earth make life possible and also allow us to discover
2) The atmosphere of the earth supports life and allows us to see into space
3) The visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum essential for life also is most informative for discovery is abundantly produced by the sun and allowed to reach the surface of the earth by the atmosphere
4) The center of the galaxy is too hostile to life while the edge of the galaxy would not provide enough heavy elements necessary for life. Likewise, observation would be impossible at the center or edge of the galaxy.
“The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.” Albert Einstein
The laws and forces of the universe must be precisely balanced for complex life to exist:
1) Electron mass
2) Atomic mass
3) Proton mass
4) Strong nuclear force
5) Weak nuclear force
6) Electromagnetic force
7) Speed of light
8) Cosmological constant
9) Gravity
10) Mass of the universe
11) Panck’s constant
12) Boltzmann’s constant
The universe is the product of an intelligent mind
1. Privileged Planet: Optimized for Life
A. The Denial of Privileged Status
• The Copernican Principle: “The earth occupies no preferred place in the universe”
• The Principle of Mediocrity: “Our position and status in the universe are mediocre, they are unexceptional.”
• Hubble Telescope: The magnificence of the Universe
• SETI: Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence
• Astrobiology: Are habitable planets rare or common in the universe?
• But does life on earth really exist for no reason or purpose?
• The number of stars vs. the number of factors necessary for life…
B. Factors Necessary for Life
1) Liquid Water
2) A planet’s distance from its star: the circumstellar habitable zone
3) Orbiting main sequence G2 dwarf star
4) Protected by gas giant planets
5) Within galactic habitable zone
6) Nearly circular orbit
7) Oxygen-rich atmosphere
8) Correct mass
9) Orbited by large moon
10) Magnetic field generated by a liquid iron core
11) Plate tectonics
12) Ratio of liquid water and continents
13) Terrestrial planet
14) Moderate rate of rotation
All these factors have to be met at one place and time in the galaxy
N x fsg x fghz x fcr x fsp x fchz x np x fj x fc x fo x fm x fcp x fmn x fw x ft x fl x fi x fr x flc x flt
1011 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 = 10-15
1
1,000,000,000,000,000
Why did this happen? Is chance a reasonable explanation?
2. Privileged Planet: Optimized for Observation
• The factors that make observation possible coincide with the factors that make complex life possible
• “The same narrow circumstances that allow us to exist also provide us with the best overall setting for making scientific discoveries.”
1) The relative size and distances of the sun and moon to the earth make life possible and also allow us to discover
2) The atmosphere of the earth supports life and allows us to see into space
3) The visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum essential for life also is most informative for discovery is abundantly produced by the sun and allowed to reach the surface of the earth by the atmosphere
4) The center of the galaxy is too hostile to life while the edge of the galaxy would not provide enough heavy elements necessary for life. Likewise, observation would be impossible at the center or edge of the galaxy.
“The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.” Albert Einstein
The laws and forces of the universe must be precisely balanced for complex life to exist:
1) Electron mass
2) Atomic mass
3) Proton mass
4) Strong nuclear force
5) Weak nuclear force
6) Electromagnetic force
7) Speed of light
8) Cosmological constant
9) Gravity
10) Mass of the universe
11) Panck’s constant
12) Boltzmann’s constant
The universe is the product of an intelligent mind
Science vs. Faith 2
Science versus Faith
Introduction
1. “Science has disproved the Bible. Anyone who believes in the Bible is an idiot.”
2. How do you handle such claims? How do you stand firm when all your teachers, leaders and friends think you have lost your mind?
I. Science grew out of Christianity
A. Non-Christian cultures did not develop a scientific mindset
1. Superstitious cultures viewed the world as chaotic and controlled by capricious forces
2. Since events were capricious and uncertain, it is impossible to determine how and why they occur
3. Magic, the occult and fortunetelling kept science from emerging as a way of understanding the world
B. Christians developed science based on a theistic world view
1. If God created the world, then it is orderly and follows fixed laws set up by God
2. The more I know about the world, the more I know about God
3. History is moving in a logical direction, directed by God, towards an end or goal
II. Some misguided Christians have made crazy statements
A. Some have misread the Bible and made dogmatic statements
1. Bishop Ussher dated the Bible and said the world was created in 4004 BC
2. Some Catholics refused to believe the earth revolved around the sun
B. Some have tied theology and Biblical interpretation to scientific theories
III. Some misguided Scientists have made crazy statements
A. You must distinguish between facts and interpretation; laws and theories
1. There are many ways to interpret scientific data; everyone is biased, especially scientists
2. Theories are working hypotheses while laws have been verified by repeatable experiments
3. Carl Sagan in U.S. News & World Report interview:
“The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be. Whatever significance we humans have is that which we make ourselves. If we must worship a power greater than ourselves, does it not make sense to worship the sun and the stars?”
B. Scientists cannot make credible statements outside their expertise
1. A biologist has no special credibility when making statements about geology
2. A scientist has no special credibility when making statements about theology or philosophy
3. Science cannot make value judgments
4. Explaining how something works is not the same as explaining why it works, nor does it mean we are capable of making it work
C. Science does not make faith irrelevant
1. Not all truth can be discovered by the scientific method
2. You cannot do experiments to discover truth about history, love, logic, existence of truth
3. All scientists have faith
a. The universe is orderly and understandable
b. Truth exists and is knowable
c. The senses are a reliable source of information about the external world
d. Laboratory experiments are repeatable and verifiable
4. William Paley and the watchmaker; everyone would assume a watch was made
5. Richard Dawkins:
“We are survival machines—robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules (of DNA which survived) known as genes.” In his book, The Blind Watchmaker, he says of natural selection, “It has no mind and no mind’s eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, It is the blind watchmaker.”
IV. Science and Faith should be able to exist side by side
A. All truth is God’s truth
1. Ultimately scientific truth and biblical truth will not conflict
2. We need both to develop a full understanding of the world and how to live in a way that is pleasing to God and ultimately fulfilling to us
3. Conflicts are the result of incomplete information on both sides
B. Humility and patience must be exercised by both sides
1. Christians must realize that we don’t have all the answers
2. When faith and science appear to conflict, be patient and wait for more evidence from science and better interpretation from Christians
In 1861 the French Academy of Science published a book stating 51 scientific facts that prove the Bible is wrong. Today, there isn’t a single scientist who believes any one of those 51 “scientific facts”.
3. Science is a developing field that only can produce probabilities, not absolute certainties and much is superceded or revised by later findings
Newton’s laws of gravity, Einstein’s theory of relativity, quantum mechanics
Conclusion
1. Jesus is the truth, speaks the truth and reveals the truth (John)
2. Rejecting God means turning your back on truth (Romans)
3. Those who truly desire to know the truth will find Jesus and believe in him
4. Don’t let anyone shake your faith in Jesus by saying science refutes faith; it doesn’t
5. Learn how to discern truth from error, fact from interpretation, laws from theories, opinions from truth
6. Faith is essential to life; the question is not, “Do you have faith?” but “What have you placed your faith in?”
7. Be humble and patient; wait until all the facts are in before making a final decision
8. Don’t be afraid of the truth; seek after it, love it, study it, commit to it. Jesus is Truth
Introduction
1. “Science has disproved the Bible. Anyone who believes in the Bible is an idiot.”
2. How do you handle such claims? How do you stand firm when all your teachers, leaders and friends think you have lost your mind?
I. Science grew out of Christianity
A. Non-Christian cultures did not develop a scientific mindset
1. Superstitious cultures viewed the world as chaotic and controlled by capricious forces
2. Since events were capricious and uncertain, it is impossible to determine how and why they occur
3. Magic, the occult and fortunetelling kept science from emerging as a way of understanding the world
B. Christians developed science based on a theistic world view
1. If God created the world, then it is orderly and follows fixed laws set up by God
2. The more I know about the world, the more I know about God
3. History is moving in a logical direction, directed by God, towards an end or goal
II. Some misguided Christians have made crazy statements
A. Some have misread the Bible and made dogmatic statements
1. Bishop Ussher dated the Bible and said the world was created in 4004 BC
2. Some Catholics refused to believe the earth revolved around the sun
B. Some have tied theology and Biblical interpretation to scientific theories
III. Some misguided Scientists have made crazy statements
A. You must distinguish between facts and interpretation; laws and theories
1. There are many ways to interpret scientific data; everyone is biased, especially scientists
2. Theories are working hypotheses while laws have been verified by repeatable experiments
3. Carl Sagan in U.S. News & World Report interview:
“The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be. Whatever significance we humans have is that which we make ourselves. If we must worship a power greater than ourselves, does it not make sense to worship the sun and the stars?”
B. Scientists cannot make credible statements outside their expertise
1. A biologist has no special credibility when making statements about geology
2. A scientist has no special credibility when making statements about theology or philosophy
3. Science cannot make value judgments
4. Explaining how something works is not the same as explaining why it works, nor does it mean we are capable of making it work
C. Science does not make faith irrelevant
1. Not all truth can be discovered by the scientific method
2. You cannot do experiments to discover truth about history, love, logic, existence of truth
3. All scientists have faith
a. The universe is orderly and understandable
b. Truth exists and is knowable
c. The senses are a reliable source of information about the external world
d. Laboratory experiments are repeatable and verifiable
4. William Paley and the watchmaker; everyone would assume a watch was made
5. Richard Dawkins:
“We are survival machines—robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules (of DNA which survived) known as genes.” In his book, The Blind Watchmaker, he says of natural selection, “It has no mind and no mind’s eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, It is the blind watchmaker.”
IV. Science and Faith should be able to exist side by side
A. All truth is God’s truth
1. Ultimately scientific truth and biblical truth will not conflict
2. We need both to develop a full understanding of the world and how to live in a way that is pleasing to God and ultimately fulfilling to us
3. Conflicts are the result of incomplete information on both sides
B. Humility and patience must be exercised by both sides
1. Christians must realize that we don’t have all the answers
2. When faith and science appear to conflict, be patient and wait for more evidence from science and better interpretation from Christians
In 1861 the French Academy of Science published a book stating 51 scientific facts that prove the Bible is wrong. Today, there isn’t a single scientist who believes any one of those 51 “scientific facts”.
3. Science is a developing field that only can produce probabilities, not absolute certainties and much is superceded or revised by later findings
Newton’s laws of gravity, Einstein’s theory of relativity, quantum mechanics
Conclusion
1. Jesus is the truth, speaks the truth and reveals the truth (John)
2. Rejecting God means turning your back on truth (Romans)
3. Those who truly desire to know the truth will find Jesus and believe in him
4. Don’t let anyone shake your faith in Jesus by saying science refutes faith; it doesn’t
5. Learn how to discern truth from error, fact from interpretation, laws from theories, opinions from truth
6. Faith is essential to life; the question is not, “Do you have faith?” but “What have you placed your faith in?”
7. Be humble and patient; wait until all the facts are in before making a final decision
8. Don’t be afraid of the truth; seek after it, love it, study it, commit to it. Jesus is Truth
Science vs. Faith
Science vs. Faith
1. A Brief History of Science
1600-1750 1750-1940 1940-1960 [WWII] 1960-Present
Discovery Control Use Consumption
“Think God’s thoughts” Manipulate and control Massive production Enjoy life-enhancing technologies
Worship Convenience Productivity
Efficiency Choice
Science is founded on the Christian worldview
Almost all scientists for the first 200 years were Christians
Christians began to abdicate their place and allowed non-Christians to take over
Modern World: Choice + Efficiency —> Convenience [no place for God]
2. Science vs. Scientism
Science: discovery based on careful observation and analysis
Scientism: philosophical and religious claims about science
Science Fiction: reconstructions and hypotheses that have no evidence
There are limits to scientific knowledge, things it cannot know
Scientific knowledge is probabilistic and not absolute
Be skeptical about “scientific” claims that are outside the realm of science
3. Don’t Fall for the False Dichotomy of Science vs. Faith
Truth is Truth no matter who finds it
Christians should never fear Truth no matter where it comes from
Differences between Science and Faith must be handled with care:
• Scientific data may be incomplete
• Interpretation of the Bible may be inaccurate
• Scientific theories may conflict with Biblical interpretation
The “War” between Faith and Science is a fabrication
Fight bad science with better science not with appeals to faith
4. We Need More Excellent Christian Scientists
Science is a calling just as important as a pastor or missionary
A Christian scientist can have more influence than a pastor or missionary
You need to have a Christian mindset if you are to be effective:
• A passion to know God and discover his creation
• A commitment to Truth even when it is not accepted
• The boldness to speak the Truth even opposed
1. A Brief History of Science
1600-1750 1750-1940 1940-1960 [WWII] 1960-Present
Discovery Control Use Consumption
“Think God’s thoughts” Manipulate and control Massive production Enjoy life-enhancing technologies
Worship Convenience Productivity
Efficiency Choice
Science is founded on the Christian worldview
Almost all scientists for the first 200 years were Christians
Christians began to abdicate their place and allowed non-Christians to take over
Modern World: Choice + Efficiency —> Convenience [no place for God]
2. Science vs. Scientism
Science: discovery based on careful observation and analysis
Scientism: philosophical and religious claims about science
Science Fiction: reconstructions and hypotheses that have no evidence
There are limits to scientific knowledge, things it cannot know
Scientific knowledge is probabilistic and not absolute
Be skeptical about “scientific” claims that are outside the realm of science
3. Don’t Fall for the False Dichotomy of Science vs. Faith
Truth is Truth no matter who finds it
Christians should never fear Truth no matter where it comes from
Differences between Science and Faith must be handled with care:
• Scientific data may be incomplete
• Interpretation of the Bible may be inaccurate
• Scientific theories may conflict with Biblical interpretation
The “War” between Faith and Science is a fabrication
Fight bad science with better science not with appeals to faith
4. We Need More Excellent Christian Scientists
Science is a calling just as important as a pastor or missionary
A Christian scientist can have more influence than a pastor or missionary
You need to have a Christian mindset if you are to be effective:
• A passion to know God and discover his creation
• A commitment to Truth even when it is not accepted
• The boldness to speak the Truth even opposed
Friday, August 15, 2008
Faith and the Presidency
Believer in Chief
In his review (Books & Culture, July/August 2008) of Randall Balmer's book, God in the White House: How Faith Shaped the Presidency from John F. Kennedy to George W. Bush, Gary Scott Smith agrees that modern politics has become religousized and religion has become politicized, much to the harm of both religion and politics. Balmer evaluates the faith claims of the presidents from John F. Kennedy to George W. Bush and compares them to their actual policies and lifestyle. His conclusion is that no clear connection exists between a president's faith and personal morality and his policies. The record of the last four and half decades suggests that candidates' professions of faith are "a fairly poor indicator of how they govern."
Smith agrees with Balmer to a certain extent, but feels he has overlooked all the positive contributions the faith of the presidents made to their character, conduct and policies:
“Indeed, although the politicizing of religion involves dangers, and though presidents have often misused religious rhetoric to woo voters, win support for policies, and please various constituencies, their personal faith has generally helped them perform their duties more effectively. Moreover, at times in American history the participation of religious groups in the political process has helped make our nation more compassionate and just (such as the abolition of slavery, the promotion of civil rights, and various policies to aid the poor). Therefore, while criticizing the political misuse of religion by politicians, religious groups, and voters, we should encourage all three groups to consider carefully how biblical values and personal faith can help shape and direct the political process in ways that benefit our nation and the world.”
You can read the whole article at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2008/004/5.35.html.
In his review (Books & Culture, July/August 2008) of Randall Balmer's book, God in the White House: How Faith Shaped the Presidency from John F. Kennedy to George W. Bush, Gary Scott Smith agrees that modern politics has become religousized and religion has become politicized, much to the harm of both religion and politics. Balmer evaluates the faith claims of the presidents from John F. Kennedy to George W. Bush and compares them to their actual policies and lifestyle. His conclusion is that no clear connection exists between a president's faith and personal morality and his policies. The record of the last four and half decades suggests that candidates' professions of faith are "a fairly poor indicator of how they govern."
Smith agrees with Balmer to a certain extent, but feels he has overlooked all the positive contributions the faith of the presidents made to their character, conduct and policies:
“Indeed, although the politicizing of religion involves dangers, and though presidents have often misused religious rhetoric to woo voters, win support for policies, and please various constituencies, their personal faith has generally helped them perform their duties more effectively. Moreover, at times in American history the participation of religious groups in the political process has helped make our nation more compassionate and just (such as the abolition of slavery, the promotion of civil rights, and various policies to aid the poor). Therefore, while criticizing the political misuse of religion by politicians, religious groups, and voters, we should encourage all three groups to consider carefully how biblical values and personal faith can help shape and direct the political process in ways that benefit our nation and the world.”
You can read the whole article at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2008/004/5.35.html.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Is Ending the War a Matter of Faith
In his blog on Friday, March 16, 2007, Jim Wallis wrote an article entitled: “Ending the War is a Matter of Faith” in which he argued that the War in Iraq is morally wrong and cannot be justified. He says that it cannot be justified by the teachings of Jesus or by Augustine’s just war doctrine. He feels that not only is the war un-Christian, but it is an offense to all the young men who have been sent to fight, to the Iraqis, and to all who have been shortchanged by the diversion of funds from more important projects and concerns. Jim calls for all Christians to pray and seek the end of the war by mobilizing the faith community in our country to change the current wind of public opinion.
St. Augustine said that protection of one’s own life or property is never a just reason for killing one’s neighbor. However, this applies only to individuals and not to the leaders of nations who have the obligation to maintain peace and order. He states, “The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority.” He continues, “A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly.” The intention of the war is very important for St. Augustine. He says, “The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such things, all these are rightly condemned in war.” St. Augustine emphasizes the idea of restoration of peace as the main motive of war. He says, “We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace.” So in St. Augustine's thinking a war "was limited by its purpose, its authority and its conduct.”
Preemptive strikes are not considered justified by this doctrine. Iraq never attacked the United States or threatened our security. However, President Bush claimed that Iraq was building weapons of mass destruction that he intended to give to terrorists to use against the United States and its allies. The prospect of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons being used against American civilians is a scary prospect, and unfortunately it is very likely to happen in the near future. It is debatable whether the war in Iraq has reduced or increased the chances of this kind of attack happening, but the ends don’t justify the means.
With such a real and imminent threat our government has the moral obligation to act to deter such an attack to protect its citizens. Attacking Iraq was put forth as an essential element in our government’s plan to end global terrorism. The questions that needs to be asked are: Is ending global terrorism within the moral and legal rights of the United States and is it just to pursue military action to secure that objective? Is attacking another sovereign nation justified if it harbors and aids global terrorists that have clearly declared war on the United States? Is military action the best course of action to secure these objectives? Can diplomacy, sanctions and other nonviolent means be used effectively to stop global terrorism?
While I agree with Jim Wallis that indiscriminate war is unchristian and unjustifiable, I am not sure that the war on global terrorism fits that label. International terrorist organizations have clearly and repeatedly declared war on the United States. These organizations have carried out numerous deadly attacks on U.S. citizens, military and civilian, around the world. These organizations have attacked and killed thousands of civilians and military personnel on our own soil. These organizations have publicly vowed to carry out more of such attacks in the future. These organizations are actively seeking out nuclear, biological and chemical weapons to use against civilian and military targets overseas and within our own borders. Whether we like it or not, we are at war. Even if we do not strike back, we are still at war.
The difficulty comes not in determining whether we are at war and if we should defend ourselves, but how doe we defend ourselves against attacks against our civilians that come not from other nation states with clearly defined borders, armies, and governments but are transnational and often are indistinguishable from the civilian populations around them. There are not clear military targets, definitive armies or simple borders as in the past. Our understanding of warfare needs to be updated and changed to reflect the new realities. We cannot evaluate wars in the same way as we have in the past. As Christians, we need to spend more time studying these realities and evaluating what biblical responsibilities a government has towards its citizens and how Christian principles should guide decision-making in this new situation.
I agree with most of what Jim Wallis says, yet I feel that his evaluation of the current situation is too limited. I agree that Jesus has clearly laid down principles of non-violence and Christians must not strike back at those who strike them. However, governments have the moral obligation to protect their citizens and to maintain order. The Apostle Paul says, “For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13:3-4). The context is concerned about Christians obeying the government, yet there are some principles in this passage that are applicable to war. Governments are divinely appointed to maintain order and peace and have been invested with the authority to punish wrongdoers. It would be immoral for a government to not punish crime or to allow wrongdoers to continue to hurting citizens. The government has been given divine authority to “bear the sword” both in civil and international affairs. Therefore, it is not always wrong to go to war. In fact, there are times it is wrong to not go to war.
Therefore, the question we should be asking is whether the war in Iraq is essential to bringing criminals to justice and to prevent these criminals from committing future crimes against our citizens. Jim Wallis doesn’t believe that the war in Iraq meets these criteria and therefore should be stopped. I am very sympathetic to his call to peace, but I am still doing more research on the current situation before I make a final decision about the legitimacy of the war. Since I am coming at this years later that Jim, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and hold my judgment in humility. However, I must still do my own research and make my own decision based upon as much correct information that I can obtain.
So, is the war in Iraq a matter of faith? Definitely. Should we pray for it to end? Yes. Was it a political and military blunder? Maybe. Is it a just war?
You can read Jim Wallis' article at: http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/godspolitics/2007/03/jim-wallis-ending-war-is-matter-of.html
St. Augustine said that protection of one’s own life or property is never a just reason for killing one’s neighbor. However, this applies only to individuals and not to the leaders of nations who have the obligation to maintain peace and order. He states, “The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority.” He continues, “A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly.” The intention of the war is very important for St. Augustine. He says, “The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such things, all these are rightly condemned in war.” St. Augustine emphasizes the idea of restoration of peace as the main motive of war. He says, “We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace.” So in St. Augustine's thinking a war "was limited by its purpose, its authority and its conduct.”
Preemptive strikes are not considered justified by this doctrine. Iraq never attacked the United States or threatened our security. However, President Bush claimed that Iraq was building weapons of mass destruction that he intended to give to terrorists to use against the United States and its allies. The prospect of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons being used against American civilians is a scary prospect, and unfortunately it is very likely to happen in the near future. It is debatable whether the war in Iraq has reduced or increased the chances of this kind of attack happening, but the ends don’t justify the means.
With such a real and imminent threat our government has the moral obligation to act to deter such an attack to protect its citizens. Attacking Iraq was put forth as an essential element in our government’s plan to end global terrorism. The questions that needs to be asked are: Is ending global terrorism within the moral and legal rights of the United States and is it just to pursue military action to secure that objective? Is attacking another sovereign nation justified if it harbors and aids global terrorists that have clearly declared war on the United States? Is military action the best course of action to secure these objectives? Can diplomacy, sanctions and other nonviolent means be used effectively to stop global terrorism?
While I agree with Jim Wallis that indiscriminate war is unchristian and unjustifiable, I am not sure that the war on global terrorism fits that label. International terrorist organizations have clearly and repeatedly declared war on the United States. These organizations have carried out numerous deadly attacks on U.S. citizens, military and civilian, around the world. These organizations have attacked and killed thousands of civilians and military personnel on our own soil. These organizations have publicly vowed to carry out more of such attacks in the future. These organizations are actively seeking out nuclear, biological and chemical weapons to use against civilian and military targets overseas and within our own borders. Whether we like it or not, we are at war. Even if we do not strike back, we are still at war.
The difficulty comes not in determining whether we are at war and if we should defend ourselves, but how doe we defend ourselves against attacks against our civilians that come not from other nation states with clearly defined borders, armies, and governments but are transnational and often are indistinguishable from the civilian populations around them. There are not clear military targets, definitive armies or simple borders as in the past. Our understanding of warfare needs to be updated and changed to reflect the new realities. We cannot evaluate wars in the same way as we have in the past. As Christians, we need to spend more time studying these realities and evaluating what biblical responsibilities a government has towards its citizens and how Christian principles should guide decision-making in this new situation.
I agree with most of what Jim Wallis says, yet I feel that his evaluation of the current situation is too limited. I agree that Jesus has clearly laid down principles of non-violence and Christians must not strike back at those who strike them. However, governments have the moral obligation to protect their citizens and to maintain order. The Apostle Paul says, “For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13:3-4). The context is concerned about Christians obeying the government, yet there are some principles in this passage that are applicable to war. Governments are divinely appointed to maintain order and peace and have been invested with the authority to punish wrongdoers. It would be immoral for a government to not punish crime or to allow wrongdoers to continue to hurting citizens. The government has been given divine authority to “bear the sword” both in civil and international affairs. Therefore, it is not always wrong to go to war. In fact, there are times it is wrong to not go to war.
Therefore, the question we should be asking is whether the war in Iraq is essential to bringing criminals to justice and to prevent these criminals from committing future crimes against our citizens. Jim Wallis doesn’t believe that the war in Iraq meets these criteria and therefore should be stopped. I am very sympathetic to his call to peace, but I am still doing more research on the current situation before I make a final decision about the legitimacy of the war. Since I am coming at this years later that Jim, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and hold my judgment in humility. However, I must still do my own research and make my own decision based upon as much correct information that I can obtain.
So, is the war in Iraq a matter of faith? Definitely. Should we pray for it to end? Yes. Was it a political and military blunder? Maybe. Is it a just war?
You can read Jim Wallis' article at: http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/godspolitics/2007/03/jim-wallis-ending-war-is-matter-of.html
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
South Sea Tales
Jack London is one of the best writers of the twentieth century. In his collection of short stories, South Sea Tales, he is at his best, weaving compelling stories with incredible detailed descriptions of the life and geography of the South Pacific in the late 1800’s. Here are the titles of the short stories:
The House Of Mapuhi
The Whale Tooth
Mauki
Yah! Yah! Yah!
The Heathen
The Terrible Solomons
The Inevitable White Man
The Seed Of McCoy
Each short story is a masterpiece. While reading them I felt as if I were actually there, living among the cannibals and other natives. London spells out the tenuous relationship between the white man and the black man, revealing much of western man’s arrogance and ignorance while also revealing the savagery of both the blacks and whites. London paints the beauty of the islands with his words, but also the horrors of living through a hurricane, shark attacks, and being chased, killed and eaten by cannibals.
In the story, “The Heathen,” the narrator, Charley, saves Otoo’s life, a native of Bora-bora, during a shipwreck and he is in turn nursed back to health by the Otoo after they wash up on shore. As is the native’s custom, they become blood brothers by taking each other’s name. Charley is a young man, and his character and life are changed as he and Otoo spend the next 17 years together. He says:
“I never had a brother; but from what I have seen of other men's brothers, I doubt if any man ever had a brother that was to him what Otoo was to me. He was brother and father and mother as well. And this I know: I lived a straighter and better man because of Otoo. I cared little for other men, but I had to live straight in Otoo's eyes. Because of him I dared not tarnish myself. He made me his ideal, compounding me, I fear, chiefly out of his own love and worship and there were times when I stood close to the steep pitch of hell, and would have taken the plunge had not the thought of Otoo restrained me. His pride in me entered into me, until it became one of the major rules in my personal code to do nothing that would diminish that pride of his.”
This story caused me to think of two things: first, how important friendships are and how having the right friend can change your life for the better. It is rare to have a friend like Otoo who would willingly give his life for you, and who constantly looks out for your best interest, even when you don’t.
The second is, how Christ has bound himself to man in much the same way through the cross. By becoming a man, the Son identified with us and took our name upon himself, bearing our sin to the cross. In exchange, he has given us his name, calling us brothers, so that we partake in the divine nature and share in all of his heavenly blessings. When we appropriate this relationship through faith, we realize that we dare not tarnish his name, and realizing that he loves us and is looking out for our best interest, we can be motivated to live in a way that is pleasing to him.
In the story, “The House Of Mapuhi” we see how greed can destroy lives as several white traders take advantage of Mapuhi, a pearl diver, who has just found the largest, most perfect pearl ever. In “The Whale Tooth” London points out the ignorance and folly of a missionary who failed to learn the culture of the South Pacific islanders and ended up being killed and eaten by the people he was trying to convert. In “Mauki” we meet a young man forced into slavery, who is severely treated after many escape attempts. He finally escapes with the head of his master and returns to his island to rule as chief. The head of the most feared white man gives him power over all the other tribes who fear him. In “Yah! Yah! Yah!” London explains why the natives now feared the white man even though they outnumbered them and had successfully killed them in the past. In “The Seed of McCoy” we meet the great-grandson of the leader of the mutiny of the Bounty. Each tale is a treasure in itself and all taken together paint a compelling picture of life in the South Pacific.
The House Of Mapuhi
The Whale Tooth
Mauki
Yah! Yah! Yah!
The Heathen
The Terrible Solomons
The Inevitable White Man
The Seed Of McCoy
Each short story is a masterpiece. While reading them I felt as if I were actually there, living among the cannibals and other natives. London spells out the tenuous relationship between the white man and the black man, revealing much of western man’s arrogance and ignorance while also revealing the savagery of both the blacks and whites. London paints the beauty of the islands with his words, but also the horrors of living through a hurricane, shark attacks, and being chased, killed and eaten by cannibals.
In the story, “The Heathen,” the narrator, Charley, saves Otoo’s life, a native of Bora-bora, during a shipwreck and he is in turn nursed back to health by the Otoo after they wash up on shore. As is the native’s custom, they become blood brothers by taking each other’s name. Charley is a young man, and his character and life are changed as he and Otoo spend the next 17 years together. He says:
“I never had a brother; but from what I have seen of other men's brothers, I doubt if any man ever had a brother that was to him what Otoo was to me. He was brother and father and mother as well. And this I know: I lived a straighter and better man because of Otoo. I cared little for other men, but I had to live straight in Otoo's eyes. Because of him I dared not tarnish myself. He made me his ideal, compounding me, I fear, chiefly out of his own love and worship and there were times when I stood close to the steep pitch of hell, and would have taken the plunge had not the thought of Otoo restrained me. His pride in me entered into me, until it became one of the major rules in my personal code to do nothing that would diminish that pride of his.”
This story caused me to think of two things: first, how important friendships are and how having the right friend can change your life for the better. It is rare to have a friend like Otoo who would willingly give his life for you, and who constantly looks out for your best interest, even when you don’t.
The second is, how Christ has bound himself to man in much the same way through the cross. By becoming a man, the Son identified with us and took our name upon himself, bearing our sin to the cross. In exchange, he has given us his name, calling us brothers, so that we partake in the divine nature and share in all of his heavenly blessings. When we appropriate this relationship through faith, we realize that we dare not tarnish his name, and realizing that he loves us and is looking out for our best interest, we can be motivated to live in a way that is pleasing to him.
In the story, “The House Of Mapuhi” we see how greed can destroy lives as several white traders take advantage of Mapuhi, a pearl diver, who has just found the largest, most perfect pearl ever. In “The Whale Tooth” London points out the ignorance and folly of a missionary who failed to learn the culture of the South Pacific islanders and ended up being killed and eaten by the people he was trying to convert. In “Mauki” we meet a young man forced into slavery, who is severely treated after many escape attempts. He finally escapes with the head of his master and returns to his island to rule as chief. The head of the most feared white man gives him power over all the other tribes who fear him. In “Yah! Yah! Yah!” London explains why the natives now feared the white man even though they outnumbered them and had successfully killed them in the past. In “The Seed of McCoy” we meet the great-grandson of the leader of the mutiny of the Bounty. Each tale is a treasure in itself and all taken together paint a compelling picture of life in the South Pacific.
Monday, February 5, 2007
Today Matters, Decision #8: FAITH
8. Decision #8: FAITH: “Today’s faith gives me peace”
Deepen and live out my faith daily.
Benefits of faith:
1. Gives me a divine perspective today. Philip Yancey : “Faith is trusting in advance what will only make sense in reverse.”
2. Gives me health today. Faith adds meaning, perspective, positive social networks that benefit my physical and emotional health.
3. Gives me strength today. Faith helps overcome adversity. “Faith draws the poison from every grief, takes the sting from every loss, quenches the fire of every loss. Faith gives a person power.”
Important things to consider:
1. We already have faith. The important thing to consider is where we place it. “You go to a doctor whose name you cannot pronounce who gives you a prescription you cannot read that you take to a pharmacist you have never seen, and yet you take it.”
2. Your goal should be to align your beliefs with the truth. Seek the truth and you will find it.
3. A faith that has not been tested cannot be trusted. Viktor Frankl: “A weak faith is weakened by predicaments and catastrophes, whereas a strong faith is strengthened by them.”
How to live out the disciplines of faith: “Every day I will seek to live and lead like Jesus.”
1. Embrace the value of faith.
2. Put God in the picture. Let God into your life. “Unbelief puts our circumstances between us and God, while faith puts God between us and our circumstances.”
3. Explore and deepen your faith. D.L. Moody: Faith did not seem to come when I kept praying for it. When I began to study the Bible, my faith has grown and increased.
Story of Rick Husband, Shuttle pilot who died in when the Columbia burned up on reentry. Wife was able to face the grief because of her faith and the support of the faith fo the other widows. Proverbs 3:5-6.
Deepen and live out my faith daily.
Benefits of faith:
1. Gives me a divine perspective today. Philip Yancey : “Faith is trusting in advance what will only make sense in reverse.”
2. Gives me health today. Faith adds meaning, perspective, positive social networks that benefit my physical and emotional health.
3. Gives me strength today. Faith helps overcome adversity. “Faith draws the poison from every grief, takes the sting from every loss, quenches the fire of every loss. Faith gives a person power.”
Important things to consider:
1. We already have faith. The important thing to consider is where we place it. “You go to a doctor whose name you cannot pronounce who gives you a prescription you cannot read that you take to a pharmacist you have never seen, and yet you take it.”
2. Your goal should be to align your beliefs with the truth. Seek the truth and you will find it.
3. A faith that has not been tested cannot be trusted. Viktor Frankl: “A weak faith is weakened by predicaments and catastrophes, whereas a strong faith is strengthened by them.”
How to live out the disciplines of faith: “Every day I will seek to live and lead like Jesus.”
1. Embrace the value of faith.
2. Put God in the picture. Let God into your life. “Unbelief puts our circumstances between us and God, while faith puts God between us and our circumstances.”
3. Explore and deepen your faith. D.L. Moody: Faith did not seem to come when I kept praying for it. When I began to study the Bible, my faith has grown and increased.
Story of Rick Husband, Shuttle pilot who died in when the Columbia burned up on reentry. Wife was able to face the grief because of her faith and the support of the faith fo the other widows. Proverbs 3:5-6.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)