Posts

Posted on

Love is the Fulfilment of the Law. Who Said That?

The first part of the headline here is a direct lift from Scripture, from Romans. It’s funny how some Bible verses get repeated over and over, while for others it’s almost as though they don’t exist. Jesus’ command to “love your enemies” is one that receives far too little attention. And this one from Paul seems to be almost unknown. Yet they are both very simple and very clear, and easily make the basis for a complete theology, without the need for anyone to write a book on them.

Love your enemies. Love is the fulfilment of the Law.

Posted on

Darwin Exposes Himself!

Charles Darwin was the effective founder of the modern theory of evolution through the publication of his book “The Origin of Species” in 1859. The theory was very weak at the time, and, contrary to popular belief, has become no stronger since. Science now has uncovered the incredible complexity of the living cell, which Darwin thought was simple; and genetics, of which Darwin knew nothing, show that mutations are no longer tenable as the source of information on DNA.

It is important to refer to Darwinian Evolution rather than the shorthand “Evolution”. This is because use of the shorthand form promotes one of the major deceptions of Evolution. To give a simple example, a fox losing it’s fur colour to become a Snow Fox is called “Evolution”,  and bacteria turning into men is also called “Evolution”. The two are conflated in the popular imagination to become the same process. They are not. The first involves only a minor change to a particular Kind of animal, easily caused by a small loss or mutation of genetic information. The second involves one Kind of organism changing into another, a process which would involve the creation of vast quantities of new genetic information, for which Darwinism offers no plausible source.

The exposure of this exact deception is actually made plain in the full title of Darwin’s book:

The Origin of Species

by means of

Natural Selection

Here the same logical trick is performed by the use of the word “species”. In Darwin’s day there was no clear definition of “species”, as he himself was well aware. Today, there is still no clear definition across all sciences. It is, therefore, a term that should not be used in science, as science relies totally on precision. More precisely, Snow Foxes and Brown Foxes are Variants of Fox, while bacteria and men are different Kinds of organisms. Natural Selection, or equally, human breeding programmes, do indeed produce different Varieties of plants and animals. But Natural Selection can never make one Kind turn into another Kind. Some people claim to be unable to understand the term “Kind”, as in Mankind, Dogkind, Horsekind, Catkind, Rodentkind and so on. It seems that Darwin had the same problem, or deliberately used the loose term “species” in an attempt to blur the distinction between Varieties and Kinds. Today, the term micro-evolution is often used to describe the changes within a Kind which happen, and have happened, on a huge scale, and macro-evolution to refer to one Kind of creature changing into another Kind, which never happens.

The title also reveals a second error in Darwin’s thinking which people manage to miss. Natural Selection is a Selection process. That’s why it’s called Natural Selection! It is not a creative process; it merely selects from features that already exist, whether they be visible in the organism concerned, or already encoded in it’s DNA. It cannot create a new feature or structure. It literally just remixes pre-existing features. That is why a dog can “evolve” or be bred into a different variety of dog, a horse into a different variety of horse, and so on. But a dog cannot “evolve” into a bird, because Natural Selection cannot select feathers, wings, avian lungs, nor any other bird-type features from a dog. They aren’t there, neither visible on the dog, nor hidden in it’s DNA.  Darwin used a lot of imagination to conceive the process that turned a brown fox into a white fox continuing to turn the white fox into a bird. But that was all it was: imagination. And that is all it is today. The difference now is that we understand Genetics, of which Darwin knew nothing, so it needs still greater imagination. We now have to believe that mutations, which are merely the DNA equivalent of a typographical error, produce almost infinite numbers of exquisite designs. When did a good book reproduced with a million errors ever become a great book? Or even one that was still readable?

So, for those with a little scientific knowledge, the mere title of Darwin’s book exposes it’s false premises. There’s no need to read the book! Though if you do, it is interesting to see how he gets round the massive problem of the lack of intermediate forms in the fossil record (Now normally referred to as Missing Links.) Darwin himself recognised that this was a killer for his theory. His way round it? He had “faith” that they would be found. It remains the case today that it takes faith of the worst sort to believe in Evolution, while the concept of an Intelligent Creator, Biblical or otherwise, provides an obvious fit with what we observe around us.

For more on Evolution, see a quick run through Evolution’s other fatal flaws here, or (some of) the evidence for short Geological time scales here.  Or review the Home Page here.

 

Posted on

Scientific Evidence for God – It’s this Simple!

Did you ever see good design in a car, or a phone, or a chair, or a bathroom shower? Did you ever think that such design came about with zero application of intelligence? Do you imagine that even poor design can come about without the slightest need for intelligence? Did you ever consider that rather than splashing out hundreds of pounds on an iphone, you could just take a stone from your garden and hope it would turn into one? Or did you think that would take millions of years? Or were you aware that no stone anywhere ever turned into an iphone, and that all those that do exist came about only through the application of intelligence?

When you look at the living world and see millions of examples of exquisite design, is it not clear that intelligence was needed for this? Whether you believe in evolution or creation, the question of design has only one answer: design does not come about without intelligence. As Paul says in Romans, long before anyone thought of Creation Science, the existence of God is “clearly seen . . .from what has been made.”

Creation Science has only arisen to counter the impact of Darwinism. Darwin thought endless random mutations on DNA would create exquisite design. Not that he had the remotest clue about DNA, nor even about genetics, but that was the drift of his imagination. It’s the same as imagining a book could come about through countless millions of typographical errors, with the paper, ink, and alphabet having all conveniently designed and created themselves first. The rank stupidity of this scenario, whether it relates to a book, a lion, a car, or anything else, is breathtaking.

No design, not even poor design, without intelligence. It’s that simple.

Posted on

In School They Told You the Knee is a Hinge Joint. It’s Not True. And it Matters.

The Human Knee is a sophisticated piece of engineering called a Four Bar Mechanism. It functions as a simple hinge, but has an additional function. In the context of the knee, it enables the leg to bend, but when standing up straight it also enables the leg to act as a single column. This means there is no muscular effort required to keep the knee straight. A human being can stand for hours with little effort. By comparison, a monkey’s knee really is just a hinge, so for a monkey (or other primate) to stand straight for more than five minutes is a huge effort.

Take a look at this article to see how a Four Bar Mechanism is both so simple yet also so complex. There is no half-way house between a hinge and a Four Bar Mechanism. Therefore there is no possible gradual evolutionary pathway from one to the other. The Four Bar Human Knee had to appear in one go, fully formed and fully functional. It needed a Great Engineer to both design and implement it.

There are many other biological structures for which the same reality applies. To give but one example, nobody has come up with a credible evolutionary pathway for the eye. Even the starting point that students tend to imagine, a simple light-sensitive cell on the skin, is unsupportable. This is because, as we know now, that the retina at the back of the human eye uses thirteen instantly reversible chemical reactions, enabling it to change one photon of light hitting the retina into one electron travelling up the optic nerve to the brain. Even given all those reactions ready-made, plusthe physical structures in which they can operate, the probability of getting them in the right order by chance is rather low:

13 x12 x11 x 10 x 9 x 8 x 7 x 6 x 5 x 4 x 3 x 2 = 6,227,020,800

So even with the clever chemistry and structures already in place, the probability of a light-sensitive cell working is only one in six billion. And that’s just a light-sensitive cell, not an eye! See Microbiologist Michael Behe’s book Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (1996.)

Also see the Links on the Science Page for much, much more on this.

Posted on

Clarification Q24

Question 24

RS Asked:

“Where is repentance, turning from sin and being born again?”

I was including repentance in acknowledging ones’ sin. Is it possible to acknowledge ones’ sin as sin, and yet not repent? Is it possible to acknowledge ones’ sin as sin and yet not wish to turn from it? Is not Rebirth something that follows from these things? I suspect we have the same view, but I have summarised a little further than you are comfortable with. The issue we may disagree on (People do) is exactly what it means to “turn from sin”. Some would say that leading a good, clean life is essential to be Saved. But we cannot lead such a life until we are. The Greek translated as “repentance” is “metanoia”, which means a “change of mind.” We are saved by a change of mind, not by changing our ways. However, our actions are always a consequence of our thoughts, so when we have made our change of mind, and when as a result we also have the Lord’s help to behave differently, then we will. These things may happen simultaneously (or sometimes not) and therefore it is difficult to establish cause and effect. However, the prime cause at the individual level is the change of mind. See also page on the Gospel.

Posted on

Clarification Q15

Question 15

RS Stated:

“These items are not subject to the individual conscience of the believer, the Bible is clear on them.”

The Bible is indeed clear on how believers should behave with respect to these things, but how the Civil Power or other individuals behave is another matter. Christians do not make the laws, and people who are not Christian will live their lives according to their own conscience. The role of believers is to draw people wherever possible to the Gospel, not to insist on Christian behaviour on the part of those who do not (yet) believe.

Posted on

Clarification Q23

Question 23

RS Stated:

“The word “rapture” is not in the Bible, but the concept is.”

There are many different theologies about exactly what it is and when it happens. What I am saying is that I do not think a focus on “Rapture” is fruitful for people trying to lead Christian lives. Also there are often links with Dominionist theology, which can lead to violence. God knows what He will do at the End. I don’t need to. I need to know how to be a good witness for Him today.

Posted on

Clarification Q12

Question 12

RS Stated:

“Although the word “trinity” does not appear in the Bible, the word “godhead” does, and all through scripture we see that it consists of three”

The Original Q and A said:

12 Must We Believe in the Trinity?

No. “Trinity” is not a Scriptural term. We must believe what the Bible says about God, about Jesus Christ, and about the Holy Spirit. See Question 6.

The first part of 6 says:

6 Do Men Understand Exactly how God Works?

No. The belief that they do is based on pride. Men have neither the perspective, the knowledge, nor the intelligence to know exactly how God works. Any attempt to tie God down to a few simple mechanisms is a futile endeavour, based on pride.

I don’t pretend to understand precisely what the relationship is between God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. People argue about it, and come to firmly held, but different conclusions. As the original answer says, we must believe what the Bible says about God, about Jesus Christ, and about the Holy Spirit, but that clearly leaves room for some varying interpretations. The Greek “Theotes”, often translated as “Godhead”, does not contain an implicit notion of tripleness. That is arrived at by interpretation. What really vexes me here is when it gets to the point of Calvin burning Servetus at the stake, partly for his rejection of Infant Baptism, but also for his different belief about the nature of “Trinity”. I will not be held to anybody else‘s prescription of what the Trinity is, nor do I expect others to subscribe to my view. I think there are more fruitful things to do than discussing the precise explanation here, and many things more fruitful than condemning others for their particular understanding, as some people do.

For what it’s worth, my own view goes something like this: I have seen President Obama on TV many times. Each time, it was genuinely President Obama. However, at no time was it really him, but only an image transmitted to my location electronically, bearing his words and thoughts. I see the Holy Spirit in a similar way, on one hand being truly God, but on the other, only a manifestation of God transposed to a particular location while the Creator Himself remains in place. I see Jesus as fully human, but uniquely having received half of his DNA not from a human father, but directly from God. He also had a uniquely powerful covering of the Holy Spirit; therefore, with the two together, was effectively God on Earth. But God Himself was still in Heaven. I could give this understanding the name “Trinity”, but the name would add nothing to it. As I said at the beginning, I offer this “for what it’s worth.” There are probably millions of words written by theologians on this that I have not had the time to read. If anybody has, and can offer me a different perspective which could improve my understanding of God and my witness as a Christian, I would be pleased to hear it.

Posted on

Clarification Q11

Question 11

RS stated:

“The Bible is clear on violence, that there is no acceptable reason for Christians to use violence. Not even self defence.”

My belief is that one could never be certain that Jesus would approve of an act of violence. But let us suppose that a man armed with two Glock 9mm pistols is shooting into a school playground. Each pistol holds seventeen rounds. You are a slight woman who turns up behind him with a handy piece of wood. Do you knock him out? This is where many people would say that not doing so would be a sin. My main answer is that the likelihood of any of us being in such a hypothetical situation is so remote as to make it pointless to consider it. In any situation that we are even remotely likely to be faced with, violence is not an option for a Christian. See also the post “Violence in Self-Defence?”

SS asked:

“I am a competition sword fencer it keeps me fit and I enjoy the mental and physical challenge. How would that fit with your beliefs?”

I guess the essence of violence being wrong is that it is a forceful act that does damage to someone against their wishes. On this definition, many acts that do not actually involve physical violence would need to be defined as violence. However, when it comes to sport, the key words of the definition would be “against their wishes.” An act which is not against a persons’ wishes would not fit the definition.

I think that any debate here is therefore about the motivation(s) of those taking part and those watching. I’m no expert on fencing, but suspect it is fairly balletic and nobody gets hurt, so I would have difficulty seeing any problem with it. People might say that it acts out a means of warfare, but then what about Javelin, Discus, Shooting, Archery, Polo (a great way for cavalrymen to practice)? I think people mainly engage in these sports for the skill and challenge and any linkage to warfare is not what is in either their heads or the heads of spectators. The exception would be Shooting, particularly in the American context, where people often practise with a view to carrying a weapon and possibly using it. I would be more concerned about say, boxing, where physical injury is fairly common and there is often the expression of anger and the desire to see injury, either on the part of those involved or those watching. I can’t really see that a Christian would want to be involved there. I could also mention Football, which is non-violent, but can provoke a degree of excitement and obsession in some that transcends their enthusiasm for God. I have watched Amish folk playing ball games; the quietness of both players and spectators was remarkable.

So, in short, Sport is not violence, but it would seem reasonable to consider the players’ motivations and the possible influence on others. I should also admit to a bias here: I am utterly useless at all sports.