Consider this simple illustration. Imagine a person is wandering in the woods and happens upon a funny object barely sticking out of the ground. As their curiosity leads them, they begin to dig around the object in order to pull it out of the ground for closer examination. Upon unearthing the object, they see it to be relatively square, with a glass screen and some knobs on one side and some sort of cord coming out of the other side. Just below the screen are the letters, S-O-N-Y. After examining the outside more closely, they decide to open it up and peer inside. With a rock, they crack the plastic shell that encases the innermost parts, and to their amazement, they happen upon a wide assortment of small and colorful parts, all attached together on green sheets of plastic and forming what looks like some sort of maze on each sheet.
So, what is it that they found? They found a television made by the Sony Corporation. Is there any doubt when listening to the illustration as to whether this object had a designer? No, not at all. What if the setting were one hundred or even five hundred years ago? What would the discoverers of this object think? Would they ever think it just appeared in the forest by chance? No, it is obvious that, no matter who finds it from whatever time period in human history, this object has a designer. Someone, something, somehow made it.
Now a television is made up of roughly three thousand individual parts to make up the whole set. That may seem like a lot, until one considers other designed things such as trees, birds, eyes, and the human body itself. God, the great Designer, has many wonderful accomplishments at which humanity can marvel, but the human body is truly His masterpiece. Whereas a TV set is composed of three thousand individual parts, the human body is a composite of a myriad of different parts as well. Consider that the human body is a collection of approximately ten thousand trillion atoms.[1] That is a ten with twelve more zeros following. That is a number that exceeds the number of stars that science believes to exist in the whole universe. In addition, consider that, “Each human cell is made up of a trillion atoms. The body contains between 10 and 100 trillion cells. We tear down and rebuild over a trillion cells every day. Each cell is remarkable in its own miniaturized way, with electric fields, protein factories, and hundreds of ATP energy motors 200 times smaller than a pinhead.”[2] With this sort of complexity in view, is it reasonable to argue that, if a television set is clearly a designed object, then the human body absolutely must be the work of a designer also. In truth, thinking otherwise would be utterly foolish.[3]
Every human body is a miracle, which exceeds human comprehension. The complexity and harmony of the body’s programmed functions are simply staggering to the mind. The Bible teaches that God made humans in His very image.[4] Further, the Bible says that God created humans a little lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honor.[5] The Bible is correct. Take courage today, knowing that the biblical descriptions of humanity’s specialness and God’s creative prowess are accurate revelations from the Lord.
The statistical odds of the theory of evolution are in the realm of 1X10117. For those of you counting, that is a 1 with 117 zeros after it! The general consensus of mathematicians is that such numbers are useless, because beyond the number 1X1055 you are talking about numbers that are absolutely absurd. Peace today!
(1) Richard A. Swenson, More than Meets the Eye: Fascinating Glimpses of God’s Power and Design (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2000), 94.
(2) Ibid.
(3) Psalm 14:1
(4) Genesis 1:26
(5) Psalm 8:5; and Hebrews 2:7
13 comments:
There is sooooo much to say about your understanding of evolution that I scarcely know where to begin.
On the up-side, you seem to have at least a passing appreciation for very large numbers. This, I find, is a major stumbling block for many people. The human animal has little need to comprehend (let's say) distances greater than 'to the horizon' or sizes smaller than a grain of sand. Out of the gate; few can contemplate vanishingly small changes over incomprehensible time periods...which is the necessary framework for Evolution by Natural Selection (ENS) to operate. If one firmly believes that the earth is less than 10,000 years old...then there is no way to make inroads into that person's understanding of ENS. We would need to start by getting them an education in...well...pretty much any of the physical sciences.
The reality is that ENS is both a theory AND a fact. We have observed and caused ENS many times.
If you are interested in gaining a more accurate understanding of ENS, I would be happy to oblige.
Yes...I do have an appreciation for the big numbers...and I often marvel at them, at the complexity of our physical bodies and our physical universe...it is all so amazing.
Still, the mathematical arguments against ENS seem quite staggering. You have to believe in an infinite universe or infinite universes to bring it into a scope that appears possible.
Nevertheless, I'm fascinated by evolutionary theory and perfectly fine with micro-evolution...it's the macro-theories that don't fit the evidence collected thus far...yes, through one set of lenses it appears there may be some evidence, however, there also appears to be much evidence you have to ignore to get there.
I don't treat the Bible as a science book here...it was never intended to be a science book...though it has some revolutionary scientific ideas in it (for example: naming the world as round well before anyone ever posed the thought)...it is revelation, historical narrative, and doctine primarily, with a dash of prophetic genius for the non-believer to grapple with.
Still enjoying the journey...thx for all your comments...peace
While you might be able to comprehend the large number, you also need to understand that there are random events (genetic mutations)and non-random events (selective forces of the environment). The mathematical arguments against ENS fail to properly apply those non-random events. Simply figuring the odds 'n' atoms to accidentally assemble into a given life-form is wholly erroneous. I have no need for an infinite universe or more than one universe.
Indeed; once life began [another discussion entirely], it has been argued that the proper understanding of these mathematical precepts almost makes it inevitable that complex life would occur that would exploit its environment...and give the appearance of design.
Re: micro/macro evolution. In practice; there really is nothing BUT micro-evolution. What we might call 'macro-evolution' is really the accumulation of untold generations of microevolutionary changes. When I was first exposed to evolution in grade school, the natural mental image is fish giving birth to a salamander giving birth to a frog giving birth to a rabbit...but that is a fourth-grade understanding. That is NOT EVEN CLOSE to reality and is, indeed, impossible. But some have not moved passed that grade-school understanding (I had to laugh at Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron holding up a picture of a lizard with a rabbit's head in a debate saying "show me one of these")
"there also appears to be much evidence you have to ignore to get there.
What evidence is that?
I have previously specifically looked up the revelations of a spherical earth in the bible...they don't exist. It mentions a scribed circle (a two dimensional precept intimating edges) along with pillars and such things. There is no reference to anything spherical (i.e. comparing the earth to an orange). The passages escape me at this time, but if you find anything that indicates spherical, please cite them.
since you set aside Job 26 so easily you may find a way to spin other biblical texts that speak of the earth as "circular" or "hanging in space" or "in the heavens". Nevertheless, I'll still offer a few for you.
Keep in mind, I do not treat the biblical text as a scientific work...primarily it is historical and revelatory, however, undeniably there is relevant scientific data there which was penned well before scientific research caught on.
See Isaiah 40:22, "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth..." (During the time of the writing of Isaiah there was no word in the Hebrew language for sphere that we know of...the above word--"circle"--is the word they used for all circles, sphere's, etc..)
Job 26:7 "He spreads out the Northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing" (this passage does not speak to the circular nature of the earth, yet it does imply an general description of the earth in space)
The bible says the stars cannot be counted...immeasurable (Jeremiah 33:22).
I don't mind going down this road but I do not believe that quoting biblical texts about the earth, its shape, or it's position in the heavens is going to produce much fruit toward convincing you.
The primary question of the Bible for us today is the very question Jesus continually asked of his disciples..."who do you say that I am?"
The Bible describes Him as Lord of all and the Savior of all who believe upon Him. Those who disagree with the above statement believe what? He was a liar, a phony, crazy.
Still today people wrestle with what to do about Jesus. I believe Jesus is who He said He was and I believe the evidence, past and present, is solid.
peace today
More thoughts:
Some Bible critics have claimed that Revelation 7:1 assumes a flat earth since the verse refers to angels standing at the “four corners” of the earth. Actually, the reference is to the cardinal directions: north, south, east, and west. Similar terminology is often used today when we speak of the sun's rising and setting, even though the earth, not the sun, is doing the moving. Bible writers used the “language of appearance,” just as people always have. Without it, the intended message would be awkward at best and probably not understood clearly. [DD]
In the Old Testament, Job 26:7 explains that the earth is suspended in space, the obvious comparison being with the spherical sun and moon. [DD]
A literal translation of Job 26:10 is "He described a circle upon the face of the waters, until the day and night come to an end." A spherical earth is also described in Isaiah 40:21-22 - "the circle of the earth."
Proverbs 8:27 also suggests a round earth by use of the word circle (e.g., New King James Bible and New American Standard Bible). If you are overlooking the ocean, the horizon appears as a circle. This circle on the horizon is described in Job 26:10. The circle on the face of the waters is one of the proofs that the Greeks used for a spherical earth. Yet here it is recorded in Job, ages before the Greeks discovered it. Job 26:10 indicates that where light terminates, darkness begins. This suggests day and night on a spherical globe. [JSM]
The Hebrew record is the oldest, because Job is one of the oldest books in the Bible. Historians generally [wrongly] credit the Greeks with being the first to suggest a spherical earth. In the sixth century B.C., Pythagoras suggested a spherical earth. [JSM]
Eratosthenes of Alexandria (circa 276 to 194 or 192 B.C.) calcuated the circumference of the earth "within 50 miles of the present estimate." [Encyclopedia Brittanica]
The Greeks also drew meridians and parallels. They identified such areas as the poles, equator, and tropics. This spherical earth concept did not prevail; the Romans drew the earth as a flat disk with oceans around it. [JSM]
The round shape of our planet was a conclusion easily drawn by watching ships disappear over the horizon and also by observing eclipse shadows, and we can assume that such information was well known to New Testament writers. Earth's spherical shape was, of course, also understood by Christopher Columbus. [DD]
peace
Modern Evidence:
(how does science explain miracles??? anomalies??? lies??? or misinterpretations???)
I've been praying with and for a man in my church named Mike Wheeler for over two years now. Mike has had a form of bone cancer that is lethal but slow spreading. The good news today is that as of last week he is officially in remission. His doctor expects it to return in 4 to 5 years and then they will begin to fight once more...if it returns.
Mike went through terrible chemotherapy and then this summer he underwent bone marrow transplant surgery...and it worked.
While in the hospital 2 weeks ago for a check up Mike met a man named Ed Silverman who was coming in to visit with Dr. Yimer for the first time. Ed was very interested to hear Mike's story because Ed's oncologist had sent him to Dr. Yimer for the transplant surgery. Mike told him how it went for him and Mike agreed to pray for him. While there Ed had a bone marrow biopsy done to check his cancer levels before scheduling the transplant. Mike prayed for him in the waiting room and over the phone on following days.
The results came back last week and to Dr. Yimer's surprise, Ed tested negative for cancer. Were all the previous tests wrong? Was this test mishandled? Is this a miracle?
Dr. Yimer is puzzled and has reordered the tests to verify the negative result.
If this were merely an isolated incident I would not even bother to share it...I too would chalk it up as an anomaly. But it isn't. I've seen these things happen over the years and heard countless stories from others...all anomalies...highly doubtful.
Evidence for what though?
I know skeptics would prefer for God to step out from behind the clouds and say, "OK, it was me, I did it." My contention is that He did 2,000 years ago in the person of Jesus Christ, however that is not the point right here.
My point is miracles are real...the evidence is irrefutable.
Still, questions remain. Why did Mike not receive a miracle by the hand of God and Ed seemingly did? Why are some healed miraculously and others not?
I believe the Bible speaks to such issues, however I do not position myself to know all the answers. Yet, I do position myself to demonstrate that there is evidence of the supernatural workings of a personal God in the here and now.
This seems to be the sticking point for so many in scientific circles today toward religious faith...many have crossed the line into deism because the evidence for a designer or initiator is demonstrated in the universe...I contend there is evidence for the personal God of the Bible...if we only have eyes to see...or as Jesus puts it, "he who has ears to hear, let him hear."
I will start by saying that I mean no offense by anything that follows. The topic and its proper discussion sometimes use turns of phrase that may be interpreted as derisive or insulting.
Here we have well demonstrated a great chasm between the religious and the scientific communities regarding the understanding of probability and mathematics. In isolation, your praying for Mike and his surprising remission mean absolutely nothing. In the case of Mike's cancer; people get sick and get well all by themselves all the time...and cancer is poorly understood. You yourself said Mike received chemo and marrow. Maybe it was science-based medical treatment [likely developed by atheists] that affected his dramatic improvement!!!
It is well understood that we pattern-seeking animals remember the 'hits' and forget the 'misses'. The only number that means anything is variation from the norm. In my world; it matters not what a person 'believes' or 'feels' about such matters. I am only concerned with demonstrable truth...so I will restate for emphasis: The only number that means anything is variation from the norm.
If bone cancer patients typically went into spontaneous remission 10% of the time but patients that were PRAYED for went into remission 30% (or even 13%) of the time, then that would turn my head and give me pause. Does it not trouble you that all the claimed medical miracles are only things that could have happened all by themselves? Why are there no restored limbs to be cited? What about similar miracle claims by Hindus? Are those miracles false, or lies, or misinterpretation?
If we look at it statistically; praying to God (or Vishnu) yields precisely the same results as praying to a sack of onions. Review the following rigorous, multi-site study http://www.ahjonline.com/article/PIIS0002870305006496/abstract on the Therapeutic Effects of Prayer (it is not unique).
"My point is miracles are real...the evidence is irrefutable."
It is quite refutable if you have a proper understanding of evidence...in this case, variation from the norm.
"This seems to be the sticking point for so many in scientific circles today toward religious faith...many have crossed the line into deism because the evidence for a designer or initiator is demonstrated in the universe."
This is often espoused by the theistic side, but saying it is so does not make it so. [this often shares billing with "Darwin: A Theory in Crisis"] If we look at the National Academy of Sciences (an assemblage of our nation's best scientific minds) fully 72.2% held no belief in any personal god ...and the number is rising.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
Indeed; among the scientific community; only 7% actually hold theistic beliefs (mathematicians most representative of that group). Physicists and biologists (I seem to recall) have the least supernatural beliefs...because they look at our universe and the life in it for a living.
Now before you trot out the "pressure of the scientific community to espouse atheism"...this could not be more false. There is no better way to gain praise and notoriety in the scientific community than to find the thing that nobody else has. If someone could find compelling evidence of some active higher power, there would be a Nobel medal waiting for them. The reality is that, like the study of prayer above, they have looked for that evidence and have come up empty handed.
Re: the spherical earth and such, it is late so I will respond to that on Tuesday, but I will provide you with this very amusing video that touches on revelation and prophecy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOfjkl-3SNE
Back to the spherical earth and such…
I could write much here, but I will endeavor for brevity (something I find hard to do sometimes).
When considering what constitutes compelling evidence of biblical veracity, we need to look for the unambiguous descriptions of things unknowable to humankind at the time. For all that we have said about a spherical earth and bible prophecy; the shape of the earth WAS knowable by mortal man…and you have said so yourself and, hence, could not constitute evidence of divine biblical knowledge. Moreover, it is DIS-crediting to throw out multiple descriptions of the earth (as does the bible). After all if you throw out enough metaphors, one of them is bound to, in hindsight, be arguably accurate.
The hallmark of good science is to make PREdictions. What we see with the spherical earth prophesy is the common artifact called a POSTdiction. With a postdiction, we learn something about our world and then go back to the source material of your choice (i.e. the bible) and find something that can be reinterpreted as predicting it then saying “See!?! It was there all along.” If feels good, but it is wholly invalid. The reality is that you could go to ANY source material and the human mind can reinterpret it to support what they want.
Another oft-cited ‘prophesy’ is recognition of hygiene as it relates to physical health. Again; it was knowable by mortal man that hygiene played a role in health. It was obvious to the casual observer that a dirty wound festers and a clean wound heals or that eating old meat made one ill. What was NOT obvious (and not knowable at the time) was that microorganisms were the vector by which disease was transmitted. An unambiguous reference to these microorganisms and/or their role in health, again, would turn my head and give me pause.
One needs to get past the things that FEEL like evidence and understand what real evidence is and a whole new, and awe-inspiring world of knowledge and understanding will lay before you. This can be difficult for many because it would involve abandoning things you THOUGHT you knew…that is theistic ‘Knowledege’. In little time, you will find 'knowledge' much more rewarding.
I will conclude with this:
A 1968 short film called “Powers of 10” that I saw as a child that demonstrates the mathematical concept of exponents and shows our place in the universe. I wish they would re-make it with current knowledge of our universe and with contemporary effects. You might have already seen it, but may enjoy seeing it again: http://www.allthingsscience.com/video/42/Powers-of-Ten
The sticking point for you about miracles is that they are "variations from the norm"?
I don't have a problem with that definition for miracles. Actually, that is quite good.
It implies that God is not normal. Would normal be "human" in this case?
Supernatural is a variation from the natural...right?
I cannot help but believe in the supernatural...I've seen it way too often to deny it.
Maybe the problem is I'm not normal! Haha...kidding.
I'm working on a new post now...I'd enjoy your opinion of it...peace
When I say "variation from the norm" I am speaking only of the variation from the mathematical, statistical, probabilistic norm. In my earlier example; unless we can demonstrate that prayer MEASURABLY alters the outcome of events, then we cannot say that prayer alters the outcome of events.
OK...then in that case I don't see how God can fit into the discussion at all. How can the Creator fit into the mathematical/statistical box created by science in order for scientists to work their equations and figure out who He is?
You use the word "measurably" here in bold, but then that assumes that our math can measure HIM. I believe He created the scientific laws which govern the universe...in fact this to me is a rather strong argument for the Creator (order, design, and consistent natural laws)...however it is bogus to assume that God then must fit into this box that He created. Science can study everything (in time) inside the box...but what about those things that also exist outside the box?
All this to say...prayer is one of those things that has ramifications in the supernatural and the natural, therefore it often abandons the rules imposed on it by natural laws. If prayer operated only in the natural then of course you would be right. And for God to prove Himself He would have to obey all of our prayer requests...it seems He does not...and the Bible offers ample explanation and examples for why He answers some requests and not other...but since He is sovereign over all the created order, He has that choice.
Therefore, when I tell you that this person was healed and another was not...it confirms the revelations from the Bible and in no way detracts...whether the number is 1 in 10, or 1 in 100, or 1 in 1000. I know to the secular/scientific mind this must seem reason to deny God.
But again I ask...how do you define measurable...if it shows up on the radar at all, isn't it measurable??? Maybe it is not "scientific proof worthy" for some, but it is measurable all the same.
peace
Sorry I missed this one.
Just to distill it back to the core point...
Watch these short videos on the types of things that would convince and atheist and see if you can offer any of it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rqUsC2KsiI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qmcOG-na4E
(I also look forward to responses on some of my other posts)
Post a Comment