Cup of Joe on the Go

The (Creation) Show Must Go On

Thu, 18 Oct 2012 20:55:31 GMT

Spectacular lightning and deafening thunder rolled through Southern California last week and dazzled, drenched, and even delighted heat-weary locals. Rancho Cucamonga (where I live) enjoyed a couple of downpours reminiscent of a large crowd’s long-lasting applause. I like to take the dogs for a walk at a nearby natural park during a rainstorm, but in this case it was pouring too hard—and one dog is afraid of thunder.

The dogs’ noses hit the trail the next day––lots of new scents, I’m sure––while I scoped out the “storm damage.” Intrigued by the pattern of temporarily coursing water, I wondered what the Creator had in mind when he set the thunderstorm in motion. That brought to mind the skeptical complaint that “God is a show-stopper.” In other words, religious believers tend to invoke God when they encounter nature––to the detriment of the advancement of science. If God did it, why bother exploring how things came about? The complaint delivers a further sting when skeptics suggest that such an antiscience attitude smacks of indifference toward both human suffering and resolution of global problems.

I don’t get that impression at all from working alongside scientists here at Reasons To Believe. Although they operate with the assumption that a Creator is responsible for the universe and life, nothing stops them from asking the who, what, when, where, why, and how questions. They possess an insatiable curiosity to gain understanding of anything––from the tiniest components of the cell to the greatest expanses of the universe––that can be known about the created order. You might call it a “weak methodological naturalism.” That is, if something can be explained naturally then so be it. God gets the glory because he is responsible for the laws of physics but there’s no settling for can’t-explain-it legerdemain.

Ingrained curiosity and a quest for knowledge seem to be hallmarks of humanity. From a Christian perspective that’s what one would expect, given that all human beings are image bearers of their Creator.

Thus, while I might have explained thunder to my kids when they were younger as “God is bowling again,” I wouldn’t leave it there. I still don’t understand lightning and thunder, but I wonder about the countless facets of a storm: how debris is carried along, how water moves, how water is absorbed by plants, why thunder is so loud when it’s right on top of you, how clouds hold water, and so on.

Maybe Christians haven’t done the best job of communicating that they are just as concerned as nontheists about helping to solve the world’s problems through scientific advances. That perception can be remedied.

Aren’t Christians at least as curious about the natural realm as nontheists? If so, how can we make a more positive impact? How can we show skeptics that the grand theatre we both observe as we stand side-by-side was designed with intelligent precision for the benefit and reward of all people willing to ask outside-the-box questions?

We’ve got work to do.

Resource:
Hugh Ross demonstrates some of his scientist’s curiosity as he explores nature’s features in Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job.

Another Survey Question: Homosexuality

Fri, 05 Oct 2012 22:41:12 GMT

A recent LA Times article titled 3 Former Leaders of Ex-Gay Ministry Apologize described the "wrenching human toll of...gay conversion efforts" rued by several former leaders of Exodus International. Here's part of what they said:

Some who heard our message were compelled to try to change an integral part of themselves, bringing harm to themselves and their families. . . Although we acted in good faith, we have since witnessed the isolation, shame, fear and loss of faith that this message creates.

Presumably the "message" includes this statement from Exodus' website:

For thirty years, Exodus International has offered hope and help to people seeking freedom from homosexuality. We believe and we have seen in thousands of lives that this freedom is possible through the power of God working in our hearts and minds.

Does that "power of God" work for some but not all? If not, why not? Are humans hard-wired for sexual orientation? My guess is that the three former Exodus leaders would affirm such a genetic basis. It may be hypothetical, but what if science eventually discovers an unmistakable biological connection?

What do you think? Here's the question:

How would the discovery of a "gay gene" impact the Christian faith?

Thanks for your participation and please pass the word.

Does It Matter How One Lives?

Fri, 05 Oct 2012 22:39:49 GMT

I noticed the following quote on a plaque in the lobby of the hospital where my son underwent surgery last week.

People can achieve meaning in their lives only if they have made commitments beyond the self—religious commitments, commitments to loved ones,to one’s fellow humans, to excellence, to some conception of an ethical order. You give life meaning through your commitments. –John Gardner

I got to thinking—you have a lot of time to think when you’re awaiting the outcome of a surgery—about the statement in light of worldviews, specifically Christianity and naturalism. It seems that a brand of atheistic naturalism has been selling books lately, and I’d like to understand the worldview better. One question that comes to mind is, which is more livable, naturalism or Christianity? (For help on this question I’m planning to read Kenneth Samples’ new book, A World of Difference.)

Gardner’s inspirational statement obviously resonates with Christianity but my guess is that the naturalist would also affirm the dictum as consistent with the evolutionary development of morality. If I understand correctly, even religious commitments—as long as they produce better people—arise in a naturalistic worldview. Yet their basis is not found in a transcendent creator, but in the human need to imagine a creator.

So, why be moral? Why help our fellow human beings? I think the naturalist would say that evolution has taught that such comportment leads to human flourishing and, after all, that’s the goal—to not only keep the species alive but also to flourish.

But if it all ends some day (as scientists tell us the universe will) and we have nothing and nobody left to remember, why would commitments to others and self-sacrifice make any difference? Why not live for the self only?

To digress for a moment, here I think some naturalists posit a multiverse scenario, wherein the answers lie in another universe. Now, I can’t begin to explain the multiverse hypothesis, but fortunately I work with astrophysicists who can. RTB’s Jeff Zweerink has been exploring the multiverse in a series of articles (see here for an introduction). Jeff says that a multiverse scenario isn’t necessarily inconsistent with the notion of a transcendent creator, but the naturalist might not want to go to Vegas—or the grave, for that matter—on the idea.

So, let’s imagine naturalist A and naturalist B. Naturalist A lives his or her life in a manner consistent with the Gardner statement above. Naturalist B lives his life committed to self only. That is, naturalist B figures that if all is forgotten forever, then who cares? Life is short, so it will be lived for the self only. Others may be harmed, perhaps even badly, but again, nothing matters in the end. There will be no record and nobody to remember.

On what basis, then, does naturalist A criticize naturalist B’s philosophy of life?

Chimps, Dogs, Humans: All People?

Fri, 05 Oct 2012 22:37:02 GMT

An update on a chimp whose caretakers sought "personhood" status for the animal brought to mind some thoughts and questions about how humans view other creatures, specifically our pets. While Christians in particular make a clear distinction between humans and animals, at times that line appears blurred by our behavior. In the case of the chimp named Matthew Hiasl Pan, an animal rights group had hoped an Austrian court would grant the chimp "personhood" status in order to save the animal from possible experimentation and exploitation, which he had been rescued from years earlier. The court denied personhood status. At this point I could envision a wary Christian response along the lines of "OK, they ruled properly. Animals are not humans and at least some aspect of our worldview has been validated." Maybe that's easier said than done.

I saw a Nature program on medical dogs not long ago that reminded me of how special dogs can be. The program featured an exasperated and frightened family trying to cope with a dangerously diabetic boy. The boy had suffered horrific seizures and the parents worried constantly. The mom learned on the Internet about dogs' special abilities and they got a puppy and trained it to sense blood sugar level changes in the boy. Bottom line: the dog is a lifesaver. Mom, Dad, and the boy can sleep at night because the dog never leaves the boy. If there's a problem the dog goes to the parents' bedroom and alerts them (well before it's critical). They can leisurely attend to the boy (shot of insulin) and everyone can go back to sleep with no fear of seizures. Service dogs, therapy dogs, cats that dial the operator when an owner goes down--we've all known special pets. I'm sure readers of this column can regale us with stories of their own uncanny, devoted, and affectionate companions. The point here is that on the one hand we might read a story about some animal rights people trying to help a chimp and wonder why they keep pushing the line. On the other hand, haven't we already crossed it in some ways? And is it good that we have done so? Do we treat our pets as people already? You can go out to eat, get a massage, or check into a hotel with your dog. We give our pets human names and some people put them in their wills. Is that a bad thing? In the case of the diabetic boy above, let's say the dog lives another 12 years and the (now) young man wants to have a full-on funeral with a minister, video memorials, eulogies, flowers, everything. Anyone gonna complain? You might say, "Yeah, but it's still a dog. We can love them like family but we still recognize they're animals."

Let's press it one step further. A few years ago a popular radio host in Southern California asked listeners to respond to a dilemma. He asked that if "your pet" and [name of a high-profile murder suspect on trial in Los Angeles] were both drowning and you could save one, who would it be? During the time I listened in the car, every caller said they would save their pet and let the man drown. What are your thoughts?

No room for God in science? How about other disciplines?

Fri, 05 Oct 2012 22:30:52 GMT

In an age when tolerance is expected of rational people, those who find some ideas objectionable nevertheless attempt to put those notions in a positive light. Others refuse to denigrate any ideas although they personally do not believe them.

Naturalists often suggest that although belief in God is not a scientific concern (obviously RTB challenges that statement, but that's not the subject of this thread), it's legitimate to entertain the existence of God in other disciplines. Such a view is intended to communicate respect for religion—again, no one wants to be thought intolerant.

Arthur Caplan, PhD, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, in a lengthy commentary about Expelled a couple of months ago said:

Science, by the very definition of the term, wants to invoke god or divine intervention as little as possible in seeking explanations for natural phenomena. Is that because … scientists hate religion? No. Rather it is because the whole point of science is to press to see how far natural causes and mechanisms can go in explaining what is going on around us. There is not much room in science, although there is in history, religion, philosophy or sociology class, for jumping up and down and invoking god as the explanation of anything and everything. Could such an explanation be true? Sure. Is it science? Hardly.

His words recall the view espoused by Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, who proposed the

Don't the historian, the sociologist, the philosopher, the theologian, and the scientist learn the same way? How does a lawyer argue a case? Isn't everybody (for the most part) studying a history of this, or a history of that? And don't they employ principles universal to all learners to achieve true knowledge?

Too many questions, yes. But in order to avert the charge that naturalists merely give the nod to religious adherents, it seems that answers might help.

And Now ... A Politics Gene

Fri, 05 Oct 2012 22:28:02 GMT

Genetics seems to explain everything these days.

Previous posts explored recent efforts to account for human sexual behavior, but now it really gets dirty. Few discussions can muster emotion faster than political exchanges, so please be advised that RTB does not endorse any particular candidate, party, or platform.

A popular article, "Political Views Driven by Biology," suggests that political beliefs stem (at least in part) from genetics. You might say that a person is hardwired to hold liberal or conservative views.

Researchers tested 46 Nebraskans who held strong political beliefs for responses to fear stimuli. They concluded that participants who scored high on stress tests also tended to support positions usually associated with conservatism; including military spending, the death penalty, school prayer, and the concept of biblical truth. The same group tended to oppose pacifism, gun control, gay marriage, and abortion rights.

It appears that people who are most alarmed by bloody or really gross images (large spider on someone’s face, a bloody face, and an open wound with maggots on it) tend toward conservatism and are therefore "built differently" than others. The thought is that this type of research might help those on opposing sides of the political spectrum to exercise tolerance toward others, given that biology has produced their beliefs.

See anything wrong with this picture? Uh, how about upbringing and influences throughout one’s life? One would think that parents, teachers, clergy, peers, books, TV, the Internet, and many other factors carry far more weight in the development of political beliefs than an evolutionary response to frightful images.

Also, regardless of one’s political stance, this kind of conclusion seems to disrespect human capacity to reason, and therefore to learn, grow, and change. And why test only a tiny group from a red state? This smacks of "this helps explain why those bigots believe that stuff. They can’t reason because they’re hardwired, so we might as well accept that fact."

Ouch. What do you think?

Mental Illness not Acknowledged by Church?

Fri, 05 Oct 2012 22:26:36 GMT

There's no way to dress this one up. Here's the first paragraph of a recent report titled, "Church Pastors Dismiss Mental Illness."

In a study of Christian church members who approached their church for help with a personal or family member's diagnosed mental illness, researchers found that more than 32 percent were told by their pastor that they or their loved one did not really have a mental illness.

The problem was solely spiritual in nature, they were told.

Does such an apparently callous attitude provide evidence for atheists' claim that belief in the Christian God leads to all sorts of backward—even dangerous—thinking? Note that these are diagnosed mental illnesses, not merely supposed afflictions.

Also, the dismissive clergy have told people to stop taking their medication. The article cites other studies showing that people first seek clergy, rather than mental health experts, to help them in times of psychological stress. Gee, nice help.

From an atheistic perspective, you can imagine a pastor saying, "You can't trust secular science. You need to stand firm on God's Word. You're battling demons or perhaps you've got some unconfessed sin in your life."

Is that the best the church can offer?

Maybe this cynical view of mental illness stems from a reaction to various studies that espouse a genetic basis for "sinful" behaviors (alcoholism, homosexuality, adultery). We've explored the scientific and moral implications in this column before and many of your comments can be summarized thus:

Despite a biological explanation for objectionable behaviors, we are still morally responsible. We might be compelled by biology, but we're impelled by a God-given moral compass. We have a choice.

The Andrea Yates case comes to mind. You might recall the shocking news in 2001 of the Texas woman drowning her five children. (First a caveat: this Average Joe can't begin to understand what really happened there. It's a very complicated case.) Some of the volatile ingredients for disaster in that tragedy included: bad doctrine from an itinerant preacher, mental illness, failure to heed medical advice, and refusal to take medication.

Is it any wonder an atheist might see this current study and hearken back to the Yates case? This survey seems to feed the religion-is-dangerous mantra popularized by the new atheists.

Your thoughts?

Dawkins' Book Alongside Bible in Hotels?

Fri, 05 Oct 2012 22:25:32 GMT

You've retreated into the solitude of your hotel room after a tiring day of travel and business. More pensive than usual on this occasion, the weightier matters of life come to mind. Instead of reaching for the remote, using your cell phone, or going online, you open the top drawer of the bedside nightstand.

Imagine your surprise to find Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion next to the Gideon Bible? Well, at least one person has suggested the dual offering.

If atheism is the antidote for all the world's religiously borne ills, why not place a book of cures in the hands of as many people as possible? And the privacy of a hotel room away from home might be just-right for reflection on the heavy stuff.

The Gideons International has distributed free Bibles for over 100 years. According to their website, they have placed or distributed more than 1.3 billion copies of the Scriptures in over 180 countries, and "Nowhere is the impact of sharing God’s Word more clearly illustrated than in the testimonies of changed lives that we receive almost daily." Videos on the site speak of newfound hope, freedom from drug addiction, and even averted suicides.

What would result from an—admittedly monumental—effort to emulate the Gideons' output? Maybe The God Delusion is not the best text for promoting the preeminence of atheism, but assuming there is such a tome, how would it impact readers? Can it be measured over time? Can it be tested by placing only Bibles in some hotels and a Dawkins/Dennett/Harris/Hitchens/Stenger book in others, and then switching off?

The larger question of Is-atheism-or-Christianity-better-for-the-world? looms, but for purposes of this post, let's assume we can pull off the Gideons/Dawkins test. What do you think the results would show?

Ability to Comment Coming Soon

Fri, 05 Oct 2012 22:20:04 GMT

Assuming any readers of this average blog are still around, you will soon be able to comment—meaning that this blogger will get back to work and give you something to ponder. Hang in there.

In the meantime, here's something to contemplate:

The Christian accepts the truth of the existence of God by faith. But this faith is not a blind faith, but a faith that is based on evidence, and the evidence is found primarily in Scripture as the inspired Word of God, and secondarily in God's revelation in nature. Scripture proof on this point does not come to us in the form of an explicit declaration, and much less in the form of a logical argument. In that sense the Bible does not prove the existence of God. (L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 21)

Seems that the second revelation has its place.

Singer's Zinger

Fri, 05 Oct 2012 22:18:50 GMT

While editing Kenneth Samples’ forthcoming book on Historic Christianity’s Dangerous Ideas (working title, Baker, 2012) I discovered this “gem” from Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer:

“The notion that human life is sacred just because it is human life is medieval.”

For Christians accustomed to the distinguishing doctrine of the image of God (imago Dei), a negative, and justifiably angry reaction toward Singer—a fellow human being created in God’s image—is awfully tempting. Let’s try not venting the spleen for a bit.

Singer is the “Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and Laureate Professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne. He specialises in applied ethics and approaches ethical issues from a secular, utilitarian preference perspective.”

To provide some scope of his influence, Singer’s ideas have been marinating in academia internationally for decades. His book Animal Liberation (1975) galvanized the modern animal liberation movement and, according to Wikipedia, he has been voted one of Australia’s ten most influential public intellectuals and is one of the most prolific writers in philosophy today. His YouTube videos explaining his views populate the ‘net, while prolife groups have responded in books and other forms to warn of the consequences of his ideas—even referring to him as the architect of the culture of death.

On his home page (an FAQ page) at Princeton University one can find this exchange:

Q. I’ve read that you think humans and animals are equal. Do you really believe that a human being is no more valuable than an animal?

A. I argued in the opening chapter of Animal Liberation that humans and animals are equal in the sense that the fact that a being is human does not mean that we should give the interests of that being preference over the similar interests of other beings. That would be speciesism, and wrong for the same reasons that racism and sexism are wrong. Pain is equally bad, if it is felt by a human being or a mouse. We should treat beings as individuals, rather than as members of a species. But that doesn’t mean that all individuals are equally valuable—see my answer to the next question for more details.

In the next question he is asked whether faced with a choice of saving either a human or a mouse from a fire (no time for both), which would he choose. He says (paraphrasing now) almost always the human, but not because it is a member of the Homo sapiens species (i.e., something special), but rather that it can recall a past, live a present, and expect a future and therefore has more to lose than the mouse.

I don’t know how Singer would answer the question if it was posed “human infant or mouse” but I doubt that infants know much about the past, present, or future.

OK. Your spleen’s about had it. (Careful, though, Singer’s an advocate of ending world poverty, and thus appears to value human life.) As a secularist Singer’s obviously no fan of Christian doctrines, so how would you present yourself to him if you met him on a subway, in an airport, in a doctor’s waiting room, or wherever?

“Oh, hi, you’re the ‘culture of death’ guy.”

Uh, that might not work so well. Your thoughts?

Resources:

Here’s an article by Kenneth Samples on differences between humans and animals

http://www.reasons.org/how-humans-differ-animals

See Ken’s book, A World of Difference, chapter 10

Does Rise of Spirituality Affirm Scripture?

Fri, 05 Oct 2012 22:15:22 GMT

Sedona, Arizona, should be on your short list of places to visit if you haven’t been there already. Stunning sandstone formations—especially at sunrise or sunset—and easy access to them will keep your camera busy.

My family and I visited Red Rock Country recently and, according to a brochure I picked up at the visitors’ center, 61 percent of visitors (out of 2–4 million annually) cite “spiritual healing” as a reason for coming to Sedona. Given the power of suggestion and by defining healing loosely, it’s easy to see how that percentage could be so high. (For that matter, even my wife and I could say we went to Sedona looking for healing. Of course, we wouldn’t have taken the kids along if this were true.) But I think what most people have in mind is more than the rejuvenation that comes from a leave-the-stress-at-home vacation.

With maps leading to “vortex sites,” shops selling healing stones (among other baubles), and spiritual advisors and practitioners of every stripe, there’s no shortage of spirituality in this town of 10,000. The New Age movement hit back in the 1980s and never looked back. Proprietors of a UFO store, perhaps more profit-driven than most, captured my attention with their many amusing signs.

Keep that 61 percent in mind for a moment as we consider an atheistic contention that religious expression (in particular, Christianity) is an evolutionary coping mechanism that, in an enlightened age, is now fit only for the weak-minded. In fact, a recent study suggested that religion may become extinct in nine nations. That’s a subject for a different post, but some of the countries in the report are also among those listed on adherents.com’s “Top 50 Countries with Highest Proportion of Atheists/Agnostics.” So, there’s not much of a surprise there, but I’d be interested in statistics for countries like China, Russia, and India, or continents like Asia and Africa.

Here’s where I’m going with this: Doesn’t the Sedona experience—and many others like it (Mt. Fuji, Mt. Shasta, other great nature sites)—validate a scriptural passage like Romans 1:25 that says: “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.”?

Granted, this is a small slice of the landscape, but if the Bible is a human-crafted work, it would seem that consistencies of this kind would be fewer as time progressed and humans became more sophisticated. Instead, one can point to a proliferation of religions or generalized spirituality that fit the biblical description. Think of the burgeoning groups under the common rubric of “going green,” that smack of “creation worship” (creation care or stewardship is a different post; we won’t go there this time) and why there seem to be more and more of them.

Maybe it’s just a revival of paganism and I don’t see it. I’m an Average Joe, after all. Does all this generic spirituality bolster the Scriptures while giving a shin splint to an atheistic argument that the Bible is a mythical book? What do you think?

Resource: Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men

Seeing What You Want to See

Fri, 05 Oct 2012 22:13:29 GMT

You know the scenario. At first you enthusiastically engaged someone online in a creation/evolution debate. Surely the evidence would convince your antagonist, right?

It didn’t take long to realize that a Simpsons rerun or a Facebook update seemed like far better prospects for a fruitful evening. You reached an impasse due to stubbornness to adhere to preconceived ideas.

People (that’s everybody, from any side of a debate) hear about the brutal objectivity of science—though not of scientists—and when years of testing turn into decades, and decades into centuries, some wonder why others cling to their beliefs. Suspicion, aspersion, and derision prove too tempting and it’s easy to pull a Zeppelin (Communication Breakdown). After the purgative name-calling ceases—if ever—people are left with evidence, but what does it mean? And does anybody really care?

A quick search on the Internet yielded this response to the question of why people see what they want to see.

People filter their thoughts and perceptions to match their current belief system. They do this to maintain psychological homeostasis and prevent cognitive dissonance. It also helps if you really want to fit into a chosen social group.

Seems as good as any explanation—accounts for the Matthews and Sarahs growing up in Christian homes, where everything gets filtered through the Christian worldview lens. Or for the Maxes and Sonias who grow up in nonreligious homes, where everything gets filtered through a nontheistic evolutionary lens.

Is that all there is to it? No honest investigation of the evidence? No dramatic conversions? Does “fitting in” matter more than satisfying the mind? Do you believe that?

Alaska's August Panoramas

Fri, 05 Oct 2012 22:12:09 GMT

They say everything’s bigger in Texas. Rather than accuse the fine people of the Lone Star state of lying, perhaps they suffer from never-made-the-trip-to-Alaska-syndrome. It’s a common malady that gets straightened out in a hurry. Where do you want to start? Mountains? Glaciers? Forests? Whales? Grizzlies? Everything’s bigger in Alaska, including the cruise ships that glide elegantly through Alaska’s acclaimed Inside Passage. As a caution, the cruise guest might even emerge bigger if not careful, due to the constant, delectable, sometimes ambrosial food offerings available on the ship.

Alaska's Glacier Bay is at once a place of wonder, serenity, and striking color.

RTB embarked from Vancouver aboard the ms Zuiderdam with some 130 guests for a recent conference that, along with the excellent apologetics talks and camaraderie of seven days with an enthusiastic group, featured one spectacular scene after another. My wife, Käthe, and I both snapped pictures of the same things, over and over. One can’t help it in Alaska. Ask Hugh Ross—he took 2,000 pictures on this trip.

Alaska captivates the mind like few places on Earth. The shapes and sizes of mountains, clouds, and glaciers never cease to fascinate, and the many shore excursions are first-rate. Maybe that’s why so many people go there, and cruising the Inside Passage remains a favorite vacation destination. It’s magical, surreal, otherworldly. And large.

Placid waters peppered with chunks of ice from calving glaciers make for stunning vistas.

Professional photographers can capture the beauty much better than these photos here, but my eyes feasted while they had the chance. Käthe and I felt like we were in a grand cathedral. Nature seemed to call for a mandatory quiet each day as we cruised through the bays, with the only noise coming from voices on the ship. When a glacier calved (making a thundering noise that echoed through the bay) it was akin to a call to worship. Occasionally a seagull would offer its praise and the high pitch would reverberate off the steep, surround-sound mountains. In the stillness of the morning (or any part of the day) I naturally felt a pull “God-ward.” Why? Am I (and others) wired that way? I was raised Roman Catholic (though rebellious) until the teen years. Is the atheist not wired that way? In recent years it seems that one could find studies to support both hypotheses (that humans are both hard-wired and not hard-wired for religion). Does the atheist see that Alaskan beauty and appreciate it as such but not feel any “silly” religious tugs?

What do you think?

Just a Slow August Day

Fri, 05 Oct 2012 22:11:13 GMT

It’s finally hot in Southern California this summer—but temperatures aren’t the only numbers jumping around here. Ever since we stepped off the boat from the Alaskan Cruise a few weeks ago––and it took a few days to stop rockin’ for good—the RTB scholar team has been churning out faith-building material.

First, on the cruise itself, we recorded two I Didn’t Know That! podcasts, which will be available on iTunes September 6 and 13. If you are new to RTB, this is a Q&A podcast in which our scholars answer emailed questions on the spot—usually in the RTB studio—but this time aboard the ms Zuiderdam, where our guests asked questions on a live mic.

Emails from Baker Publishing Group heralded the arrival of Hugh Ross’ much-anticipated Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job. A truck arrived soon thereafter and had our shipping clerk scurrying about—wondering where he was going to store 10,000 books. He got it done. Later in the week, Kenneth Samples heard from another Baker editor that the galleys for his latest book, Seven Truths that Changed the World, would be arriving soon.

A week or so before the arrival of Hugh’s book, RTB had announced the completion of a DVD, In the Days of Noah: A Deeper Look at the Genesis Flood, based on a course Hugh taught at A. W. Tozer Seminary in 2010. Another of Hugh’s books, Why the Universe Is the Way It Is, has been developed as a small-group study DVD with a slightly different name: If God Made the Universe…Why Is It the Way It Is? The project coordinator emailed us this week to advise us on exciting progress for this study (eight disks, stunning satellite photos, Q&A—look for ordering info in October).

“Wait a minute,” you say. “This sounds more like a ministry letter than an Average Joe blog.” Agreed. And that’s intentional.

Science news of all kinds—aliens, hominids, extrasolar planets, medical breakthroughs—made headlines, so back into the studio we hopped, and the scholars and Sandra Dimas and I recorded eleven Science News Flash podcasts the past two weeks. In addition, we will be interviewing Old Testament scholar Dr. C. John “Jack” Collins on his new book, Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? for a series of four programs on Kenneth Samples’ Straight Thinking podcast next Tuesday, and I need to find time to read the book by then!

The latest issue of New Reasons to Believe, our e-Zine featuring cutting-edge science buttressed by theological and educational insights, has literally come to my inbox today and will be coming to yours (if you’re a subscriber—you should be, it’s free) in a day or so. And our bloggers have been busy as usual—in fact, Maureen’s latest went up in the midst of this writing.

That’s not to mention talks, articles, and books the scholars have already been working on or the courses offered and number of students enrolled (several dozen) at Reasons Institute. Whew.
And these are the dog days of summer. (Yes, that’s a cliché. Something editors catch, but I deliberately used out of mild protest because we have six cats at home—I had no choice—and I wanted to give my dogs [we have two] a shout-out.)

A long, summerlike day’s way to say that the RTB scholars are content (as in “info”) generators. They can’t help but think about, talk about, write about, and incorporate what they encounter in their areas of expertise into God’s special revelation. Integration of God’s world and his Word seems as natural as a bee landing on a flower and “integrating” to (eventually) produce fruit.

So, it’s a slow, late August day at the office. Fuz and Hugh are preparing to board a plane to North Carolina, where Irene may have a say in the matter. Nothing to see here. Just integrating science and faith. Always have. Always will.

Does Autism Preclude Belief in God?

Fri, 05 Oct 2012 22:09:13 GMT

Hugh Ross addressed that question on a recent Science News Flash podcast. Researchers surveyed the discussions of 192 people who posted on an autism website and determined that people with “mild” forms of autism are more likely to be atheists. A “preference for logical beliefs”—a common autistic spectrum behavior—seems to be one reason why some autistic individuals prefer atheism, according to the University of Boston study .

As a high-functioning autistic himself, Hugh couldn’t wait to do this podcast. In fact, so high-functioning is he, that he passed along about six papers to me simultaneously (hey, I’m just an Average Joe!) before we hopped down to the studio to record the podcast. (I skimmed everything and highlighted quickly.)

I’ll let you listen to the podcast, but obviously Hugh doesn’t fit the mold. He had a lot to say about this study and another one as well on intuition vs. reflection, in which researchers concluded that intuitive thinkers were one-and-a-half times more likely to report they were convinced of God’s existence than were the reflective thinkers.

Hugh takes a positive approach to science and sees this “challenging data” as an opportunity for the church to step up and change its reputation—whether it’s deserved or not. The church should be a place for all people—including those who use their rational, logical minds—to feel perfectly at home. Could it be that in a quest for relevance, the church has blunted the force of a powerful, forever relevant message of the gospel? And that this message ought to be communicated in passionate eloquence that speaks to all hearers, whether intuitive, reflective, autistic, or otherwise?

Your thoughts?

Is TV Bad, Good, or Neither?

Fri, 05 Oct 2012 22:08:36 GMT

A ninety-plus degree day, an inadequate ladder, shorts instead of jeans, and a non-English or even Spanish-speaking person to spot me on the ladder marked at least several ways in which I was ill-equipped for a recent, routine task. The satellite TV service provider agreement ended for the home in which my parents had been living (they moved to another board and care facility) and I needed to return certain items, including an LNBF (whatever that is) attached to the satellite receiver, or we would be charged.

I found a corner of the house and somehow made it onto the roof from the short ladder and struggled to get the piece off, albeit working at a bad angle on a hot tile roof while wearing shorts. When it came time to come down, imagine trying to listen to the coaching of a man who didn’t speak English or Spanish (he spoke Tagalog). I had to act quickly though, because the hot, slippery tiles could have given way at any moment. An overgrown, thorny bougainvillea hurried the process along and I reached for the top of the ladder with my foot and was incredibly grateful that my toe found it. I couldn’t see but I’m not heavy, so I was able to hang on while my divining foot prodded like an elephant’s trunk. Whew! The caregiver was all smiles, I was drenched, but the job was done. I don’t even want to know what this piece is worth: I’ll bet not much.

All of that backstory to say that with my parents’ move we found a different satellite TV service provider for their new place. It took more than a week and my dad (he’s 83) really let me hear about it, but once the company placed the new dish on the roof of the new home, he calmed down and enjoyed it. I’ll get back to my father and his television viewing in a moment, but first a detour.

Here’s the question: Is TV generally bad or good for most people?

A reflexive answer—one that is almost automatic for parents—is to say that TV is generally bad for most people and that there is very little content of redeeming value on television these days. Conservative talk show host Dennis Prager has commented (paraphrasing) that “allowing a television in a child’s bedroom is equivalent to allowing a loaded gun in the room.” Many parents wouldn’t put it quite that provocatively, but they don’t allow TVs or unmonitored Internet access in kids’ rooms.

To buttress that viewpoint, a study from the University of Queensland about six weeks ago, Every Hour of TV Watching Shortens Life by 22 Minutes, surveyed 11,247 Australians between 1999–2000 and tracked time spent watching TV and mortality rates for the country. They built a model in which they compared life expectancy for adults who watch TV to those who did not. Researchers found that every hour spent watching TV shortened life by 21.8 minutes.

And for those in the top 1 percent of the population who watch six hours of TV per day (in America that might be mild), they “can expect to live 4.8 years less than a person who does not watch TV.”

Sobering, but probably not terribly surprising for those who have observed sedentary lifestyles and obesity rates in America over several decades. Now, for a contrarian view.

Is it possible that television is one of the best luxuries available for some people and it truly enhances their lives?

Back to my father. He lives with my mother in a board and care facility. My mom suffers from dementia and communicates with him only in simple ways. The caregivers do not speak to him in Spanish—his native tongue. His mind is fine and he is extremely bored. We as a family visit as often as we can (he knows how to use his cell phone!) and take him out but it is not frequent enough. The TV affords him a measure of satisfaction that can’t be obtained otherwise. He reads a bit, and listens to the radio some, but for the most part the TV is on most of the day. When he didn’t have TV service for a week, he became agitated and did not understand why we had “taken it away from him.”

About eight years ago I had an emergency appendectomy. After the surgery, I recall being grateful number one, for good pharmaceuticals, and two, for the TV monitor in my hospital room. When it’s just you and pain and nowhere to go, TV is a welcome (necessary?) distraction.

Multiply these two examples by many millions to capture a snapshot of users and suddenly one can see a justification for the medium.

Is television just another tool that, given humanity’s sinful nature, we have commandeered for mostly vacuous, narcissistic, or offensive pursuits, but not always? What of the potential for service to humanity and promotion of the gospel? (I’m not speaking about much of what passes for “Christian TV”—that’s a different blog post.)

Here at RTB we are always appreciative of opportunities for our scholars to appear on television and still hopeful for that “big break” some day when the major news networks take us seriously and put Hugh Ross, Fuz Rana, or Jeff Zweerink on the evening news to explain their take on a discovery and then begin to do so regularly. That would put RTB into orbit; but more importantly, provide a much-needed service to those networks’ viewers: a perspective that is biblically faithful and scientifically credible.

So, do you pull the plug? Or, turn it on, baby. Your thoughts?

You Might Soon Say “I Heart Snakes”

Fri, 05 Oct 2012 22:07:32 GMT

“Snakes. Why’d it have to be snakes?” Indiana Jones’ lament in Raiders of the Lost Ark resonates with all fearers of the slithery, scaly, downright scary creatures. Many people view these reptiles as stealthy, cold-blooded killers but perhaps the dirt scrapers suffer from bad press.

RTB biochemist Fuz Rana says that those who have a jones for studying snakes have accrued knowledge that “helps to advance biomedicine in a significant way.” On a recent episode of Science News Flash Fuz discussed research that described how python hearts enlarge (by up to 40 percent) when the snakes consume supersized prey. Rather than the enlargement being cause for alarm, however, the hearts bounce right back to normal size once the pythons digest their colossal feast. The snake’s metabolic response, via the activity of three fatty acids, works in concert with the organ enlargement to ensure the meal passes through the system without incident.

: Caramel Burmese Python. A nearly 16-foot Burmese Python was recently captured and killed in Everglades National Park (FL) after the snake had consumed a 76-pound adult female deer. Credit: And0283/Wikimedia/Creative Commons

Due to biological similarity—there’s the rub—if researchers can develop a similar “fatty acid cocktail that could be administered to people who are suffering from heart disease,” says Fuz, it may “stimulate biochemical changes that will increase cardiac output [and] improve heart function.”

From an evolutionary perspective, biological similarity provides evidence for the common ancestry of snakes and humans. Fuz says that an evolutionist could argue, “See, this [research] demonstrates the success of the evolutionary paradigm. By looking at life in evolutionary terms we actually have a powerful tool that directs our work and is successful.” In contrast, a creationist mindset will “stultify science and prevent these types of events from happening.” Insistence on a “God did it” posture may thwart the alleviation of human suffering.

However, Fuz notes that this discovery can readily be seen within a creation model framework:

The Creator utilized common design elements when he created life on Earth, therefore there’s a universal nature to the fundamental biology of life. And because of that, what we learn when studying one organism is applicable to another. So that perspective doesn’t necessarily have to stultify scientific advance. In fact, one could argue that for a Creator to create using common designs is a very efficient way to create; it’s an elegant way to create. You would expect the Creator to do this.

Fuz describes how this feature falls under the Christian doctrine of providence: what the Creator creates he also sustains. A common biology marks a very efficient way to learn about the creation and see God’s glory revealed. It also furnishes the knowledge necessary to carry out the command he’s given us as caretakers of the planet. In comprehending the creation, humans are better equipped for this stewardship role. Thus, Christians possess every motivation to pursue scientific advance to the glory of the Creator and the betterment of humanity.

Scripture seems to anticipate such breakthroughs as Job implores his hearers to “ask the animals, and they will teach you” (Job 12:7). It doesn’t necessarily make it easier for some of us to like snakes, but these well-designed creatures may yet teach humans a lesson or two about cardiac health.

Next time you encounter a snake, ask yourself, “Does my heart pump in fear like that of Indiana Jones or does it hum like that of a herpetologist?”

Your thoughts?

For further “instruction” from the natural realm, read Hugh Ross’ latest book Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job.

Is God Unnecessary to Explain the Universe?

Fri, 05 Oct 2012 22:06:14 GMT

Questions like this one may not keep you awake at night, but they probably cross—and even occupy—your mind for a while.

Such was the focus of an episode of a History Channel program called God and the Universe: A Scientific Search for God, in which several prominent physicists and other experts explored big-picture ideas including the multiverse, string theory, and spontaneous creation. It’s a fascinating program, with plenty of visual help, and it left open the matter of whether the universe’s origin came about by divine creation or some other means.

Naturally, RTB scholars have something to say on this topic. Philosopher-theologian Ken Samples interacts with physicists Hugh Ross, Jeff Zweerink, and Dave Rogstad as they respond on a series of three Straight Thinking podcasts (1, 2, and 3).

As you listen, here’s something to keep in mind: Would you rather gamble that the Christian God does not exist than accept the “cultural baggage that goes with it” (as one HC program participant—referring to the Christian faith—put it)? People who cannot or will not accept the existence of the Christian God often resort to futuristic discovery. That is, science will eventually demonstrate, as it always has, a perfectly reasonable explanation for knowledge gaps that had long been considered the domain of deities.

Are you a gambler?

Are Gorillas Closer Human Relatives than Chimps?

Fri, 05 Oct 2012 22:05:31 GMT

“It was beauty killed the beast.”

One might invoke the last line from King Kong after hearing about a recent discovery asserting a closer connection between gorillas and humans. Does evidence from the study imply shared evolutionary ancestry? In this podcast, biochemist Fuz Rana explains what the “closer connection” means from a genetic perspective. Here are some summary points:

Gorillas (from an evolutionary perspective) diverged from the human-chimp lineage about ten million years ago and humans and chimps diverged about five million years ago.
The “99 percent” genetic similarity between chimps and humans or “98 percent” similarity between gorillas and humans—though eye-catching for laypeople—is virtually meaningless. Selective comparisons can yield such favorable results, but they do not constitute meaningful comparisons.
Molecular clock analysis (which says gorillas diverged from the human-chimp lineage about 5.95 million years ago [mya]; humans and chimps diverged about 3.7 mya) is in direct conflict with the fossil record (10 mya and 6–7 mya, respectively).
Depending on the region of the genome compared, humans can appear closer to either chimps or gorillas, thus confounding the standard evolutionary paradigm.
Two evolutionary mechanisms to account for the apparent conflict, gene flow and incomplete lineage sorting, fall short of providing explanatory power.
Genetic similarity between humans, gorillas, chimps, orangutans, macaques, Neanderthals, and Denisovans can be seen as the work of a Creator employing common blueprints, building blocks, designs, patterns, and archetypes to fashion “similar,” though very different creatures (all made from the “dust of the Earth”).
Biology separates humans from all other creatures, but the image of God uniquely distinguishes humans from all others.

From the standpoint of human origins models (evolution or creation) and their predictions, Fuz cites the esteemed evolutionary biologist Morris Goodman, who wrote:

If the biblical account of creation were true, then independent features of morphology, proteins, and DNA sequences would not be expected to be congruent with each other. Chaotic patterns, with different proteins and different DNA sequences failing to indicate any consistent set of species relationships, would contradict the theory of evolution.

DNA evidence seems to confirm the failure “to indicate any consistent set of species relationships,” thereby bolstering the case for biblical creation.

Why would God create gorillas? Experts probably have some idea. But laypeople like me (and perhaps you) can be content to enjoy their presence on this biologically rich, diverse planet. Whether in their natural habitat (preferred), behind glass at a zoo, or on the wide screen, gorillas are powerful, sometimes frightening, yet awe-inspiring animals that command attention and rouse wonder about the Creator’s design and purpose for these majestic creatures.

Make Room for the Red Deer Cave People

Fri, 05 Oct 2012 22:03:57 GMT

Skull, rib, and leg fragments from two caves in southern China that date from 11,500–14,500 years add confusion and controversy to the hominid-to-human evolutionary connection. Popular news outlets claimed that this new species had developed a taste for venison—hence the name “Red Deer Cave people”—but according to RTB biochemist Fuz Rana, the scientific journal made no mention of dietary preferences (one reason to avail yourself of RTB’s podcasts, where you’ll get the straight scoop). Fuz reports on the fossil finds and what they mean on this podcast.

Things to know:
• The hominid fossil record has been underrepresented in Asia; thus, the discovery helps provide missing details of global hominid history.
• Nobody knows yet how to classify these creatures. They’re both like and unlike Homo sapiens.
• Fuz states that they are not modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens).
• It's been suggested they could be Denisovans—the group hailing from central Asia that is thought to have interbred with modern humans.
• According to RTB’s human origins creation model, humans originated approximately 100,000 years ago.
• Whether this group had contact (since the dates apparently overlap) with modern humans is unclear.
• Anytime a discovery such as the “Red Deer Cave people” is described as “another line in human evolution” that phrase indicates further complication for the human evolutionary picture.

From a supernatural creation perspective, it seems that God has been pleased (Genesis 1:25) to fill His creation with diverse species of hominids, all designed to exploit their ecological niches for a time before fulfilling their purposes. Human studies of these animals—far from breeding arrogance—cause us to look upward in humble admiration of yet another example of extraordinary creation.

Resources:
• More on possible human-hominid interbreeding
• On whether interbreeding with Neanderthals helped humans “go global”
• Who were the Denisovans?
• For an explanation of RTB’s human origins model, read Who Was Adam?