Weird Life: Must Life Use Water as Its Solvent?

Posted on May 26, 2015 by Will Myers

May 25, 2015
By Guest Writer

In Star Trek: The Next Generation, the crew of the Enterprise regularly encounters exotic alien life-forms. Many of these extraterrestrials are truly “weird”—distinctly different from life as we know it. In one particular episode, a crystalline life-form refers to humans as “ugly bags of mostly water.”1 “Ugly” is a matter of perspective, but describing humans as “bags of mostly water” is reasonably accurate. We are composed of 60 percent water approximately. All Earth-life utilizes water as an essential component, but some people speculate that perhaps weird life might rely on ammonia or some other liquid. Could such an idea cross from science fiction to science fact?

Water inside our cells serves to dissolve the biomolecules (e.g., proteins, DNA, and lipids), nutrients, and salts needed for cells to function and serves as a medium to bring these chemicals together into a common environment in which all these molecules can interact efficiently. This facilitates the biochemical reactions needed for life. Water also excludes certain fat molecules (lipids), which drives the formation of cell membranes. Accordingly, we refer to water as being a life solvent; many critical life reactions would be impossible without it.

Some scientists have proposed that life could arise on other planets in the universe utilizing a liquid other than water as a life solvent. If these hypothetical creatures existed, we would classify them as weird life because they would have to be fundamentally different from life as we know it. (For more details, see our full paper on this subject.)

Water as the Solvent of Life

Given that water is the only known life solvent, it is useful to consider how it optimally fulfills this role. Against this benchmark, we can compare other possible solvents. A full review of water’s exceptional properties is beyond the scope of this paper. Instead, we refer readers to our seven-part series titled “Water: Designed for Life.” Those articles define important terms, provide helpful background information, and explain the roles of water’s key properties. Here we will summarize only the most relevant details:

  • Water is ubiquitous. Water is one of the most abundant molecules in the entire universe. As such, we can expect to find it in large quantities on most planets—although paradoxically, it is rather rare in the liquidstate (“Water,” part 7). On Earth, it is the only naturally occurring, inorganic liquid found in abundance.
  • Water is the “universal solvent.” Water is considered the most effective known solvent, which has earned it the title “universal solvent.” It is a highly polarized molecule, which helps it dissolve other polar molecules as well as salts (“Water,” part 1). Non-polar organic molecules (e.g., oils) are one of the few molecule classes that generally do not dissolve in water. But even this limitation has a positive benefit: the hydrophobic effect (which we will discuss below).
  • Water has a large range of liquidity. Under terrestrial conditions, pure water is a liquid over a rather impressive temperature range: 0–100°C (32–212°F). Adding common salts can reduce water’s melting point to as low as -23°C (-10°F). Increasing the external pressure to 215 times atmospheric pressure increases the boiling point to 374°C (706°F). This means that water has a potential range of liquidity of 397°C (716°F).
  • Water has a strong hydrophobic effect. Water has the strongesthydrophobic effect of all naturally occurring molecules, which is essential for the formation and maintenance of strong cell membranes in Earth-life. The hydrophobic effect also plays a critical role in protein folding, whereby proteins adopt and maintain the precise three-dimensional shape required to function correctly. (Hydrophobic—i.e., “oily”—amino acids in the protein naturally fold toward the center of the protein to avoid contact with water while the remaining amino acids fold toward the outside.)
  • Water has many exceptional properties. A major virtue of water is that so many of its properties are outside the normal ranges in ways that are beneficial for life. Water has an exceptionally high dielectric constant (“Water,” part 1), which is important for life solvents; and few liquids can even come close to rivaling water’s thermal properties (i.e., properties dealing with heat and temperature). Specifically, water has exceptionally high values for: heat capacity, heat of vaporization, heat of fusion, and thermal conductivity (“Water,” part 4). Moreover, it has many other useful properties, such as high surface tension, fairly low viscosity, and high rate of diffusion (“Water,” part 6).
  • Water is ideal for carbon chemistry. Given that carbon is the only element known to be capable of supporting life chemistry, it is noteworthy that water is exceptionally well suited to facilitate carbon chemistry for at least two reasons. First, carbon forms very strong bonds with both hydrogen and oxygen, which compose water. Second, the temperature range at which water is a liquid (0–100°C or 32–212°F at standard pressure) corresponds to the upper range at which carbon chemistry is viable. While carbon chemistry could operate in lower temperature solvents, lower temperatures would result in slower chemical reactions, which would hinder the development of life. For water to have a much higher boiling point would not be helpful because most carbon compounds degrade at temperatures above 200°C (392°F). Therefore, water is a liquid at the optimal temperature range for carbon chemistry.

Water is an amazing liquid. As a life solvent, it is without equal. Water’s additional extraordinary properties are too numerous to include in this article. In our opinion, they are a clear indication that water is designed for life.

Conclusion

In scientific literature, water has been referred to as the “vital fluid” and the “elixir of life” for good reasons.2 Nothing else even comes close to matching its ability to support life. For this reason, in its search for extraterrestrial life, NASA has largely embraced a “follow the water” strategy of looking for liquid water on other planets. However, not everyone agrees that water is the only possible life solvent. We will explore this possibility in a future article.

Dr. John Millam

Dr. John Millam received his PhD in theoretical chemistry from Rice University in 1997, and currently serves as a programmer for Semichem in Kansas City.

Ken Klos

Mr. Ken Klos received his MS in environmental studies from the University of Florida in 1971, and worked as an environmental/civil engineer for the state of Florida.

Guest Writer

RTB guest writers employ their backgrounds, education, and experiences to provide faith-building, testable evidence, each from the perspective of their unique disciplines.

For a listing of all of our Guest Writers, click here

References:

  1. Robert Sabaroff et al., “Home Soil,” Star Trek: The Next Generation, season 1, episode 18, directed by Corey Allen, aired February 22, 1988.
  2. The phrase “vital fluid” is taken from Michael J. Denton, Nature’s Destiny (New York, NY: The Free Press, 1998) where it serves as the title for chapter 3, which describes water’s unique role in life and the environment. “Elixir of life” is taken from Peter Ward, Life As We Do Not Know It(London: Penguin Books, 2005), 28.
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Does Science Make the Case for God, or Not? (Part 2 of 2)

Posted on May 18, 2015 by Will Myers
May 18, 2015
By Dr. Jeff Zweerink

In part 1 of this series, I responded to a New Yorker article in which theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss argued against science making the case for God. Krauss’ article was in response to author and TV host Eric Metaxas’ piece in the Wall Street Journal in which he argues that science does make the case for God. Now I want to address some of the issues raised by Metaxas’ article.

Before starting, it is worth noting that Metaxas’ article has a relatively small word count (~800 words) and most certainly a lay audience. Consequently, he did not use technically precise verbiage. However, some of the terminology Metaxas did use could cause negative reactions. My comments here are not a criticism of Metaxas. Instead, my hope is to help avoid some common snares associated with popularizing the often-contentious science-faith discussions.

Scientific Evidence Supports Belief in God…

First, Metaxas rightly points out the strong evidence that our universe appears finely tuned to support life on Earth. The persistent search for extraterrestrial life—and the persistent lack of evidence for it—indicates that life, at least of the advanced variety, might be rare in the universe. (I say indicates because scientists currently lack the capacity to truly determine if life exists outside our solar system unless that hypothetical life emits some recognizable signal toward Earth.) Over the last few decades, scientists have found numerous parameters that seem necessary to produce a “livable” universe, plus requirements for life’s origin on Earth and for life’s continued existence on Earth. Such findings make it scientifically reasonable and rational to believe that God created the universe and life.

…But Does Not Compel Belief

After delineating some of these fine-tuned parameters, Metaxas asks, “At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?”

I support Metaxas’ basic premise. However, as a scientist, the phrasing of his questions triggers a negative response in me. Specifically, a cursory reading of the two questions sounds like science encounters situations that cannot be understood within the context of the laws of physics. Many scientists will hear these questions as a claim that science is inept to explain some phenomena so we should just give up and appeal to a deity. It’s understandable why scientists might react negatively to such an assertion. This cursory reading also reinforces the incorrect but popular narrative that scientific investigation and God’s activity in creation are opposed to one another.

We need to remember that throughout the development of the scientific enterprise, intractable problems ultimately turned into profound discoveries. Newton puzzled over the stability of planetary systems given the instability dictated by his understanding of gravitational interactions. Scientists now know what planetary systems remain stable (and for how long). The production of significant amounts of carbon in stars seemed impossible (though we knew it happened) until Hoyle discovered an unknown resonance that enhanced prior comprehension of the process. I could give countless other such examples.

As a group, scientists thrive and flourish in studying, researching, and solving these “intractable” problems. Furthermore, many of the solutions provide the strongest evidence of fine-tuning in the universe. For example, after Hoyle solved the problem of carbon production, he wrote, “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology.”1

A closer reading of Metaxas’ article reveals that he makes a more nuanced claim. Perhaps his questions might have been phrased: Doesn’t the abundant scientific evidence for cosmic fine-tuning point to the work of an intelligent Agent? As scientists understand the universe better and continue to accumulate evidence for fine-tuning, isn’t it reasonable to conclude that a caring Creator provides the best explanation for this growing body of evidence?

Finally, I would urge Metaxas and others to be cautious when using the term “random forces.” Such language conjures the idea of chaos and disorder, thus giving an inaccurate picture of how scientists view the situation. Krauss’ response specifically takes issue with the term, and rightfully so. All scientists, theist and atheist, see great order and regularity in the laws of physics. A significant number (like Krauss noted) see those laws driving systems toward producing life. That idea may be wrong, but the laws of physics certainly don’t seem random, chaotic, and disorderly. “Purposeless” or “undirected” might be better terms.

Metaxas advanced a case (one with which I agree) that the best scientific understanding affirms that the Christian faith is reasonable and rational. Some of his word choices, though, could erect barriers between Christians and those we aim to reach—individuals with an interest in science. As we better understand the language of science enthusiasts, we will be better equipped to help them engage the truly central questions: Who is Jesus Christ and how do you respond to Him?

Part 1|Part 2

Subjects: Universe Design

Dr. Jeff Zweerink

While many Christians and non-Christians see faith and science as in perpetual conflict, I find they integrate well. They operate by the same principles and are committed to discovering foundational truths. Read more about Dr. Jeff Zweerink.

References:

  1. Fred Hoyle, “The Universe: Past and Present Reflections,” Engineering and Science 45 (November 1981): 8–12.
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Reading the Outside of the Box

Posted on May 16, 2015 by Will Myers

May 2, 2008
By Guest Writer

According to the National Geographic News web site, a major archeological discovery, referred to as “Jesus’ Brother’s Bone Box,” has moved closer to authentication than when it first appeared in Biblical Archaeology Review (2002). This find represents the oldest scientific evidence for the historical Jesus of Nazareth.  It’s a limestone “ossuary,” a box in which ancient people (including first-century Jews) stored the bones of the deceased, once the corpse had decayed and dried.

This particular ossuary carries an inscription in Aramaic: “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.” Archeologists say it dates back to 62 A.D. Not only is the language that of Jesus’ era, but the inscription’s cursive writing style was used only briefly, from about 10 to 70 A.D.

What’s especially remarkable is the mention of a brother. Most ossuaries reference the deceased’s father but rarely other relatives, unless they were somehow significant. The son of a Jewish carpenter who died by Roman crucifixion certainly would not have warranted mention—apart from some amazing circumstance. The Resurrection comes to mind.

Although the names James, Joseph, and Jesus were relatively common in ancient times, the statistical probability that these three names would appear together and in this specific family relationship seems extremely remote. All these factors combine to increase archeologists’ confidence that the ossuary truly belonged to the biblical (and maternal) brother of Jesus.

According to Hershel Shanks, editor of Biblical Archeology Review, “The James ossuary may be the most important find in the history of New Testament archaeology… It has implications not just for scholarship, but [also] for the world’s understanding of the Bible.”

For further reading see RTB Seattle Newsletter – October 2002 and also http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/04/0418_030418_jesusrelic.html

Greg Moore

RTB apologist Greg Moore received his Bachelor of Arts degree in business administration from Washington State University in 1975, and currently serves as a program manager for the City of Everett in Everett, Washington.

Subjects: Learning

Guest Writer

RTB guest writers employ their backgrounds, education, and experiences to provide faith-building, testable evidence, each from the perspective of their unique disciplines.

For a listing of all of our Guest Writers, click here

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

How to Relate Science and Faith Without Conflict (Part 2)

Posted on May 16, 2015 by Will Myers

May 14, 2015
By Guest Writer

When issues of science and faith appear in the public eye, the picture presented is often of two warring combatants. It can be a hostile debate between leaders from opposing “camps.” It can be a big-budget film that pits a religious (or belief-centered) character against a cool-headed, logical scientist. In the end, the message is the same: we must choose between facts and faith because there is no middle ground.

Fortunately for those who dislike such ultimatums, conflict is not the only way to relate science and faith (specifically Christianity). American scholar Ian Barbour outlined four different ways for religion and science to interact with one another.1 In part 1 of this series we explored conflict and independence. In this article I will look at the remaining two: dialogue and integration.

Dialogue

Dialogue is an indirect interaction between science and religion. Barbour sees dialogue at play within the methods employed by science and theology and in the emergence of boundary questions.

Both theological inquiry and scientific theory formation use rational arguments, such as abductive reasoning. Abductive reasoning (or arguing to the best explanation) is employed in situations where events cannot be experimentally reproduced or proven. By it we reach conclusions that account for the most amount of evidence at hand, how well it fits together, how little imagination is necessary to make it fit, how plausible the fit is, and how well it illuminates other areas of reality. This type of reasoning is also common in forensics, detective work, legal arguments and jury decisions, medical diagnoses, and archeology.

We even use abductive reasoning in everyday situations. Imagine you wake one morning and look out the window. Your car in the driveway is wet. Inductive reasoning might suggest it rained overnight—yet the lawn and street are dry. Meanwhile, the hedge between your yard and the neighbor’s is wet, as is his driveway. And his car is shiny and clean. You weigh the evidence observed and abductively reason that your neighbor inadvertently sprayed water on your car while washing his.

The second element in dialogue is boundary questions, queries science raises but cannot answer. Science shows us that nature exhibits rational and contingent order. Yet the laws and initial conditions of the universe were not necessarily so. This gives rise to puzzling questions. Why is there something rather than nothing? Why is there order in the something? Why are there self-aware entities who can ask “why” questions at all?

Science cannot answer these questions—but philosophy and theology can and do address them head-on. This is why dialogue between science and other avenues of knowledge is essential to arriving at truth. That science, theology, and philosophy use shared methodologies should facilitate and enrich the discussion.

Integration

Integration, Barbour’s fourth way of relating science and religion, provides more direct interaction. For example, scientific findings can influence religious beliefs, theology can drive scientific inquiry, or they can both contribute to the formation of a coherent worldview or systematic metaphysics (view of reality).

When we pursue a coherent worldview that corresponds well with all of reality and experience, our philosophy or theology should harmonize, even integrate, with what we know from science, and vice versa. This perspective is at the very heart of Christian belief (Psalm 19:1–4; Romans 1:19–20). In fact, a study of the history of science reveals that the Abrahamic faiths and biblical thought influenced the rise of modern science. Christianity holds that the world’s order is contingent but not necessary. If God created form and matter, as the Scriptures say, then the world did not have to be as it is. We have to observe the world to discover the details of the order within. Furthermore, the biblical position, in contrast to one in which nature itself is divine, allows for the desacralization of nature and encourages the scientific study of it.

Pursuing truth is the precursor that drives people to seek science-faith integration. I think it is safe to say that only those committed to seeking truth in all things—even when it challenges their own preconceptions and biases—will be motivated to seek integration. Others will be content to allow the two to remain independent of one another. Those who hold to a naturalistic worldview or others who are committed to a particular interpretation of Scripture might be content or even committed to seeing conflict between science and Christianity (or other religions).

I’ve never seen science and the Christian faith as combatants. On the contrary, at various times in my career, I have related them to one another through independence, dialogue, and integration. I became a scientist because I find the intricacies and complexities of how things work fascinating and because I believe that science is a beautiful, noble pursuit. In it we can discover the order and function of nature and gain knowledge to apply to the betterment of humanity. Science facilitates the quest for truth in the natural realm. I am a scientist, but not one who espouses scientismbecause I find that the Christian worldview coheres and corresponds to reality best. It accounts for all of life (desires, suffering, longing, hope, joy, love, grief, and so on) and gives meaning and deep value to life. Nevertheless, I am a committed evidentialist. Christianity and the person of Jesus can be studied objectively. Jesus is an objective reality, not just a subjective imagining, and the truth claims of Christianity can be tested and therefore are subject to potential falsification.2

Every worldview can by tested and measured based on its correspondence to reality and coherence within itself. If we begin with a mind open to the existence of the supernatural and reject materialistic naturalism, then the Christian worldview passes these tests. And the Christian worldview is not just a good fit or the best fit, but it provides a foundation which allows us to value one another and the truth, and prompts us to seek and know the truth, and brings purpose and meaning to all of life and each individual life.

Part 1 | Part 2


Anjeanette Roberts

Dr. Anjeanette (AJ) Roberts received her PhD in Cell and Molecular Biology from the University of Pennsylvania in 1996, and currently serves as a Visiting Fellow with the Rivendell Institute at Yale University in New Haven, CT.

Guest Writer

RTB guest writers employ their backgrounds, education, and experiences to provide faith-building, testable evidence, each from the perspective of their unique disciplines.

For a listing of all of our Guest Writers, click here

References:

  1. Ian Barbour, Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues, rev. ed. (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1997).
  2. G. K. Chesterton has said, “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found difficult and left untried.” G.K. Chesterton, “The Unfinished Temple,” chap. 5 inWhat’s Wrong with the World (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1910).
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Intuitive Knowledge and the Image of God, Part 1 of 4

Posted on May 16, 2015 by Will Myers

December 24, 2012
By Guest Writer

In a study of university biology students, researchers found that people often experience an innate, intuitive resistance to accepting Darwinian evolution as an explanation for life’s existence and diversity. In this four-part series, I will explore the implications of this study and the support it provides to the biblical worldview.

Have you ever had a “gut feeling” that Darwinian evolution is an inadequateexplanation of life’s origin and of the many life-forms we observe? If so, you’re not alone. According to a recent study,1 many people share this impression. In fact, this “gut feeling” appears to be the strongest factor prompting people (in general) to reject biological evolution.

This study and the conclusions of the researchers are described in a paper titled “Feeling of Certainty: Uncovering a Missing Link between Knowledge and Acceptance of Evolution,” Because this topic is of great interest, Dr. Fazale Rana explained and responded to the paper on RTB’s Science News Flash podcast (“Evolution Belief a Gut Feeling?”).

The authors of the paper tried to understand why many people resist accepting the theory of evolution.2 They stated that, “many, including biology teachers… do not accept evolutionary theory as an adequate explanation for the diversity and unity of life on Earth”3 and, “numerous studies have revealed that many biology teachers are partial to non-scientific or antievolutionary worldviews, despite significant coursework in both biology and evolution.”4

With this motivation, the researchers surveyed 124 students in biology-teacher preparation programs at two Korean universities. These particular Korean students were chosen because they were essentially “of the same age; completed the same coursework requirements; displayed comparable intellectual abilities as measured by a standardized exam… and completed the same program (no students dropped out).”5These consistent factors presumably minimized extraneous variables. In addition, the researchers tested the students’ knowledge of evolutionary theory and took into account their religious or nonreligious background.

The Results
After asking the students pertinent questions, the researchers determined that the greatest resistance to evolution (over the student population) was surprisingly due to a “feeling of uncertainty,” an intuitive (gut) feeling that evolution was not true6—despite the biology curriculum promoting Darwinism! Some students from a variety of religious backgrounds and academic levels resisted evolution based on this feeling of uncertainty.
Dr. Rana offered the following observation during the podcast,

Within neuroscience, there is this recognition that . . . there are two components to understanding a phenomenon. One is knowledge and the other is an intuitive feeling of certainty as to whether or not that knowledge is indeed correct.

That is to say, in acquiring knowledge, we not only assimilate information; we also experience an intuitive feeling that the information is true, or in some cases, not true. An article from LiveScience.com underscores the point, “…the human brain doesn’t judge the merits of an idea solely on logic, but also on how intrinsically true the idea feels.”7 In fact, according to the researchers, this intuitive feeling “may have a greater influence on final decisions, dispositions, or actions than conclusions arrived at through principled reasoning.”8

Dr. Rana also pointed out that intuitive knowledge can be valuable in certain situations, such as with firefighters who, in the midst of a blaze, have “gut instincts” that guide them and enable them to survive. He remarked, “People can make sound decisions using their intuition… it’s a valuable component of our ability to understand… to think through circumstances and determine the course of action.”9

On the other hand, the researchers viewed intuitive knowledge as distinctly inferior to reflective or intellectually apprehended knowledge. They implied that reflective knowledge is trustworthy, whereas intuitive knowledge is suspect and unreliable, especially when it resists evolutionary theory!10  The researchers came to believe that strategies should be developed as to how to teach these concepts (regarding intuitive knowledge) to the students, in an effort to help them consciously overcome intuitive resistance.11

Another Paradigm
Nevertheless, I believe that an entirely different paradigm should be considered in regards to the value of these intuitions. Based on Scripture and on the insights of theologians, I submit that these intuitive feelings against Darwinism arise from God’s image in man (Genesis 1:26–27). His image or likeness in man enables us to be receptive to the “testimony” of His existence through creation, which we see in Psalm 19:1–4, Isaiah 40:26, Romans 1:18–20, and in a number of other verses as well.12

To those who are willing to see it, the Creator’s handiwork13 is quite apparent—a concept inadvertently supported by the researchers in their paper, as they referenced a study which held that children “generate intuitive creationist beliefs about origins.”14Why don’t children generate intuitive evolutionary or at least naturalistic beliefs? I submit that they don’t because they (and all of us) possess the image of God and because they’ve not yet been taught to rationalize away creation’s testimony.15

We’ll delve into specific features of the Creator’s “testimony” to His handiwork that His image enables us to discern, in part two of this four-part series.

This article has been reviewed by RTB biochemist Fazale Rana.

Roger Bennett

Roger Bennett is an apologist and former amateur astronomer. He has also studied chemistry, physics, theology, and biblical Greek.

Subjects: Image of God

Guest Writer

RTB guest writers employ their backgrounds, education, and experiences to provide faith-building, testable evidence, each from the perspective of their unique disciplines.

For a listing of all of our Guest Writers, click here

References:

  1. Minsu Ha, David L. Haury, and Ross H. Nehm, “Feeling of Certainty: Uncovering a Missing Link between Knowledge and Acceptance of Evolution,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching49, no. 1 (January 2012): 95–121.
  2. The paper pertains to unguided, naturalistic, Darwinian evolution as taught in most schools and universities.
  3. Ha, “Feeling of Certainty,” 95–96.
  4. Ibid., 102.
  5. Ibid.
  6. Ibid., 110, 114–15, 117; “FOC” stands for “feeling of certainty,” the intuition that a concept is true or untrue.
  7. See LiveScience.com, “Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling,” posted January 20, 2012,http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html.
  8. Ha, “Feeling of Certainty,” 99.
  9. Fazale Rana, “Evolution Belief a Gut Feeling?” January 23, 2012, Reasons to Believe, Science News Flash podcast, http://www.reasons.org/podcasts/science-news-flash/evolution-belief-a-gut-feeling.
  10. Ha, “Feeling of Certainty,” 114–16.
  11. Ibid., 115–16.
  12. See Psalm 33:5; 50:6; 97:6; 98:2–3; 119:64; Isaiah 6:3; Habakkuk 3:3; Acts 14:16–17.
  13. For my description of a layman’s perspective on the Creator’s handiwork, and scientific confirmations of this perspective, see part 2 of this series.
  14. E. Margaret Evans, “Cognitive and Contextual Factors in the Emergence of Diverse Belief Systems: Creation Versus Evolution,” Cognitive Psychology 42, no. 3 (May 2001): 217–66, quoted in Ha, “Feeling of Certainty,” 99.
  15. See endnote 12.
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

How to Relate Science and Faith Without Conflict (Part 1)

Posted on May 11, 2015 by Will Myers

By Guest Writer, Dr. A. Roberts

As someone who has loved both science and Jesus since adolescence, it puzzles me why some people (some Christian, some scientists, and some neither) insist that science and Christianity are in conflict with one another. In my research as a molecular biologist and virologist, I have never found this to be the case. Rather, science and faith have complemented one another in my quest to understand truth.

The late Ian Barbour, an American scholar who studied the relationship between science and faith, recognized four ways of relating these two supposed combatants.1Three of the four methods do not involve conflict. In this two-part series I will discuss Barbour’s insights, with the hope of demonstrating that conflict is not the default position for science and Christianity.

Science vs. Scientism

Barbour defines conflict as the outcome of differing philosophical starting points.2 The conflict between science and religion is best understood as a conflict between materialistic naturalism and biblical literalism, a position that takes Scripture “literalistically” (such as misunderstanding metaphoric phrases and imagery) when other interpretations reflect the meaning of the text more faithfully. The conflict, according to Barbour, occurs from turning a method into a metaphysics (view of reality).3

Science is a method employed for studying the natural world’s structure, form, mechanisms, and processes. Scientism is a metaphysics that states only the physical, material universe is real. Also known as scientific materialism or materialistic naturalism, scientism rejects categorically the existence of the supernatural, that which lies outside of nature. Scientism makes two fundamental assertions: (1) the scientific method is the only reliable path to knowledge; and (2) matter (or matter and energy) is the fundamental reality of the universe.4

Science is not scientism. Scientism is a philosophical commitment that extrapolates science beyond its inherent limits. It then states that that which was being determined scientifically is all that there is to be determined in reality. Although circular and coherent within itself, scientism is not a scientific position. Yet because it incorporates science into its methodology it has great influence in our scientific and technological culture.

If we think about this, it should be apparent that science cannot determine whether the supernatural is real or not since it is a method limited to and employed within the natural realm. Barbour asserts, therefore, that scientific materialism represents “a misuse of science,” as does biblical literalism. Barbour writes, “Both positions fail to observe the proper boundaries of science.”5

Barbour offers the following assertion by biologist and Nobel laureate Jacques Monod as an example of extrapolating the methods of science beyond their means to a philosophical statement enmeshed in scientism:

He [Monod] says that science proves there is no purpose in the cosmos. Surely it would be more accurate to say that science does not deal with divine purposes; it is not a fruitful concept in the development of scientific theories.6

It is, however, a concept in the development of a worldview. Yet there is no more scientific merit or support for scientism than there is for the view that both the natural and supernatural exist. These two worldviews are mutually exclusive and it is this which lies at the heart of the conflict between scientism and Christianity.

A commitment to scientism leads by necessity to naturalistic reductionism, which asserts if all that exists is matter and energy, then all should be explained by fundamental physics and chemistry and the laws governing these within the universe. Yet scientists and philosophers (of non-theistic persuasion) have wondered about the inherent order within nature as well as its logical functioning. Albert Einstein, Antony Flew, and many others have been deeply and irreparably puzzled by the question, why is there something rather than nothing? This is a question that Barbour would categorize as a “boundary question.”7 Boundary questions are queries that science raises and yet lacks the ability to answer.

How, then, might we relate science and Christianity without resorting to the conflict method? Barbour offers three alternatives (one I will discuss here, the other two in a later article). The first of the three alternatives is independence.

Independence

Evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, best known for the theory of punctuated equilibrium, believed that science and religion should be considered as two distinct domains of knowledge, thus popularizing the acronym NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria).

My observations have convinced me that many of my fellow scientists function under this practical position of non-overlapping domains. Separating science and faith might be practical and functional much of the time; however, this approach can lead to minimizing one or the other and can impede a coherent view of reality. As Barbour puts it, independence often leads to a false dichotomy, one that states that nature can be known by unaided human reason and observation and that God can be known only by revelation through scripture or tradition.8

This dichotomy fails to recognize that natural theology always held that God could be known through rational arguments—based in human reason and observation—and from evidence such as design in nature (physical laws, an orderly universe, etc.). Galileo, in fact, held that God is revealed through both the book of nature and the book of Scripture and that the two books could not conflict since they both came from God.9

I agree with Galileo and would add that science and Christian theology should not conflict since they both seek what is true about reality. Where they touch on truth and reality they should dialogue, harmonize, and even integrate.

This leaves us with the remaining two ways that Barbour categorizes the relationship of science and religion, which we’ll consider in part 2.


Anjeanette Roberts

Dr. Anjeanette (AJ) Roberts received her PhD in Cell and Molecular Biology from the University of Pennsylvania in 1996, and currently serves as a Visiting Fellow with the Rivendell Institute at Yale University in New Haven, CT.

Guest Writer

RTB guest writers employ their backgrounds, education, and experiences to provide faith-building, testable evidence, each from the perspective of their unique disciplines.

For a listing of all of our Guest Writers, click here

References:

  1. Ian Barbour, Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues, rev. ed. (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1997). Barbour trained in theology at Yale University and in physics at the University of Chicago, and wrote extensively in the area of science and religion.
  2. Ibid., “Biblical Literalism,” section 4.I.2, pages 77–105.
  3. Ibid.
  4. The first assertion is an epistemological statement and the second is a metaphysical or ontological statement. Both are philosophical, not scientific, statements. Neither can be scientifically proven.
  5. Barbour, “Biblical Literalism,” 77–105.
  6. Ibid.
  7. Ibid.
  8. Ibid.
  9. Ibid.
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

RECLAIMING WHAT IS GOD’S

Posted on May 10, 2015 by Will Myers

*** by Will Myers

THANKS TO THE SECULAR HUMANIST MOVEMENT which is in the “New Age” stage, being tailor made for Globalization, the economic movement of the One World Government with New Age being the social element, youths are turning away from God, and elementary to higher education students are turning to drugs; gangs are having machine gun battles in the streets of America. Most devastating of all is that public school has banned God from their campus.  Jesus is not welcome on campus. America is definitely flying upside down! This is due to the One World Government Movement in which I suspect is going to be one big police state.

Christians are cleaning their house; we are moving away from teaching all of the Do’s and Don’ts of religion and moving toward a Personal Relationship with Christ Jesus. We realize that we should be spiritual servants and not spiritual police. Revival is coming soon. The biggest ever on the face of the Earth.

TAKE ONE STEP TOWARD JESUS AND HE SHALL TAKE 2 STEPS TOWARD YOU. Many miracles are coming. The Lord comes as a thief in the night and does mighty works in a short time. (Referring to thief, it doesn’t mean that Jesus is going to steal anything; it mean that Jesus shall reclaim what is God’s, and when His opponents awaken all of their ground shall be taken!!!)

The country is moving toward less civil liberties and freedoms while we are distracted by drugs and liberal sex and freedom from religion; vanity without solid ground. Our youth are not aware of religious suppression as was the Pilgrims. We are not studious about what history says concerning secular nations who gradually suppress individual rights until the people rebel.

Authorities must trick people to turn from a belief in God or else the authorities can not take full control of the people because each individual would claim that only God determines what is right or wrong for them. We have inalienable rights which is determined only by God. This is priceless, and authorities must undermine this belief by turning the people away from God. Matthew 6:20; “But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:”

Atheist have easily claimed that science and technology is unique in their domain because most scientist have fear that religion will restrict them as it has during ancient days. In some instances they are correct such as scrutinizing stem research and the growing of human bodies for spare parts (This being another treatise). The Christian faith believe in Creation by God, and nothing created was not created by God. In addition, God made all things to work as they do. Scientist are testing to discover how God made the thing to work. There is nothing new under the sun. To God, man is in a nursery putting building blocks together that has been created by God. A fool can not put anything together and make it work differently than how God made it to work in the beginning.

Rest assure, if America remain on the same path we are heading into a police state as fascism strengthen. There are many toys that the government would like to us in order to control the people with the ultimate goal of controlling each individual which has been made possible with existing technology. What the average person imagine about technology is minute compared to what is in the lab of scientist at present. This is why the government is acting wimpy concerning drugs, stopping aliens at the border, and terrorism…in order to justify the slow implementation of some of the existing technology to control individuals. The government’s dream is that the people misbehave so much until Marshall Law has to be put in force making individual rights null and void, than every device shall start rolling out of the lab.  Thank God that we haven’t arrived at that point, but shadows of the event are playing out now. Privacy is going to be a thing of the past if not already.

Secular Humanist of the atheist kind are playing music and luring America down a path to the destruction of our democracy; hollering it out from the inside out. It has already been hollered out to a surprisingly degree, and the cornerstone provided by our faith is being chipped away; truly, We must behold to ” in God we trust and none other.”

Isaiah 28:16
Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
Ephesians 2:10
For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
Ephesians 4:24
And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.
Ephesians 3:9
And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
Colossians 1:16
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

My Response to a Young-Earth Critique of Navigating Genesis

Posted on May 7, 2015 by Will Myers

May 7, 2015
By Dr. Hugh Ross

A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; and from there it was separated into four headwaters. The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin and onyx are also there.) The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

(Genesis 2:10–14, NIV)

In my book Navigating Genesis, I explained how the four great rivers described in Genesis 2 all joined together in the Garden of Eden, then split apart and emptied into the Indian Ocean. My explanation has drawn public rebukes from young-earth proponents, specifically those associated with the organization Answers in Genesis (AiG). This article is an answer to their challenges.

The Challenge

In an article on AiG’s website, prominent young-earth leader Danny Faulkner arguedthat Genesis 2:10–14 “clearly states that the four rivers parted from a single source in Eden, not that the four rivers flowed together in Eden. Here Ross has freely reversed the statement of Genesis 2:10 to fit his selection for Eden’s location being in the Persian Gulf.”1 Faulkner concluded, “My early accusations and those here against Ross are damning.”2

Faulkner’s AiG colleagues Ken Ham and Elizabeth Mitchell made similar scathing comments in their own reviews of Navigating Genesis. Mitchell concluded her article with,

His distortions of the Bible are dangerous because some Christian leaders and laypersons—whether through ignorance, laziness, or faithlessness—fail to look at what God actually says in His Word and will accept Dr. Ross’ fairy tale explanations that twist God’s Words into a caricature in which even the reason Jesus Christ came into the world is obscured.3

These are strong words. Is it really a twist of the Bible’s words to conclude that four rivers both came together and split apart within the Garden of Eden? Let’s take a look at the evidence and reasoning behind my interpretation.

My Response

In a formal debate, Terry Mortenson, another AiG associate, insisted that the reference to headwaters in Genesis 2:10 implies that the source of all four rivers flowed out from the Garden of Eden. The Hebrew word for “headwaters” is pārad.Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament identifies pārad as a verb, not a noun, and defines it as “divide, separate.”4

Translator Jay Green’s Interlinear Bible shows that the literal Hebrew of Genesis 2:10 is closely reflected by the King James Version.5

  • Literal Hebrew: “And a river went out from Eden to water the garden, and from there it was divided and became into four heads.”
  • King James: “And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.”

The Hebrew root word for “heads” is rō’sh, which Theological Wordbook defines as, “head; top, summit, upper part, chief, total, sum.”6 William White, a specialist in biblical languages and contributor to Theological Wordbook, wrote that the use of rō’sh in Genesis 2:10 refers to “parts or portions of things.”7

In the view of the AiG scholars, Noah’s flood completely restructured Earth’s entire landscape. Thus, they argue, we can’t know the pre-flood locations of Eden or any of the geographical regions (such as Havilah or Cush) or rivers mentioned in Genesis 2:10–14. My question is, if this were the case, why would the Holy Spirit inspire Moses to provide such detailed geographical information? There really is no purpose for Genesis 2:11–14 other than to give readers indications of these rivers’ and the Garden’s locations.

As I explained in Navigating Genesis, the geographical locations of Asshur (Assyria), Cush (the Horn of Africa and Ethiopia), and Havilah (Hijaz mountains of Saudi Arabia) are not mysteries. The Bible mentions Asshur and Cush many times and Genesis 2:11–12 supplies identifying details about the land of Havilah. These three locations are separated from one another by many hundreds of miles; therefore, the source for all four rivers cannot reside in the same location. It makes sense, then, to claim that the four rivers flowed into Eden from three widely separated geographical regions, joined together to become one river within the Garden of Eden, and thence divided into separate rivers to empty into the Indian Ocean.

Note that the New International Version’s (NIV) translation of Genesis 2:10 states that Eden’s river had four headwaters. This wording does not insist that all the headstreams were located in Eden. It is just as possible (indeed, more probable) that each river source could have resided in regions well beyond Eden. Such an interpretation also is consistent with the King James Version and the literal Hebrew text, though their wording implies that the “four heads” were downstream, rather than upstream, from Eden. (In the NIV the headwaters could be either upstream or downstream from Eden.)

Readers may wonder why I did not spell out all this detailed explanation about the rivers of Eden in Navigating Genesis. In all honesty, I did not think it was necessary. The implications of Genesis 2:10–14 seemed obvious to me. However, Faulkner’s charge that I “freely reversed the statement of Genesis 2:10” made this defense necessary.

It also illustrates an important principle in resolving disputes about the interpretation of biblical texts. We must always look at the larger context of a Bible verse, which includes checking out how other scriptural texts use similar words and phrases. Genesis 2:11–14 clarifies the meaning of Genesis 2:10. The references to Eden, Asshur, and Cush throughout Genesis and the rest of the Bible provide additional insights and confirmations.

It disappoints me that AiG’s scholars felt it necessary to use such strong language against my view of Genesis. Nevertheless, I continue to hope that the age of the earth controversies that are so damaging to the church’s mission can be resolved amicably if we apply sound hermeneutics in a spirit of Christian charity.

Subjects: Garden of Eden

Dr. Hugh Ross

Reasons to Believe emerged from my passion to research, develop, and proclaim the most powerful new reasons to believe in Christ as Creator, Lord, and Savior and to use those new reasons to reach people for Christ. Read more about Dr. Hugh Ross.

References:

  1. Danny Faulkner, “A Review of Hugh Ross’ Latest Book, Navigating Genesis,” Answers in Genesis, posted April 15, 2015, https://answersingenesis.org/reviews/books/hugh-ross-latest-book-navigating-genesis/.
  2. Ibid.
  3. Elizabeth Mitchell, “Examining Hugh Ross’s Navigating Genesis,” Answers in Genesis, posted October 8, 2014, https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/old-earth/examining-hugh-ross-navigating-genesis/.
  4. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), 2:733.
  5. Jay Green, trans., The Interlinear Hebrew-Greek-English Bible, vol. 1, Genesis–Ruth (Lafayette, IN: Associated Publishers and Authors, 1982), 5.
  6. Harris, Archer, and Waltke, Theological Wordbook, 2:825.
  7. William White, in Harris, Archer, and Waltke, Theological Wordbook, 2:825.
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

ELIMINATING TOXIC THOUGHTS (part of the Dirty Dozen) – Operating in PERFECTLY YOU.

Posted on May 7, 2015 by Will Myers
Advertisement

ELIMINATING TOXIC THOUGHTS (part of the Dirty Dozen) – Operating in PERFECTLY YOU.

Written by Dr Caroline Leaf

A thought may seem like something that is fleeting. A thought may seem harmless and of no consequence. Often, we think of actions as having more impact than thoughts but actions are generated from thoughts. So it is important to realize that thoughts are measurable and occupy mental “real estate.”

Thoughts are active: They grow and change. Thoughts influence every decision, word, action and physical reaction we make. A thought may seem harmless. But if it becomes toxic, even just a simple thought can become physically, emotionally or spiritually dangerous. SeeANATOMY OF A THOUGHT 2.09 mins video clip

What are “toxic thoughts” and how are they different from healthy thoughts? Toxic thoughts are thoughts that trigger negative and anxious emotions, which produce biochemicals that cause the body stress. They are stored in your mind, as well as in the cells of your body.

The surprising truth is that every single thought – whether positive or negative – goes through the same cycle when it forms. Thoughts are basically electrical impulses, chemicals and neurons on a physical level, but when put together, something amazing happens, something science is still attempting to explore and explain adequately – a unique thinking pattern emerges, different from every other person on the planet. This is very powerful because it means we have a distinct thinking signature – just as fingerprints are different and distinct to each person, so are our thought patterns, our gifts our PERFECT YOU

Thoughts look like a tree with branches. As the thoughts grow and become permanent, more branches grow and the connections become stronger.

A thought becomes a PERFECTLY YOU blocker when it is negative or toxic because the chemicals that it triggers simply block your ability to think clearly. See CONTROLLING TOXIC THOUGHTS AND EMOTIONS 1.35 min video clip. For example, if you are worrying about something that has popped into your mind, the more attention you pay to the thought, the more it will grow and develop. It can cause you to worry, affecting your concentration during the day, your sleep at night, even making you feel ill in the process. This means the mind and body really are inherently linked, and this link starts with our thoughts.

So, what unique and distinct combination of thoughts is filling your mind today, and what is hidden in the depths of your nonconscious mind waiting to spring into consciousness and influence the choices you make? How many could-have, would-have, if-only thoughts are swirling through your head at this moment? What thoughts are consuming you? At what level of detail are you replaying things in your mind?

Life throws things at us that just seem to fill our brains with toxic thoughts, and they seem so hard to control. We all know this.

I have gone through many of those experiences that I would have preferred to not have on my resume of life, and I am sure you have as well. In hindsight I can always see God was working behind the scenes and that there was value to the lessons I learned. I have seen on every occasion how, when I indulged in self-pity or worry, the fruit turned bad, I felt the life draining out of me, while the PERFECTLY YOU blocker gained strength.

I knew I had to “bring those thoughts into captivity,” repent and forgive so peace and joy would flood my being again, freeing my gift. Then I would get lost in the joy of my family and my work once again.

Have you ever found yourself going to sleep thinking about a situation and then waking up thinking about the situation? Has your head ever been so filled with the toxic thought details of everything, it felt like you had to shake it to make some room for something else?

Have you ever had toxic thoughts consuming your every moment and coloring your attitude to everything?

If you have answered yes to any of the above, the chances are you have experienced toxic thinking and therefore have blocked operating in the PERFECTLY YOU. Those toxic thoughts did nothing but harm your peace and block your ability to think clearly. You may even have lost your peace and sense of purpose in those moments.

Did you notice that as you stopped the cycle of toxic thinking, your PERFECTLY YOU started to operate again?

You can break this cycle. See PERFECTLY YOU and the 21-DAY BRAIN DETOX for details.

Want to see more about THOUGHTS ARE REAL. See this episode from our TV series ‘Switch On Your Brain.”

JOIN DR CAROLINE LEAF AT THE ANNUAL SWITCH ON YOUR BRAIN CONFERENCE AND/OR UPCOMING EVENTS

See SCHEDULE for more details:

MAY

7th-8th – TOLEDO OH

24th – LEWISVILLE TX

28th – WHEATON COLLEGE IL

29th/30th – FOREST PARL ILL

31st – CHESTERTON IN

JUNE

7th-29th – SOUTH AFRICA

JULY

17th July to 10th August – AUSTRALIA

AUGUST

1st -10th – AUSTRALIA

21st22nd – DALLAS TX – SWITCH ON YOUR BRAIN ANNUAL CONFERENCE

28th-20th – APPLE VALLEY MN

SEPTEMBER

10th -12th – DALLAS TX

19th – MISSISSAUGA/NIAGARA FALLS – ONTARIO CANADA

25th – BREMERTON WA

26th – TULWILA WA

27th – KENT WA

29th – MANDEVILLE LA
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

God’s Illustration Of His Truth And Purpose; TOYspace

Posted on May 4, 2015 by Will Myers

***  by Will Myers

Nature is a term that we all know as being in the world that we live and have our being. I have coined the term toyspace to mean that in the natural world in which we live, it is actively speaking of God’s Truth. God’s Truth is His Son, Jesus Who is the living Word (world) of God though Him God created all things and there were nothing created that was not created by Him. Toyspace is a discipline which has a purpose in its teachings, and the lessons in general is being with God is desired, and separation from God is not desired. Receiving God’s Holy Spirit through Jesus Christ is the answer. After which, you become a teacher to others.

Genesis 1:26
And God said, make man in our image, after our likeness: and them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

The purpose of our existence is to be like God’s Son, Jesus Who possessed God’s Holy Spirit. We all are suppose to possess God’s Holy Spirit; we all suppose to live in God’s Kingdom. Matthew 6:19; 19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:

Matthew 16:19
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
 Matthew 18:18
Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bound on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
 Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
          Psalm 19:1

The heavens declare the Glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

          Psalm 97:6
The heavens declare his righteousness, and all the people see his Glory.
         Hebrews 11:3
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment