One of the great myths of our day is the idea of a creative natural selection. In this post I'll make a couple comments on a review of the book 'Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome' by John C. Sanford
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Any trait such as intelligence, speed or strength depends on gene characteristics and environmental factors (nutrition, training, etc.) For example, height is about 30% (h2 = 0.3) heritable. For complex traits such as ‘fitness’ heritability values are low (i.e. 0.004). ‘This is because total fitness combines all the different types of noise from all the different aspects of the individual.’ Low heritability means bad genotypes are very difficult to eliminate. Survival becomes primarily a matter of luck, and not better genes: [1.]
- When darwin famously said that 'nature' could do more than animal breeders he wasn't being honest, but what he failed to mention was crucial; if you take animals that have been bred for a purpose and then turn them loose, those specially bred charactersistics will soon disappear and the animal will revert to norm.
The godlike creative powers of natural selection is an utter myth.
2. 'Furthermore, almost all mutations are recessive, camouflaging their presence and hindering selection against them (pp. 56, 76). Another consideration, not explicitly brought out in this book, is that key environmental factors (disease, temperature, mutation, predators, etc.) affecting survival vary over time. Strong selection must be present for a huge number of generations if fixation of a (temporarily) favourable trait throughout a population is to occur. Relaxation for just a few generations could undo this process, since selection for a different trait would then be at the expense of the preceding one.
- The textbook model of how n.s. works is a rationalistic construct bearing little resemblance (in most cases) to reality.
3. 'We must recognize clearly this lack of strong correlation between a mutation (whether having a positive or negative effect) and reproductive success. It is a fact of nature, yet most people attribute incorrectly near miraculous creative powers to natural selection.
- The collapse of the natural selection myth leaves Darwinism in tatters... a flag reduced to a few threads.
4. '...the degradation of the human genome (in the presence of such high mutations rates, preponderance of deleterious mutations and lack of huge expendable proportions of offspring) cannot be avoided...'
- I see no way progressive evolution is possible under these circumstance.
5. 'In the 1950s, one of the most famous population geneticists, John Burdon Sanderson Haldane, presented an observation known as ‘Haldane’s dilemma’ (p. 128): it would take (on average) 300 generations to select a single new mutation to fixation. However, his calculations were only for independent, unlinked mutations. He assumed constant and very strong selection for a single trait, which is not realistic. The interference by hundreds of random mutations was not taken into account. Even so, selection for only 1,000 specific and adjacent mutations could not happen in all putative evolutionary time. There is no way an ape-like creature could have been transformed into a human (p. 129). Man and chimp differ at roughly 150 million nucleotide positions (p. 130) and humans show remarkably little variation worldwide.
- The actual case is far more extreme than Haldane could possibly have known. The famous Darwinian icon of a line of apes being slowly transformed into a human being is a completely fallacious invention. It's a travesty of education that this bit of propaganda is featured in textbooks for children.
- M. Johnson
Notes;
1. A review of Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by John C. Sanford, Ivan Press, Lima, New York, 2005 - by Royal Truman
Friday, November 25, 2011
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Darwinism and the theology of perfection
Some popular apologists for cosmic evolution like to make the argument that because certain organs or processes in the biological world aren't perfect, this means they weren't created. We'd like to disagree.
Quotes and comment;
1. 'First, Dawkins levels the charge that much of what exists in nature is far from perfectly designed and is only good enough. [1.]
- The idea of perfection requires a standard, and since the evolutionist has no standard (for perfection) he's got no right to employ the term in his arguments. Perfection is an evaluation, and such valuation can only be made by a personal agent. In the case of the animal world, only the one who created the kinds knows what the standard of perfection is. When Genesis tells us god declared the creation to be very good, we assume this means perfect, but the text doesn't say this. When God says it was very good this means that the creation was what he intended it to be.
Dawkins plays the game of pretending he's never heard about the Fall, and that nowhere in the bible does it say (after the Fall) that anything is perfect; in fact it says the opposite, and points out the the whole earth is under a curse, and moans and travails...
It's unrealistic (unscientific?) to imagine a perfect creation would remain that way under conditions of entropy. One wonders what possible warrant e.s can have for demanding perfect 6,000 years after creation.
A common reason e.s give for rejecting creation is the idea x or y (e.g. the eye) isn't perfect. This is a strange and illegitimate argument, as they have taken a concept from geometry and applied it to living organisms. This is what we call a category mistake. There is no warrant for applying a geometric standard to something biological. (That said we know that there's not even any such thing as a perfect triangle; for geometry deals with 'imaginary' objects; and so it's perfection is ideal not physically real.)
The evolutionist claims that if god created everything it would be perfect. I'm not sure who first came up with this argument (and it has the whiff of ancient Greece about it) but it's simply fallacious. The argument depends upon men being able to know exactly who god is and how he would do things. If evolutionists read a little theology they'd know that this is not the Biblical view at all. Cornelius Van Til was from a line of thinkers who thought God was far beyond man's full comprehension.
This bit of Darwinian theology is a straw man argument, as there is nothing in the bible that would lead anyone to think this is a perfect world. (I can see how someone might get that idea if the first two chapters were as far in Genesis as they got, since there's a sense in which the world was perfect before the Fall; but after the Fall we are told the earth was cursed.)
As an aside; when God declares the creation to be good; to be very good, he isn't saying this in the sense he's surprised or pleased with how things came out, as if he were saying ''boy it came out as good as I'd hoped'' or somesuch. No; he's saying this for the benefit of mankind, as He is well aware of what is going to happen, and He wants to see that the blame for the coming 'imperfection' goes where it should.
We have no right to employ the standard of perfection to living organisms; and even more especially to man. Unfortunately this is what we so often do; and you can ride the train and hear people complain about the fact their jobs aren't perfect, their marriages aren't perfect, their lives aren't perfect, and so on. You'd think they were triangles and squares at heart, or had been so in a previous life. They then go about solving the problem of imperfection; getting rid of an imperfect mate and beginning a search for a perfect one, and so on.
It's interesting to me that the best the evolutionist can do to critique the Genesis account is to hold it up to a fallacious, unrealistic and bogus standard.
In an entropic universe there is no way that there could still be perfection 6,000 (or more) years after creation. No biblical creationist denies mutations and damage to the genome; the universe being what it is, this is inevitable. The bible does not say the world is perfect, and even the atheist is well aware that it doesn't. ("The creation moaneth and travaileth,'' we read in Romans.) The 'imperfections' that we see in the world (and in ourselves) are just what we would expect given the Genesis account of creation. (I seem to remember reading that each individual inherits as many as 60 mutations. At this rate there would have been a lot of damage in 6,000 years.)
One response you get from atheists is ''well since you people think all things are possible with god, then god could have maintained a perfect creation, and if he's all good, as you say, then he would have. Since the world isn't perfect god doesn't exist.''
This isn't science, it's speculation. It might be even be true that God could have done this, but we're told that this is not what he did. The whole creation fell under a curse because of man's sin. (This may have been more a matter of withholding of grace as it were, instead of an active curse. i.e. perfection might have required a continuing work on God's part to maintain it, and when the fall occurred God ended or curtailed this upholding of things.)
- M.D. Johnson
Notes;
1. River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life by Richard Dawkins - Reviewed by Raymond G. Bohlin
2. Perfect; adj
- early 13c., from O.Fr. parfit (11c.), from L. perfectus "completed," pp. of perficere "accomplish, finish, complete," from per- "completely" + facere "to perform" (see factitious). Often used in English as an intensive (perfect stranger, etc.). The verb meaning "to bring to full development" is recorded from late 14c.
A. Completely corresponding to a description, standard, or type: a perfect circle; a perfect gentleman.
- the general image is of a craftsman making some object (e.g. a chair) gradually putting it together, finishing it, perfecting it, making it as close to the model as possible. (We all know it won't stay 'perfect' for long :=} The Darwinist is in the hopeless position of trying to explain perfection as the result of a long line of accidents and chance events.
b. Being without defect or blemish: a perfect specimen.
Quotes and comment;
1. 'First, Dawkins levels the charge that much of what exists in nature is far from perfectly designed and is only good enough. [1.]
- The idea of perfection requires a standard, and since the evolutionist has no standard (for perfection) he's got no right to employ the term in his arguments. Perfection is an evaluation, and such valuation can only be made by a personal agent. In the case of the animal world, only the one who created the kinds knows what the standard of perfection is. When Genesis tells us god declared the creation to be very good, we assume this means perfect, but the text doesn't say this. When God says it was very good this means that the creation was what he intended it to be.
Dawkins plays the game of pretending he's never heard about the Fall, and that nowhere in the bible does it say (after the Fall) that anything is perfect; in fact it says the opposite, and points out the the whole earth is under a curse, and moans and travails...
It's unrealistic (unscientific?) to imagine a perfect creation would remain that way under conditions of entropy. One wonders what possible warrant e.s can have for demanding perfect 6,000 years after creation.
A common reason e.s give for rejecting creation is the idea x or y (e.g. the eye) isn't perfect. This is a strange and illegitimate argument, as they have taken a concept from geometry and applied it to living organisms. This is what we call a category mistake. There is no warrant for applying a geometric standard to something biological. (That said we know that there's not even any such thing as a perfect triangle; for geometry deals with 'imaginary' objects; and so it's perfection is ideal not physically real.)
The evolutionist claims that if god created everything it would be perfect. I'm not sure who first came up with this argument (and it has the whiff of ancient Greece about it) but it's simply fallacious. The argument depends upon men being able to know exactly who god is and how he would do things. If evolutionists read a little theology they'd know that this is not the Biblical view at all. Cornelius Van Til was from a line of thinkers who thought God was far beyond man's full comprehension.
This bit of Darwinian theology is a straw man argument, as there is nothing in the bible that would lead anyone to think this is a perfect world. (I can see how someone might get that idea if the first two chapters were as far in Genesis as they got, since there's a sense in which the world was perfect before the Fall; but after the Fall we are told the earth was cursed.)
As an aside; when God declares the creation to be good; to be very good, he isn't saying this in the sense he's surprised or pleased with how things came out, as if he were saying ''boy it came out as good as I'd hoped'' or somesuch. No; he's saying this for the benefit of mankind, as He is well aware of what is going to happen, and He wants to see that the blame for the coming 'imperfection' goes where it should.
We have no right to employ the standard of perfection to living organisms; and even more especially to man. Unfortunately this is what we so often do; and you can ride the train and hear people complain about the fact their jobs aren't perfect, their marriages aren't perfect, their lives aren't perfect, and so on. You'd think they were triangles and squares at heart, or had been so in a previous life. They then go about solving the problem of imperfection; getting rid of an imperfect mate and beginning a search for a perfect one, and so on.
It's interesting to me that the best the evolutionist can do to critique the Genesis account is to hold it up to a fallacious, unrealistic and bogus standard.
In an entropic universe there is no way that there could still be perfection 6,000 (or more) years after creation. No biblical creationist denies mutations and damage to the genome; the universe being what it is, this is inevitable. The bible does not say the world is perfect, and even the atheist is well aware that it doesn't. ("The creation moaneth and travaileth,'' we read in Romans.) The 'imperfections' that we see in the world (and in ourselves) are just what we would expect given the Genesis account of creation. (I seem to remember reading that each individual inherits as many as 60 mutations. At this rate there would have been a lot of damage in 6,000 years.)
One response you get from atheists is ''well since you people think all things are possible with god, then god could have maintained a perfect creation, and if he's all good, as you say, then he would have. Since the world isn't perfect god doesn't exist.''
This isn't science, it's speculation. It might be even be true that God could have done this, but we're told that this is not what he did. The whole creation fell under a curse because of man's sin. (This may have been more a matter of withholding of grace as it were, instead of an active curse. i.e. perfection might have required a continuing work on God's part to maintain it, and when the fall occurred God ended or curtailed this upholding of things.)
- M.D. Johnson
Notes;
1. River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life by Richard Dawkins - Reviewed by Raymond G. Bohlin
2. Perfect; adj
- early 13c., from O.Fr. parfit (11c.), from L. perfectus "completed," pp. of perficere "accomplish, finish, complete," from per- "completely" + facere "to perform" (see factitious). Often used in English as an intensive (perfect stranger, etc.). The verb meaning "to bring to full development" is recorded from late 14c.
A. Completely corresponding to a description, standard, or type: a perfect circle; a perfect gentleman.
- the general image is of a craftsman making some object (e.g. a chair) gradually putting it together, finishing it, perfecting it, making it as close to the model as possible. (We all know it won't stay 'perfect' for long :=} The Darwinist is in the hopeless position of trying to explain perfection as the result of a long line of accidents and chance events.
b. Being without defect or blemish: a perfect specimen.
Monday, November 21, 2011
The miracle of abiogenesis
I don't think many people realize that cosmic evolution requires a series of miracles.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'German pathologist Rudolf Virchow succeeded in formulating the ‘law of biogenesis’ (‘all cells from cells’) in 1855, and Frenchman Louis Pasteur used it to refute the idea of spontaneous generation in 1864. [1.]
- A materialist origin for the biosphere would have to violate the law of biogenesis; but wait, aren't we told we can't believe in miracles because they violate natural law, and that nothing can violate natural law? The theory of evolution necessitates a miracle then, as it requires a violation of natural law. The idea life can 'emerge' from non-life cannot be called science as it goes against all that we know.
2. 'Twenty years later in 1855 Rudolf Virchow proposed an important extension of cell theory that "All living cells arise from pre-existing cells". ("Omnis cellula e celula") This statement has become what is known as the "Biogenic law". This idea flew in the face of current doctrine. It implied that there was no spontaneous creation of cells from non-living matter. [3.]
- I find it comical that the champions of naturalistic science have adopted a theory (cosmic evolution) that requires a violation of natural law. Life from non-life is an a-theistic miracle. Why is so few of our academics and scientists seem to care?
- M. Johnson
Notes;
1. A review of Science as a Way of Knowing: The Foundations of Modern Biology by John A. Moore; Book Review by Alex Williams
2. 'In natural science, abiogenesis or biopoesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose. - wiki
3. http://kentsimmons.uwinnipeg.ca/cm1504/celltheory.htm
Quotes and comments;
1. 'German pathologist Rudolf Virchow succeeded in formulating the ‘law of biogenesis’ (‘all cells from cells’) in 1855, and Frenchman Louis Pasteur used it to refute the idea of spontaneous generation in 1864. [1.]
- A materialist origin for the biosphere would have to violate the law of biogenesis; but wait, aren't we told we can't believe in miracles because they violate natural law, and that nothing can violate natural law? The theory of evolution necessitates a miracle then, as it requires a violation of natural law. The idea life can 'emerge' from non-life cannot be called science as it goes against all that we know.
2. 'Twenty years later in 1855 Rudolf Virchow proposed an important extension of cell theory that "All living cells arise from pre-existing cells". ("Omnis cellula e celula") This statement has become what is known as the "Biogenic law". This idea flew in the face of current doctrine. It implied that there was no spontaneous creation of cells from non-living matter. [3.]
- I find it comical that the champions of naturalistic science have adopted a theory (cosmic evolution) that requires a violation of natural law. Life from non-life is an a-theistic miracle. Why is so few of our academics and scientists seem to care?
- M. Johnson
Notes;
1. A review of Science as a Way of Knowing: The Foundations of Modern Biology by John A. Moore; Book Review by Alex Williams
2. 'In natural science, abiogenesis or biopoesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose. - wiki
3. http://kentsimmons.uwinnipeg.ca/cm1504/celltheory.htm
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Evidence for a young earth
Most people you talk to (outside of some small church circles) think the idea we live on a young earth is an absurd notion; they think this because they've never been acquainted with any good arguments for the young earth position. Contrary to what people think, there are many good reasons to question an old age for the earth, and to affirm a young earth.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'No scientific method can prove the age of the earth and the universe, and that includes the ones we have listed here. Although age indicators are called “clocks” they aren’t, because all ages result from calculations that necessarily involve making assumptions about the past. Always the starting time of the “clock” has to be assumed as well as the way in which the speed of the clock has varied over time. Further, it has to be assumed that the clock was never disturbed. [1.]
- The article I just quoted from contains a long list of evidences for a young earth. It includes a link to an article or essay for each one mentioned. It's a great resource for anyone interested in this subject.
Notes;
1. Age of the earth; 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe - by Don Batten
Quotes and comments;
1. 'No scientific method can prove the age of the earth and the universe, and that includes the ones we have listed here. Although age indicators are called “clocks” they aren’t, because all ages result from calculations that necessarily involve making assumptions about the past. Always the starting time of the “clock” has to be assumed as well as the way in which the speed of the clock has varied over time. Further, it has to be assumed that the clock was never disturbed. [1.]
- The article I just quoted from contains a long list of evidences for a young earth. It includes a link to an article or essay for each one mentioned. It's a great resource for anyone interested in this subject.
Notes;
1. Age of the earth; 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe - by Don Batten
Saturday, November 19, 2011
There are no scientific laws
I want to make a few comments on a review I read of the book 'Music to move the stars' written by Jane Hawking. It's about her marriage to the physicist Stephen Hawking.
Quotes and comments;
1. "...a Creator God was an awkward obstacle for an atheistic scientist whose aim was to reduce the origins of the universe to an unified package of scientific laws, expressed in equations and symbols." [1.]
- There's no such thing as scientific laws. The term 'scientific law' is a pretense meant to steal glory from God and to bring glory to man. The 'laws' we see (if you want to call our formulation of observed regularities laws) aren't scientific but universal; they have nothing to do with man as they aren't inventions but discoveries. (To the extent they're accurate formulations.)
So called 'scientific laws' are only human inventions to the extent they're false; then they become inventions along the lines of fantasy.
I don't see why the existence of God should be an obstacle to studying the universe. This makes no sense to me. Without God there would be no universe and no one to study it.
The major problem with Materialism is the drive to reduce things; to reduce the higher to the lower, to reduce the immaterial to the material. The great danger in this project is that the personal universe ends up becoming (in the eyes of adherents) an impersonal one; and that intelligence gets replaced by the material, and the intentional by chance. Far too many scientists in our day confuse reductionism as a tool to be used in research with a reductionism as a philosophy of life, as a worldview.
2. 'She [Jane] adds that, as a direct result of the focus of modern cosmologists on mathematics, the concept of a personal God became irrelevant for these scientists because, in their mind, their calculations diminished ‘any possible scope for a Creator’
- I wonder where people like Hawking think mathematics comes from? I wonder how they imagine mathematics is possible, or how it's possible for them to do math. I wonder if they even ask these questions. People are far too apt to take their capacities and abilities for granted. Evolutionary theory can't begin to explain how it is men have the intellectual potential they do. This ought to give them pause to question their materialist worldview. You're in a poor (not to mention hopeless) situation if your basic worldview can't even begin to account for your own existence!
The materialist is too interested in the creation, and not interested enough in the creator. It surely makes sense to think that the creator is much more 'interesting' (awesome) than His creation. Surely the One who created mathematics and creatures capable of comprehending mathematics is someone worth getting to know. The christian believes the creator has far more interesting 'tricks' up His sleeve than the material universe (astounding as it is) Hawking has become obsessed with. ("We as of yet see through a glass darkly...") [2.] The apostle Paul (in Romans) speaks of those who worship the creation rather than the creator, and this is what Hawking appears to have done.
If you walk into a room and see equations covering a blackboard do you imagine no one wrote them?
Does the fact you can describe an object (e.g. a pyramid) in mathematical terms mean it wasn't created by someone?
3. "...‘they could not envisage any other place or role for God in the physical universe. Concepts which could not be quantified in mathematical terms as a theoretical reflection of physical realities, whether or not the actual existence of those physical realities was proven, were meaningless." (p. 155).
- People are making a category mistake when they imagine they can understand all things (especially God!) in terms of mathematics. God is far too great and too transcendent to be comprehended by mathematics. Hawking has made the cardinal mistake of ignoring the creator/creature distinction. He somehow imagines he can comprehend all of reality, but has no reason to believe a trousered ape is capable of any such thing. His own worldview (e.g.Darwinism) makes his statements about God and ultimate reality absurd. As Darwin hiimself said, ''why should we pay any attention to what an ape says about reality?" (I'm paraphrasing.)
A materialist is someone who has their nose pressed so tightly to the 'tree' they're studying that they can't see the forest; they're blinded by the physical. (The Hawking equation; Materialism = Reductionism = Absurdity)
4. "...many scientists ‘arrogantly even aspire to become gods themselves by denying the rest of us our freedom of choice and disputing our right to ask the question “Why?” in relation to the origins of the universe and the origins of life. They claim that the question is as … inappropriate, as it would be to ask why Mt. Everest is there.''
- Did these people forget that they're just animals, mere bits of matter, that their thoughts are just chemical reactions? It would appear so. Who are they to tell anyone what's appropriate? If all is matter in motion nothing is appropriate or inappropriate. People will never stop asking why in any event; it's a question from the heart, a question that's part of us, a question we were meant to ask.
The reductionist has a dreary tendency to speak of human beings as if they're all the same. This comes from their reducing human beings to the physical, and the physical to the chemical. On the cellular level it's true that we are much alike (though we don't even lose our individuality at that level; you have to reduce people to the atomic level to destroy all their individuality) and this is why the reductionist lumps all people together. His reductionism leads him to feel that what he thinks is right for him must be right for everyone; that's what he thinks is true must be true for everyone.
We don't ask why Mt. Everest is there because a mountain is not a person. (You wouldn't think we'd have to explain this, but apparently, in the case of the hardboiled atheist we do.) It's typical of course for the materialist to ignore personality and individuality... although there's something comical about a personal being denying the importance of personhood. (It's akin to a cat denying the importance of whiskers, or a bird denying the importance of wings.)
5. "They dismiss the suggestion that the question ‘Why’ is the prerogative of theologians and philosophers rather than scientist because, they say, theologians are engaged in the “study of fantasy.”
- It's true that some theologians are engaged in the study of fantasy, but so are some scientists. [e.g. the multiverse, imaginary time, etc.] The fact that many theologians are studying false gods and false scripture doesn't prove that a living creator God doesn't exist, or that He hasn't given us His revealed word.
Reductionism means the 'extinction' of the theologian or the moralist (the artist, etc.) as all studies must be reduced to physics. There's a great imperialism involved in the reductionist project, as it allows only a physicalist account of the universe (and that includes the 'universe' of human beings).
As someone who takes the creationist perspective, I believe that much of Darwinism is a study of fantasy; especially as it involves the 'just so' stories that populate the 'soft' sciences. e.g. evolutionary psychology, Darwinist literary critique, evolutionary sociology, etc.
6. "Their theories reduce the whole of Creation to a handful of material components."
- The biggest problem with reductionism is that it does away with intelligence as an integral part of the universe. (I find it comical that some of our most intelligent people deny the role of intelligence. This is akin to fish denying the role of gills, or birds denying the role of feathers.) Materialism is, at best, half an adequate account of the universe. The materialist is akin to the 'head' of a coin denying that a 'tail' side exists; it's akin to the cover of a book denying the pages exist.
- M. D. Johnson
Notes;
1. 100. Stephen Hawking: the closed mind of a dogmatic atheist; A review of Music to Move the Stars by Jane Hawking - Book Review by Jerry Bergman
2. "Now we see things imperfectly, like puzzling reflections in a mirror, but then we will see everything with perfect clarity. All that I know now is partial and incomplete, but then I will know everything completely, just as God now knows me completely.'' 1 Cor 13:12 [NLT}
3. I've gotten so far behind on my reading list, that I've taken to reading book reviews to try and catch up.
Quotes and comments;
1. "...a Creator God was an awkward obstacle for an atheistic scientist whose aim was to reduce the origins of the universe to an unified package of scientific laws, expressed in equations and symbols." [1.]
- There's no such thing as scientific laws. The term 'scientific law' is a pretense meant to steal glory from God and to bring glory to man. The 'laws' we see (if you want to call our formulation of observed regularities laws) aren't scientific but universal; they have nothing to do with man as they aren't inventions but discoveries. (To the extent they're accurate formulations.)
So called 'scientific laws' are only human inventions to the extent they're false; then they become inventions along the lines of fantasy.
I don't see why the existence of God should be an obstacle to studying the universe. This makes no sense to me. Without God there would be no universe and no one to study it.
The major problem with Materialism is the drive to reduce things; to reduce the higher to the lower, to reduce the immaterial to the material. The great danger in this project is that the personal universe ends up becoming (in the eyes of adherents) an impersonal one; and that intelligence gets replaced by the material, and the intentional by chance. Far too many scientists in our day confuse reductionism as a tool to be used in research with a reductionism as a philosophy of life, as a worldview.
2. 'She [Jane] adds that, as a direct result of the focus of modern cosmologists on mathematics, the concept of a personal God became irrelevant for these scientists because, in their mind, their calculations diminished ‘any possible scope for a Creator’
- I wonder where people like Hawking think mathematics comes from? I wonder how they imagine mathematics is possible, or how it's possible for them to do math. I wonder if they even ask these questions. People are far too apt to take their capacities and abilities for granted. Evolutionary theory can't begin to explain how it is men have the intellectual potential they do. This ought to give them pause to question their materialist worldview. You're in a poor (not to mention hopeless) situation if your basic worldview can't even begin to account for your own existence!
The materialist is too interested in the creation, and not interested enough in the creator. It surely makes sense to think that the creator is much more 'interesting' (awesome) than His creation. Surely the One who created mathematics and creatures capable of comprehending mathematics is someone worth getting to know. The christian believes the creator has far more interesting 'tricks' up His sleeve than the material universe (astounding as it is) Hawking has become obsessed with. ("We as of yet see through a glass darkly...") [2.] The apostle Paul (in Romans) speaks of those who worship the creation rather than the creator, and this is what Hawking appears to have done.
If you walk into a room and see equations covering a blackboard do you imagine no one wrote them?
Does the fact you can describe an object (e.g. a pyramid) in mathematical terms mean it wasn't created by someone?
3. "...‘they could not envisage any other place or role for God in the physical universe. Concepts which could not be quantified in mathematical terms as a theoretical reflection of physical realities, whether or not the actual existence of those physical realities was proven, were meaningless." (p. 155).
- People are making a category mistake when they imagine they can understand all things (especially God!) in terms of mathematics. God is far too great and too transcendent to be comprehended by mathematics. Hawking has made the cardinal mistake of ignoring the creator/creature distinction. He somehow imagines he can comprehend all of reality, but has no reason to believe a trousered ape is capable of any such thing. His own worldview (e.g.Darwinism) makes his statements about God and ultimate reality absurd. As Darwin hiimself said, ''why should we pay any attention to what an ape says about reality?" (I'm paraphrasing.)
A materialist is someone who has their nose pressed so tightly to the 'tree' they're studying that they can't see the forest; they're blinded by the physical. (The Hawking equation; Materialism = Reductionism = Absurdity)
4. "...many scientists ‘arrogantly even aspire to become gods themselves by denying the rest of us our freedom of choice and disputing our right to ask the question “Why?” in relation to the origins of the universe and the origins of life. They claim that the question is as … inappropriate, as it would be to ask why Mt. Everest is there.''
- Did these people forget that they're just animals, mere bits of matter, that their thoughts are just chemical reactions? It would appear so. Who are they to tell anyone what's appropriate? If all is matter in motion nothing is appropriate or inappropriate. People will never stop asking why in any event; it's a question from the heart, a question that's part of us, a question we were meant to ask.
The reductionist has a dreary tendency to speak of human beings as if they're all the same. This comes from their reducing human beings to the physical, and the physical to the chemical. On the cellular level it's true that we are much alike (though we don't even lose our individuality at that level; you have to reduce people to the atomic level to destroy all their individuality) and this is why the reductionist lumps all people together. His reductionism leads him to feel that what he thinks is right for him must be right for everyone; that's what he thinks is true must be true for everyone.
We don't ask why Mt. Everest is there because a mountain is not a person. (You wouldn't think we'd have to explain this, but apparently, in the case of the hardboiled atheist we do.) It's typical of course for the materialist to ignore personality and individuality... although there's something comical about a personal being denying the importance of personhood. (It's akin to a cat denying the importance of whiskers, or a bird denying the importance of wings.)
5. "They dismiss the suggestion that the question ‘Why’ is the prerogative of theologians and philosophers rather than scientist because, they say, theologians are engaged in the “study of fantasy.”
- It's true that some theologians are engaged in the study of fantasy, but so are some scientists. [e.g. the multiverse, imaginary time, etc.] The fact that many theologians are studying false gods and false scripture doesn't prove that a living creator God doesn't exist, or that He hasn't given us His revealed word.
Reductionism means the 'extinction' of the theologian or the moralist (the artist, etc.) as all studies must be reduced to physics. There's a great imperialism involved in the reductionist project, as it allows only a physicalist account of the universe (and that includes the 'universe' of human beings).
As someone who takes the creationist perspective, I believe that much of Darwinism is a study of fantasy; especially as it involves the 'just so' stories that populate the 'soft' sciences. e.g. evolutionary psychology, Darwinist literary critique, evolutionary sociology, etc.
6. "Their theories reduce the whole of Creation to a handful of material components."
- The biggest problem with reductionism is that it does away with intelligence as an integral part of the universe. (I find it comical that some of our most intelligent people deny the role of intelligence. This is akin to fish denying the role of gills, or birds denying the role of feathers.) Materialism is, at best, half an adequate account of the universe. The materialist is akin to the 'head' of a coin denying that a 'tail' side exists; it's akin to the cover of a book denying the pages exist.
- M. D. Johnson
Notes;
1. 100. Stephen Hawking: the closed mind of a dogmatic atheist; A review of Music to Move the Stars by Jane Hawking - Book Review by Jerry Bergman
2. "Now we see things imperfectly, like puzzling reflections in a mirror, but then we will see everything with perfect clarity. All that I know now is partial and incomplete, but then I will know everything completely, just as God now knows me completely.'' 1 Cor 13:12 [NLT}
3. I've gotten so far behind on my reading list, that I've taken to reading book reviews to try and catch up.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
The word of life
Erwin Schrodinger wrote a book called 'What is life?' and the question remains one of perennial interest. I believe we find the only true answer to this question in the Bible.
Quotes and comments;
1. "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with god and the word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by Him, and without him was not anything made that was made.
In him was life; and the life was the light of men.'' - [John 1:1-4]
- For Christianity life is a matter of intelligence, the wisdom of the all powerful, all knowing, eternal God. The source of all things is the intelligence and wisdom of God.
Life is for the Christian a revelation of God, it's evidence of God's existence. In life we see something of God and God's nature. It is God revealing himself to us. We take life for granted for the same reason fish take water for granted, but in doing so we make a grievous mistake. We should meditate on the miracle that is life, for it is not the 'natural' product of matter plus time that the Materialist tells us it is.
In living organisms we see how God can make the impossible possible. Every day we stare at miracles on every side. Without the wisdom and creativity of God all that would exist (at best) would be inert matter. We often hear people wonder 'why there is something rather than nothing' and the answer is God. We look around and say with wonder, 'it's impossible that this should exist' - and without God, it would be.
In some sense life is something all organisms and God share, for God is alive even as we are alive; God lives even as we live. All creatures are animated by the divine intelligence that created and informed them at the Creation. We can think of life as intelligence and wisdom. All creatures are the 'incarnation' of divine intelligence.
2. John (1 John 1:1,3) speaks of Jesus as the 'word of life.'
- In creation we see the word of life made manifest. Life on the earthly realm can only come from life, and God is life itself. What we call life is better seen as intelligence; it can have no merely physical origin.
3. 'Because God made all things, all things are revelational of God; they witness to the triune God. [3.]
- In the creation we see that the wisdom of God makes the impossible possible or manifest. In terms of human wisdom the universe is impossible, but yet it exists. The incongruity of our existence is more something to praise than to puzzle over. Some people say the universe is impossible, some say that God is impossible, and if we rely on human understanding this will be as far as we get. The fact the impossible exists is evidence that our understanding is incomplete, is evidence of something beyond us, something transcending us.
We have no evidence life can come from non-life, this phantasm is something no one has observed. What we do have (in the gospel of John and elsewhere) are the observations and experience of men and women who saw in the figure of Jesus, Life itself. It's to our great demerit that men will search test tubes for signs of life, but will not search the scriptures for the 'living word' - for Life itself. The word was the origin of life, and He is not hiding and is available for all to see.
4. 'Others have called attention to the fact ''in the beginning'' can also mean ''at the root of the universe.'' [4.]
- The true tree of life has Christ at its base; for Christ is the 'common ancestor' of all creatures.
5. "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. - John 1:14
- We see in the incarnation (the son of God, walking as man in the world) something of the 'mechanics' of creation; for living organisms (including man) are the 'incarnations' of God's wisdom; they are god's wisdom made manifest, they are god's wisdom clothed in flesh. The creatures (kinds) of the original creation were words (small w) made flesh... small harbingers of the day the Word would be made flesh.
'Peter speaks of life as grace from God.' [6]
- This verse appears to be referring to spiritual grace granted to the christian, but I think it can be seen in a more general light as well. i.e. our existence can be seen as an act of favor and goodness freely given to us by God.
The life given to Adam was a gift, an act of grace, and we all share in that gift. There is nothing in matter that merits life; life is unmerited grace.
- M. Johnson
Notes;
3. Gospel of John - R. J. Rushdoony p. 2.
- book available free online at Chalcedon.org
4. above
5. In Genesis we're told that god 'breathed' into Adam and he became a living soul. I wonder if we can translate this as god spoke to Adam and he became a living soul. i.e. it was the 'word' (the intelligence) of God that brought clay alive.
- in psalm 33:6 we're told that the heavens were made by the ''breath of his mouth.''
6. 'Peter speaks of life as grace from God.' [1 Peter 3:7] above p.6
Grace;
a. 'An act of kindness or favor accorded to or bestowed on another; a good turn or service freely rendered.'
7. John 1:14
Quotes and comments;
1. "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with god and the word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by Him, and without him was not anything made that was made.
In him was life; and the life was the light of men.'' - [John 1:1-4]
- For Christianity life is a matter of intelligence, the wisdom of the all powerful, all knowing, eternal God. The source of all things is the intelligence and wisdom of God.
Life is for the Christian a revelation of God, it's evidence of God's existence. In life we see something of God and God's nature. It is God revealing himself to us. We take life for granted for the same reason fish take water for granted, but in doing so we make a grievous mistake. We should meditate on the miracle that is life, for it is not the 'natural' product of matter plus time that the Materialist tells us it is.
In living organisms we see how God can make the impossible possible. Every day we stare at miracles on every side. Without the wisdom and creativity of God all that would exist (at best) would be inert matter. We often hear people wonder 'why there is something rather than nothing' and the answer is God. We look around and say with wonder, 'it's impossible that this should exist' - and without God, it would be.
In some sense life is something all organisms and God share, for God is alive even as we are alive; God lives even as we live. All creatures are animated by the divine intelligence that created and informed them at the Creation. We can think of life as intelligence and wisdom. All creatures are the 'incarnation' of divine intelligence.
2. John (1 John 1:1,3) speaks of Jesus as the 'word of life.'
- In creation we see the word of life made manifest. Life on the earthly realm can only come from life, and God is life itself. What we call life is better seen as intelligence; it can have no merely physical origin.
3. 'Because God made all things, all things are revelational of God; they witness to the triune God. [3.]
- In the creation we see that the wisdom of God makes the impossible possible or manifest. In terms of human wisdom the universe is impossible, but yet it exists. The incongruity of our existence is more something to praise than to puzzle over. Some people say the universe is impossible, some say that God is impossible, and if we rely on human understanding this will be as far as we get. The fact the impossible exists is evidence that our understanding is incomplete, is evidence of something beyond us, something transcending us.
We have no evidence life can come from non-life, this phantasm is something no one has observed. What we do have (in the gospel of John and elsewhere) are the observations and experience of men and women who saw in the figure of Jesus, Life itself. It's to our great demerit that men will search test tubes for signs of life, but will not search the scriptures for the 'living word' - for Life itself. The word was the origin of life, and He is not hiding and is available for all to see.
4. 'Others have called attention to the fact ''in the beginning'' can also mean ''at the root of the universe.'' [4.]
- The true tree of life has Christ at its base; for Christ is the 'common ancestor' of all creatures.
5. "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. - John 1:14
- We see in the incarnation (the son of God, walking as man in the world) something of the 'mechanics' of creation; for living organisms (including man) are the 'incarnations' of God's wisdom; they are god's wisdom made manifest, they are god's wisdom clothed in flesh. The creatures (kinds) of the original creation were words (small w) made flesh... small harbingers of the day the Word would be made flesh.
'Peter speaks of life as grace from God.' [6]
- This verse appears to be referring to spiritual grace granted to the christian, but I think it can be seen in a more general light as well. i.e. our existence can be seen as an act of favor and goodness freely given to us by God.
The life given to Adam was a gift, an act of grace, and we all share in that gift. There is nothing in matter that merits life; life is unmerited grace.
- M. Johnson
Notes;
3. Gospel of John - R. J. Rushdoony p. 2.
- book available free online at Chalcedon.org
4. above
5. In Genesis we're told that god 'breathed' into Adam and he became a living soul. I wonder if we can translate this as god spoke to Adam and he became a living soul. i.e. it was the 'word' (the intelligence) of God that brought clay alive.
- in psalm 33:6 we're told that the heavens were made by the ''breath of his mouth.''
6. 'Peter speaks of life as grace from God.' [1 Peter 3:7] above p.6
Grace;
a. 'An act of kindness or favor accorded to or bestowed on another; a good turn or service freely rendered.'
7. John 1:14
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)