ASCERTIONS OPPOSING RELIGION

Will Myers

Does atheism have a true monopoly on reason? In my conversations with nonbelievers, I’ve found that probing deeper into the atheistic worldview exposes a key weakness in that perspective and provides an opportunity to demonstrate Christianity’s solid footing in reason. **** The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing. — Blaise Pascal, Pensées, 423/277. When I ask my unbelieving friends “Why are you an atheist?” they generally respond with something like “Because there is no God.” I ask them to dig a little deeper to answer my original question. Generally, a diatribe against religion emerges. Believers are accused of being a bunch of hypocrites who oppress people with their rules while religions are painted in broad strokes as ridiculous superstitions and crutches for weak-minded people. Many claim that belief in God is irrational. From my experience, the atheist asserts that humanity has evolved beyond these irrational impulses and structures, now seeing religion for the garbage it is. Why Atheism? My next question is, “Okay, but why choose atheism?” After all, a lack of faith comes with distinct disadvantages. For example, studies show that people with no faith are more likely than their religious counterparts to suffer from depression and to commit suicide.1 Besides that (or perhaps at the root of that), atheism doesn’t provide any sense of meaning or purpose for life because everything will end with total annihilation. Even if atheists argue that we can assign meaning to our lives, once the Sun burns out and the universe goes to heat death what is left? What will be the purpose of striving to not believe in superstition? What will be the purpose of helping other people? Why not just spend all your time throwing pebbles into the sea instead? In the end, such an activity will mean as much as the greatest acts of philanthropy. Pragmatically, wouldn’t it be better to be deluded and happy for this brief, meaningless time? Nonbelievers often answer that they choose atheism because it’s true. Further, pragmatism is not a good test for truth, which I concede. But is truth really worth possibly sacrificing health, happiness, and meaning? Here some opinions diverge, but most atheists would say that truth is of the utmost importance in dictating their worldview. “Alright,” I reply, “if truth is so important, why is it that only a small sliver of people ever find it?” My familiarity with scientists may bias this response, but I think most atheists would say that people believe in God because humanity has evolved to believe in God. In the past, religion served a useful function in promoting survival by bringing order to communities and existential motivation to mankind. Thus, over 90 percent of the world population today suffers from the effects of this grand evolutionary delusion. Only the free-thinkers, the “brights,” have figured out how to get beyond the rubbish of mysticism programmed into our genes through the evolutionary process. But if it’s true that the human brain is wired to believe in something that is false, then the brain is demonstrably unreliable for discerning truth. How then can atheists trust that their brain has found the truth? Why are they free from the mental subroutines programmed via evolution? How can they be certain that their brain finds truth, not just in this case, but ever? As recently highlighted by Kenneth Samples, atheism’s very assumptions about the world guarantee that we cannot know truth. We have become prisoners of our brain and the evolutionary processes that built it. Reason has been reduced to a molecular pool game with proteins and chemicals whacking about through neural circuitry, generating pictures, colors, and sensations. While having a molecular pool game governing your decisions may sound fun for a bit, it precludes any master-of-my-own-destiny claims to independence or ownership of achievements, capacities, or ideas. After all, you don’t own your ideas, choices, achievements or fate; that’s just the way the balls bounce. The Christian Alternative Bereft of the certainty of reason and truth that results from a godless worldview, it seems better for the atheist to seek an alternative. In his book C. S. Lewis’ Case for the Christian Faith, Richard Purtill offers the biblical perspective on reason and its origins (emphasis added): One way of getting a preliminary insight into Lewis’ argument [from reason] is to ask whether nature is a product of mind or mind is a product of nature. If God created nature, as Christians believe, then nature is understandable by reason because it is a product of reason.2 Christianity offers that man is made in the image of God and from this we gather that our mind is formed in likeness to God’s mind. Thus, we have a reason for our reason which is Jesus Christ, the creator of the universe, Earth, and our mind. Indeed the apostle John describes how “the Word” (logos, which can also be translated as “reason”) was with God in the beginning, how reason formed all of nature, and how the incarnate Word came to Earth. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.…The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:1–4, 14) The idea of Christ as the Word is further refined in John 14:6 where Jesus describes Himself as “the way and the truth and the life.” Here Jesus, reason incarnate, properly claims primacy over truth and life, highlighting how truth and life flow from reason. Conversely, atheism fails to provide hope, a reason for living, a reason for meaning, or a reason for reason at all. With such a hopeless doctrine for life or truth, I hope atheists will consider reclaiming their reason by exploring the rich doctrines of Christianity that celebrate reason and hope.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

God and Man; The Inner Sanctuary of the Mind

By Will Myers

Just as the ancient Jewish temples were built with the inner room being the place where God dwelt, and only the high priest could enter once a year to commune with God. Needless to say, this was the ultimate sacred place; the holiest place in the nation. This concept emanated from the inner mind and continued to resonate in the minds of the people. There is a sacred, inner place in each of our minds that no one is allowed except God, our Creator. It is our inner spirit that is God’s subconscious and who we truly are.

Within 30 years the lie detector shall be obsolete and replaced by the mind reader. This gives the state the capability to enslave the minds of the people. Whether or not most know what is happening, we are in a battle for our minds in the burgeoning superfreudian state (deception experts), the police state, that can deprive civilians (s) of their civil rights at will. Within 50 years the special interest groups that target private citizens (SIG) of Ephesians 6:12 shall be reaching their full fruition.

There is going to be a One World Government with new ordering. The losers are going to be the common citizens which would constitute the majority of citizens. The state shall have power over us as never before experienced. Returning to the present, SIG snakes of Eph 6:12; “12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places” is targeting private citizens increasingly. This is increasingly causing people to become hopelessly angry and seek revenge by acting out a mass shooting and killings as a statement about the SIG snakes destroying their lives from their inside psyche that should not be invaded. Associates innocently believed that they were doing the will of the people, but the targeted person(s) were being denied their democratic rights (right to be let alone) and were experiencing true Anti-Americanism.

Ride the same horse into the ground, my friends? Don’t. They may rebel in detrimental ways. My rebellion is that I make myself a bond slave to the Son of God, and shall do His Will always while enjoying the thought of God burning a lot of asses in the future.

The devil is alive and prosperous as ever. SIG of Eph 6:12 is making a clear path to the inner mind of people. In addition, it is now popular to believe that the devil doesn’t exist (It might be too late for those people). People are serving the devil and don’t know it. What is popular in the world is usually not always right.

Our freedoms are at stake. Our happiness is at stake. The first thing SIG of Eph 6:12 does is to steal your joy alone by creating the happenstances that prevent any happiness in the targeted person’s life.

I am not an anarchist; I am not against cameras posted in public places nor am I opposed to a helicopter being above, but leave my inner mind alone.

The Superfreudian state is a fraud in progress undermining individual civil rights, keeping the commoners down and marginalized.

Thank God! We have the Word of God and the Living Word of God, Jesus Who is the Son of God. A personal relationship with Christ Jesus, the Anointed One. God has a plan for each person that is the opposite of SIG of Eph 6:12.

The voice of God says:

(1)Do unto others as you want them to do unto you. “Let persons alone” unless it is to exalt them or just plain offering your help for something.

(2)Listen not to what persons say about your associate; learn the associate for yourself.

(3)Don’t be part of a conspiracy that is detrimental to the targeted person’s well-being and outlook on life. Only uplift persons.

The right to be left alone is much more freedom than a superior source force-feeding you what you must know, determined by the superior source unless it is the voice of Christ Jesus speaking softly and privately to you. Your privacy is much more important than exposure to a superior source who has a wealth of knowledge and information. Stick with the formal classroom education. Remaining incognito is much more important to your freedom of mind than 15 minutes of fame promoted by the new age; supported by SIG of Ephesians 6:12 who is the devilish one.

As stated by formal president Bush, we are now in the new world order. A national domestic spy agency was established by his administration under the guise of finding terrorists. No info stays in one place; it shall be back channeled to special interest groups (SIG) snakes who target private citizens in order to control their thoughts and movement; an invasion into their inner minds. We are in a battle to keep our mind – a peaceful, satisfying mind. The SIG snakes create and live on the controversy, and cause mass shootings and suicides.

MY OP-ED

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Summary of Reasons to Believe’s Testable Creation Model

by Hugh Ross

February 6, 2000

Updated March 2022

The frame of reference in Genesis 1:1 is the cosmos, all of physical reality. God declares that he brought into existence the entire universe—matter, energy, and all the associated space-time dimensions. Einstein’s theory of general relativity tells us that the cause of the universe acts independently (i.e., from outside) of matter, energy, and the space-time dimensions along which matter and energy are distributed to bring it into existence. Observations now securely establish the reliability of general relativity.

Genesis 1:2 explicitly shifts the frame of reference, the narrator’s vantage point, to the surface of Earth, above the waters but below the clouds. This verse describes the initial conditions of primordial Earth: dark on its surface, covered with water, empty of life, and unfit for life. With the frame of reference and the initial conditions for the six creation days thus established, a straightforward chronology of creation events unfolds:

  • Planet Earth is singled out for a sequence of divine interventions. At its beginning, Earth is empty of life and unfit for life, and light cannot penetrate its thick atmosphere.
  • As interplanetary debris cleared and early life began to transform Earth’s atmosphere, light from the heavenly bodies could penetrate to the surface.
  • As water vapor formed in the troposphere, a stable water cycle formed.
  • Continental landmasses arose and ocean basins took shape.
  • Plants began to grow on the continental landmasses.
  • The atmosphere transitioned from translucent to occasionally transparent so that the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars could be seen from the vantage point of Earth’s surface.
  • Swarms of small sea animals filled the oceans.
  • Sea mammals and birds were created and became abundant.
  • Three specialized kinds of animals came onto the scene: short-legged land mammals, long-legged, easy-to-tame land mammals, and long-legged, difficult-to-tame land mammals—all three appropriate in specific ways to help meet humanity’s needs.
  • Human beings appeared.

Multiple factors limit large animals’ capacity for natural-process change and make them especially vulnerable to rapid extinction. The seven most significant factors are these:

  • Relatively small populations
  • Long generation times (interval between birth and the ability to reproduce)
  • Low numbers of offspring per reproduction cycle
  • Highly complex morphology and biochemistry
  • Relatively large body sizes
  • Specialized food supplies
  • Complex social structures

These factors limit the capacity of animals to not only survive natural selection and mutations but also to adapt to environmental changes. Biologists observe an even more fundamental problem: deleterious mutations vastly outnumber beneficial mutations by the tens of thousands, at least. In order to survive long enough to benefit from mutations, any species needs an enormous population, a short generation time, and a small body size. Otherwise, mutations (especially in the face of environmental stresses) are prone to drive animal species to extinction.

Crude mathematical models indicate that for a species to advance rather than die out, it must have a population of a quadrillion individuals, a generation time of three months, and a body size of about one centimeter. These models have been confirmed by numerous field observations.

Genesis offers an explanation for the survival of large animals: God intervened to replace extinct species with new ones. In most cases, the new species were different from the previous ones because of step-by-step changes in Earth’s geology, biodeposits, and biology—changes that prepared the planet for the survival and flourishing of humans.

The many “transitional” forms seen in the fossil record suggest that God intervened more than just a few times, here and there, while natural process did the rest. Rather, it appears God was involved and active in the development of new species.

We can reasonably deduce from these and other findings that God created humanity at the precise moment in Earth’s history when the maximum possible resources would be available and accessible to us. These rich resources allow humanity to fulfill God’s purpose for us before the time window for our survivability closes. Thanks to this divine provision, humans need spend only a relatively brief time preparing for life in the vastly superior creation to come.

The unique beauty of this biblical creation model resides in its ability to anticipate advancing scientific discovery. The ability to anticipate, or “predict,” is the hallmark of a reliable theory. By contrast, naturalistic evolution, chaos theory, and some creationist views not only fail to predict the growing body of data but, instead, contradict it.

Here is a small sampling of some of the most significant predictions that flow from RTB’s biblical creation model, predictions thoroughly tested and confirmed as transcendent creation events . . .

One reason we evangelicals have had so little impact on secular society with our creation teachings is that we try to teach Genesis without presenting a testable creation model. We either focus all of our guns on what is wrong with naturalism or we duck the issue by claiming that Genesis presents no specific creation model. Thus, we are perceived by society as either negative or cowardly.

This situation stems from Christians’ failure to apply the scientific method to their interpretation of Genesis. A great irony, here, is that the scientific method comes from the Bible and from biblical theology. The core of this method is an appeal to the interpreter to delay drawing conclusions until both the frame of reference and the initial conditions have been established. If we approach Genesis in this way, we discover that we can, indeed, discern there a scientifically plausible, objectively defensible account of creation.

Creation Model Overview

The frame of reference in Genesis 1:1 is the cosmos. God declares that He brought into existence the entire physical universe—matter, energy, and all the space-time dimensions associated with matter and energy. Einstein’s theory of general relativity tells us that the cause of the universe creates it independently (i.e. from outside) of matter, energy, and the space-time dimensions along which matter and energy are distributed. (Observations now securely establish the reliability of general relativity.)

Genesis 1:2 explicitly shifts the frame of reference, the narrator’s vantage point, to the surface of Earth above the water but below the cloud layer. That verse describes the initial conditions of primordial Earth: its surface was dark, covered with water, empty of life, and unfit for life. With the frame of reference and the initial conditions for the six creation days thus established, a straightforward chronology for the creation days’ events unfolds. That chronology is as follows:

  1. Creation, by fiat miracle, of the entire physical universe (space-time dimensions, matter, energy, galaxies, stars, planets, etc.)
  2. planet Earth singled out for a sequence of creation miracles. At its beginning, Earth is empty of life and unfit for life; interplanetary debris and Earth’s primordial atmosphere prevent the light of the sun, moon, and stars from reaching the planet’s surface
  3. clearing of the interplanetary debris and partial transformation of the earth’s atmosphere so that light from the heavenly bodies now penetrates to the surface of Earth’s ocean
  4. formation of water vapor in the troposphere under conditions that establish a stable water cycle
  5. formation of continental land masses and ocean basins
  6. production of plants on the continental land masses
  7. transformation of the atmosphere from translucent to occasionally transparent. Sun, Moon, planets, and stars now can be seen from the vantage point of Earth’s surface
  8. production of swarms of small sea animals.
  9. creation of sea mammals and birds
  10. creation of three specialized kinds of land mammals: a) short-legged land mammals, b) long-legged land mammals that are easy to tame, and c) long-legged land mammals that are difficult to tame—all three specifically designed to cohabit with humans
  11. creation of the human species

Many factors work to limit large animals’ capacity for natural-process change. These same factors make large animals especially vulnerable to rapid extinction. The seven most significant factors are these:

  1. their relatively small population levels
  2. their long generation spans (the time between birth and the ability to give birth)
  3. their low numbers of progeny produced per adult
  4. their high complexity of morphology and biochemistry
  5. their enormous body sizes
  6. their specialized food supplies
  7. their relatively advanced cultural and social structures

These factors limit the capacity of animals not only to change through natural selection and mutations but also to adapt to environmental changes. A fundamental problem biologists observe is that deleterious mutations vastly outnumber beneficial mutations (by anywhere from 10,000 to 1 up to 10,000,000 to 1). Thus, a species needs an enormous population, a short generation time, and a small body size if it’s to survive long enough to benefit from mutations. Deleterious mutations and environmental stresses drive most animal species to extinction.

Crude mathematical models indicate that a species capable of significant evolutionary advance rather than doomed to eventual extinction, must have a population of one quadrillion individuals, a generation time of three months, and a body size of one centimeter. These conclusions are confirmed by field observations.

Genesis offers this explanation for the survival of large animals: God repeatedly replaced extinct species with new ones. In most cases, the new species were different from the previous ones because God was changing Earth’s geology, biodeposits, and biology, step by step, in preparation for His ultimate creation on Earth—the human race.

The many “transitional” forms seen in the fossil record suggest that God performed more than just a few creative acts here and there, letting natural evolution fill in the rest. Rather, God was involved and active in creation of new species.

What we can deduce from these and other findings is that God created humanity at the precise moment in Earth’s history that would provide for us the maximum possible resources. He has told us to use these rich resources wisely so as to fulfill His purpose before the window of life’s survival time closes. Because of His provision, humans need spend only the briefest possible time in this creation preparing for eternity in the far superior new creation to come.

We can reflect on many more reasons than these few for God’s step-by-step creation. Some are discussed below. Others may be found in my book, The Genesis Question.

Testing the Creation Model

    The unique beauty of this biblical creation model is its ability to predict with accuracy advancing scientific discovery. This ability to predict is the hallmark of any reliable theory. By contrast, Darwinian evolution, chaos theory, and six-consecutive-24-hour-creation-day creationism fail to predict and instead contradict the growing body of data. This summary lists just 20 of the numerous successful predictions made by the Reasons To Believe model.

  1. transcendent creation event
  2. cosmic fine-tuning
  3. fine-tuning of the earth’s, solar system’s, and Milky Way Galaxy’s characteristics
  4. rapidity of life’s origin
  5. lack of inorganic kerogen
  6. extreme biomolecular complexity
  7. Cambrian explosion
  8. missing horizontal branches in the fossil record
  9. placement and frequency of “transitional forms” in the fossil record
  10. fossil record reversal
  11. frequency and extent of mass extinctions
  12. recovery from mass extinctions
  13. duration of time windows for different species
  14. frequency, extent, and repetition of symbiosis
  15. frequency, extent, and repetition of altruism
  16. speciation and extinction rates
  17. recent origin of humanity
  18. huge biodeposits
  19. Genesis’ perfect fit with the fossil record
  20. molecular clock rates

Astronomy

SOCIALICON
Light Echoes—Another Window to the Past
Light Echoes—Another Window to the Past

A team of international astronomers has discovered a new tool for studying past supernovae which, in turn, offers a glimpse of a Creator’s work….

Astronomy

Once in a Blue Moon
Once in a Blue Moon

On July 20, 1969, the world watched as the first human stepped onto the surface of the moon. Today, we scroll online news reports…

Geology & Earth

Why We Need to Return to the Moon
Why We Need to Return to the Moon

I vividly recall sitting up all night with a dozen other astronomy students as we watched live on television the first men walk on…

Chemistry

Support Our Mission

Your support helps more people find Christ through sharing how the latest scientific discoveries affirm our faith in the God of the Bible.

Donate Now


facebooktwitter

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

One-of-a-Kind: Three Discoveries Affirm Human Uniqueness

Robert Ripley, the originator of the Ripley’s Believe It or Not! franchise, traveled the world in search of all manner of oddities; yet he once quipped, “I have traveled in 201 countries and the strangest thing I saw was man.”

Human beings can be odd, but are we unique? Since Darwin’s time, most biologists have maintained that humans and animals differ in degree, but not kind. Darwin wrote, “In a series of forms graduating insensibly from some ape-like creature to man as he now exists, it would be impossible to fix on any definite point when the term ‘man’ ought to be used.”1

Of course, this evolutionary view undermines the biblical concept of humanity being uniquely made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26–27). However, discoveries highlighting human uniqueness have begun to erode the scientific support for the standard evolutionary claims. Three such discoveries were made recently.

1. Human Language Was Complex at Inception

Evolutionary biologists have long contended that human language emerged gradually and that the hominids (such as Homo erectus and Neanderthals) possessed the physical and mental antecedents to modern humanity’s complex language characteristics. Some anthropologists and linguists have challenged this scenario. They argue that language is uniquely associated with modern humans and originated rapidly as a singular event.

In a recent perspectives article, linguists from the University of São Paulo (in Brazil) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology added support to this new scenario by arguing that language was intrinsically complex, rather than simplistic, from the get-go.2 In other words, there was no proto-language that evolved into complex language capabilities. One author commented, “The hierarchical complexity found in present-day language is likely to have been present in human language since its emergence.”3

The rapid emergence of complex language poses a problem for the theory of evolution, but it fits nicely with a biblical understanding of humanity’s origin. If human beings were uniquely made in God’s image through the Creator’s direct action, then it would be reasonable to think that complex language would appear suddenly and be uniquely associated with modern humans.

2. Neanderthals Did Not Make Musical Instruments

Many anthropologists consider symbolism—the ability to express ideas symbolically through language and artistic and musical expression—a defining feature of modern humans. A number of Christian scholars (myself included) consider symbolism a reflection of the image of God in people. But if Neanderthals (or other hominids) possessed the same capacity, then the idea of human uniqueness—and the scientific credibility the Bible’s view of humanity—would face serious questions. A number of anthropologists claim that Neanderthals expressed symbolism, however limited, through language, making art, and body ornamentation. Yet each claim fails to withstand careful scrutiny.4

Based on the discovery of “flutes” made out of cave bear leg bones, some anthropologists believe Neanderthals crafted musical instruments. One of the most well-known examples was recovered in 1995 from a Slovenian cave. This artifact dated to 43,000 years in age; thus anthropologists maintained that modern humans could not have manufactured this flute and, therefore, attributed it to Neanderthals. However, other studies have indicated that Neanderthals might have been extinct by 43,000 years ago and also that modern humans entered Europe around 43,500 years ago, earlier than previously thought.5 It is important to note that all the other recovered bone flutes date closer to 25,000 years ago and are clearly associated with modern human archeological sites.6

On this basis alone, it appears we can’t attribute the bone flutes to Neanderthal artisans, but recent research provided unequivocal evidence that these bone flutes aren’t even musical instruments. Careful analysis of the perforations in the leg bones indicated that the gnawing of spotted hyenas, not humans or hominids using tools, generated them.7

3. Neanderthals Did Not Master Fire

There is good evidence that Neanderthals controlled and used fire.8 However, the latest research indicates that they didn’t master fire, but only used it opportunistically and sporadically. Researchers from Boston University and the University of Sheffield (in England) presented results supporting this conclusion at the 80th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology.9

As a case in point, Neanderthals occupied two sites in southwest France (Roc de Marsal and Pech de l’Azé IV) for tens of thousands of years. Thousands of stone tools and animal remains have been recovered from these locales, yet there is limited evidence for fire use at these sites. In contrast, modern human sites are replete with evidence for consistent, continual fire use.

Failure to use fire consistently might explain Neanderthal extinction. Fire provides warmth, kills bacteria in food, and alters the chemical structure of meat to make calories and nutrients more accessible. If modern humans made consistent use of fire, but Neanderthals didn’t, then modern humans would have outcompeted these hominids.

Regardless of whether or not this scenario explains Neanderthal extinction, it does highlight significant cognitive differences that line up with the notion that modern humans possessed God’s image and Neanderthals didn’t. As all three studies attest, it’s becoming less and less difficult to believe that human beings are as unique as the Bible teaches.

Subjects: Adam and Eve

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

References

  1. Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, 2nd ed., Great Minds Series (1874; repr., Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1998), 188.
  2. Vitor A. Nóbrega and Shigeru Miyagawa, “The Precedence of Syntax in the Rapid Emergence of Human Language in Evolution as Defined by the Integration Hypothesis,” Frontiers in Psychology 6 (March 2015): 271.
  3. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “The Rapid Rise of Human Language,” ScienceDaily, posted March 31, 2015, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150331131324.htm.
  4. For example see: “Speaking about a Controversy, Part 2 of 2”; “Neanderthals Wore Eagle Talons as Jewelry 130,000 Years Ago”; and “Did Neanderthals Make Art?
  5. Philip R. Nigst et al., “Early Modern Human Settlement of Europe North of the Alps Occurred 43,500 Years Ago in a Cold Steppe-Type Environment,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 111 (October 2014): 14394–99.
  6. Cajus G. Diedrich, “‘Neanderthal Bone Flutes’: Simply Products of Ice Age Spotted Hyena Scavenging Activities on Cave Bear Cubs in European Cave Bear Dens,” Royal Society Open Science 2 (April 2015): 140022.
  7. Ibid.
  8. For a discussion of what fire use among the hominids means for the RTB human origins model, listen to the December 17, 2014 episode of Ex Libris (podcast).
  9. Tia Ghose, “Did Neanderthals Die Off Because They Couldn’t Harness Fire?” Live Science, posted April 20, 2015, http://www.livescience.com/50532-neanderthals-died-no-fire.html.
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Water Does Not Equal Habitability

“The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters” (Genesis 1:2). This verse often gets overshadowed by the preceding verse, which declares, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” I know I overlooked the second verse’s apologetics significance in the past. However, recent studies of Mars highlight the importance of remembering the Bible’s description of Earth’s early conditions.

Usually, the mention of an ocean conjures images of vast cobalt blue expanses, waves begging to be surfed, or shallow reefs ripe for exploring. Those pictures reflect the vibrant biological, atmospheric, and geological systems that characterize Earth today. Yet the geological record paints a different picture of the past. Earth’s early oceans contained no free oxygen and likely appeared murky green from all the dissolved iron. Roughly 3 billion years ago, a growing cache of continental landmass provided relief from the previously vast expanse of water broken by the occasional volcanic island. These continents provided the setting for the explosion of complex life onto Earth’s scene 550 million years ago. These discoveries, along with Earth’s first life, atmospheric clearing, and humanity’s origin, demonstrate the remarkable parallel between the biblical and scientific description of Earth’s history.

The parallel is more striking when compared to the history of Mars. A quick Internet search reveals many recent discoveries indicating liquid water in Mars’ past. River and stream networks, silica deposits, sedimentary rocks, and ancient shorelines all point to a watery past. Yet that same evidence accentuates the differences between the two planets.

Hydrogen comes in two forms: normal hydrogen (H) with no neutrons and deuterium (D) with one neutron. Water can contain either form of hydrogen, but the heavier mass of D gives scientists a way to uncover more details about the history of water on Mars. The heavier mass of D, compared to H, means that it escapes from the atmosphere more slowly. Consequently, over time the ratio of D/H will increase. Data acquired from powerful telescopes in Chile and Hawaii show that the global D/H ratio on Mars today is six times larger than the value measured for Earth. The Mars rover Curiosity found that the D/H ratio on Mars grew by a factor of two in the last 3.2 billion years. Furthermore, ancient Mars meteorites have a D/H ratio roughly 20 percent of the current Martian value. This means that Mars started with at least five times the amount of water present today!1 While Earth experienced a progression from inhospitable to an environment teeming with a diverse array of life, Mars devolved from a water-rich world to a desiccated, barren landscape.

Finding liquid water on a distant planet often carries the implication that life must occupy that watery environment. The Bible paints a different picture. Even though Earth started with a covering of water, it was hostile to life. Only through God’s transformative work was Earth prepared for the introduction of humanity and then declared “very good.” The remarkable thing about Earth is that 4.5 billion years after it formed, it retains an abundant supply of liquid water that hosts a stunning diversity of life.

Subjects: Mars

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.

Endnotes:

  1. R. Mark Wilson, “New Hydrogen-Isotope Measurements Refine the Picture of Water on Mars,” Physics Today 68 (May 2015): 12–14, doi:10.1063/PT.3.2764.
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

THE DESIGNING OF THE ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT

Posted on February 17, 2022 by Will Myers

Rate This

Besides desiring to kill you, Satan’s next desire is to steal your happiness and joy because they always shout yes, yes, to the Word of God and kick Satan from the scene.

The special interest groups (SIG) snakes that invade the inner sanctuary of the minds of the citizens always steal the happiness and joy of the targeted individual and make happiness and joy contentious on complying with SIG snakes’ desires and folly.

The SIG snakes are inching America toward a hyper-communist government whereas the government owns the virtual minds of the citizens; the main source of power is the intimate knowledge of each citizen and it is used to manipulate formulated and purposeful adversity into the life of the targeted citizen to their demise and SIG snakes’ benefits.

The SIG snakes would like to lead the citizens to believe that they represent the values of the people when in essence they are a government that is for themselves, authoritarian social machinery that constitutes hyper-communism whereas the government virtually owns the minds of the citizens which are mapped on computers and formulated and purposefully used to control the thoughts and movements of a targeted individual.

The exercise of the SIG snake social machinery makes conducive the society to accept and even promote hyper-communism, leading unto an autocratic leader in the likeness of a Trump or Hitler; God forbade.

Ephesians 6:12

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.  

In America, our democracy is being undermined daily by SIG snakes’ implications in the mass media and direct assault on private citizens.  A prime example is for Trump to have the balls to attempt overturning the election. Eighty years ago, Trump would have not dreamed of doing so. The actions to overthrow indicate that the snakes have made significant success toward instituting hyper-communism, leading unto the one-world government.   

The intimate knowledge from collected information of each citizen can be used to manipulate formulated and purposeful adversity into the life of the targeted citizen to their demise and SIG snakes’ benefits, forcing the individual into compliance to the desires of SIG, a false deceptor among the people. The one-world government shall be constituted once the autocratic leader is installed. The antidote to prevent the invasion into our inner minds is to do unto others as you would have them do unto yourself. This would stop the poisoning of our free society.

Matthew 7:12

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

MY OP-ED

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

What Evidence Is There for a Multiverse?

 

If the sun quit shining right now, we would not know it for more than eight minutes. It takes light (or any other form of information) that long to travel from the sun to Earth. Light covers the distance from the moon in about a second. Light from Andromeda, the closest large galaxy, travels for 2.5 million years before reaching Earth. The more distant the object, the longer light must travel. Since the universe is only 14 billion years old, this principle means that astronomers can define a boundary containing all the observable stuff of the universe. Beyond that boundary, the universe is not old enough for light to traverse the distance to Earth. By any human measure, that boundary is an incredible distance away, but it does mean that our observable universe has a definite size. This raises an interesting question: What, if anything, exists outside the observable universe?

Anything existing outside of our observable universe would reside in a separate universe, thusdefining a multiverse. Now, you might object that this definition seems arbitrary since the simplest assumption of what might exist beyond the boundary is a whole lot more of the same stuff seen in the observable universe. However, this definition brings one major benefit: it quantifies the universe in a defensible way while providing direction for scientific investigation of anything that might exist beyond the universe.

Problems with Conventional Big Bang Cosmology

To understand why scientists think a multiverse exists requires a general understanding of big bang cosmology. During the earliest moments, the universe experienced unimaginably hot temperatures (so extreme that hell would seem cool by comparison), incredible densities, and remarkable uniformity. As the universe transitions from this initial state to one filled with galaxies, stars, and planets, three important changes occur.

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation

Around 400,000 years old, the universe cooled to 3,000°C. Below this temperature, electrons can combine with protons to form neutral hydrogen atoms. This happens everywhere in the universe at basically the same time. The light emitted from the formation of the neutral hydrogen atoms records the temperature of the universe. The ensuing expansion of the universe during the last 13-plus billion years has stretched that light so that scientists detect it as microwaves. The uniformity of this cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) provides strong evidence that we live in a big bang universe.

However, the uniformity does pose a problem. Calculating the expansion of the universe as far back as possible, the region that emits the CMB that we see in one direction would never be in contact with the region emitting the CMB from the opposite direction. Consequently, there is no reason for those two regions to have the same temperature, but they do. Additionally, although many measurements confirm the uniformity of the CMB, scientists have measured tiny ripples in the CMB that result in the formation of galaxies, stars, and planets. Standard big bang cosmology has no explanation for these two facts.

Geometry and Magnetic Monopoles

In the first fraction of a second (less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second), the universe cooled enough for some important changes. Though an incredibly brief period of time, this period shaped the future of the universe. The temperature dropped such that the strong nuclear interaction separated from the weak nuclear and electromagnetic interactions. This transition laid the foundations for the amount of normal and dark matter the universe would contain. The amount of dark energy was determined even earlier.

One interesting consequence of this transition is the production of magnetic monopoles. Electric charge comes in monopole form—an electron is an electric monopole with negative charge, and a positron is an electric monopole with positive charge. Magnets only exist in dipole form—every north pole is paired with a south pole. Theoretical modeling shows that the separation of the strong nuclear and electroweak interactions produces an abundance of magnetic monopoles, but scientists find no evidence that they exist. Big bang cosmology has no explanation for this discrepancy.

The universe has expanded continuously over the last 14 billion years. The incredible amount of mass in the universe should cause the expansion to slow down. If the universe contained enough mass, the expansion would eventually stop and switch to contraction. With too little mass, the expansion would continue forever. With the just-right amount of mass, the expansion would gradually slow down and eventually stop (although it would take forever to do so). In scientific terms, the three scenarios correspond to closed, open, or flat geometries for the universe. If the universe were two-dimensional, these geometries would look like the surface of a ball, the surface of a saddle, or a piece of paper. Even without understanding dark matter or discovering dark energy, scientists knew that the geometry of the universe was remarkably close to flat. A universe that supports life must be close to flat, but flat is unstable. If the early universe were slightly open or slightly closed, it would be nowhere near flat today. Based on scientists’ calculations, in order for the universe to appear flat today, the mass density needed to vary no more than one part in 1024 (although some calculations put the number at one part in 1060)!  Again, big bang cosmology offers no explanation for this incredible degree of fine-tuning.

Inflation to the Rescue

In the 1970s and 1980s, many scientists were working to resolve these problems with big bang cosmology. One group working on the magnetic monopole problem recognized that a specific kind of “phase transition” in the early universe could suppress the number of magnetic monopoles produced in the observable universe. Detailed studies of this phase transition showed that it also caused the universe to rapidly expand (exponentially, not linearly) in a way that solved the fine-tuning of the universe’s geometry and naturally produced the uniformity of the CMB. Additionally, the exponential expansion amplified subtle quantum fluctuations to reproduce the tiny temperature ripples found in the CMB. (Phil Halper produced a video describing the historical development of inflationary models and how they lead to a multiverse.)

Inflation, the moniker given to the period of rapid expansion, solved the four large problems associated with the big bang model. This fact convinced many scientists of inflation’s validity, and ongoing observations of the CMB and the clustering of galaxies in the universe continue to buttress the model. So, how does inflation relate to the multiverse? It does in two ways.

First, the exponential expansion of the universe means that our observable universe composes just a small fraction of the amount of stuff that exists. As scientists calculate the size of this multiverse, they get numbers ranging from 1,000 times the size of the observable universe to something that is spatially infinite. If inflation happened, a Level I multiverse exists. While this type of multiverse is non-controversial (in my opinion), all it really says is that a lot more of the same stuff exists beyond what scientists can measure.

Second, the simplest theoretical mechanisms that produce inflation inevitably lead to a Level II multiverse. It may be that all the proposed mechanisms are incorrect, but it certainly seems reasonable to conclude that if inflation happened, we live in a Level II multiverse.

Good scientific evidence makes the existence of a multiverse a reasonable conclusion (although not a sure thing). The real issue surrounding the multiverse is whether it fits more comfortably within a theistic worldview or a strictly naturalist worldview. As I have studied the multiverse, it has led me to think that one can make a strong case that the theistic worldview provides the best explanation of all the issues raised by the existence of a multiverse.

Subjects: Inflation, Multiverse

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Logic as an Intellectual Navigation System

The study of logic doesn’t actually teach a person to think—people do that intuitively and instinctively. Rather, instruction in logic teaches a person to think in an ordered and, thus, careful manner.

Logic can be defined as “the principles of correct reasoning.” Mastery of these principles helps a person to order their thinking consistently so they can arrive at truthful, rational conclusions. And since logic can help a person arrive at a rational destination, then analogously one can think of the principles of logic as a type of GPS or navigational system that guides one’s thoughts.

A Rational Navigational System

Here I offer three ways that logic’s system of order can serve to guide one’s path and help a person arrive at a reasonable journey’s end. The following points specifically reflect logic’s ability to organize and discipline a person’s thinking.

#1: Think It Through

In thinking about any subject it is important to ask whether the very foundation of the idea is sound. Well-conceived ideas are logically coherent, possessing internal consistency or harmony. Sound ideas avoid self-stultification or being self-defeating in nature (contradictory by both affirming and denying the very essence of the idea or argument). So before presenting an idea or argument, take the time to think deeply, introspectively, and especially critically about it. 

#2: Stay on Point

In logic, the point is always what the argument’s conclusion or central claim indicates (see “Defining a Logical Argument” below). Thus, the conclusion is also called the central point of the argument. It is what the arguer is attempting to prove and encouraging others to accept. Since knowing the point is absolutely essential in thinking through an argument, losing sight of the point is logically disastrous. In fact, one of the biggest obstacles to careful thinking is distraction. The problem of irrelevance is that it tends to throw the reader or listener off track, and thus the point is hidden or lost. So remember to get into the habit of asking that critical question: “What’s the point?” Ask the question and keep on asking it as you evaluate the logical claims that you and others make.

#3: Keep It Clear

When it comes to reasoning, clarity carries its own persuasive power. Clutter and excessive complexity in an argument frequently stand in the way of the argument’s understandability and credibility. Since being clear in one’s reasoning is advantageous, keep clarity in mind as you initially construct your argument. People greatly appreciate clarity, especially when it is contrasted by its opposite in a debate. Listeners are usually open to, and even inclined toward accepting, the clearest position. However, bear in mind that clear does not mean simplistic or unsophisticated. So when presenting your argument (in other words marshaling the strongest evidence in support of the conclusion), deliver the ideas in the clearest terms possible without compromising the integrity of the argument.

The study of logic helps a person organize their thinking and, thus, to arrive at reasonable and truthful conclusions. In this way logic’s organizational power serves as a type of navigational system to keep a person on the path to their rational, truthful destination.

Reflections: Your Turn 

How does your understanding of logical principles influence your thinking and speaking? Visit Reflections on WordPress to comment with your response.

Resources

Defining a Logical Argument

An argument in logic consists of making a claim (conclusion) and seeking to support it with facts, reasons, or evidence (premises).

Subjects: Critical Thinking, Life of the Mind

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Controversy of the Ages

BY JEFF ZWEERINK – OCTOBER 13, 2017

MORE

Has the development of science lead to the decline of Christianity? Does a belief that the Earth is old require accepting evolution or rejecting the words of the Bible? How should Christians deal with new scientific discoveries that appear to threaten what the Bible says?

Controversy of the ages

If you wrestle with any of these questions, then I wholeheartedly recommend that you read Controversy of the Ages. This great book by Ted Cabal and Peter Rasor explores the age-of-the-Earth debate in the Christian community and provides some much needed historical and theological perspective. Cabal and Rasor highlight three important points that should become common knowledge for everyone engaged in science-faith discussions.

The Intellectually Discredited “Conflict Thesis”

First, research in the history of science shows the bankruptcy of the idea that science and Christianity are now and have always been in conflict. Those wanting to perpetuate the idea of inherent antagonism between science and Christianity (known as the “conflict thesis” or “warfare model”) usually trot out Galileo and Darwin to demonstrate their point. However, focusing on these two examples obscures the “largely independent, mutually encouraging and even symbiotic”1interaction of science and Christianity. In fact, one historian writes that “it is salutary to note that serious historical scholarship has revealed the conflict thesis as, at best, an oversimplification and, at worst, a deception.1

Old-Earth ≠ Evolution

Christians who accept a billions-of-years-old Earth are often charged with compromisetaking man’s word over God’s, and accepting evolution (and all its philosophical and theological implications). One prominent young-earth ministry stated it this way: “In other words, biological evolution is only one small part of a much larger evolutionary story, the same story from which deep time comes, and which old-earth creationists accept.“ But Cabal shows that historical study does not support this claim.

During the rise of modern geology, scientists grew more and more aware of the different layers in Earth’s crust—and how those different layers contained different types of organisms. They often found those layers replicated across the continents of the globe. Continued study of those layers led to two important finds by the many Christians involved in the research. First, instead of representing God’s judgment in the Flood, the layers represented God’s progressive work in creation—culminating in humanity. Second, Earth was much older than a few thousand years. Even in the midst of these two finds, these Christians almost uniformly opposed evolutionary ideas. According to Cabal’s research, “though not all Christians contributing to the rise of modern geology held a progressive creationist view (some held to an old earth gap theory), virtually all were both old earth creationist and anti-evolutionary” (page 116, emphasis mine).

The Conservatism Principle

By studying the Galileo and Darwin affairs, Cabal identifies the “conservatism principle” and argues that young-earth, old-earth, and even some evolutionary creationists utilize this principle when addressing science-faith issues. The four basic pieces of the principle:

Assumption 1: the Biblical is inerrant, interpretations are not
Assumption 2: nature and Scripture cannot disagree
therefore,
Interpretive Step 1: traditional biblical interpretations govern unproven science
Interpretive Step 2: proven scientific theory requires biblical reinterpretation

One important point to note up front: this is not saying science trumps the Bible or that science will prove the Bible wrong (that would violate Assumption 2). Furthermore, Interpretive Step 2 is not saying “reinterpret Scripture so that it matches science.” Rather, it says that sometimes our study of creation forces us to look more closely at our interpretationof Scripture.

Cabal and Rasor rightly argue that young-earth creationists and old-earth creationists both apply this conservatism principle even though prominent young-earth organizations (like Answers in Genesis) would deny doing so (see pages 209–210). In contrast, most evolutionary creationist organizations (like BioLogos) “maintain no commitment to Biblical inerrancy,”(page 209) at least not as put forth by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. Some prominent young-earth creationists accuse Reasons to Believe scholars of valuing the work of scientists over the Word of God. Since both positions apply the conservatism principle to integrate the study of the Bible and the study of creation, the accusation is unfounded. In reality, the difference resides in our interpretation of God’s dual revelation!

I would recommend that every apologist add this new book by Cabal and Rasor to their library. The historical and theological background provided in Controversy of the Ages will help equip you to discuss science-faith issues with both Christians and skeptics.

Endnotes
  1. Gary B. Ferngren, ed., Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002), 8, 10.

About Reasons to Believe

RTB’s mission is to spread the Christian Gospel by demonstrating that sound reason and scientific research—including the very latest discoveries—consistently support, rather than erode, confidence in the truth of the Bible and faith in the personal, transcendent God revealed in both Scripture and nature. Learn More »

Support Reasons to Believe

Your support helps more people find Christ through sharing how the latest scientific discoveries affirm our faith in the God of the Bible.

DONATE NOW


U.S. Mailing Address
818 S. Oak Park Rd.
Covina, CA 91724
  • P (855) 732-7667
  • P (626) 335-1480
  • Fax (626) 852-0178

Reasons to Believe logo

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Why I Blog at “Theorems & Theology”

I blog for two purposes: to spur on thinking (mine & yours) and to pursue truth (together).

Science and Scripture both reveal the truth about our world. Although they deal primarily with different types of knowledge, they are not completely separate areas of inquiry. Science, rightly employed, allows us to ask how the physical world around us functions and to learn about creation and our own physiology and well-being. Scripture—the Old and New Testaments of the Bible—reveals the purpose and meaning of our lives as those created by God and established in relationship with God, each other, and all of creation. Scripture addresses issues in the physical and supernatural realms of our lives.

Science cannot address issues which are not physical or materialistic in nature. It cannot tell us if the nonphysical or nonmaterial exists. I want to know the whole truth and not just the truth about the material world. So I seek the truth in science and Scripture and hope to share my thoughts and hear yours as I journey through this awesome, unique life and the glorious, awe-inspiring creation around us.

During any conversation, defining terms is critical. Many people talk past one another because they use terms differently. I’ll always try to define my terms carefully, so you may want to check my definitions before assuming any particular meaning. I value dialogue, and my belief that truth can be sought, found, and shared (at least in relevant terms—if not ever exhaustively) is what motivates me in life and is the impetus for this blog. I believe we can learn from one another and seek truth together. So, please define terms, too, as needed as you share your thoughts.

Why “theorems”? According to the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary, “theorem” comes from the Latin word theorema, which comes from Greek theōrēma, from theōrein, or “to look at,” from theōros, or “spectator,” or from thea, or “act of seeing.” And yet the word “theorem”implies that which is not directly known by observation but follows from other known truths. Google defines “theorem” in this way: “A general proposition not self-evident but proved by a chain of reasoning; a truth established by means of accepted truths.” It is somewhat ironic that science primarily employs observations of the physical world and yet is very often built upon truths that are not directly observed.

Theorems are strong scientific statements. But even well-established scientific dogma is open to reassessment when previous reasoning or premises have been found to be flawed. Theorems are also strong logical statements. They are anchored in, and spring from, supporting truth or facts.

Why “theology”? I once had a Harvard faculty member ask me if I would still be a Christian if it could somehow be proven that Jesus Christ had not risen from the dead. I shocked him, and many others at the table by saying, “Absolutely not.” I would not be a Christian if the evidence showed that Jesus was not who he claimed to be and had not risen from the dead as evidence of who he claimed to be. I would not be a Christian if I did not think that Jesus’s claims are true.

One of Jesus’s early followers (and a highly influential figure in the spread of the early Christian faith) was a man who once hunted and tortured those who claimed that Jesus was the risen Lord. However, he later became convinced himself that Jesus was the risen Lord: “And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile . . . [and] we are of all people most to be pitied” (1 Corinthians 15:17–19). So said the apostle Paul in his letter to the Christians of the church at Corinth, Greece, circa 55 AD. So my theology is grounded in this commitment. I define theology as the study of God and God’s attributes and relations to all of creation and the study of spiritual, divine, and religious truth.

I hope Theorems & Theology will be a dialogue, and not just a blog, on seeking truth in and through science and Scripture. I’m glad you’re here!

About Reasons to Believe

RTB’s mission is to spread the Christian Gospel by demonstrating that sound reason and scientific research—including the very latest discoveries—consistently support, rather than erode, confidence in the truth of the Bible and faith in the personal, transcendent God revealed in both Scripture and nature. Learn More »

Support Reasons to Believe

Your support helps more people find Christ through sharing how the latest scientific discoveries affirm our faith in the God of the Bible.

DONATE NOW


U.S. Mailing Address
818 S. Oak Park Rd.
Covina, CA 91724
  • P (855) 732-7667
  • P (626) 335-1480
  • Fax (626) 852-0178

Reasons to Believe logo

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment