Intelligent Design and Biblical Scripture

We live in a world of flux; a world of continual changes, and the dynamics stops not. Things come into being and go out of being…a life cycle. Man is learning to influence these changes to his benefit. The first concept of science is to be able to define a thing to recognize it later and to predict the next event associated with the defined object or entity.

I define Vspace as the potentiality of the nexus; how God made things to work thereby predicting the next state of observed object, entity or person. Within Vspace man is being disciplined to the order of God’s creation; His design. Out of harmony with God’s design reaps mental and physical heaviness. In harmony with God’s Will gives God’s Glory with a taste of the coming Eternal Life.

1 Peter 1:6;p ” Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations:”

Psalm 119:28; ” My soul melteth for heaviness: strengthen thou me according unto thy word.”

Proverbs 12:25: ” Heaviness in the heart of man maketh it stoop: but a good word maketh it glad.”

Isaiah 61:3; ” To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the Lord, that he might be glorified.”

Given that God loves each of us unconditional, if a soul have some good in it, than the soul is sent into another discipline or recycled into same discipline of heaviness; all being the choice of God. The souls to be destroyed in the Lake of Fire are those who have the pure spirit of satan who is the spirit of antiChrist, and is eternally opposed to the Son of God’s Spirit who is the Holy Spirit.

*** Will Myers

Please “Donate a penny” or any amount to support the ministry’s research and development. Just click the link below:https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=DKCQUR7YG7W5U

Share this:

Guest Writer
Dr. Hugh Ross

Have you heard about it? Everywhere I go these days, people are talking about the Great Departure. Young people raised in the church have been walking away from both the church and their Christian faith in alarming numbers, and only a few are coming back.
As much as Id like to say otherwise, the numbers dont lie. And yet they do seem ironic. For years churches have been adapting to the youth culture. Weve created attractive environments, exciting activities, and even some meaningful short-term service opportunities. These are all good, for sure. And yet this young generation is drifting away in greater numbers than ever, becoming spiritual nomads, prodigals, and exiles, to use researcher David Kinnamans terms.
The good news, here, is that Kinnaman has reached out to ask the drifters, themselves, why they left. The answer seems astounding, even heart-breaking, in its simplicity: We had questions, and no one was prepared to talk about them.
My colleague Jeff Zweerink recently gave an impactful and memorable presentation relevant to this woeful preparation gap, and Im eager to share it with you. Realizing how often young peoples questions focus on whether we can know what to believe, he identified four key components of effective communication. Jeffs example of how to connect science with the gospel is especially helpful.
Im convinced God has called Reasons to Believe to assist the church in addressing this crisis, specifically to equip our kids leaders and influencers for confident, honest engagement with questions about—and challenges to—biblical reliability. RTB resources, including live presentations (such as Jeffs), videos, books, online courses, and a resource-packed website, all are designed to demonstrate that Scripture is a timely and trustworthy revelation from God. Because you are the one who can personally engage the questioners in your sphere of influence, we want to continue providing you with practical resources for the task.
Attacks on biblical reliability, even on the concept of truth, come from virtually every direction today. What better response than preparation for these onslaughts? Insulation and isolation wont help. Readiness is essential (1 Peter 3:1516).
Earlier this week, when a group of Reasons Institute students watched the video of Jeffs talk, the response was overwhelmingly positive. The first C of the talk stands for confidence, and one student commented,
I am way more confident just from my short time being involved with science apologetics and RTB…New doors were opened and I could feel a huge weight being lifted off my soul. This lecture should be included in most of the courses offered. Great stuff.
Feedback like this amplified our enthusiasm for making Jeffs message as widely available as possible. So this month, as an expression of our thanks for your financial support, well be glad to send you RTB Live! vol. 16: 4 Cs of Science Apologetics. Find out what you can do to discuss your faith with others more confidently, clearly, credibly, and compellingly than ever. We want you to experience this same joyful freedom as you share the hope of our Creator and Savior.
Please keep Reasons to Believe moving forward with projects such as our Reasons Institute online education and other strategic initiatives to advance Christs kingdom. Together lets turn the Great Departure into the Great Return. Thank you for playing your own significant part in the action!

Featured Resource

Navigating Genesis Small Group Study DVD – In this 8-session series, astronomer Hugh Ross guides you through one of the most contested passages in Scripture (Genesis 1–2) and will equip you with powerful tools to share with family and friends. This study has been designed to help move Christians from feeling embarrassed and uncertain about their faith to confident and ready to share their beliefs with nonbelievers. This study includes a leaders and participants study guide as well as other useful tools.
RTB News for You:

RTB Live! vol. 13: Everyday Apologetics – Kenneth Samples fields a series of tough questions—the same kinds of difficult questions you might be asked by a nonbelieving friend or family member. Different from a debate, this is a friendly but challenging exchange that simulates a real-life interaction. It helps you prepare a ready answer for all who ask.
RTB Educational Programs –
Reasons to Believe offers innovative programs designed to prepare students to stand strong—building their personal growth and development. Reasons Institute is the premier content provider of science apologetics courses for Christian higher education. Reasons Academy offers a variety of resources to help parents and teachers introduce students to the harmony between science and the Bible.
Back-to-School: Science Apologetics for Students – Part of RTBs mission includes equipping believers to navigate the science-faith issues they encounter in their daily lives. So heres a roundup of articles, podcasts, videos, and other resources.

Support RTB

Will you help us keep doing so today? The need is great!
With an additional $300,000 in support this summer, we will be able to multiply our training efforts. By equipping new ministry space, such as our new classroom and auditorium, we can dramatically extend the reach of our training programs. We can teach more seminary courses and connect more students with Reasons Institute (RI), where they can benefit from content like Jeffs 4 Cs.
As a thank you for helping us meet our ministry expansion expenses this summer, you can receive the RTB Live! vol. 16: 4 Cs of Science Apologetics for a donation of any amount.

Make Donation to link “RTB.com” paste into browser.

July 7, 2014
By Dr. Hugh Ross

Could there be life on other planets? The ongoing search continues to yield data showing how rare, if not unique, our planet is. Scientists have identified multiple “habitable zones,” including the astrosphere habitable zone, that must be fine-tuned in order to support complex life.

Two separate studies conducted by astrobiology research teams have determined the number of potential habitable planets in the Milky Way Galaxy. One study said 45.5 billion planets exist;1 the other put the number at 40 billion.2 These large calculations presume that planetary systems throughout our galaxy are just as abundant as they are in our solar neighborhood. Also, both studies consider only the liquid water habitable zone—just one of eight habitable zones. For advanced life to possibly exist on a planet it must reside within all eight of the known habitable zones:

water habitable zone
ultraviolet habitable zone
photosynthetic habitable zone
ozone habitable zone
planetary rotation rate habitable zone
planetary obliquity habitable zone
tidal habitable zone
astrosphere habitable zone
Previous Today’s New Reason to Believe articles address habitable zones numbers 1, 2, and 7. In this article I discuss number 8, the astrosphere habitable zone.

Astrosphere habitable zones are the plasma “cocoons” carved out of the interstellar medium by a star’s wind, creating a space in which a planet could conceivably support life. These cocoons act as a buffer to screen planetary atmospheres and surfaces from the intensity of high-energy cosmic radiation, which would be deadly for a planet’s surface life.

The buffer of a star’s wind, however, must be just-right. A powerful stellar wind will generate a large plasma cocoon, but if too large, that life-supportable planet will be blasted with enough stellar radiation particles to seriously limit the life spans of advanced species. On the other hand, if stellar winds produce a plasma cocoon that is too small, planetary life may be exposed to deadly cosmic radiation.

The size of a star’s astrosphere depends on the star’s mass, age, and the density of the interstellar medium in which the star resides. Since stars are on orbital paths about the galactic center, the interstellar medium density in a given star’s vicinity will vary over the course of its orbit. The question for habitability is whether or not, at any time in a star’s burning history, the star’s astrosphere is small enough to limit stellar radiation damage to life and yet extends far enough to include the region where the liquid water, ultraviolet, photosynthetic, and tidal habitable zones overlap.

For any life to exist, other than the most primitive unicellular forms, the liquid water, ultraviolet, photosynthetic, ozone, and tidal habitable zones must overlap one another. This is possible only within a tiny region of stars that have an identical mass to the Sun. As two astronomers from the University of Arizona demonstrated, for a solar-mass star, only a close encounter with a dense molecular cloud will collapse that star’s astrosphere to a size smaller than the overlapping set of habitable zones.3 They determined that solar-mass stars will encounter these descreening events about 1–10 times per billion years. With Earth’s fossil record revealing that mass extinction events happened, on average, every 27 million years within the past 600 million years,4 astrosphere descreening events may account for a few of these episodes.

Humans have the “good fortune” of living on Earth at the ideal astrosphere moment in Earth’s history. We are also extremely fortunate to be living on this planet at a time in which all eight of the known habitable zones overlap. By contrast, not one of the 1,792 planets discovered and measured outside of our solar system5 shows all eight known habitable zones overlapping, which means none are possible habitats for life more advanced than primitive bacteria. Accumulating evidence increasingly points to not 40–46 billion “habitable” planets, but just one. Thus, instead of good fortune explaining our existence, a Designer who knows all about habitable zones (including ones yet to be discovered) and who knows about the changing physics of the solar system must have designed Earth and its long history of life so that humans can thrive during this brief epoch of time.

Subjects: Solar System Design

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:
Jianpo Guo et al., “Probability Distribution of Terrestrial Planets in Habitable Zones Around Host Stars,” Astrophysics and Space Science 323 (October 2009): 367–73.
Erik A. Petigura, Andrew W. Howard, and Geoffrey W. Marcy, “Prevalence of Earth-Size Planets Orbiting Sun-Like Stars,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 110 (November 2013): 19273–278; Dennis Overbye, “Far-Off Planets Like the Earth Dot the Galaxy,” Space and Cosmos, New York Times, November 4, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/05/science/cosmic-census-finds-billions-of-planets-that-could-be-like-earth.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.
David S. Smith and John M. Scalo, “Habitable Zones Exposed: Astrosphere Collapse Frequency as a Function of Stellar Mass,” Astrobiology 9 (September 2009): 673–81.
Adrian L. Melott and Richard K. Bambach, “Do Periodicities in Extinction—With Possible Astronomical Connections—Survive a Revision of the Geological Timescale?” Astrophysical Journal 773 (August 10, 2013): id. 6; Adrian L. Melott and Richard K. Bambach, “Nemesis Reconsidered,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society Letters 407 (September 2010): L99–L102.
Françoise Roques and Jean Schneider, The Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia Catalog, June 2, 2014, http://exoplanet.eu/catalog/.

May 29, 2014
By Dr. Fazale Rana

From Hilmar: After reading an article in a local paper describing the British government’s present deliberations over introducing a new type of in vitro fertilization, I wondered what RTB’s position would be in terms of ethical considerations. This new IVF procedure would take the nucleus of a fertilized egg and introduce it into a donor’s egg that had its own nucleus previously removed—thus the new fertilized egg would contain a small amount of DNA from the egg donor (mitochondrial DNA?) as well as half the nuclear DNA from the mother and half the nuclear DNA from the father. The question is this: even assuming the nuclear DNA is removed from a single fertilized egg (i.e., no mitosis has occurred), wouldn’t this destroy an embryonic human? Even if the nuclear DNA is successfully injected into a donor egg, would not the new embryo generated produce a distinct human being (somewhat like an identical twin to the one previously destroyed)? From what I can tell this makes an already ethically questionable procedure even more dubious, but I’m very curious to know what you think.

Hilmar, I understand your concerns. We live in a “brave new world,” where advances in biotechnology take place at a breakneck pace, often with little opportunity for any kind of ethical deliberation before researchers attempt to matriculate the emerging technology to clinical settings. The new in vitro fertilization (IVF) method you reference is just one example. (The following article discusses this method and its potential promise: “Dad May Join Two Moms for Disease-Free Designer Babies.”)

As tempting as it might be to condemn summarily emerging biotechnologies—particularly ones that seem ethically questionable upon first glance—it is important to take the time to understand the science behind the technology. Often times this understanding alleviates some concerns and helps provide a realistic assessment in terms of the technology’s true impact on the dignity and sanctity of human life.

After working through the science that underpins this new IVF methodology, I’ve concluded that it is ethically acceptable from a Christian vantage point—with a few caveats. I’m excited because judicious application of this technology can go a long way toward reducing—maybe even eliminating—genetic disorders resulting from mutations to mitochondrial DNA.

For a detailed discussion of the science behind this IVF method and the reasons why I find it ethically permissible, listen to the February 26, 2014 episode of Science News Flash.

Subjects: Stem Cells/Cloning

Dr. Fazale Rana

In 1999, I left my position in R&D at a Fortune 500 company to join Reasons to Believe because I felt the most important thing I could do as a scientist is to communicate to skeptics and believers alike the powerful scientific evidence—evidence that is being uncovered day after day—for God’s existence and the reliability of Scripture. Read more about Dr. Fazale Rana

RELATED ARTICLES
Advance Holds Potential To Resolve Cloning’s Ethical Challenges
October 20th, 2009
Embryonic Stem Cell Research – An Interview with Dr. Fazale (“Fuz”) Rana
October 20th, 2009
Embryonic-Like Stem Cells from Adults Cells
July 19th, 2007

Support Reasons to Believe

Reasons to Believe is a ministry devoted to integrating science and faith and to demonstrating how the latest science affirms our faith in the God of the Bible. Your donation helps our ministry take this life-changing message to skeptics around the world while encouraging and strengthening the faith of Christians. Donate

June 30, 2014
By Guest Writer

The most common definition of science requires researchers to assume naturalism, meaning that supernatural interpretations of data are excluded by assumption. So, even when the true explanation of an observation—such as the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and the origin of species—is supernatural, scientists will necessarily arrive at the wrong interpretation. Many people remain unaware that supernatural explanations—which fit the observations better than the naturalistic ones—have been excluded by assumption. This makes it important for us to be able to distinguish between observation and interpretation, and to supply the correct interpretation when the naturalistic interpretation is incorrect.

In part 1 of this series, we looked at an example from astrophysics of a widely held scientific belief (dark matter and dark energy must exist) that turns out to be an interpretation based upon an observation (that galaxies have flat rotation curves). In part 2, we’ll look at an example from biology where an alternate interpretation based upon a biblical worldview fits the observations better than the prevailing scientific explanation.

Common Design vs. Common Descent

Within modern biology it is widely held that all living organisms share common ancestors. This idea is referred to as “common descent.” The observations that led to this interpretation include shared biochemistry (for example, all organisms use the same DNA code) and morphology (for example, similarities in body plans or body structures). While common descent does not necessarily rule out a Creator’s involvement, the observations are better explained via “common design,” the idea that God reused biological designs across multiple species.

We find examples of common design throughout manmade objects. For example, the air valves on the tires of my bicycle and my car are basically the same. When engineers come up with a good design, they will carry it or a similar design across many different applications. In other words, if the design works in multiple scenarios, then there’s no need to reinvent the wheel (or air valve).

Just as engineers reuse designs, it appears that God did the same. Consider, for example, the bone structure of the middle ear in mammals. Because this structure is so complicated, biologists hypothesized that it could have evolved only once and, therefore, all mammals with this structure must share a common ancestor. That is, until researchers discovered fossils that indicated “the configuration of the bones in all living mammals’ ears arose at least twice along independent evolutionary pathways.”1 Now the scientific interpretation is that this bone structure evolved more than once. A better interpretation is that God reused the design.

Once we recognize that the design interpretation is capable of explaining observations normally attributed to evolution, it is valid to ask which interpretation is a better fit to the observations. Here are just a few of the many Today’s New Reason to Believe articles that address this question:

“Alu Sequences in Primate Genomes: Evidence for Common Descent or Common Design?”
“Old DNA Causes New Problems for Human Evolution”
“Paleoanthropologists Fail to Find Common Ancestor to Modern Humans and Neanderthals”
“High Levels of Pseudogene Expression Help Silence the Case for Common Descent”
“TNRTB Classic: A Well-Ordered Challenge to Biological Evolution”
“New Research Suggests Two Overlooked Functions of Junk DNA”
“Extinct Shell Fish Speaks Today”
“Cambrian Explosion Brings Burst of Evidence for Creation”
Clearly we can relax the assumption of naturalism and allow a design interpretation if we find that it better fits the data. It is always important to find out what observations led to a certain explanation. In all likelihood, a design interpretation will fit the observations just as well as, if not better than, the naturalistic interpretation.2

Dr. Thomas Phillips, PhD

Dr. Thomas Phillips received his PhD in particle physics from Harvard University in 1986, and recently retired from the faculty at Duke University to work as an entrepreneur. He is also currently a research professor of physics at the Illinois Institute of Technology.

Subjects: Life Design

Guest Writer

RTB &Intelligent Design And Biblical Scripture 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
Sid Perkins, “Groovy Bones: Mammalian Ear Structure Evolved More than Once,” Science News, published February 9, 2005, https://www.sciencenews.org/article/groovy-bones-mammalian-ear-structure-evolved-more-once?mode=magazine&context=492. For the original study, see Thomas H. Rich, et al., “Independent Origins of Middle Ear Bones in Monotremes and Terians,” Science 307 (February 11, 2005): 910.
However, not all observations turn out to be correct. This may sometimes be the reason an observation does not fit our worldview.

God is an Absolute; His attributes are Absolute; the one and only source of absoluteness. Man searches for absolutes in all of his endeavors, even unto perfection which must come from an Absolute source. Jesus said that my words shall last forever because He spoke words heard straight from His Father. As man searches thereby we have man studying God.

” I want to know the thoughts of God, our Creator.”; Einstein.

Isaiah 28:16
So this is what the Sovereign Lord says: “See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation; the one who relies on it will never be stricken with panic.

Romans 9:33
As it is written: “See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.”

1 Peter 2:6
For in Scripture it says: “See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”

*** Will Myers

Please “Donate a penny” or any amount to support the ministry’s research and development. Just click the link below:https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=DKCQUR7YG7W5U

June 26, 2014
By Guest Writer

Imagine standing on Mount Carmel in Israel, watching the contest between the prophet Elijah and the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18). For nearly 12 hours, Baal’s prophets have danced around his altar, whipping themselves into a frenzy and screaming for Baal to set their sacrifice on fire. Nothing happens. Then Elijah steps up and, after drenching the altar to the Lord with water, calls on the God of Israel.

Then the fire of the Lord fell and consumed the burnt offering and the wood and the stones and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench. When all the people saw it, they fell on their faces; and they said, “The Lord, He is God; the Lord, He is God.” (1 Kings 18:38–39, NASB)

The story of Elijah calling down fire from heaven on an apparently cloudless day presents a scientific challenge to the Bible’s accuracy, yet one that can be explained from the perspective of hypernaturalism—which we define as extraordinary use of natural law by the God of the Bible. (God created the laws of nature and is able to control and use them. When God performs a miracle hypernaturally, He employs natural law and natural phenomena with extraordinary timing, location, and/or magnitude to effect His will.)

The phrase “fire from heaven” is an ancient designation for lightning. In the previous chapter Elijah had declared that “there will be neither dew nor rain in the next few years except at my word” (1 Kings 17:1, NASB). Since rain comes from clouds, we can infer that this region had not seen clouds for some time. How can lightning occur naturally without a cloud in the sky? Our study suggests this may well be a hypernatural miracle.

Miracles in the Bible almost always had a religious or social significance. What is the significance of fire from heaven?

As our story opens, it had not rained for three years (1 Kings 18:1) because of Elijah’s proclamation. Thus this event took on great social importance to the average person, because much-needed rain would revive crops and replenish dwindling water supplies. The event also took on great religious importance because people believed rain came from the gods.

Elijah framed the contest as a major challenge to the god Baal. In polytheistic religions the deities were each endowed with a set of powers that defined their significance. Baal was a storm god who also had the associated power of fertility. Rain was one of the gifts he granted to his faithful worshipers, and lightning was one of his weapons (along with magical clubs).

This is illustrated by the depiction of Baal on a stela (inscribed stone slab) from the Ras Shamra excavation in modern Syria; he holds a club in one hand and a lightning bolt in the other. In ancient texts he is often given the accoutrements of a storm—clouds, wind, and rain.1

In the Old Testament the alleged powers of other “deities” were often assumed by the singular God of Israel. This point is illustrated in the Elijah narratives. In this set of stories, God not only assumed the powers of Baal’s office but also those of other gods as well. For example, when Elijah said, as noted earlier, “there will be no dew or rain during these years except by my command!” (1 Kings 17:1, NASB), he was assuming the powers of Baal’s daughter Tallai, who is referred to as the maid of morning mist (dew). Later in the same chapter Elijah raised a widow’s son, which was one of the supposed powers of Baal’s father, El the Bull. This power was indispensable because, on occasion, Baal would die and have to be raised to life again.

In the fuller context, Jezebel, wife of King Ahab and queen of Israel, had replaced worship of the God of Israel with worship of her god, Baal. The focus of this story is the question of who is able to bring lightning and the associated rainfall. Lightning and rain were believed to be powers of Baal, but Elijah proposed to show that these powers belong to the God of Israel alone; Baal was a fraud.

To emphasize his point, Elijah allowed the prophets of Baal to go first. For around 12 hours they performed some of their more potent magical rites, which included slashing themselves with lances—but they failed (1 Kings 18:25–29).

Then, without a cloud in the sky, Elijah called down fire from heaven to prove the superiority of Yahweh, the God of Israel. But how can lightning occur without a thundercloud? This appears to be supernatural. It could be. However, there is a plausible hypernatural, science-based explanation, based on a type of lightning strike commonly called a “Bolt from the Blue.” According to the U. S. National Weather Service:

Bolt from the Blue lightning flashes are a particularly dangerous type of lightning flash, as they appear to come out of clear sky….Lightning can, and does, strike many miles away from the thunderstorm cloud itself.2

To demonstrate this phenomenon, the website provides a graphic example of a lightning flash that struck in east central Florida which “travelled to the east 40 KILOMETERS (~25 miles) in less than 1 second, and then struck the ground!”3

The Bible does not say exactly where on Mount Carmel the contest occurred, but Mount Carmel is at most 5–6 miles from the Mediterranean Sea. Although there were no clouds in the sky above Mount Carmel, clouds were probably already forming above the sea. This notion is inferred from the fact that clouds coming in from the sea caused a severe rainstorm soon after Elijah’s victory over the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18:44–45).

Hence the miracle on Mount Carmel could be a prime example of a hypernatural miracle. It utilized a natural phenomenon that is rare yet common enough to be observed and measured. In this context it is plausible that Elijah’s miracle was a Bolt from the Blue from a cloud above the Mediterranean. The miracle is hypernatural because it occurred at just the right time, at just the right place, and with just the right intensity to accomplish God’s purpose. It appeared immediately after the prayer of the prophet Elijah which, when compared to the lengthy prayers of the prophets of Baal, would represent a very narrow window of opportunity.

This miracle answered the question as to the identity of the true God. Was it Baal? Was it Yahweh? As it turned out, the true God, Yahweh, controlled the very forces of nature. That same God remains Lord over all creation and he invites his creatures; namely humans, to learn of his power, love, and glory.

Daniel J. Dyke, MDiv, MTh

Mr. Daniel J. Dyke received his Master of Theology from Princeton Theological Seminary 1981 and currently serves as professor of Old Testament at Cincinnati Christian University in Cincinnati, OH.

Dr. Hugh Henry, PhD

Dr. Hugh Henry received his PhD in Physics from the University of Virginia in 1971, retired after 26 years at Varian Medical Systems, and currently serves as Lecturer in physics at Northern Kentucky University in Highland Heights, KY.

Subjects: Bible Difficulties

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:
Michael D. Coogan and Mark S. Smith, Stories from Ancient Canaan, 2nd ed., (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, Kindle ed.), 7.
“Bolts from the Blue,” Lightning Safety, National Weather Service, accessed June 19, 2014. http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/bolt_blue.htm.
Ibid.
RELATED ARTICLES
Hypernaturalism: Integrating the Bible and Science
March 24th, 2014
TNRTB Classic: Removing Language Barriers in Bible Translation
November 21st, 2013
Israel’s Sojourn in Egypt—And How it Affects Calculation of a Creation Date, Part 1
September 16th, 2013

Support Reasons to Believe

Reasons to Believe is a ministry devoted to integrating science and faith and to demonstrating how the latest science affirms our faith in the God of the Bible. Your donation helps our ministry take this life-changing message to skeptics around the world while encouraging and strengthening the faith of Christians. Donate

Subscribe to RTB.com Emails at the website.

In science, it is important to distinguish between an observation and an interpretation. Observations are things we measure; while interpretations are the conclusions we derive from those observations. In well-designed experiments the resulting interpretations are the only possible explanations for the observations—but this is a rare occurrence. More often, alternate interpretations are possible.

Unfortunately, it is often the interpretation that gets reported in the review papers, the press, and the textbooks, while the observations may only be reported in the primary source. In cases where alternate interpretations are possible—or worse, where the observations do not actually support the vaunted interpretation—it may be necessary to examine the primary source (perhaps, even, the raw data) to determine which conclusions are justified and which are not.

To illustrate this point, let me examine an example from my own research.1 Most consider the existence of dark matter and dark energy to be scientific facts—but, in reality, this conclusion is just one of several possible interpretations based upon observations.

Do Dark Matter and Dark Energy Exist?

We have never directly observed dark matter; its existence is inferred from astronomical observation. Using the Doppler shift of light, we can very accurately measure the speed at which stars and gas clouds orbit their galactic centers. When we compare the measured velocity to the velocity calculated on the basis of the gravitational force provided by all visible mass (see here), we find that the measured velocity does not fall off rapidly with distance as predicted by our theory of gravity. Rather it remains flat at a high value out to great distances from the center of the galaxy. The accepted interpretation for this observation is that, in order to increase the gravitational force enough to keep the stars and gas in orbit around the galaxy, there must be dark matter providing additional mass that we cannot see.

However, dark matter is not the only interpretation that can explain why galaxies have flat rotation curves. It could be that our understanding of gravity is incomplete. By slightly modifying the gravitational force equation, Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MoND) can fit the galactic rotation curves without the need for dark matter. But MoND is an empirical law, not a theory—it does not explain galactic rotation curves unless there is a theory of gravity from which the MoND equation can be derived. (Similarly, Kepler’s laws fit planetary motion, but the basis for them was not understood until Isaac Newton came up with the theory of universal gravitation.)

Several such theories have been proposed, but my favorite postulates the existence of gravitational dipoles that modify gravity with gravitational vacuum polarization.2 This is my favorite theory, not only because I have proposed3 research (still unfunded) to test the underlying assumption behind this theory (specifically, that antimatter and matter repel each other gravitationally), but also because it would solve two other big mysteries in physics: missing antimatter in the universe and Type Ia supernova data.4 (It could solve the latter mystery without the need for a cosmological constant or dark energy.5)

Adjusting Arguments and Beliefs

Scientists like to think that their beliefs are entirely empirical, based only upon observation. To a certain extent, this is true. For example, before the Type Ia supernova data were published, almost all physicists and astronomers believed that the cosmological constant Λ must be exactly 0 since the universe is expanding and the natural value for Λ is enormous (10120 larger than the observed value). However, after seeing the new observations, researchers now believe Λ must be non-zero, though tiny. If confronted with a verified measurement that matter and antimatter repel each other gravitationally, most of these same scientists would change their beliefs yet again.

On a personal note, and to provide additional insight into scientists’ research, RTB scholar and UCLA researcher Jeff Zweerink is working on an experiment that is attempting to observe dark matter interactions. One might think that Jeff and I would consider ourselves rivals since I’m proposing an experiment that could show that dark matter need not exist. On the contrary, we consider ourselves colleagues. Essentially, we are both trying to explain the same observation; we are just approaching the problem in different ways. Either of us would be delighted if the other succeeded because then we would know the explanation and would gain additional insight into how God created the universe. Even if we have to forfeit apologetics arguments based upon whichever explanation proves incorrect, apologetics arguments founded on the other explanation would be strengthened as a result of the new observation.

The main point here for apologists is the importance of recognizing that when a new scientific result appears to conflict with our Christian worldview, the result reported is usually one interpretation of the data. And while this particular interpretation may clash with our worldview, it is likely that there are other possible interpretations of the relevant observations that will not cause conflict.

If you are a regular reader of Today’s New Reason to Believe, you will recognize that many of the articles address the question of how to interpret a new scientific result in light of the Christian worldview. The facts are the observations (when properly measured), and observations generally can be interpreted in a number of different ways. When a scientific result seems to contradict the Christian worldview, ask what observations form the basis for this result, and what alternate interpretations are possible.(TP,RTB)

*** Will Myers, Intelligent Design And Biblical Scripture

Scientists want to answer the question, is there life out there in the universe? Do you think astronomers want detailed measurements of eight solar system planets or limited measurements of 1,000 exoplanets?

Fortunately, they have both; unfortunately, those limited measurements don’t yet provide a definitive answer regarding the presence of life—at least not for all the exoplanets. However, as the number of known exoplanets grows, so do the number of tools scientists develop to assess the likelihood of extraterrestrial life.

One new tool combines the limited information gleaned from exoplanet data and the detailed information from our solar system to assess the relative probability of life existing on various planets. Five categories of information—geophysics, substrate, energy, temperature, and age—accessible by current technology (or by straightforward inference from that data) provide the basis for evaluating an exoplanet’s potential capacity to host life.

Geophysics and substrate overlap at some level (for example, a planet’s density will influence whether it is a gas giant or rocky planet), but they also contain independent information. Thus, proper characterization of an exoplanet’s relative capacity to host life must include both categories. Geophysics relates directly to an exoplanet’s density and eccentricity, two observable properties. Substrate refers to an exoplanet’s differentiation. Gas giants (all atmosphere) and small rocky planets (with no atmosphere) represent the least differentiated class. Planets with a solid surface and simple atmosphere reside further up the scale. The most differentiated bodies resemble Earth—a rocky surface, standing bodies of liquid, and a complex atmosphere.

Energy accounts for the two quantities available to drive the chemical reactions required by life. On Earth, many organisms ultimately derive energy from the Sun’s radiation via photosynthesis. However, others extract energy from chemical gradients present in the rocks composing Earth’s crust. So, energy includes the amount of stellar flux received by the planet and the “redox” molecules available.

Temperature characterizes where the temperature of the planet’s surface and subsurface falls in the range dictated by liquid water. Age accounts for the fact that the development of life here on Earth required a vast amount of time until the planet could support human (or even multicellular) life.

Depending on starting assumptions about the optimal values for these categories, one can calculate a biological complexity index (BCI) where higher BCI values indicate greater likelihood of supporting life. For example, one group of researchers found, based on the assumptions they made, that around 1.5% of exoplanets have a higher BCI than Europa and just under 1% exceed the value for Mars.1 Remember though, despite scientists’ optimism that one or both of these bodies might have hosted life at some point, no evidence exists to indicates that either one ever did.

High BCI values will help focus future searches for life’s signatures by identifying the most likely candidates on which to expend precious telescope resources. More important, in my opinion, is the potential to evaluate different assumptions about how common life is in the universe. Changing the starting assumptions will lead to different BCI values so measurements of any life signatures will validate or falsify different rankings. I plan to show some specific examples of how this might work in a future article.

The importance of this research is not primarily the BCI values associated with a given exoplanet but the framework it develops to guide future research. The framework includes the currently available information from exoplanet searches but is flexible enough to incorporate data that future projects expect to measure—like atmospheric composition, cloud cover, surface chemistry, rotation rate, etc. If God truly designed Earth to support human life (and I believe He did), then a framework like these BCI calculations will help provide scientific evidence in support of that assertion. (JZ,RTB)

*** Will Myers

The word “apologetics” comes from the Greek word “apologia,” pronounced “ap-ol-og-ee’-ah.” It means, “a verbal defense.” It is used eight times in the New Testament: Acts 22:1; 25:16; 1 Cor. 9:3; 2 Cor. 10:5-6; Phil. 1:7; 2 Tim. 4:16, and 1 Pet. 3:15. But it is the last verse that is most commonly associated with Christian apologetics.

” . . . but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence” (1 Pet. 3:15, NASB).

“Apologetics is the work of convincing people to change their views.”

Therefore, Christian apologetics is that branch of Christianity that deals with answering any and all critics who oppose or question the revelation of God in Christ and the Bible. It can include studying such subjects as biblical manuscript transmission, philosophy, biology, mathematics, evolution, and logic. But it can also consist of simply giving an answer to a question about Jesus or a Bible passage. The latter case is by far the most common and you don’t have to read a ton of books to do that.

Apologetics can be defensive and offensive. Phil. 1:7 gives us instruction on the defensive side, “For it is only right for me to feel this way about you all, because I have you in my heart, since both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel, you all are partakers of grace with me.” 2 Cor. 10:5 gives us instruction on the offensive side: “We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.” The apologist can and should defend his reasons for believing (1 Pet. 3:15). But he can also go on the attack. He can seek out those who oppose Christianity (2 Cor. 10:5). Of course, he should be prepared to do this beforehand, and all apologetics is to be done with gentleness.

Apologetics is the work of convincing people to change their views. In this, it is similar to preaching because its goal is ultimately the defense and presentation of the validity and necessity of the gospel. It is an attempt to persuade the listener to change his beliefs and life to conform to biblical truth and to come to a saving relationship in Christ.

Basically apologetics can be evidential (often called “classical”) or presuppositional. Evidential apologetics deals with the evidence for Christianity: Jesus’ resurrection, the biblical manuscripts, fulfilled prophecy, miracles, etc. Presuppositional apologetics deals with the presuppositions of those who oppose Christianity because presuppositions affect how a person views evidence and reason.

Some areas of debate within Christian apologetics deal with the use of evidence, reason, philosophy, etc. Should the apologist use only those criteria acceptable to unbelievers? Are we allowed to use the Bible as a defense of our position, or must we prove Christianity without it? Is reason alone sufficient to prove God’s existence or Christianity’s truth? How much should reason and evidence be used in light of the Scriptures’ teaching that it is God who opens the mind to understand? What part does prayer, using the Bible, and the sinful nature of the unbeliever play in witnessing? How do these factors interrelate to bring an unbeliever to faith? The questions are easy. The answers are not.

Jesus chose one highly-educated religious person as an apostle. That was Paul. The rest were fishermen, a tax collector, a doctor, etc. They were normal people of the day who were available and willing to be used by the Lord. They were filled with the Spirit of God, and they were used as vessels of God. God uses all things for His glory. So, we do apologetics by faith.

The Lord has called every Christian to be ready to make a defense of his faith. That means you are called to give reasonable answers to questions regarding Christianity. Now, this does not mean that you must have a Ph.D., or that you have to go to seminary. However, it does mean that you should be willing to at least give an answer for your beliefs. If you find you cannot, then prayerfully take it to God and start studying.

What do you study?

You could pray and ask the Lord to teach you what He wants you to know. Ask Him to give you a burden for something to learn. It doesn’t matter what it is. Just ask. Whatever you become interested in is what you should learn about because it is probably something God wants you to know for later use. It is like having tools in a tool shed. The more you have, the more you can accomplish.

Another way to find out what God wants you to study is through circumstances. Let’s say that a Jehovah’s Witness comes to your door and debates the deity of Christ with you, and you find you don’t know how to defend it biblically. In that case, you know you need to study biblical verses that teach Jesus is God in flesh. Or maybe a coworker asks you how you know the Bible is true? If you don’t have an answer, pray, and start researching. Go to a Christian bookstore and get some books on the subject. Talk to your pastor. You’ll learn.

Sometimes God will make a verse or subject in the Bible “come alive” to you, and it might strike you as odd or interesting. You could get a commentary and read up on it. You could ask others about it. In so doing, you are preparing yourself through learning to be ready to answer questions and point people to the truth. You’d be surprised how many details God can use to help you in your witness even through those apparently odd times when verses suddenly “come alive.” (MS,CERN)

*** Will Myers