Nature and Reason Point to the Existence of God

Richard Swinburne proposed this argument for the existence of God[1] during a debate at Oxford University. His argument’s uses an approach called “natural theology” because it appeals to nature and human reason when arguing for the existence of God.

 

I often hear people dismiss the idea of God. “We just don’t know”, they say. Swinburne appeals to nature, and to human reason, and takes issue with this claim.

 

Swinburne’s proposition is that God is a personal being. Clearly, we are too. But unlike us, God has no limits or constraints placed upon him.

 

Further, God’s also perfectly good and free from irrational inclinations. Unfortunately, we can’t consistently do the right and good thing. Partly, that’s because we don’t always do the rational thing. There are many complicated reasons for this. But God’s not subject to this limitation – we might not fully understand why he does certain things (he’s God and we’re not) but God acts on reason always. He’s free – and he is good.

 

Swinburne proposes that if this God exists and is responsible for the universe – then that would explain two interesting observations.

1 – that there IS a physical universe in the first place.

2 – the Universe is governed by laws (captured by theories like Einstein’s Theory of Relativity).

These laws mean that every single particle in the universe has the same power and liability to influence any other particle in the universe.

 

 

Why would Swinburne’s description of God explain the existence of our ordered universe?

First – a good God would naturally seek to bring about good things. Fundamentally, human beings are intended as good things. It’s good for me that we all exist…and its good for you too. Of course, we face choices on how to treat each other. And we don’t always choose the good thing. But – its good for us that God has delegated this choice to us. We have free will because God intended it that way.

 

Second – for beings like us to exist, God must provide the necessary conditions. We are limited beings, embodied and our physical bodies require a physical universe.

If we are to be able to act as free beings in this universe, it has to be an ordered and regular universe. Not a chaotic one. What does this mean?

1 – we can predict what will happen. For example, if I feed you then – all things being equal – you will live. If I poison you…you will die.

2 – in a chaotic universe, it wouldn’t matter what I did…I would never actually know how it might affect you…. either positively or negatively. A regular universe is required for us to see how things behave. And this regularity is captured by certain laws, like physical laws, and these lead to general principles. For example, food nourishes and poison kills.

 

Swinburne’s claim is – if this sort of God exists – then you would expect to have a universe which is ordered.

 

 

What if there wasn’t a God like this. Would we expect this sort of ordered universe?

First – think about our physical universe.

Every particle of matter stretching across our mind-bendingly vast universe. Not only do these particles of matter exist in the first place…they are completely regular. Each and every one is composed of the same sub-atomic building blocks and behaves exactly the same way.

Now – how likely would this be if there was no God? Wouldn’t this be a bit like winning the lottery…not once…but a trillion-trillion times in perfect sequence?

Yet some people who do not believe in God might say – that’s just how the universe is.

But to believe that every particle of matter behaves as every other particle of matter – yet then proceed to decide that this state of affairs doesn’t require a meaningful explanation – seems deeply unscientific.

1 – you are faced with an overwhelmingly enormous number of coincidences.

2 – you can explain them all by a very simple explanation – there is a God.

3 – to stop at the coincides and to live with them, flies in the face of the scientific method.

 

So – we have data about how our universe is structured and behaves. Matter exists, and there are conscious beings who are able to recognise and analyse that fact. If there’s a God, you would expect that data. If there’s no God – if the physical laws are somehow ultimate and there’s nothing and no one beyond them – then you would not expect this data. It’s just astronomically unlikely.

 

Second – think about human moral choice.

We are faced with the choices whether to help or hinder other people…to hurt or to benefit. I face this choice, and evil results when I abuse the privilege of this choice. God’s good, and he’s interested in making people who are good and who will live forever.

The way human beings work, the choices we repeatedly make form our characters. Every time we choose to do the good and right thing, its easier to make that choice again. Likewise, every time we compromise, its easier to compromise in the future. God allows us the freedom to make these choices – but his goal is to help us develop good character.

So – what about human suffering, then? The fact that human beings suffer seems to fly in the face of this. Does suffering disprove the existence of God because it takes away human moral choice?

Well – to develop good character, we must have serious problems to face and to overcome. If I become ill, then the question is how will I deal with this? Will I grow in resentment and become a negative influence on the people around me? Or – will I face this challenge good naturedly?

Isn’t it reasonable to assume that God would provide difficult situations as an opportunity – during our limited time on this planet – to give us the chance to develop a good character? While this does not cover all issues related to human suffering, it poses a serious challenge to me. How will I choose to respond when I am suffering?

So – human freedom – and the choice to build a good or reprobate character – points to the existence of God.

 

 

In summary – this is the sort of world you would expect to have if there was a God. If there was no God – it would just be unbelievable that such a world would exist.

Therefore – on that basis – Swinburne proposes that there is a God.

 

 

Image courtesy of pexels.com.

[1] Richard Swinburne, Religion Helps Society | Richard Swinburne | Oxford Union, OxfordUnion, Youtube, accessed 23^rd January 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_QXll-_qhQ.

Distinguishing Education from Propaganda

There’s something about true education that is just GOOD…intrinsically good. We are built with a need to LEARN. To feed ourselves with ideas that are filled with truth and goodness and beauty.

There’s a danger though. We can think we are educating ourselves, when in fact we are taking on board something else that’s called propaganda. What’s the difference between education…and propaganda? How do we tell the difference?

The Oxford dictionary defines propaganda as “Information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.”

There’s a lot of this in the public domain today. Sometimes it feels like everyone is out to persuade us of something! Well…I think there’s a right way and a wrong way to do persuasion.

 

So – what’s the difference between these two? How do we tell healthy education apart from misleading propaganda? Let’s inform ourselves…so we know what we are feeding on.

I heard this discussion with Ken Samples, and found it very helpful.[1]

 

 

Education promotes learning, Propaganda is all about manipulation and distortion

We can learn by ourselves, or a teacher can instruct us. Either way…true learning is something done by an individual. A teacher’s job is to help the student in their self discovery. The teacher’s not there to manipulate or distort the issues. That’s simply passing on propaganda.

 

Education introduces the controversies and disagreements, Propaganda shields people from disagreement

This comes up a lot in religious groups. There are many theories about God, for example. To be an educator, involves exposing people to the truth of that so that we can understand why not everyone agrees.

It’s important that historic Christianity has been challenged on what it believes, because in responding to these controversies, it has clarified what the Christian position is on important issues (like the identity of Jesus).

There’s a danger that Christians can lapse from education into propaganda. Because we want people to believe the truth of the gospel, we can choose to air brush out the disagreements that have occurred in the past. We’re not being malicious – we don’t want to confuse anyone.

BUT – at the same time – we’re still passing on propaganda, not true education.

 

Education teaches the strengths and weaknesses of a position, Propaganda only focuses on the strengths

 

Education teaches you HOW to think, propaganda teaches you WHAT to think

Unfortunately, when we have been fed a continue diet of propaganda, we become people with very narrow views.

The more you educate yourself, the wider the issues open up for you and the more reasonable a position you can adopt and then defend.

 

Education involves talking about consequences, Propaganda just talks about the advantages

We see this all the time in advertising. Because there’s only a short time window in which to sell their product to us, they do the best job of focussing solely on the reasons why we should buy their product.

But there are going to be positive and negative consequences to choosing this product. And education about its value will look honestly at both.

 

Education encourages inquiry and dialogue, Propaganda discourages inquiry and dialogue

When you are listening to someone talk, ask yourself…what is their intention?

Are they saying, “I just want you to accept my view?” Or are they seeking to persuade while at the same time encouraging you to do your own work exploring this area?

A true educator – wants us to do our own enquiry…to engage with these issues and reach our own conclusions. To become people who engage in critical thinking.

 

Education is focused on the individual, Propaganda is focused on the masses

We see this played out in Nazi Germany. There was a concerted program there of making the state big in everyone’s minds, while the individual was actually minimized. What value are my opinions, when everyone else is saying this?

Joseph Goebbels said “Tell a lie long and loud enough, and people will believe it.”

This is the ad populum fallacy…a proposition must be true because most people believe it. Yes – most people believe it. But they just might be very wrong.

 

Conclusion

People are built to take on education. This is good and right. Yet we need to learn to distinguish between true education, and mere propaganda. We need to be able to tell the difference…so we can recognize propaganda when we hear it. And choose to reject the unhealthy ideas and seek what’s true, good and beautiful instead.

As a Christian, I want to help people to grow in discernment, to become fair minded lovers of the truth. This means that I must carefully avoid the trap of propaganda…and instead become a true educator.

 

Image from Pixabay, https://www.pexels.com/photo/good-idea-text-40382/.

[1] Straight Thinking: Education vs Propaganda, Reasons to Believe, January 2, 2018, http://reasons.org/explore/multimedia/rtb-podcast/read/rtb-podcast/2018/01/02/education-vs-propaganda, accessed January 15, 2018.

Replicants and Life Without God

It didn’t make much dollar at the box office. And neither did its predecessor. There are complaints that its too long. But then people complained the original was too slow.

Blade Runner 2049 is not short of critics…and plain old-fashioned apathy amongst the movie going public.

 

Full disclosure – I went to see this movie FOUR times at the cinema. Why? Because box office and buzz are not always good measures of an important movie. Sometimes the important movies come and go unnoticed…because their significance isn’t generally recognised. (e.g. Blade Runner…The Shawshank Redemption…etc)

 

So – why do I think the sequel to the original Blade Runner movie is significant? There are many reasons. I’m going to put my finger on one. And I will give some PLOT SPOILERS in the process.

 

 

 

Still here? Good.

 

The original Blade Runner focussed its narrative on REPLICANTS, artificial humans. Blade Runner 2049 continues this narrative. Only more so. In fact, the film’s protagonist – Agent K – is himself a replicant – there’s no mystery here…its revealed within the opening minutes of the movie. The story does this…partly because the healthy humans in this universe live in the off-world colonies…and this story is set on earth. But the deeper reason is because replicants help us – the viewing audience – understand ourselves.

What are replicants? They are sophisticated androids that are virtually indistinguishable from human beings. You’ve got to know what you’re looking for to spot a replicant. That’s why skilled Blade Runner units are required to track down the replicants of interest in society. It’s also why we in the audience can find ourselves empathising with these characters and their experiences.

I’ll go further than that. We don’t just empathise with the replicants. We recognize ourselves in them – not just in the choices they make, but in their ontology – what makes them “them”.

Replicants are material constructs…sophisticated biological mechanisms that serve a purpose amongst other sophisticated biological mechanisms. Yet they long to be more. Some long to live longer. Others long for their “lives” to be filled with deeper significance in fulfilling relationships.

Is this any different from the way so many people live their lives today?

People’s world view often has no place for God. Their naturalistic assumption is they are only physical, complex biological computers lacking an essence or soul. There were constructed in line with the physical laws laid down in our Universe. But they don’t transcend them in any way. This life is all there is. There’s no purpose or significance beyond it. Craig puts his finger on the inevitable consequences of such a world view:

“There is no God, and there is no immortality. And what is the consequence of this? It means that life itself is absurd. It means that the life we have is without ultimate significance, value, or purpose.”[1]

That’s why I find Blade Runner 2049 such a profoundly moving experience to watch. Because it shows “people” coming to terms with the reality of a meaningless, absurd life. And I think so many of us in the real world today are facing that same dark and hopeless discovery.

 

Longing for Meaningful Relationships:

Agent K’s treasures his girlfriend, Joi. She too is an artificial person. Yet she’s not physical – just a portable hologram that speaks encouraging and loving words to him. Perhaps there’s more to Joi because we see her devotion to K in her desire to experience a physical relationship with him. And also – to name K. There’s nothing so intimate with another person – than to share a special name. She names him Joe.

K tragically loses his precious Joi, that meaningful relationship comes to an abrupt end. In one truly heart-breaking moment, while reflecting on his loss, K watches an advert selling the Joi hologram product to prospective customers. And he suddenly realises that Joi’s special name for him – Joe – is just simply part of the standard package. All the Joi’s do it. There’s nothing special or unique after all about his Joi, and also his time with her because in reality he was simply using a mass produced product.

Here’s the reality for us today – if we view people as biological products – then I don’t think there’s any ultimate meaning to our existence. No ultimate meaning in relationships with other products. We just exist – interact. Anything that does occur – might seem important at the time. But because reality has no meaning – these experiences will therefore also have no ultimate meaning.

Yet there’s a drama in Blade Runner 2049…that mirrors the real world. K intuitively knows there’s more to it than that. K gives voice to the inner sense within us – the audience – that human beings are MORE than just biological products. We are people with potential – our lives have meaning – and that’s why we spend our lives looking for meaning. Outrage builds within us…no, there is more than this. I am more valuable than that!

 

Longing for a Purpose Greater than Ourselves:

The movie presents some grand and overarching concepts. Yet its final act suddenly narrows in and focusses down on a very personal mission.

Agent K tracks down Rick Deckard, who had been in exile since the events of the original movie. K finds an opportunity to achieve a bigger more important purpose with the rest of his “life”. Deckard has a child that he’s never met and known. Agent K decides he’s going to allow Deckard to finally meet and know his child…to build the real and meaningful relationship with them that he’s been longing for himself.

K essentially sacrifices his life – to allow Deckard to know his child. In a scene poignantly reminiscent of Rutger Hauer’s “Tears in Rain,” K saves and lifts Deckard to safety. But not just safety…to meaning and a future with the child he’s never met.

The significance of this task is unquestioned by K. That’s probably one reason why he’s willing to die to achieve it. In his last moments…do we see him praying in the snow? Or are his lips just moving as his system breaks down?

As an audience – we’re left reflecting on K’s selfless, heroic act. And we know that the outcome is worth the sacrifice. We intuitively know that there are some things in the world that are truly noble, some purposes that are greater than us. Reuniting families, restoring broken relationships is one of them.

 

Meaning and Purpose Because there’s a God:

In his press tour, I heard Harrison Ford describe the Blade Runner 2049 story as, “the triumph of the human spirit.” Personally, I’m more struck by its rage against the meaningless…the sense that ultimate value and meaning does exist in the universe, even though life seems to try and convince us otherwise.

And if that’s true – and I think it is – it’s only because there’s a transcendent person who is responsible for everything, who gives it meaning. A loving God who crafted us, who chooses to give the ultimate purpose and meaning that transcends our seemingly absurd lives.

I’d suggest that – if there are resonances within us that question, and rage against the seeming meaningless and absurdities of life…its because actually life isn’t absurd. There is a God with a purpose and plan for our own good. We aren’t biological products. We’re much loved children.

 

[1] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, (), 72.

Christianity Causes CONFLICT?

Often I hear people reject Christianity because of the violence that Christians have wrought throughout human history.

 

But what if conflict is not actually caused by “religion” at all? People start wars (hello President Trump and Kim Jong-un). Violence is a human problem that inflicts both the religious and the irreligious.

 

My focus in this blog…is specifically Christianity. Why? Because I’m a Christian. And because I view it as a unique faith system. Only Christianity reveals the God who is seeking people out personally to save them. I won’t speak for other religious belief systems…I will speak for Christianity.

 

At the outset, I’m convinced that no violence is acceptable for a Christian. I am NOT going to attempt to justify or defend past atrocities committed by Christians. I will say that I think Christian people suffer the same tendency TOWARDS violence as other human beings. We all have hearts that need changing. BUT – there is hope.

 

What’s my argument proposing that conflict is not particularly caused by Christianity?

First – Christianity’s Critics Exaggerate Past Christian Violence

Christianity’s critics exaggerate the past in order to misrepresent the behaviour of violent, misguided Christians from the past.

John Dickson has researched two sad but specific examples of Christian violence over the last 600 years.

1 The Spanish Inquisition (no one expects the Spanish Inquisition)

Setup to coerce people into Catholicism, it began in the 15^th century and lasted for 350 years. It is commonly claimed that hundreds of thousands of heretics were killed during this period. The facts paint a different picture.

“in its 350-year history, the Spanish Inquisition probably killed around 6,000 people. That comes out at eighteen deaths a year.”[1]

That’s 18 deaths a year too many…I agree! But a lot less than the hundreds of thousands that are often claimed.

2 The Crusades

A popular notion blames the crusades during the Middle Ages on the Christian church. Someone who was alive around that time – Martin Luther – had this to say about that notion:

“there are scarcely five Christians in such an army, and perhaps there are worse people in the eyes of God in that army than are the Turks; and yet they all want to bear the name of Christ.”[2]

In other words, the exaggeration here is on the level of genuine, believing Christians who were actually involved in this violence.

3 The Northern Ireland Troubles

This thirty year conflict, beginning in 1968, was sectarian and claimed the lives of less than 4,000 people…though many more were injured physically and psychologically over this time. The BBC history website reports, “During the Troubles, the scale of the killings perpetrated by all sides – republican and loyalist paramilitaries and the security forces – eventually exceeded 3,600.”[3]

Having personally lived through this time, and known people caught up in it, it was terrible in so many senses. And 133 deaths a year were too many.

 

 

Second – Secular Conflict is Worse than Religious Violence Yet this Fact is Downplayed

Let’s bring a bit of perspective here.

1 The French Revolution

The secular French Revolution between September 1793 and July 1794 happened in the name of liberty, equality and fraternity.

“As many people were executed…in a single year of the Revolution…as were killed in the entire three decades of the [Northern Ireland] ‘troubles’”[4].

The French Revolution was a bloodbath.

 

2 Secular 20^th Century Wars

World War 1 (the war to end all wars) caused an estimated 8,000,000 deaths.

World War 2 was much worse; 35,000,000 deaths.

Joseph Stalin’s openly atheistic regime killed at least 20,000,000 people. This means more people died under Stalin each and every week…than died as a result of the entire 350 year history of the Spanish Inquisition.

Atheist Paul Pot and his communist Khmer Rouge, “led Cambodia from 1975 to 1979. During that time, about 1.5 million Cambodians out of a total population of 7 to 8 million died of starvation, execution, disease or overwork. Some estimates place the death toll even higher. One detention centre, S-21, was so notorious that only seven of the roughly 20,000 people imprisoned there are known to have survived.”[5]

 

I would suggest that the results of purely secular conflicts are downplayed because they are so much MORE bloodthirsty than the historical religious ones.

 

Third – Violence is Not Particular to Christianity. It is a common Human Problem

These figures are both tragic and mind boggling. But they paint an obvious picture.

BOTH religion and irreligion can inspire violence. Yet the irreligious violence tends to be MUCH MORE SEVERE than the violence from Christians.

Christian violence is a sad historical fact. So is secular violence – which is much worse than the Christian violence.

This points to my thesis that – I don’t think conflict is particularly caused by Christianity. Violence is a human problem; we all are affected.  The problem is the human heart….not Christianity or Christian belief.

 

 

 

YET – there is STILL HOPE for Humankind

The hope will not appear if mankind succeeds in stamping out Christianity (as some have suggested). The hope comes when we become more true to the life and teachings of Jesus. Why?

Imagine a committed atheist who is convinced that there’s no God and we live in a cold merciless universe… the product of the blind forces of physics..

If I [as a Christian] try to put myself in that position, then I make an interesting observation. As Bertrand Russell once pointed out, the atheist’s decision to love is nothing more than a personal preference. Surely because there is no God, and therefore no ultimate accountability for our actions, then ANY kind of life is logically compatible with the atheist worldview?

While the atheist can live how he pleases, no such free choice lies before the Christian. We are commanded to love like Jesus loves. “when Christians love, they do so in full accordance with their worldview that begins with the love of God and the inherent value of his much loved creatures.”[6] A hate filled Christian is indeed a historical fact…but it is also a clear logical DEFIANCE of the Christian worldview. A hate filled Christian makes no logical sense.

 

So where is the hope I referred to earlier?

Christianity doesn’t provoke war; it brings peace to all people. Eternal peace between us and God.

The solution for violent Christianity is REAL Christianity.

The solution for a violent world is not no religion…where love is logically nothing more than a lifestyle choice. The solution is REAL Christianity; loving and following Jesus Christ in a fuller and more devoted way.

 

“And you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength. The second is equally important: Love your neighbour as yourself. No other commandment is greater than these.” – Jesus Christ (Mark 12:30-31, NLT)

 

“The cure is not less religion, but, in a carefully qualified sense, more religion…The more Christian faith matters to its adherents as faith and the more they practice it as an ongoing tradition with strong ties to its origins and with clear cognitive and moral content, the better off we will be.”            – Miroslav Volf (Christian theologian)

 

“But why so many words when I can say it in one sentence, and in a sentence very appropriate for a Jew. Honour your master, Jesus Christ, not only in words and songs but, rather, foremost in your deeds.” – Albert Einstein (deist)

[1] John Dickson, Life of Jesus, Zondervan, 68.

[2] Martin Luther, On War Against the Turk, available from http://www.lutherdansk.dk/On%20war%20against%20Islamic%20reign%20of%20terror/On%20war%20against%20Islamic%20reign%20of%20terror1.htm, accessed 4th January 2018.

[3] BBC History, “The Troubles 1968 – 1998”, BBC History, http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/troubles, accessed May 5^th 2015.

[4] John Dickson, 69.

[5] History, Pol Pot, History, http://www.history.com/topics/pol-pot, accessed May 5^th 2015.

[6] John Dickson, 70.

Getting to the Good Place

Eleanor wakes up in the afterlife.

After inquiring about how she died, she quickly fires the question, “Who was right about all this?” In other words, which religion correctly described the afterlife? How do we make sure we get to the good place rather than the bad place?

The response:

“Hindus were a little bit right…Muslims a little bit…Jews, Christians, Buddhists…every religion guessed about five percent.” In other words – all the religions got some things right and a lot of things wrong about heaven and hell.

This is all according to Netflix’s “The Good Place” (which is a hilariously funny show – go and watch it).

In the reality of your life – maybe you reject all religions. But then, your religion is humanity; you’re already in the good place, but its not actually very good and you’re not here to stay. The afterlife’s going to be a real, unplanned for bummer when you arrive there.

But maybe there’s part of you that’s open to seeking the truth about life in religions? Whether or not the Netflix show’s assessment of religion turns out to be correct…my personal advice to you is…always start with Christianity first.

Why?

First – Christianity has EVIDENCE that’s open to scrutiny.

Historical evidence can be verified or disproved. The great thing about this is, you can test the evidence and if it doesn’t hold up then you can quickly drop Christianity and move on in your spiritual quest.

“Christ died for our sins … was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day…was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve. After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers”.[1]

The New Testament’s claims can be assessed. So – start there.

That’s not true of Islam, which is a long-term experiment. Surah 21 says “We try you with evil and good as a test; then unto Us you will be returned.”[2] So, I don’t know Islam’s right till after I die. Buddhism? “You’d better get a Zen Master…you’re going to be working at that thing for a long time till you experience enlightenment.”[3]

However, Christianity is an evidential belief system. So, start there first.

Second – Christianity is the only religion with a true notion of GRACE.

This means God shares the riches of his love based on nothing we’ve done (or not done) but instead based on Jesus’ atoning death on the cross. Christianity is the only religion that has “freely shared forgiveness” at its core. This means qualification to enter the good place after death is based on Jesus’ atoning sacrifice, not our final score.

Islam doesn’t work this way. Cannon Andrew White led a church in Iraq for years and is an expert on the Qur’an. “The trouble is a lack of forgiveness in Islam. I’ve looked through the Quran trying to find forgiveness…there isn’t any. If you find it, tell me.”[4] What about Eastern religions? They point you towards demands involving hot coals and meditation.

Why do all that…without checking something that’s free first? Christianity.

Third – Christianity is a complete WORLD VIEW FIT.

Christianity makes sense of all aspects of our lives – everything fits together. That’s not the case elsewhere.

Chan Buddhism urges the cleansing of the mind…leading to natural illumination (tun-wu). This is sometimes provoked by riddles (koans) or questions like, “What’s the sound of one hand clapping?”[5] and “Suffering exists, but there’s no-one who suffers.”[6] Buddhists deny logic in their religious life, yet in their financial dealings and caring for their family, logic is essential. Abandon logic in the real world, you risk going bankrupt or putting your family at risk.

Yet a Christian remains a Christian in every area of life. We look the world in the face – study the exquisite complexity of nature from our limbs to our cells. Life looks designed, and there’s a good reason for that.

Christianity applies to the whole of my life – everything fits.

My final reason for trying Christianity first is…

Fourth – Jesus Christ.

Start with Christianity because of who Jesus is. Everyone wants Jesus on board with their religion. The Qur’an elevates him above Mohammad[7], Hindus have him as an avatar incarnation of Vishnu and Buddhists call him the enlightened one.[8]

If all the religions mention Jesus in some way…then doesn’t it make sense to start with Christianity? Which has Jesus at the very centre of everything it believes? After all, if everyone wants Jesus on board their train…there must be something about him. Right?

In summary, I have a strong suspicion that we only get one go at life (prove me wrong). So…doesn’t it make sense to start with the religion that’s easily disproved first? The one that’s built around the free gift of salvation and makes sense of life and the universe?

Image courtesy of Pexels, https://www.pexels.com/photo/berries-berry-blur-close-up-275706/.

[1] 1 Corinthians 15:4-6, NLT.

[2] John R. Hinnells, The New Penguin Handbook of Living Religions Second Edition, (Penguin Books, 1997), 176.

[3] Craig J. Hazen, PH.D., Christianity and the Challenge of World Religions, CD, (Biola University, 2015), disc 2.

[4] The Vicar of Baghdad: ‘I’ve looked through the Quran trying to find forgiveness…there isn’t any’, The Spectator, accessed November 24^th, 2015, http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/isis-bombs-have-exiled-the-vicar-of-baghdad-to-surrey-but-hes-itching-to-go-back-to-the-middle-east/.

[5] Spurgeon’s 9.4.

[6] Spurgeon’s College, Exploring Other Faiths, (Spurgeon’s College, 2003), 8.5.

[7] Arthur J. Arberry, The Koran Interpreted, (Oxford University Press, 1991), 53

[8] Hazen, disc 2.

EVOLUTION and the Gap

I’ve spent my life unconvinced by Neo-Darwinian claims that life arose on this planet over a long time by purely natural means – random genetic mutations combined with the observed process of natural selection.

I’m clearly swimming against the tide of opinion here.

Sometimes, people will react in horror or amusement when I question Neo-Darwinian orthodoxy. After all – this is the science we learned as kids at school. We remember the pictures from the science textbooks. Routinely – the response I get from people is:

• Evolution is a fact. It describes how life arose.
• Anyone who questions evolution …is living in the dark ages of human knowledge.

This might be a common assumption. What I find fascinating is – there’s a massive gap between society’s widely held beliefs about the capabilities of “evolution” …and scientists’ beliefs on the effectiveness of the modern synthesis (textbook Darwinism) to explain life’s origin. It seems that the general public have greater confidence in Darwin…than an increasingly large number of scientists do.

In November 2016, there was a meeting at the Royal Society called “New Trends in Evolutionary Biology.” During this meeting, evolutionary biologists clearly laid their cards on the table. Their admissions may surprise you.

Gerd Müller (Austrian evolutionary theorist) said that the modern synthesis (Neo-Darwinism) fails to account for:

• The origins of the anatomy of living creatures (eyes, ears and body plans).
• The origins of new forms of life throughout the history of life.
• Abrupt discontinuities in the fossil record, when complex new life forms appear suddenly.[1]

Müller referred to the gap in understanding between scientists and the public. Even tho Neo-Darwinism continues to be “presented to the public via textbooks as the canonical understanding of how new living forms arose,”[2] the theory lacks the creative power to generate novel anatomical traits and forms. He was simply saying that – contrary to popular belief – evolution does not currently account for the origins of life.

Jim Shapiro (professor of microbiology) went on to show evidence that evolution does not progress slowly and randomly. Rather, cells adjust themselves rapidly and in real-time:

• Many mutational processes in life aren’t random at all. They seem to operate under “algorithmic control.”
• Life seems to possess a pre-programmed adaptive capacity.[3]
• These adaptions can occur in very short periods of time.[4]

I found a great example of this behaviour from microbiologists in the University of Reading in the UK: [5]

Today’s experimental biology is showing that, “cells perform adaptions of astonishing sophistication in real time, but these events are emphatically non-random. This means that evolution has goals, and so too do organisms.”[6]

Yet no one asks the question, “where do the non-random, sophisticated pre-programmed real-time capacities originate from?” Life just finds a way. Why?

 

 

There’s a gap between the popular understanding and the honest, scientific assessment.  There’s no working theory that explains how life arose by purely random naturalistic processes. As paleontologist Graham Budd has observed, “When the public thinks about evolution, they think about [things like] the origin of wings…But these are things that evolutionary theory has told us little about.”[7]  Further – life can adapt at a staggering speed and level of sophistication.

 

The history of science is littered with theories that worked for a while, but were abandoned when we learned that, while they were successful in predicting some observations, the theory turned out to be false. It seems like scientific thinking on “evolution” must evolve to let go of the old ideas about gradual, naturalistic random change. We need to move forward now. The increasing evidence pointing towards purpose, intention and design in life needs to be better understood.

 

 

 

 

Image courtesy of Pexels. https://www.pexels.com/photo/adult-biology-chemical-chemist-356040/

 

[1] Why the Royal Society Meeting Mattered, in a Nutshell, Evolution News & Science Today, https://evolutionnews.org/2016/12/why_the_royal_s/, accessed 2^nd January 2018.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Landmark conference puts Neo-Darwinism and its atheist evangelists on thin ice, Premier Christianity, https://www.premierchristianity.com/Blog/Landmark-conference-puts-Neo-Darwinism-and-its-atheist-evangelists-on-thin-ice, accessed 2^nd January 2018.

[5] Bacteria evolve over a weekend, UniofReading, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gE8fKOozG40&feature=youtu.be, accessed 2nd January, 2018.

[6] Landmark conference.

[7] Why the Royal Society Meeting Mattered, in a Nutshell.