SciLigion

Was the "forbidden fruit" actually fruit?

by Bernie Dehler
9-29-07

Genesis 2:16-17 (NIV)
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

  As I mentioned earlier, a friend lent me a book by Hugh Ross and Fazelle Rana (old earth creationists, of the "Reasons to Believe" ministry) called "Who was Adam?"  This is because I was asking the question: was the forbidden fruit really, literally, fruit?  In other words, should in be interpreted literally or figuratively?

  If one takes all of Genesis literally (as "young earther's" do), then it all has clear meaning.  Whether it is correct or not is another question.

   If one takes Genesis both literally and figuratively, which parts are literal and which figurative?  The authors of this book are "old earthers."  This means they interpret that the six days of creation are not actually 24 hrs each, but can represent vast amounts of time... millions of years, even, for any of the "days."  However, when Genesis says that God formed man from the ground, uniquely and not of evolution, they take that literally... as a special creation.  So what about the forbidden fruit? Do old earthers think it was literal or figurative?  As far as I can tell, there is no answer from them.  I saw nothing in the book, and nothing when I searched the web. 

  If anyone knows, please email and let me know.  Here's the official question: "Do old earthers interpret the forbidden fruit to be literal or figurative?"  (Please cite references with page number or an Internet URL; please don't refer generally to other books.) 

  My hunch is that the "Reasons to Believe" ministry has no answer, and so there is a big void or gap in their proposal to reconcile the creation account in Genesis with modern science.  If there is an answer from the old earth standpoint, I would then also like to learn about their other interpretations for other parts; such as the talking serpent, the tree of life, etc. Until I get their interpretations, I can't agree or disagree with them!

Evidence for evolution: pseudogenes

by Bernie Dehler
9-29-07

  Personally, I think the claim that pseudogenes are strong and overwhelming evidence that biological evolution actually happened.  The evidence seems to be in the DNA... biological fossils.  That's why I'm leaning towards being a "Theistic Evolutionist."

  Therefore, I'm very curious as to how those in the "young earth" and "old earth" creationist camps explain away this pseudogene question, since both are against theistic evolution.  A friend lent me a book by Hugh Ross and Fazelle Rana (old earth creationists, of the "Reasons to Believe" ministry) called "Who was Adam?"

  Although this book doesn't put forth the strong evidence and claim for "pseudogenes indicating evolution," they do a fantastic job of explaining the details of what a pseudogene is.  In the summary part, however (and to my surprise), they admit they have no response to the claim that pseudogenes strongly demonstrate that evolution happen.  Here is their own wording, pg. 243:

What about the genetic material without a known function, such as the GLO unitary pseudogenes that humans and chimpanzees share? Currently the RTB model offers no explanation for this feature.  The model does predict, however, that as with other classes of noncoding DNA, function will one day be discovered for these uniting pseudogenes.

  The reason why I think that the GLO (as just one example) pseudogene is evidence for (theistic) evolution is because it is essentially a "copying error" of DNA.  Lower life forms have it, but it got messed-up somewhere in one of the ancestors to human and ape, so human and ape both have the messed-up and unused GLO pseudogene.  Because of this, our body can't make its own "vitamin C" (ascorbic acid), but we don't die because we get it from our diet.

  I think the biological argument of pseudogenes is by far the strongest evidence for (theistic) evolution.  As Christians, it is hard to deal with this information because it is different than what we were taught at church and by evangelical Christian ministries; but deal with it we must do... just as we have dealt with the discovery that the earth rotates around the sun contrary to the mainstream religion (Catholic and Protestant) in the day of Galileo. 

Adam's apple and the missing rib...

by Bernie Dehler
9-29-07

  This one is filed under "loonyligion" because there is a slight chance that someone might take this seriously.  Last night I was at a family function.  Some relatives mentioned how males have an Adam's apple, but females don't.  Also, males have one less rib than females.  (I didn't know this; or it could be that I'm old enough and once knew this but forgot... that has happened many times before.)

  Adam's apple... this proves... that the Adam and Eve story is true.  Just think, it is called an "Adam's apple" for a reason... not "Steve's apple" for example.  By the way, apparently the statement that "only men have an adam's apple" is too simplistic and not true.  Click here for more info on it.

  Also, some say that the fact that males have one less rib than females verifies the Adam and Eve story, as the story says that women was made from the rib of man.  But is it true that if a man lost a rib through surgery (as Adam did), that only his male offspring would also be missing the rib?  That would be like saying that someone who had their limbs amputated because of a war injury would also have children with amputated limbs, but obviously that isn't true.  Our DNA is still what determines our growth-- whether we lose a limb or not doesn't change our DNA one bit. 

  Apparently, the "rib claim" is not even true; males and females have the same number of ribs (click here to read it).  (My college biology textbook also made no references in difference of ribs between male and female, implying that they have the same number.)

The Culture Wars

by Bernie Dehler
9-29-07

  I've been looking at a lot of books from the library lately on creation/evolution issues.  One book is called "After God: The Future of Religion" by Don Cupitt, a fellow of Emmanuel College, Cambridge; and author of some twenty books.  I quickly reviewed the book, but it didn't strike my interest.  However, I did read something in the introduction that I thought was very insightful.  It said:

As the politicians liquidated the old colonial empires, labor shortages in Europe began attracting large numbers of migrant workers from the Caribbean, from Africa, and from Asia, making Western countries more and more multiethnic and multifaith, and making us all acutely aware of the way religion is bound up with language and cultural identity.  Genuinely monocultural states are now very much the exception.  In multicultural states, religion is by no means always a force that makes for civil peace.  On the contrary, it is a commonplace observation that around the world most wars are now civil wars, and that religious differences are a significant factor in most conflicts.

  That immediately brought to mind the "culture wars" in America.  Much of it seems to be "Atheist vs. Theist," such as abortion, removing "in God we trust" from coins, etc.  Many Evangelical Christians are claiming that the USA was founded as a Christian nation, and want to re-establish that.  Because of our multicultural and multiracial make-up in the USA, this has brought all these conflicts into the USA population.  In the old days, wars between religions and races were fought by monocultural states... now we are diverse and trying to figure out "how to get along" in this same house that we find ourselves living in.

  Many people in the USA despise these "culture wars."  Why can't we all just get along?  With this insight, I don't predict any resolution.  The final solution is for government to respect all religions and races as valid, and not legally favoring one or advocating one above the others.  For example, do those Evangelical Christians who want prayer in school really want all kinds of prayer-- or only prayer that conforms to their religious doctrine?  Do those who want to teach the Bible in public school really want to teach about all the Holy Books of all religions, or just their religion? 

  Ultimately, I think our government needs to treat all religions with equal privilege, in the interest of democracy.  Is it OK to have a manger with the baby Jesus in it at the public square during Christmas? If so, we had better be open to what the Muslim's also would like to have during Ramadan, and give them the same access.  We often chastise the Iraqi's for not being able to get along and fault them for their factions, but in many ways we have the same problems in the USA.

  Ultimately, equal access should go well for anyone who thinks they have the superior religion.  In that case, there's no reason to fear the influence of other religions.  If our religion is true, it will win in the arena of truth and all truth seekers will find it.  There is nothing to fear in teaching about other religions; and there is even ground to gain in mixing with those of different faith (building relationships) and learning new things.

  My advice: reach out to those of different races and religions and get to know then; seek to learn something new.  In this way, we all become a part of each other's lives.  That is where and how you reach other people anyway, not through force with governmental rules and regulations.  We need rules, but let's not put all our eggs in that one basket.

Map this! Genomes now available in grape.

By Bernie Dehler                 9-27-07

  The human genome (all the DNA in a human) was mapped in 2003 (click here for info).  Since then, scientists have mapped many other genomes and are able to run computers to compare the genomes to other living animals.  It seems to me that this reveals strong evidence for evolution... I'll buy it (the "theistic evolution" version, that is). 

  Also interesting,,, there seems to be an emerging field called "Genetic Anthropology" in which genetics is used to trace human evolution and evolution between species, given this new genome information from many different species (click here for more info).

  Today I saw in the news that the grape genome has just been mapped (click here).  The report says it is the first fruit genome mapped, although rice and other crops have been mapped.  At this rate, it doesn't seem far-fetched at all to envision all the major genomes mapped in about 10 years (especially as DNA mapping technology improves).  This will have fantastic evidence for or against evolution, as the DNA is sort of a record book of history, containing "genetic fossils."

  There is already much talk about how human pseudogenes are very strong evidence for human evolution, contrary to the Genesis story of God making man uniquely from the dust of the ground.  So far, to me, the evangelical church seems unprepared to deal with this.

The REAL Creation Story...

                                                                                                                LIVE LONG AND PROSPER

I got this one from an email today from my brother:

On the first day, God created the dog and said:

"Sit all day by the door of your house and bark at anyone who comes in or walks past. For this, I will give you a life span of twenty years."

The dog said: "That's a long time to be barking. How about only ten years and I'll give you back the other ten?"

So God agreed.

On the second day, God created the monkey and said:

"Entertain people, do tricks, and make them laugh. For this, I'll give you a twenty-year life span."

The monkey said: "Monkey tricks for twenty years? That's a pretty long time to perform. How about I give you back ten like the dog did?"

And God agreed.

On the third day, God created the cow and said:

"You must go into the field with the farmer all day long and suffer under the sun, have calves and give milk to support the farmer's family For this, I will give you a life span of sixty Years."

The cow said: "That's kind of a tough life you want me to live for sixty years. How about twenty and I'll give back the other forty?"

And God agreed again.

On the fourth day, God created man and said:

"Eat, sleep, play, marry and enjoy your life. For this, I'll give you twenty years."

But man said: "Only twenty years? Could you possibly give me my twenty, the forty the cow gave back, the ten the monkey gave back, and the ten the dog gave back; that makes eighty, okay?"

"Okay," said God, "You asked for it."

So that is why for our first twenty years we eat, sleep, play and enjoy ourselves. For the next forty years we slave in the sun to support our family. For the next ten years we do monkey tricks to entertain the grandchildren. And for the last ten years we sit on the front porch and bark at everyone.

Theistic Evolution... Anti-God? (Part 3)

By Bernie Dehler
9-21-07

  ...continuing to Part 3 of why Christians (wrongly) are so against any kind of evolution, even theistic evolution (click here for Part 2).  I'm responding to the weblink entitled "10 Dangers of Theistic Evolution" at ChristianAnswers.net (click here to see the original).

  Here is "Danger #2," and I quote:

Danger NO. 2… God becomes a God of the Gaps

  The Bible states that God is the Prime Cause of all things. "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things… and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him" (1 Corinthians 8:6).

  However, in theistic evolution the only workspace allotted to God is that part of nature which evolution cannot "explain" with the means presently at its disposal. In this way He is reduced to being a "god of the gaps" for those phenomena about which there are doubts. This leads to the view that "God is therefore not absolute, but He Himself has evolved - He is evolution".

  First, my critique of paragraph 1... I agree with it all!

  Paragraph 2 is very strange!  They accuse the "theistic evolutionist" of having the "god of the gaps" mentality.  First, let me explain the "god of the gaps" mentality.  It is usually an argument of atheists, against creationists who claim that God must have created everything since there are "gaps" in the theory of evolution (such as the question of how life first arose from non-life... one of the largest "mysteries of life").  Therefore, atheists accuse these Christians of having a "god of the gaps."  Unfortunately, science advances, and fills in these gaps, which make this "god of the gaps" get smaller and smaller. 

  By the way, a good example of the "god of the gaps" mentality is seen in the ID (Intelligent Design) movement, sponsored by the Discovery Institute (click here for info).  The ID movement doesn't offer any explanations for how life was created or advanced, other than "an intelligent designer" did it (and they never mention who the designer is).  The ID movement has one plan: to discredit evolution by showing problems that evolutionists haven't solved yet.  In this way, they are nothing but critics, offering no alternatives.  Even the young earth and old earth creationists offer alternative origin theories... but those in the ID movement offer nothing.

  Evolution is the ultimate rebuttal to the "god of the gaps" charge, therefore, it is beyond confusing and amusing as to why this article would accuse theistic evolutionists as having the "god of the gaps" mentality.  If anything, they should have charged the evolutionists with having a "nature of the gaps" mentality, where all gaps are/will be explained by nature (a materialistic presupposition).

  My hunch is that they are accusing theistic evolutionists of having a "god of the gaps" mentality because they are framing the theistic evolutionist as one who believes in atheistic evolution, and adding God just where the mysteries are.  However, I think theistic evolution must instead be thought of how God actually did things-- His marvelous and very creative design plan.   

  By the way, science has been doing a good job of explaining more and more about origins as time goes on, that's why it is important to get into the details and be educated.  Personally, I think the most important area to study is genetics and DNA.  DNA is being used in court to solve crimes and prove things, and in the same way, the "biological fossils" in DNA are becoming evidence for theistic evolution.

  Anyway, these are my thoughts on the subject.  Feel free to add questions/comments in the comment section.

Theistic Evolution... Anti-God? (Part 2)

By Bernie Dehler
9-21-07

  ...continuing to Part 2 of why Christians (wrongly) are so against any kind of evolution, even theistic evolution (click here for Part 1).  I'm responding to the weblink entitled "10 Dangers of Theistic Evolution" at ChristianAnswers.net (click here to see the original).

  Here is "Danger #1," and I quote:

Danger NO. 1… Misrepresentation of the Nature of God

     The Bible reveals God to us as our Father in Heaven, who is absolutely perfect (Matthew 5:48), holy (Isaiah 6:3), and omnipotent (Jeremiah 32:17). The Apostle John tells us that "God is love", "light", and "life" (1 John 4:16; 1:5; 1:1-2). When this God creates something, His work is described as "very good" (Genesis 1:31) and "perfect" (Deuteronomy 32:4).

     Theistic evolution gives a false representation of the nature of God because death and ghastliness are ascribed to the Creator as principles of creation. (Progressive creationism, likewise, allows for millions of years of death and horror before sin.)

  First, my critique of paragraph 1... I agree with it all!

  Now for paragraph 2.  Sentence one states "Theistic evolution gives a false representation of the nature of God because death and ghastliness are ascribed to the Creator as principles of creation."  So what is so bad about death?  Without death, the planet would quickly overpopulate and snuff itself out.  It is said that for humans alone, over 150,000 die every day.  If you stacked these bodies on top of each other, it would be a pile about 35 miles high... each day!  Now imagine if that went on for a few thousand years... big crisis!  That's only humans... don't forget all the animals that would be around.  No death can't be a part of a "good" creation, because it wouldn't last long.  Death is the "house-cleaning" that makes life possible.  No one wants to die... but it is required for life on planet earth.

  Sentence two states "(Progressive creationism, likewise, allows for millions of years of death and horror before sin.)"  Death, I just explained.  Now horror- what is that? 

  Let me give two examples of horror.  Suppose a lion kills a young elephant for food.  Is that horror?  Is that any different than us today going to McDonalds for a Big Mac (only we don't see the work the butcher does at the slaughter houses to get us meat for the Big Mac)?  It isn't pretty to watch, but it appears to be God's way of design.  If someone thinks they can do a better job at designing a world, I'm sure the world would like to know.  (Actually, click here to see a wild YouTube video in which a baby buffalo gets caught by a pack of lions and actually (eventually) gets away... nature in action.)

  The other example of horror... genetic defects, like when a child dies of cancer.  Yes, this is very sad.  However, mutations in evolution also lead to diversity, robustness, and new designs; so having some negative fall-out is part of the equation.  Rejecting anything "bad" is somewhat like insisting on a fair coin toss, and then demanding that it always turns up heads.  Again, if anyone can figure out a better way to design things, rather than evolution (or just saying "poof- God did it"), I'm sure the world would like to know.

  Anyway, these are my thoughts on the subject.  Feel free to add questions/comments in the comment section.

Theistic Evolution... Anti-God? (Part 1)

By Bernie Dehler
9-21-07

  So far in my studies, I'm leaning more and more to the theistic evolution standpoint.  The main reason is that it seems to me that most scientists who are also Christians seem to be of the general consensus that biological evolution is pretty much proven, by looking at the human genome and comparing it to the genomes of other animals.

  In that vein, I'll look at some reasons why Christians are so against any kind of evolution, even theistic evolution.  I'll respond to the weblink entitled "10 Dangers of Theistic Evolution" at ChristianAnswers.net (click here to see the original).

  First I'll comment on its introduction, where it says:

The atheistic formula for evolution is: Evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods. In the theistic evolutionary view, God is added: Theistic evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods + God. In the theistic evolutionary system, God is not the omnipotent Lord of all things, whose Word has to be taken seriously by all men, but He is integrated into the evolutionary philosophy. This leads to 10 dangers for Christians.

  First, I can agree with its equation, adding God into the evolutionary process.  How much God interacts is debatable... maybe He manipulates the DNA in history to create new species, or maybe He designed it all upfront so brilliantly that humans can eventually evolve to our present state with no outside help at all.

  Second, I'll deal with its statement "In the theistic evolutionary system, God is not the omnipotent Lord of all things..."  To that, I'd ask "why do you say that?"  How does God, creating through evolution, reduce his omnipotence?  To me, it shows even more how brilliant God is, to come up with such a system.

  Third, I'll deal with this part of the statement "In the theistic evolutionary system ... whose Word (the Bible?) has to be taken seriously by all men... "  I think what the author is trying to say is that the theistic evolution position demotes the Bible from a place of being "infallible and inerrant" to being something that may contain errors.  That is true.  Also, that the Bible has technical errors, is a proven fact.  Maybe that factoid should be more heavily understood and digested.  Here's an example:

II Samuel 10:18
And the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew the Syrians the men of
seven hundred chariots, and forty thousand horsemen...   

I Chronicles 19:18
And the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew of the Syrians the men of
seven thousand chariots, and forty thousand footsoldiers... 

  If one has a position that "the Bible is without error," of course they have to close their eyes to this instance.  And by the way, it only takes one documented error to prove that a document has errors, just as in Christian theology it takes only one sin to make a man a sinner.  I think the real danger and error is elevating the Bible to a place of "Godhood," by claiming it is without error.

  Lastly, I'll deal with this part of the statement "In the theistic evolutionary system ... He (God) is integrated into the evolutionary philosophy "  So what?  They go on to explain why this is so bad, in their 10 following reasons, and I'll respond to each one of them separately in upcoming blog articles.

Does entropy disprove evolution?

By Bernie Dehler
9-19-07

I hear this statement from those who oppose evolution: "The law of entropy says that order goes to disorder; you can't get order from disorder." In fact, I heard a Bible teacher repeat it last Sunday.  I think this statement is easy to refute with many examples.  (By the way, I disagreed with some other things this teacher said, agreed with some things, and also learned some new things.)

First, an easy answer.  Saying the law of entropy disallows order from disorder is like saying airplanes can't fly, because of the law of gravity... or that no one can jump in the air because of gravity.  Even the real-life example of seeing a child grow into an adult is a form of higher complexity arising... is that also against entropy?  But we see it happening!

Now, for the really better scientific answer.  (By the way, this is my idea, and I don't have much feedback on it yet, so feel free to respond in the comment section.)  Consider the picture, showing how large the Sun is to the Earth.  The Sun is the energy source for the life on Earth.  Einstein's equation is E=MC^2, which states the relationship between the conversion of energy and matter.  Think of all the energy the Sun is throwing off, in all directions, and how much just a very tiny bit of it is captured by the earth and actually used for life (such as photosynthesis in a green leaf).  The amount of energy captured from the sun is so very little... remember how small the Earth is to the Sun, and the picture above is only 2D... visualizing it in 3D shows even less energy being captured and used by the Earth.  As you can see from this example, most of the energy is simply lost in heat radiating out to space... no useful work at all, and thus the law of entropy in play.  When the sun burns out, we go with it-- that is entropy... that is things going from order to disorder... that is energy flowing from heat to cold, as the law of entropy actually literally states (click here to learn more about entropy).

Anyway, people shouldn't try to teach things they don't understand... and pretend as if they do.  Also, Bible teachers, I think, are failing in their responsibility to know science and to be able to integrate it correctly into the faith.  Ignorance is fine for an audience that doesn't know any better; however, sometimes the audience grows up, attends college, then finds out they were duped by those in authority.  That can't be good for the faith.