So now they're experts in religion as well?

There's an editorial on Nature called, “Dealing with design” that deals with the “problem” of students who believe in intelligent design. I know it’s an older article but it contains some of the same things I continue to hear so I believe it’s still relevant.  I've excerpted a couple of points from the piece. Quotes are in blue and are italicized.

Scientists tend to tune out when they hear the words 'intelligent design.

That's rather telling, don't you think? The first instinct of scientists when they hear the words “intelligent design” is usually to just tune them out. Shouldn't they want to explore the idea? Shouldn't they want to test the theories? Where is their scientific curiosity? No, they just tune out.

... [M]any of the students taught in introductory biology classes hold religious beliefs that conflict, at least on the face of things, with Darwin's framework. Professors rarely address the conflicts between faith and science in lectures, and students are drawn to intelligent design as a way of reconciling their beliefs with their interest in science. In doing so, they are helping it to gain a small, but firm, foothold on campuses around the country.

If I'm reading this correctly, Nature is attributing the rise of intelligent design on college campuses to the lack of biology professors addressing the (alleged) conflicts between faith and science. Maybe they're right, but I still haven't seen a problem. I merely detect a sense of alarm among biology professors that intelligent design is gaining traction.

This is bad news for researchers. Unlike 'creation science', which uses the Bible as its guide, intelligent design tries to use scientific methods to find evidence of God in nature.

Still again, I don't see a problem. Yet Nature says this is “bad news” for researchers. As a matter of fact, their alarm only seems to be that proponents of intelligent design “[try] to use scientific methods to find evidence of God in nature.” What's so alarming about that? I distinctly remember being asked about umpteen million times for evidence for my theory or for God. When there are people actually using scientific methods to find evidence for design, the evolutionists go into a tizzy.

This approach makes it less theologically heavy-handed than its predecessor, [young earth creationism]  but it also poses a threat to the very core of scientific reason. Most contemporary researchers believe that it is better to keep science and theology firmly separated.

Oh, I see now. It's because they never really wanted to find evidence for God. They don't want to see evidence for design. They only want to “keep science and theology firmly separated.” We see again the fundamental tenet of science that everything must have a natural explanation.  Could someone please give me a “scientific reason” why it should be the goal of science to separate itself from religion? Anyone? I didn't think so. It's a philosophical premise – not a scientific one.

Well, I can see their concern but what are they going to do about it? One idea might be to challenge the scientific theories of intelligent design in rigorous scientific debate. No. They don't like that idea. Look what Nature says in the next paragraph:

Such events tend to be well attended, but don't change many minds. Furthermore, ill-prepared scientific lectures can sometimes lack the superficial impact of design advocates' carefully crafted talking points.

I've seen many evolution/creation debates and the scientists are usually thoroughly trashed by the creationists. Exit polls after these debates usually show that if anyone's mind was changed, it tends to be toward creation. Evolutionists have been embarrassed in these types of debates so many times they always discourage other scientists away from future debates.

So what advice does Nature give to frustrated professors?

Scientists would do better to offer some constructive thoughts of their own. For religious scientists, this may involve taking the time to talk to students about how they personally reconcile their beliefs with their research. Secular researchers should talk to others in order to understand how faiths have come to terms with science. All scientists whose classes are faced with such concerns should familiarize themselves with some basic arguments as to why evolution, cosmology and geology are not competing with religion. When they walk into the lecture hall, they should be prepared to talk about what science can and cannot do, and how it fits in with different religious beliefs.

There it is. Read it for yourself. They're not just "experts" in science; now they want to be experts in Christianity! The solution suggested by Nature is that professors prepare themselves to explain how science fits in with different religious beliefs. What do you think that means? Do you think that means professors should compromise on certain scientific theories to make them more palatable to a conservative Christian? You know it doesn't. It means they are practicing arguments that might convince students to compromise on their religious beliefs and make them conform better with the scientific theory.

Make no mistake, to evolutionists, “reconciling science and religion” always means compromising on the religion!

Design by “poofery”

Did the creation create itself?

I usually avoid commenting on social media but I still belong to several Fake Book groups where Christians/creationists debate atheists/evolutionists.  I do this primarily to hear what unbelievers are saying and to get inspiration for my blog. 

Recently, one unbeliever made this comment:

EVERYBODY Believes that Intelligent Order, Design and Fine Tuning Can Exist WITHOUT the Need of a Creator.

Please excuse the arbitrary capitalization and the lack of the serial comma, I posted exactly what was said so that I can’t be accused of misrepresenting the point.  This person is saying that order and design can exist without a creator.  

Since I seldom hear any original thoughts from atheists/evolutionists, I knew I’d already heard this before.  I made a brief comment and linked to a post I’d made some time ago, namely that Design is Obvious and how design typically suggests there is a designer.   Richard Dawkins, wrote about this very thing in his book, The Blind Watchmaker, where he said, “The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design. If anyone doesn’t agree that this amount of complex design cries out for an explanation, I give up.”

I used the old joke about the chicken crossing the road to make a point.  It's been my experience that the most obvious answer to nearly any question is usually the correct one.  The first time people hear the chicken riddle, they usually search for some deep meaning or clever answer yet completely overlook the obvious answer – to get to the other side.  So why does everything look designed?  Maybe it’s because it is designed!!  

Evolutionists go to great lengths to explain away design but the more they explain, the more they prove my point. They would not put in such effort if they didn't grasp the clear implication of design is that there is a Designer. It's almost funny to see how they reject the most reasonable answer for such an unlikely one. It's like they're saying, “No! The chicken did not want to get to the other side!'

Anyway, the Fake Book poster replied to my comments with the following argument:

If everything that looks designed is designed, that tells us that God is designed and created OR if God is not designed and created then no, not everything that looks designed is designed.

You may see right away that his argument suffered from a first cause dilemma.  If God were created, then who created God?  Then who created that creator?  And then who created that creator?  You can see where this is going. This is what is known as an infinite regress; it's a logical fallacy where a speaker projects a causal chain of events backward without any definite point that starts the chain.  

Aristotle said there must be a “first cause” or what he described as “The unmoved mover.”  In our case, we may call Him the Ultimate Designer.  Pretend, for a moment, that you're walking through a forest and you happen upon a log cabin. It's crude and has only a dirt floor. It has no electricity, plumbing, or glass windows. It's just basically logs, notched and stacked, with openings cut out for the door and windows. There's not a stick of furniture inside nor any other sign of anyone having lived in it recently. What questions might you ask yourself? I would think your first thoughts would be, I wonder who built this? Does someone live here? Where is he now?

I'm fairly certain no one would ask, “That's incredible! I wonder how these logs fell into the shape of a cabin?”

You see, logs organized into the shape of a cabin show design. Sections having been cut out to allow light and access show purpose. Design and purpose are the characteristics of created things and created things are the proof of a creator. The cabin obviously had a creator. Withholding judgment about the existence of a builder of the cabin is not the sign of a rational, thinking person. It's the stubborn refusal of a fool to acknowledge the obvious!

Dawkins said above that complexity and design “cries out for an explanation.”  But what is there to explain?  Even a crude cabin is proof of a creator.  What needs explaining is how complexity and design could come about without a creator!

After having said all this, I thought the case was closed.  A supernatural, first cause is the only thing that makes any sense when considering the origin of everything.  Like the foolish man in Matthew 7:24-27, any worldview that is not founded upon Christ, is built upon sand.  It cannot stand up to scrutiny.  But rather than try to rebut anything I’d said, this Fakebook poster decided to declare victory and make the following, outrageous claim:

The uncreated first cause proves that a creator is unneeded.  Once we have established that existence without creation, an intelligent mind without an intelligent creator and a consciousness without a creator can all exist, what reason is there to conclude that there is only one example of such things?

Unbelievers are in denial about the religious nature of their beliefs about origins. They are trying to posit a creator with similar attributes that we normally associate with God. In other words, they want us to believe there is a supernatural, eternal, uncaused cause for the universe – but it's still not God! It's just something like God. The skeptics are invoking a god-like non-god to explain the same things Christians credit to God.

I've said before that unbelievers in God are believers in poofism. There was nothing then, POOF, there was everything. Time, space, matter, and design just poofed into existence. They're essentially saying the creation created itself. They don't know what caused it to happen but they're sure it wasn't God. //RKBentley scratches his head//

I don't believe in God because it sort of makes sense. I believe in God because that's the only thing that makes sense. Everything we know about the universe confirms over and over there is a supernatural cause behind it. Deep down, skeptics tacitly admit this too. They just stubbornly deny Elohim is the Creator.  The god of atheism is a capricious, clumsy, invisible god that is indistinguishable from dumb luck. They seek to rob God of His glory by worshipping the undivine god of evolution. How sad.

St Patrick's Breastplate

I arise today 

Through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity,

Through belief in the Threeness,

Through confession of the Oneness

of the Creator of creation.

I arise today

Through the strength of Christ's birth with His baptism,
Through the strength of His crucifixion with His burial,
Through the strength of His resurrection with His ascension,
Through the strength of His descent for the judgment of doom.

I arise today

Through the strength of the love of cherubim,
In the obedience of angels,
In the service of archangels,
In the hope of resurrection to meet with reward,
In the prayers of patriarchs,
In the predictions of prophets,
In the preaching of apostles,
In the faith of confessors,
In the innocence of holy virgins,
In the deeds of righteous men.

I arise today, 

Through the strength of heaven,
The light of the sun,
The radiance of the moon,
The splendor of fire,
The speed of lightning,
The swiftness of wind,
The depth of the sea,
The stability of the earth,
The firmness of rock.

I arise today, through

God's strength to pilot me,
God's might to uphold me,
God's wisdom to guide me,
God's eye to look before me,
God's ear to hear me,
God's word to speak for me,
God's hand to guard me,
God's shield to protect me,
God's host to save me
From snares of devils,
From temptation of vices,
From everyone who shall wish me ill,
afar and near.

I summon today

All these powers between me and those evils,
Against every cruel and merciless power
that may oppose my body and soul,
Against incantations of false prophets,
Against black laws of pagandom,
Against false laws of heretics,
Against craft of idolatry,
Against spells of witches and smiths and wizards,
Against every knowledge that corrupts man's body and soul;
Christ to shield me today
Against poison, against burning,
Against drowning, against wounding,
So that there may come to me an abundance of reward.

Christ with me,
Christ before me,
Christ behind me,
Christ in me,
Christ beneath me,
Christ above me,
Christ on my right,
Christ on my left,
Christ when I lie down,
Christ when I sit down,
Christ when I arise,
Christ in the heart of every man who thinks of me,
Christ in the mouth of everyone who speaks of me,
Christ in every eye that sees me,
Christ in every ear that hears me.

7 “theories” on the origin of life

And that's how life began on earth!

Whenever creationists ask about the origin of life, evolutionists usually respond by saying, “that's not part of evolution.” I've always thought it was convenient of them to propose a theory where all life has descended from a common ancestor yet excuse themselves from explaining the origin of the common ancestor but never mind that now. Everyone knows what's really going on: evolutionists secretly know that the origin of life is a legitimate question for which they have no answer. So they dodge the question with, “that's not part of the theory,” in hopes of buying enough time to come up with a plausible natural explanation which they will make a part of their theory.

LiveScience is an online science magazine that regularly posts “countdown” lists. One list they have is the top 7 theories on the origin of life.  Each theory received a short description which you can read for yourself but here is an even briefer summary:

Electric Spark: Inspired by the Miller-Urey experiment of 1952, this theory suggests that lightning interacting with methane gas in the earth's atmosphere created amino acids.

Community Clay: This is the idea that mineral crystals in clay helped organize the first living cells.

Deep-Sea Vents: Some people believe life began in the hydrogen-rich environment of submarine, hydrothermal vents.

Chilly Start: Instead of super-hot, hydrothermal vents, some believe life began inside hundreds of feet of ice that supposedly covered the early oceans.

RNA World: Before DNA, some speculate that life began with RNA. Of course, they don't have a conclusive theory on the origin of RNA either.

Simple Beginnings: Instead of developing from complex molecules such as RNA, life might have begun with smaller molecules interacting with each other in cycles of reactions.

Panspermia: This is the idea that life did not begin on earth at all but was brought here from space via comets or meteors. Some extremists who hold this view believe life was intentionally planted here by intelligent aliens but LiveScience didn't mention them in their description of panspermia.

I know these are meant to be thumbnail sketches of the various theories but I believe they say a lot about scientists' ideas about the origin of life.  First off, I noticed the casual use of the word “theory.” Read this from the article:

Science remains undecided and conflicted as to the exact origin of life, also known as abiogenesis…. Although science still seems unsure, here are some of the many different scientific theories on the origin of life on Earth.

Do you see what I mean?  Sometimes, creationists have criticized evolution by saying, “It's just a theory.” This usually brings howls of ridicule from evolutionists explaining how a “theory” is more than just a “guess”; It's supposed to be a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. Here, though, they just mean “guess,” don't they? “Theories” are only well-substantiated when creationists suggest that evolution is just a guess. When evolutionists use the word, “guesses” are fine. The correct title of the countdown should be “7 Guesses About the Origin of Life.”

Notice too the huge range covered by the various guesses.  Maybe life began in hot vents or maybe it was in ice. Maybe it formed in the sea or maybe in the clay or maybe on another planet. Some of these competing theories... I mean guesses... aren't even close to each other but are mutually exclusive. It's not like scientists have narrowed it down to a range of ideas – they're wild guesses. This isn’t science; it's storytelling.

This brings me to my final point. It's painfully obvious that scientists truly have no real “theory” about abiogenesis. Yet, if they have no idea, then how can they credibly claim that God didn't create life? Do they really mean to say, “I don't know how life began but I KNOW God didn't create it!”? Yes, they really do mean to say that. Even though they have absolutely no idea how life began, they refuse to consider the possibility that God created life. It's disqualified in advance because of their tenet of methodological naturalism. I've written before how there is no scientific reason to reject a supernatural explanation. It's merely their bias.

Some evolutionists would rather continue in ignorance rather than consider a plausible, supernatural explanation for the origin of life. Still others would rather believe we are martians, planted here by aliens rather than believe we are created by God. It's their presupposed naturalism which blinds them to how silly they're being.

Dan Barker’s Free Will Argument for the Nonexistence of God (FANG)

Dan Barker is a former evangelical, Christian preacher turned zealous atheist. He and his wife, Annie Gaylor, co-preside over the activist atheist group, Freedom From Religion. He also spends a lot of time debating Christians. By the way, in his own words, his apostasy began with a rejection of a historical Adam & Eve and his embracing of evolution – but that will have to be the subject of another post.

Barker has put forward an argument against the existence of God that he calls the Free Will Argument for the Nonexistence of God (which he identifies with the acronym FANG).  I’ve heard other people use this argument but they always give credit to Barker.  I’ve also seen Christian apologists respond to the argument who claim to be responding to “Barker’s” argument.  I've heard similar types of arguments but I’m going to say this particular argument is originally his.

Instead of just saying what his argument is, I’ll cite his own words (source):

The Christian God is defined as a personal being who knows everything. According to Christians, personal beings have free will.

In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is avoidable. This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your decision, if you claim to have free will, you must admit the potential (if not the desire) to change your mind before the decision is final.

A being who knows everything can have no “state of uncertainty.” It knows its choices in advance. This means that it has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore lacks free will. Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist.

Therefore, the Christian God does not exist.

Barker’s argument reminds me a little of the Omnipotence Paradox people sometimes use to argue that God cannot exist. In that case, critics ask, “Can God make a rock so big that He can't lift it?”  The answer is either yes or no but, either way, it would mean there is something God cannot do so, therefore, an omnipotent God cannot exist. Barker's argument is very much along the same lines and could be described as an Omniscience Paradox. At the end of the day, it's simply another gimmick of logic.

His argument is a tangle of logical fallacies that I’m going to have to sort out.  There’s a straw man, mixed with equivocation, tied up with a non sequitur.  I’ll break them all down here.

Let’s start with the straw man.  Barker said, “The Christian God is defined as a personal being who knows everything. According to Christians, personal beings have free will.”  First, if we had to define God, I doubt any Christian would start with, “a personal being who knows everything.”  Certainly, God is omniscient but that is an attribute of God - not necessarily a defining characteristic.  Also, the term “personal being” is somewhat vague.  I mean humans are personal beings, too, but obviously God is not like a human being.  Furthermore, there is much debate about whether or not humans have free will but I’ll talk about that more in a minute.  

You can already see how Barker is setting up his straw man.  He’s telling us how Christians define God and what we think about free will.  Tsk, tsk.  Since when does an atheist get to say what Christians think of God?  This is also where Barker also starts to equivocate, by changing the definition of God.

Barker continues equivocating by changing the definition of “free will.”  The Cambridge Dictionary defines free will as: the ability to decide what to do independently of any outside influence.  That certainly applies to God.  He is free to act any way He decides and no one or no thing can affect what He purposes.  But according to Barker, “In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is avoidable. This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future.”  Since when does free will hinge upon not knowing the outcome?  If I jump off a bridge, I’m pretty sure what the outcome would be.  I would still have the choice to jump or not.

Free will is a notoriously thorny subject. One might even ask if humans have free will; Indeed, many have asked that question for centuries. We may have choices but we have little say in the consequences. I could choose not to eat, for example, but then I couldn't choose not to be hungry. I could choose not to breathe, but then I couldn't choose to keep living. 

Sometimes life seems like a game of chess that we’re playing against a better opponent. We might think we are deciding which pieces to move but our decisions are only unavoidable responses to the better moves the other player is making. The game we think we're playing is really the game he is playing and we continuously have fewer and fewer choices until, finally, we have no choices. Checkmate!

As we live day to day, it may seem at any moment like we are free to choose from a near infinite number possibilities, but the consequences of each decision continuously restricts the number of our future options. I could decide to walk to work instead of driving. However, walking takes longer so the decision to walk affects what time I decide to get up in the morning or whether I decide to get to work on time. Do you see what I mean? My future choices are the victims of the consequences of my present choices.

This applies to the theological realm as well.  If God is sovereign, then perhaps I cannot choose to believe or deny Him. Perhaps everything I do is as He has commanded and I can do nothing by my own will.  This debate has raged between Calvinists and Arminians and is outside the scope of this post. Regardless, Barker fails to see how this is a problem for his argument. He is hoisted upon his own petard, if you will, because if humans do not have free will, how is that an argument for their non-existence?  This is where Barker’s argument becomes totally non sequitur.  

If you think about it, it's rather ridiculous to argue that free will must mean making a decision without knowing anything about the outcome.  Barker is essentially saying that since God knows the future, He cannot exist.  What?  Let's reduce this to the absurd: do rocks have free will?  Do rocks exist?  It's rather obvious that free will is not a condition of existence yet that is what Barker argues!

Consider this passage from Isaiah:

Isaiah 46:9-11, Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.

The Bible attests that God knows the future. Let me rephrase that: God brings to pass those things He has already purposed. It's not a prediction as though God's some kind of psychic.  He has and has always had the ability to make things any way He wanted and He made them this way. According to Barker, that's proof He doesn't exist. //RKBentley shakes his head//  

Here's a Bible quiz. See if you can identify who is being discussed in this verse:

But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. (Micah 5:2)

Hmm... a Ruler born in Bethlehem whose going forth has been from eternity. Who could that be? Pretty easy, huh? Let's look at another passage:

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. (Isaiah 53:5)

Still too easy? Here's one more:

For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me. They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.. (Psalm 22:16-18)

Did you have any trouble identifying the subject of any of those verses? Probably not. It's not hard to identify that it's Jesus who is being discussed in each passage. However, there's something very interesting about these verses that critics of the Bible seldom stop to consider. All of these passages are taken from the Old Testament! These passages that so clearly discuss accurate details of His birth, His passion, and His death, were written hundreds of years before the events actually occurred. Furthermore, these are but a handful of the dozens of Old Testament passages that I could have cited.

Once a thing that God has proclaimed comes to pass, it reveals the sovereignty and authority of God. When Jesus came and fulfilled the prophecies spoken about Him centuries earlier, it established His status as the Messiah. It proved that God is the sovereign Lord of the universe. It proved the things spoken by the prophets were true. It proved the Bible is the word of God.  Knowing the future isn’t an argument that God cannot exist!  Good grief!!  If anything, it proves He exists!

To all the critics who read my blog, let me ask you something: do you deny that the Bible is the word of God? You probably do – otherwise you'd likely be a believer. Even still, you have to admit that what the Lord spoke about Jesus centuries in advance, came to pass in exactly the same way He spoke it. It's proof that He is God and that the Bible is His word. If you're still not convinced, then let me ask you this: when you read the above passages, didn't you think they were talking about Jesus? You can deny it if you'd like but I know you did!