Analogical reasoning is a method of processing information that compares the similarities between new and understood concepts, then uses those similarities to gain understanding of the new concept. It is a valid practical approach approved by the scientific community. For the past 150 years, scientists have used arguments based on analogies to things we do understand to formulate new hypotheses in emerging areas of scientific work. In fact, we as human beings use analogies in many walks of life, such as decision making in law, business and politics; scientific reasoning in the laboratory; and problem solving in daily life. Even children as young as one and two years of age display an ability to reason analogically, where they use their understanding of familiar situations to help them construct new knowledge. Consider the following case study by a group of interdisciplinary professionals where they observed five year old Elliot and James applying their knowledge of human anatomy to intrepret how trees function:
James: The tree's so fat. It's got lots of blood in it.
Elliot: Because inside the wood there's some very liquid black stuff and I know that's blood.
James: No, water! The water goes in the tree and it could easily.....The water goes under, in the roots, and it goes up in the tree and gets blood.
Teacher: Why do you think the trees need to have blood?
James: Cos if they didn't have blood they would die.
Teacher: What does the blood do, do you think?
James: Helps them stay alive.
(Trees have sap to carry water nutrients throughout the tree - just like we have blood to carry nutrients through our bodies)
It has been argued that analogical reasoning is the "core" of cognition. It plays a significant role in problem solving, decision making, perception, memory, creativity, emotion, explanation and communication. It lies behind basic tasks such as the identification of places, objects and people, for example, in face perception and facial recognition systems. It is not only important in ordinary language and common sense, but also in science, philosophy and humanities (Holyoak and Thagard - 43).
The point that I am trying to prove is that analogical reasoning isn't a farce; it's authentic and has been used practically in many fields of study, including science. The reason I am trying to validate the use of analogical reasoning is because it presents a powerful case for the existence of an Intelligent Designer.
We know that where there's intelligent communication, there's an intelligent cause. Carl Sagan, known for his scientific achievements and popular science books, once made the following statement: "The receipt of a single message from space would be enough to know there's an intelligence out there." And if a single message from space is enough for us to conclude there's intelligence behind it, then what about the vast amounts of information contained in the DNA of every living plant and animal?
If this were the only proof available to us for the existence of God, then it surely would not suffice. But it isn't. God has provided us with so much more evidence to the point where I believe that if you examine the evidence without any bias, you will come to the conclusion that God exists. And not only that God exists, but that He sent Jesus Christ down to this earth over 2000 years ago to redeem humanity from the depravity of this broken world.
Since I began writing this blog, all of my posts have been about the science behind creation and evolution. Although I plan on continuing to write about this incredible subject, I will definitely begin writing about new topics. If you ever have any questions or remarks about what I am writing, feel free to send me a message / comment or talk to me in person. I am open for discussion. Have a great Sunday!
References:
1. Mental Leaps: Analogy in Creative Thought - Keith J. Holyoak and Paul Thagard
2. Mathematical and Analogical Reasoning of Young Learners - Edited by Lyn English
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Saturday, January 8, 2011
DNA: Riddled with Intelligence
Click Here For Part One
Walter Bradley, an expert on polymers and thermodynamics, states: "If the only time we see written information - whether it's a painting on a cave wall or a novel from Amazon.com - is when there's intelligence behind it, then wouldn't that also be true of nature itself? In other words, what is encoded on the DNA inside every cell of every living creature is purely and simply written information. We use a 26 letter alphabet in English; in DNA, there is a 4 letter chemical alphabet whose letters combine in various sequences to form words, sentences and paragraphs. These comprise all the instructions needed to guide the functioning of the cell. They spell out in coded form the instructions for how a cell makes proteins. It works just the way alphabetical letter sequences do in our language. Now, when we see written language, we can infer, based on our experience, that it has an intelligent cause. And we can legitimately use analogical reasoning to conclude that the remarkable information sequences in DNA also had an intelligent cause." (109)
Analogical Reasoning: If the analogy of two phenomena be very close and striking, while, at the same time, the cause of one is very obvious, it becomes scarcely possible to refuse to admit the action of an analogous cause in the other, though not so obvious in itself.
I will try putting Bradley's explanation in simpler terms: We can conclude for obvious reasons that written language has an intelligent cause. When we look at the information contained within DNA, it looks strikingly similar to written language. They both have represented messages conveying expected action and intended purpose. The main difference between written language and DNA is that written language has an obvious cause (human intelligence) while DNA does not. Using analogical reasoning, we can conclude that the extraordinary information sequences contained within DNA also had an intelligent cause.
(For those of you who are skeptical about the validity of using analogical reasoning in the scientific field, stay tuned for a future blog with more detailed information about the importance of using analogical reasoning not only within the scientifc community, but in our daily lives)
People detect intelligent design all the time. For example, if we find arrowheads on a desert island, we can assume they were made by someone, even if we cannot see the designer.
I stated this fact in a previous post; I am re-posting the content for emphasis on the complexity of DNA:
Each cell in the human body contains more information than all thirty volumes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. One square inch chip of DNA could encode the information in over 7 million Bibles. There are about 50-100 trillion cells in the average human body. If the DNA in a single human cell were stretched out and laid end-to-end, it would measure approximately 6.5 feet. The average human body contains 10 to 20 billion miles of DNA distributed among trillions of cells.
It's certainly reasonable to make the inference that this isn't the random product of unguided nature, but it's the unmistakable sign of an Intelligent Designer. DNA is only one of many proofs within the design argument. As Walter Bradley states in The Case For Faith (108): If there isn't a natural explanation for the origin of life and there doesn't seem to be the potential of finding one, then I believe it's appropriate to look at a supernatural explanation. Many have reached this conclusion. But for some, their philosophy gets in the way. If they're persuaded ahead of time that there isn't a God, then no matter how compelling the evidence, they'll always say, "Wait and we'll find something better in the future."
References:
1. The Case For Faith (87-112) - Lee Strobel
Walter Bradley, an expert on polymers and thermodynamics, states: "If the only time we see written information - whether it's a painting on a cave wall or a novel from Amazon.com - is when there's intelligence behind it, then wouldn't that also be true of nature itself? In other words, what is encoded on the DNA inside every cell of every living creature is purely and simply written information. We use a 26 letter alphabet in English; in DNA, there is a 4 letter chemical alphabet whose letters combine in various sequences to form words, sentences and paragraphs. These comprise all the instructions needed to guide the functioning of the cell. They spell out in coded form the instructions for how a cell makes proteins. It works just the way alphabetical letter sequences do in our language. Now, when we see written language, we can infer, based on our experience, that it has an intelligent cause. And we can legitimately use analogical reasoning to conclude that the remarkable information sequences in DNA also had an intelligent cause." (109)
Analogical Reasoning: If the analogy of two phenomena be very close and striking, while, at the same time, the cause of one is very obvious, it becomes scarcely possible to refuse to admit the action of an analogous cause in the other, though not so obvious in itself.
I will try putting Bradley's explanation in simpler terms: We can conclude for obvious reasons that written language has an intelligent cause. When we look at the information contained within DNA, it looks strikingly similar to written language. They both have represented messages conveying expected action and intended purpose. The main difference between written language and DNA is that written language has an obvious cause (human intelligence) while DNA does not. Using analogical reasoning, we can conclude that the extraordinary information sequences contained within DNA also had an intelligent cause.
(For those of you who are skeptical about the validity of using analogical reasoning in the scientific field, stay tuned for a future blog with more detailed information about the importance of using analogical reasoning not only within the scientifc community, but in our daily lives)
People detect intelligent design all the time. For example, if we find arrowheads on a desert island, we can assume they were made by someone, even if we cannot see the designer.
I stated this fact in a previous post; I am re-posting the content for emphasis on the complexity of DNA:
Each cell in the human body contains more information than all thirty volumes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. One square inch chip of DNA could encode the information in over 7 million Bibles. There are about 50-100 trillion cells in the average human body. If the DNA in a single human cell were stretched out and laid end-to-end, it would measure approximately 6.5 feet. The average human body contains 10 to 20 billion miles of DNA distributed among trillions of cells.
It's certainly reasonable to make the inference that this isn't the random product of unguided nature, but it's the unmistakable sign of an Intelligent Designer. DNA is only one of many proofs within the design argument. As Walter Bradley states in The Case For Faith (108): If there isn't a natural explanation for the origin of life and there doesn't seem to be the potential of finding one, then I believe it's appropriate to look at a supernatural explanation. Many have reached this conclusion. But for some, their philosophy gets in the way. If they're persuaded ahead of time that there isn't a God, then no matter how compelling the evidence, they'll always say, "Wait and we'll find something better in the future."
References:
1. The Case For Faith (87-112) - Lee Strobel
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Evolution: A Leap of Faith
The following passage is taken from Evolution Exposed: Biology (Chapter 5: The Origin of Life) by Roger Patterson
What would happen if a scientist could develop a living organism by combining chemicals in a lab? It would only prove that intelligent actions could produce life - not that life arose spontaneously billions of years ago. There has never been an instance where information has been shown to arise from matter. Matter can form complex patterns, such as crystals, but there is no information contained in such patterns. In order for life to continue and organisms to replicate, information must be present to pass on to offspring. The ultimate question that evolution must be able to answer is, “How did the information seen in living things arise from matter alone?” When we think of information in biology, we are mainly talking about DNA and RNA. DNA and RNA use information that is present in a code to send and receive messages that are intended to produce proteins and continue the existence of the species. We can define information as follows:
Information: an encoded, symbolically represented message conveying expected action and intended purpose.
One of the pioneering ideas in organic evolution was the “primordial soup.” According to this model, at some point in earth history, the molten earth cooled and oceans formed. As rain fell, chemicals in a hypothetical pool, warmed by the volcanic activity and energized by lightning, organized into amino acids, lipids and carbohydrates. These molecules then organized into cellular structures like proteins, DNA and cell membranes. The problem with this scenario is that chemistry prohibits it. Proteins do not form from piles of amino acids and DNA contains a specific code that must be copied from another strand of DNA. Proteins cannot form in water because the water breaks the bonds that hold the amino acids together - a process called hydrolysis.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patterson demonstrates an excellent point. The failure of science to demonstrate how, where, when, or why life was naturally formed makes the acceptance of chemical evolution a matter of faith. Other attempts to explain how life formed are riddled with “maybe” and “possibly.” It requires more faith to believe that the universe and all of the living things on earth came from a big bang than it does to accept that the design we see must have had an Intelligent Designer.
Creationists accept that life appeared on earth as a direct creative act of God. The design and information that we see in all living things is a result of intelligence - not random occurrences. Think about a book...it has information. It has encoded messages that convey an intended purpose. The book doesn't originate from an explosion in the typewriter; it doesn't come about by a random process or generate by itself. It was intentionally written by an intelligent source. When we look at the complexity of our world, I believe we can also reasonably infer that there was an Intelligent Designer responsible for what surrounds us.
Even the most committed evolutionist has to acknowledge and admire the wisdom and ingenuity displayed in such incredible design.
Click Here For Part Two
What would happen if a scientist could develop a living organism by combining chemicals in a lab? It would only prove that intelligent actions could produce life - not that life arose spontaneously billions of years ago. There has never been an instance where information has been shown to arise from matter. Matter can form complex patterns, such as crystals, but there is no information contained in such patterns. In order for life to continue and organisms to replicate, information must be present to pass on to offspring. The ultimate question that evolution must be able to answer is, “How did the information seen in living things arise from matter alone?” When we think of information in biology, we are mainly talking about DNA and RNA. DNA and RNA use information that is present in a code to send and receive messages that are intended to produce proteins and continue the existence of the species. We can define information as follows:
Information: an encoded, symbolically represented message conveying expected action and intended purpose.
One of the pioneering ideas in organic evolution was the “primordial soup.” According to this model, at some point in earth history, the molten earth cooled and oceans formed. As rain fell, chemicals in a hypothetical pool, warmed by the volcanic activity and energized by lightning, organized into amino acids, lipids and carbohydrates. These molecules then organized into cellular structures like proteins, DNA and cell membranes. The problem with this scenario is that chemistry prohibits it. Proteins do not form from piles of amino acids and DNA contains a specific code that must be copied from another strand of DNA. Proteins cannot form in water because the water breaks the bonds that hold the amino acids together - a process called hydrolysis.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patterson demonstrates an excellent point. The failure of science to demonstrate how, where, when, or why life was naturally formed makes the acceptance of chemical evolution a matter of faith. Other attempts to explain how life formed are riddled with “maybe” and “possibly.” It requires more faith to believe that the universe and all of the living things on earth came from a big bang than it does to accept that the design we see must have had an Intelligent Designer.
Creationists accept that life appeared on earth as a direct creative act of God. The design and information that we see in all living things is a result of intelligence - not random occurrences. Think about a book...it has information. It has encoded messages that convey an intended purpose. The book doesn't originate from an explosion in the typewriter; it doesn't come about by a random process or generate by itself. It was intentionally written by an intelligent source. When we look at the complexity of our world, I believe we can also reasonably infer that there was an Intelligent Designer responsible for what surrounds us.
Even the most committed evolutionist has to acknowledge and admire the wisdom and ingenuity displayed in such incredible design.
Click Here For Part Two
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
The Origin of Life
When we consider how life began on earth, there are only two options: Either life was created by an intelligent source (God) or it began by natural processes. "Many biologists try to separate the origin of life (sometimes called chemical evolution) and the universe from discussions of biology. These scientists recognize the challenge presented by chemical evolution, but their commitment to naturalism leaves them no other choice. Many different models are used to explain how life can come from non-living matter, but all of these models, including the famous Miller-Urey experiment, fail to account for the many chemical and biological barriers to spontaneously forming life." (Roger Patterson) No known laws of nature allow complex, living, information-containing systems to develop from the random interactions of matter. Yet, this is what is required in order for life to have evolved in the universe. Darwin's theory presupposes that non-living chemicals, if given the right amount of time and circumstances, could develop themselves into living matter. If scientists can really prove that life could emerge purely from chemical processes, then there's no need for God. However, if the evidence points towards an Intelligent Designer, then Darwin's entire theory would collapse.
Darwin himself admitted that "if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, then my theory would absolutely break down." Michael J. Behe's award-winning book, Darwin's Black Box, shows how recent biochemical discoveries have found numerous examples of this very kind of "irreducible complexity." We also have to understand that this practical application of "all or nothing" is relevant to other theories and systematic structures as well, including Christianity. The Bible is a great example: Throughout time, skeptics have regarded the Bible as mythological, but archeology has confirmed it as historical. It continues to be attacked by pseudo-science, psychology, and political movements, yet it remains just as true and relevant today as it was when it was first written. If even one part of the Bible were proven to be false, the entire structure of Christianity would collapse. But to this day, the Bible has affirmed itself to be what it states it is: the word of God
Something to consider: Back in the early 1900's, scientists didn't have a way of seeing the complexity that exists within the membrane of a cell. Darwin probably didn't think it would be very difficult to create life from non-life, because the gap between the two didn't appear to be very great. Little did Darwin know that each cell in the human body contains more information than all thirty volumes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica or that 1 square inch chip of DNA could encode the information in over 7 million Bibles. There are about 50-100 trillion cells in the average human body. If the DNA in a single human cell were stretched out and laid end-to-end, it would measure approximately 6.5 feet. The average human body contains 10 to 20 billion miles of DNA distributed among trillions of cells.
Until the later part of the 19th century, life was believed to arise from non-living matter by a process called spontaneous generation. For example, people thought maggots would spontaneously develop from decaying meat. In 1650, Francesco Redi demonstrated that flies didn’t ‘arise’ from decaying meat, but from the eggs that other flies laid on the meat. This was a serious blow to spontaneous generation, but when bacteria were later discovered, it was thought that at least microorganisms might arise from non-life. This notion too was finally laid to rest in 1864 by the great scientist Louis Pasteur, who demonstrated that bacteria can only come from living bacteria. Louis Pasteur successfully demonstrated air contains microorganisms that can multiply in water, giving the illusion of spontaneous generation. When reporting his results before the French Academy, he confidently stated that 'never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow of this simple experiment.'
In the present, scientists agree with Pasteur that spontaneous genesis doesn't happen in a short time frame. But they theorize that if you had billions and billions of years, then it might really happen after all. And this is the basis for the idea that non-living chemicals can combine into living cells if given enough time. Unfortunately, origin-of-life scientists have come up empty when they've tried to speculate how chemicals could evolve into living matter. Klaus Dose, a prominent evolutionist and biochemist, sums up the situation pretty well: "More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance."
References:
1. The Origin of Life: More Questions than Answers - Klaus Dose
2. The Case For Faith (87-112) - Lee Strobel
3. Evolution Exposed: Earth Science - Roger Patterson
Darwin himself admitted that "if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, then my theory would absolutely break down." Michael J. Behe's award-winning book, Darwin's Black Box, shows how recent biochemical discoveries have found numerous examples of this very kind of "irreducible complexity." We also have to understand that this practical application of "all or nothing" is relevant to other theories and systematic structures as well, including Christianity. The Bible is a great example: Throughout time, skeptics have regarded the Bible as mythological, but archeology has confirmed it as historical. It continues to be attacked by pseudo-science, psychology, and political movements, yet it remains just as true and relevant today as it was when it was first written. If even one part of the Bible were proven to be false, the entire structure of Christianity would collapse. But to this day, the Bible has affirmed itself to be what it states it is: the word of God
Something to consider: Back in the early 1900's, scientists didn't have a way of seeing the complexity that exists within the membrane of a cell. Darwin probably didn't think it would be very difficult to create life from non-life, because the gap between the two didn't appear to be very great. Little did Darwin know that each cell in the human body contains more information than all thirty volumes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica or that 1 square inch chip of DNA could encode the information in over 7 million Bibles. There are about 50-100 trillion cells in the average human body. If the DNA in a single human cell were stretched out and laid end-to-end, it would measure approximately 6.5 feet. The average human body contains 10 to 20 billion miles of DNA distributed among trillions of cells.
Until the later part of the 19th century, life was believed to arise from non-living matter by a process called spontaneous generation. For example, people thought maggots would spontaneously develop from decaying meat. In 1650, Francesco Redi demonstrated that flies didn’t ‘arise’ from decaying meat, but from the eggs that other flies laid on the meat. This was a serious blow to spontaneous generation, but when bacteria were later discovered, it was thought that at least microorganisms might arise from non-life. This notion too was finally laid to rest in 1864 by the great scientist Louis Pasteur, who demonstrated that bacteria can only come from living bacteria. Louis Pasteur successfully demonstrated air contains microorganisms that can multiply in water, giving the illusion of spontaneous generation. When reporting his results before the French Academy, he confidently stated that 'never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow of this simple experiment.'
In the present, scientists agree with Pasteur that spontaneous genesis doesn't happen in a short time frame. But they theorize that if you had billions and billions of years, then it might really happen after all. And this is the basis for the idea that non-living chemicals can combine into living cells if given enough time. Unfortunately, origin-of-life scientists have come up empty when they've tried to speculate how chemicals could evolve into living matter. Klaus Dose, a prominent evolutionist and biochemist, sums up the situation pretty well: "More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance."
References:
1. The Origin of Life: More Questions than Answers - Klaus Dose
2. The Case For Faith (87-112) - Lee Strobel
3. Evolution Exposed: Earth Science - Roger Patterson
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
An Introduction: Evolution vs. Creation
"Many Christians believe the creation/evolution issue to be a side issue, an unprofitable area on which to focus. To many it seems divisive, and has little relation to proclaiming the Gospel." - Calvin Smith
Charles Darwin was an English naturalist who established that all species of life descended over time from a common ancestry. He proposed the scientific theory that this branching pattern of evolution resulted from a process called natural selection. He later published his book, On the Origin of Species, which led the scientific community and much of the general public to accept evolution as a fact. Darwin's scientific discovery is the unifying theory of the life sciences, explaining the diversity of life.
How do atheists explain our origins without God? Their answer is evolution. This gives them an explanation for our existence without God. We have to understand that evolution is a world view not to be taken lightly; it is the fuel that provides atheism a logical answer to the development of life that is contradictory to the biblical account of creation. And if the biblical account of creation were false, then the validity of the entire Bible would be at stake.
If Darwinism is true, then there are five inescapable implications according to prominent evolutionist William Provine: there's no evidence for God; there's no life after death; there's no absolute foundation for right and wrong; there's no ultimate meaning for life; and people don't really have free will.
Atheism vs. theism is sometimes misrepresented as science vs. faith. This is untrue because evolution is a worldview that is also based on faith. Why by faith? Because we cannot travel back in time to see the first life form evolve or observe God create the universe. So our understanding of what happened in the past is ultimately accepted by faith. We can use scientific methods to observe evidence in the present, and then make an assessment of which worldview is best supported by that evidence.
Lee Strobel brings up this issue in The Case For Faith with the following statement: "I began to question whether the sweeping conclusions of Darwinists are really justified by the hard scientific facts. This is not, I soon discovered, a case of religion versus science; rather, this is an issue of science versus science. More and more biologists, biochemists and other researchers (not just Christians) have raised serious objections to the evolutionary theory in recent years, claiming that its broad inferences are sometimes based on flimsy, incomplete, or flawed data."
"The result of these cumulative efforts to investigate the cell - to investigate life at the molecular level - is a loud, clear, piercing cry of design!" biochemist Michael Behe said in his ground-breaking critique of Darwinism. He went on to say:
"The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself - not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs...The reluctance of science to embrace the conclusion of intelligent design...has no justifiable foundation...Many people, including many important and well-respect scientists, just don't want there to be anything beyond nature."
Michael Behe's last statement really hit me hard. Often times, people will back up their belief systems with intellectual arguments. But underneath the surface, there is a different story to tell. For me, it was selfishness. Deep down inside, I knew that if God really existed, then I would be held accountable for my actions. I wasn't ready to give up the "fun" I was having with my life. I wanted to go out and party with my friends all the time. I knew there were certain areas of my life where I lacked integrity, but I didn't care. I wanted to live my life to the fullest with no boundaries. But the truth is that I was always bored. There's a verse in the Bible that says the world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever. There was only so much "partying" I could do before I became bored with it. Then I would move on to the next thing. And the next thing. I found myself running around in circles throughout high school without a definitive purpose of where my life was really headed.
Back than, I was under the impression that following Jesus meant giving up "fun" things in my life in order to become a good person. I thought that Christians were some of the most boring people on this planet. I thought that Christians were close-minded hypocrites. This perspective of mine was challenged when I met a group of genuine Christians during my first year of college. Their faith in Jesus was authentic. Everything they committed to came from the heart, not from religious rules or obligations. And to me, that was highly attractive.
Only an amateur who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God. An incoherent understanding of evolutionary science once propelled me towards atheism; an increasing grasp of molecular science is now strengthening my conviction for the existence of an Intelligent Designer.
For further studies, check out the Creation / Evolution articles posted on my blog.
Charles Darwin was an English naturalist who established that all species of life descended over time from a common ancestry. He proposed the scientific theory that this branching pattern of evolution resulted from a process called natural selection. He later published his book, On the Origin of Species, which led the scientific community and much of the general public to accept evolution as a fact. Darwin's scientific discovery is the unifying theory of the life sciences, explaining the diversity of life.
How do atheists explain our origins without God? Their answer is evolution. This gives them an explanation for our existence without God. We have to understand that evolution is a world view not to be taken lightly; it is the fuel that provides atheism a logical answer to the development of life that is contradictory to the biblical account of creation. And if the biblical account of creation were false, then the validity of the entire Bible would be at stake.
If Darwinism is true, then there are five inescapable implications according to prominent evolutionist William Provine: there's no evidence for God; there's no life after death; there's no absolute foundation for right and wrong; there's no ultimate meaning for life; and people don't really have free will.
Atheism vs. theism is sometimes misrepresented as science vs. faith. This is untrue because evolution is a worldview that is also based on faith. Why by faith? Because we cannot travel back in time to see the first life form evolve or observe God create the universe. So our understanding of what happened in the past is ultimately accepted by faith. We can use scientific methods to observe evidence in the present, and then make an assessment of which worldview is best supported by that evidence.
Lee Strobel brings up this issue in The Case For Faith with the following statement: "I began to question whether the sweeping conclusions of Darwinists are really justified by the hard scientific facts. This is not, I soon discovered, a case of religion versus science; rather, this is an issue of science versus science. More and more biologists, biochemists and other researchers (not just Christians) have raised serious objections to the evolutionary theory in recent years, claiming that its broad inferences are sometimes based on flimsy, incomplete, or flawed data."
"The result of these cumulative efforts to investigate the cell - to investigate life at the molecular level - is a loud, clear, piercing cry of design!" biochemist Michael Behe said in his ground-breaking critique of Darwinism. He went on to say:
"The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself - not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs...The reluctance of science to embrace the conclusion of intelligent design...has no justifiable foundation...Many people, including many important and well-respect scientists, just don't want there to be anything beyond nature."
Michael Behe's last statement really hit me hard. Often times, people will back up their belief systems with intellectual arguments. But underneath the surface, there is a different story to tell. For me, it was selfishness. Deep down inside, I knew that if God really existed, then I would be held accountable for my actions. I wasn't ready to give up the "fun" I was having with my life. I wanted to go out and party with my friends all the time. I knew there were certain areas of my life where I lacked integrity, but I didn't care. I wanted to live my life to the fullest with no boundaries. But the truth is that I was always bored. There's a verse in the Bible that says the world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever. There was only so much "partying" I could do before I became bored with it. Then I would move on to the next thing. And the next thing. I found myself running around in circles throughout high school without a definitive purpose of where my life was really headed.
Back than, I was under the impression that following Jesus meant giving up "fun" things in my life in order to become a good person. I thought that Christians were some of the most boring people on this planet. I thought that Christians were close-minded hypocrites. This perspective of mine was challenged when I met a group of genuine Christians during my first year of college. Their faith in Jesus was authentic. Everything they committed to came from the heart, not from religious rules or obligations. And to me, that was highly attractive.
Only an amateur who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God. An incoherent understanding of evolutionary science once propelled me towards atheism; an increasing grasp of molecular science is now strengthening my conviction for the existence of an Intelligent Designer.
For further studies, check out the Creation / Evolution articles posted on my blog.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
An Introduction To Apologetics: Your Belief System
My desire for this blog is to thoroughly investigate the claims of Christianity and other world views in order to search for truth. As a former skeptic myself, my hope is that this blog will not have a narrow perspective many Christians tend to offer these days. One of the biggest obstacles I've personally had to overcome with my faith is intellectual barriers. When faced with difficult questions that challenge their faith, Christians often attempt to develop very "Christian-like" responses that don't necessarily answer the question itself.
Here's an example:
Person A: Why should I believe God created us? Darwin claims life began millions of years ago with simple single-cell creatures that developed through mutation and natural selection into the vast array of plant and animal life that populate the planet. Human beings came into existence from the same common ancestor as the ape.
Person B: In the Bible, it says that God created life. Darwin doesn't know what he's talking about.
Person A: How can you prove that? Darwin's Theory of Evolution is widely embraced by some of the most intelligent scientists of our world today.
Person B: Well, Darwin isn't God. I think God would have a better understanding of how life came to be, because He created it!
Person A: But why do you believe that?
Person B: Because the Bible says so.
(Note sarcasm)
In this scenario, Person B ignores the inquiry deduced by Person A and simply attempts to produce an answer that seems most appropriate for a Christian. Person B seems to have a presumption the Bible is correct in what it states. The problem with his train of thought is that he has no idea why. I am not trying to attack Person B in a negative way. Honestly, I believe the true reason Person B doesn't appear to know why he believes in what he does is because he has been disciplined to believe in God and only God. From a very young age, he has been taught not to question his beliefs. Or he has accepted Christ into his life without a true understanding of what is really means to follow Jesus. There are many other possibilities, but I think these two are quite common nowadays.
I think many Christians believe if they have any doubts about God or their faith, they are committing this unspeakable sin. I want to let you know that having doubts about God is completely normal, even if you are a Christian. One of my favorite passages in the Bible is about a man who comes to Jesus with his demon-possessed son, hoping that the boy would get healed. Jesus says all things are possible to those who believe. The man's response is so powerful. He says, "I believe, but would you help me with my unbelief?"
I believe that having doubts isn't evidence of the absence of faith; on the contrary, I consider them to be the very essence of faith itself.
We also have to understand that there are certain things we are incapable of doing, because we are restricted by our human nature. Humans don't have the potentiality to fly by flapping our arms while jumping off the Empire State Building. Just as our physical bodies are limited in specific areas, our minds too are incapable of understanding certain concepts that are beyond our scope of perception. Some atheists claim they cannot believe in God, because they cannot fully distinguish Him. However, knowing God entirely is a paradox. God would no longer be infinite if the finite could tangibly describe Him. Love is a concept we do not fully understand, but we still know how to love. In the same sense, we can come to know God in a personal relationship even if we do not know everything about Him. I would like to clarify this more in a future blog, but think about this: We are even incapable of being able to understand each other completely. But that doesn't stop us from building relationships. Why? Because we find meaning within them. I sincerely believe we can find deeper meaning in a loving personal relationship with God. I would also like to point out that religion and relationship are two different concepts.
We might be insufficient to fully understand God, but it is not an excuse for ignorance. God promises that we will find Him when we seek Him with all of our heart, soul and mind. Notice the last word in the previous sentence. Mind. God calls us to seek Him with our knowledge. Not just from the Bible, but from science, history, archaeology, logic, ethics, belief systems and many other things. One of the main purposes of this blog is to meticulously examine the evidence from different disciplines in order to search for truth.
From the very beginning, it has been my intention to write these words to those who want to know more about God, but don't know where to begin. I am writing to those who like the idea of Jesus, but think that Christians act nothing like Jesus. I am writing to those who are unsure of what they believe in. If you are questioning whether faith and reason can coincide, this blog is perfect for you. For those who have absolutely no belief in God, it is my hope that you will reconsider your position as you read through this blog and keep an open mind. Please feel free to share your thoughts. I am open for discussion.
If you are a Christian, my prayer is that this blog will strengthen your faith in Jesus and equip you with a deeper understanding of not only Christianity, but opposing world views as well.
I would like to challenge everyone with the following questions:
1. What do you believe in?
2. Why do you believe in it?
3. Is your belief system based upon evidence or personal feelings?
Here's an example:
Person A: Why should I believe God created us? Darwin claims life began millions of years ago with simple single-cell creatures that developed through mutation and natural selection into the vast array of plant and animal life that populate the planet. Human beings came into existence from the same common ancestor as the ape.
Person B: In the Bible, it says that God created life. Darwin doesn't know what he's talking about.
Person A: How can you prove that? Darwin's Theory of Evolution is widely embraced by some of the most intelligent scientists of our world today.
Person B: Well, Darwin isn't God. I think God would have a better understanding of how life came to be, because He created it!
Person A: But why do you believe that?
Person B: Because the Bible says so.
(Note sarcasm)
In this scenario, Person B ignores the inquiry deduced by Person A and simply attempts to produce an answer that seems most appropriate for a Christian. Person B seems to have a presumption the Bible is correct in what it states. The problem with his train of thought is that he has no idea why. I am not trying to attack Person B in a negative way. Honestly, I believe the true reason Person B doesn't appear to know why he believes in what he does is because he has been disciplined to believe in God and only God. From a very young age, he has been taught not to question his beliefs. Or he has accepted Christ into his life without a true understanding of what is really means to follow Jesus. There are many other possibilities, but I think these two are quite common nowadays.
I think many Christians believe if they have any doubts about God or their faith, they are committing this unspeakable sin. I want to let you know that having doubts about God is completely normal, even if you are a Christian. One of my favorite passages in the Bible is about a man who comes to Jesus with his demon-possessed son, hoping that the boy would get healed. Jesus says all things are possible to those who believe. The man's response is so powerful. He says, "I believe, but would you help me with my unbelief?"
I believe that having doubts isn't evidence of the absence of faith; on the contrary, I consider them to be the very essence of faith itself.
We also have to understand that there are certain things we are incapable of doing, because we are restricted by our human nature. Humans don't have the potentiality to fly by flapping our arms while jumping off the Empire State Building. Just as our physical bodies are limited in specific areas, our minds too are incapable of understanding certain concepts that are beyond our scope of perception. Some atheists claim they cannot believe in God, because they cannot fully distinguish Him. However, knowing God entirely is a paradox. God would no longer be infinite if the finite could tangibly describe Him. Love is a concept we do not fully understand, but we still know how to love. In the same sense, we can come to know God in a personal relationship even if we do not know everything about Him. I would like to clarify this more in a future blog, but think about this: We are even incapable of being able to understand each other completely. But that doesn't stop us from building relationships. Why? Because we find meaning within them. I sincerely believe we can find deeper meaning in a loving personal relationship with God. I would also like to point out that religion and relationship are two different concepts.
We might be insufficient to fully understand God, but it is not an excuse for ignorance. God promises that we will find Him when we seek Him with all of our heart, soul and mind. Notice the last word in the previous sentence. Mind. God calls us to seek Him with our knowledge. Not just from the Bible, but from science, history, archaeology, logic, ethics, belief systems and many other things. One of the main purposes of this blog is to meticulously examine the evidence from different disciplines in order to search for truth.
From the very beginning, it has been my intention to write these words to those who want to know more about God, but don't know where to begin. I am writing to those who like the idea of Jesus, but think that Christians act nothing like Jesus. I am writing to those who are unsure of what they believe in. If you are questioning whether faith and reason can coincide, this blog is perfect for you. For those who have absolutely no belief in God, it is my hope that you will reconsider your position as you read through this blog and keep an open mind. Please feel free to share your thoughts. I am open for discussion.
If you are a Christian, my prayer is that this blog will strengthen your faith in Jesus and equip you with a deeper understanding of not only Christianity, but opposing world views as well.
I would like to challenge everyone with the following questions:
1. What do you believe in?
2. Why do you believe in it?
3. Is your belief system based upon evidence or personal feelings?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)