Pushed out of the Picture

Scientific discovery seems to widen the chasm between reason and faith. A scientific mind can remain religious. But, religion must start to make extra room for scientific observations. This often translates into gradually shedding unproven claims about how God governs our universe.

Copernicus and Galileo experienced their difficulties because of the prevailing understanding of nature. The understanding of nature was controlled by religious leaders of their day. As a result, Copernicus and Galileo nudged the hand of God upon publishing their discoveries; they both gently backed God's sovereign hand away from his own creation. And worse, these men also nudged at the self proclaimed infallibility of God's clergy. Why? Because their observations were in conflict with religious thought. These scientists became heretics.

Issac Newton was perhaps the glue that made the discoveries of Copernicus and Galileo finally stick. Also, some historians argue that the true discipline of science wasn't born until Newton's papers on Optiks and the Laws of Motion were published. But when Newton introduced his discoveries, he seemed willing to give God credit for whatever he found. Newton mentions God's influence in his primary work, the Principia, and is quoted by sources saying things like:

Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done.

So, Newton did not fully abandon his religious mind in the face of great scientific discovery.

But as time went along, Chemistry, Physics, Biology, and Psychology began to develop into their own stand-alone fields of study. And with more and more scientific discoveries from each filed, reason was making a regular habit of nudging the hand of God and his clergy a little further out of the picture of creation.

So, today, when we hear about a child being born with 12 fingers and 12 toes, should we wonder why God allowed this? Why did God let such a thing to happen? Yet, biology helps us understand better how this happened. Genetics shows us that this child was likely to inherit this physical anomaly because his decedents were known to have a higher incidence of extra fingers and toes. The newborn's father admitted this characteristic was prevalent in his family.

Personally, I don't blame God for this. Would you? Nor would I mock and ostracize this child for being different. All good natured people will accept his differences and hope that he has a relatively normal life.

But what do we say about God when he allows people to develop Multiple Sclerosis, now that scientists are discovering that vitamin D deficiency is correlated with this disease? Can we blame God for the way the MS gene behaves when vitamin D is deficient? MS can possibly be prevented or cured with a better understanding of how vitamin D works in pregnant mothers and in developing children. Did God deliberately keep us ignorant of this new found fact? And why didn't God also let us know that stem cell therapy could improve MS patients?

Or, do we simply start praising God for his benevolence, since he's given us these wonderful new discoveries?

Why praise? I admitted to not blaming God for these things, but not because I accept his "higher" and "mysterious" ways.

Instead, I don't blame God because I see his hand being pushed further out of the picture.

Therefore, I don't have much praise for God, either.

On the Evolution of Evolution

Wow -- I've taken some time to really soak in the significance of the theory of evolution.

Here are some things I've come across lately which I think are note worthy.

The 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth is in this February (2009). His book, On the Origin of Species will also make it's 150th anniversary this year. This is significant because the overall theory that Darwin proposed concerning natural selection is still sound and only gathers more evidence after 150 years of scrutiny. Other facets of biology expand because of evolution -- and in turn, other facets of biology improve upon Darwin's original theory.

The scientific community at large is gearing up to pay tribute to Darwin. His findings are considered to be in rank with Copernicus, Newton, Galileo, and Einstein, according to many scientists.

The magazine Scientific American has dedicated the January issue to the evolution of the evolution theory. This issue is full of fascinating articles to read which really give light to the full implication of evolution's theories and clears up many misconceptions and misunderstandings.

Genetics is seriously tied to evolution -- as I've said recently in another post. Genes control all sorts of things such as the level of lactose tolerance one has, to heart issues, and mental health. The passing on of genes plays a large role in how a species evolves and buds off to new classes of life.

Also, lately I wonder how much of the information from genetics and evolution can help us with our heath -- in practical every day situations such as diet, exercise, and achieving ideal weight. Maybe going back to our ancestry will provide understanding of what we need to eat. The NY Times article alludes to this. Maybe the obesity explosion we see has little to do with laziness, slothfulness, or lack of self control. Maybe our "modern" processed foods are not suited to our genetic makeup. Couple that problem with sitting at a desk all day and wham o! -- you're over weight.

Well, I can't even do justice to all that I've read recently . . . so here are some sources that can better say what I ever could:

The Evolutionary Search for our Perfect Past : This article doesn't seem to mention it, but it is a great overall synopsis of the articles found in the January issue of Scientific American. If you can't devote the time to the Scientific American issue, this NY Times article will provide some worthy highlights.

Key Gene Linked to Blood Pressure Identified : Just in case you thought genetics was a joke.

Scientific American Magazine : January 2009 Issue : If you have any questions or doubts about evolution, skim through this magazine. Maybe all your questions won't get answered, but you'll be hard pressed to maintain your doubts.

Atheism Explained : a book by David Ramsay Steele. I'm not completely finished reading it yet, but it has a very interesting chapter on evolution. While evolution doesn't disprove God in his view (and in mine, too), we can no longer hold to the traditional view of the classical Judeo-Christian model of God. For many believers, such a notion is blasphemous and atheist enough to disapprove vehemently of evolution -- in spite of the overwhelming evidence for it.

History Repeats Itself

Nicolaus Copernicus wrote a book entitled On the Revolutions of Heavenly Bodies which stated that the Earth revolved around the sun and was not the center of the universe.

His book was banned by the Catholic Church.

Galileo Galilei agreed with Copernicus and wrote a book entitled Dialogue Concerning Two Chief World Systems which compared old views of the cosmos versus the Copernicus view. This book advocated and supported the Copernicus model of the world.

Galileo was taken before an inquisition and placed on house arrest for the last years of his life. He was forced to renounce his scientific findings and was labeled a heretic by the Catholic Church.

Today, various states have legislators who are trying to draft and legalize disclaimers on the flaps of public school text books that mention the theory of Evolution.

Again, someone wants to keep scientific findings quiet.

Opponents of Evolution claim that the science is bad. That's not really why they oppose evolution though.

Opponents against Copernicus and Galileo made the same claims.

But again, that's not really why they opposed these two great astronomers of the past.

Copernicus and Galileo had sound scientific observation on their side.

Their opponents -- the Bible.

Guess who finally give in and change their minds.

Hopefully, everything will come full circle and history will again, repeat itself.

Why do I say this? Because, like Copernicus and Galileo -- Darwin has sound science on his side, too.

Is the Vatican trying to rehabilitate Galileo, or the Image of the Church?

The Vatican wants to express to the world that their treatment of Galileo Galilei was in error. The Vatican also wants to create the image that they are not only tolerant of science and new ideas -- but that a bridge exists between reason and religion. The Church wants to express that the two concepts of faith and reason are compatible. The Vatican implies that Galileo Galilei embodies this compatibility because he was a man of faith and science.

In my opinion, the tribute that Pope Benedict XVI recently paid to Galileo doesn't prove the church is any more tolerant of reason than in the past. Nor does the Pope's extended hand to Galileo help bridge reason and religion.

Why not?

Galileo's discovery was observable and logical. However, because his findings defied the tenants of faith, Galileo was punished. The Vatican has taken 400 years to officially admit this mistake. Do you really think much has changed?

Also, think of all the modern day feats of science and logic that many religious faiths continue to reject because of religious tenants:

Contraception
Stem Cell Research
Secularization of Culture
Separation of Church and State
Acceptance of Homosexuality
And the most notable Theory of Evolution

Lets not even talk about the current exploration in the Big Bang, String Theory, Dark Matter, and Dark Energy!

These concepts I just mentioned above make up the modern day version of Galileo's expressing that the sun was the center of our solar system and that the earth was a round object caught in the sun's orbit. What he observed in nature opposed what the bible inferred and what Church tradition accepted by faith.

Many faiths remain intolerant of reason and the path to which free thinking leads.

Thus, the Pope's words change nothing.

This is why you won't find a true bridge between faith and reason. The paths of faith and reason do not lead into the direction of the each other.

Read the news story, here: Vatican rehabilitating Galileo

Six Silly Sayings

I recently ran across some material that made an attempt to prove God's existence in six points.

I will share each of the six points. Following each point, I will give my opinion about why I think these are weak arguments. I'm not saying that my rebuttals will disprove God -- but these arguments are not strong enough to prove that God exists.

1. Our planet's complexity points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.

My rebuttal: Science shows us that at the very least the Biblical account of creation is a myth. Science proves the Earth is billions of years old, not just thousands or a few million per the Biblical account. If God did create us, he used evolution to do it.

But more importantly, the perceptions and assumptions we humans have concerning the "obvious" are often flawed in critical ways. We assume that everything with structure needs a builder because we must build and design. That assumption does not have to be true for our universe.

For example, observe the image to the right:

The two lines that run across the star burst pattern appear bent; however, they are parallel lines. If you could print out this image (or one similar) and check the lines with a ruler -- you would observe that they are indeed straight lines. Our perceptions can be fooled. We assume the lines are bowed at first glance. But upon further inspection, the lines are actually straight lines.

A complex universe and complex life doesn't mean a creator is necessary. Evolution is a complex process that took millions of years -- yet few people want to say that God created us this way.

2. The complexity of the human brain shows a higher intelligence behind it.

My rebuttal: This second point is really just restating of the first point. I will only add here that evolution shows us that our brains developed over a painstaking process over millions of years. Biologists have found caves where no sunlight reaches inside them. Therein, you can find a pond that has formed from a stream of water that flows inside. Fish swim around in the ponds. Since there is no light, these fish have no eyes! They only have nodes or bulbs that have formed. Biologists surmise that the ancestors of these fish had eyes. After millions of years of swimming in the dark, natural selection decided not to bother forming the eyes in these fish any longer.

Is that intelligent design?

3. Natural causes and chance are insufficient explanations for our existence.

My rebuttal: This third point is barely different from the first two points. Evolution, again, shows us that our course of development is left to a process of natural selection. Perhaps this isn't pure chance, but the survivors and offspring in any given species continues to thrive as long as they are well suited for the environment in which they live.

Also, scientists have found that when non-organic elements found in asteroids are mixed with non-organic compounds found in earth a chemical reaction happens and organic compounds are created. Just like taking oxygen and hydrogen and putting them together -- you get water. Or, just in the same way that you take sodium and chloride and form table salt. Asteroids pelted the earth during it's early formation. Life easily could have formed from this natural occurrence.

Besides, saying that God created everything is insufficient as well. We still have questions. Who made God? Saying that he always existed is no different from simply saying that the matter and material of this universe has always existed.

4. The enormously vast number of people who are passionately convinced that there is a God must be ignored should you say God does not exist.

My rebuttal: Galileo Galilei had to ignore the enormously vast number of people who were passionately convinced that the earth was the center of the universe. Nuff said.

5. We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him.

My rebuttal: You cannot say that this pursuit is true for everyone because you have not met everyone to ask them if God has sought him or her out. Besides, why is God so subtle if he is pursuing us?!?!?! Also, since so many people have a vast difference of opinion in who God really is, (because he's so subtle in his "pursuit") how can you say the same God is calling a Muslim to pray when at the same time he calls a Christian to prayer? Perhaps God only exists because we still have questions about ourselves. The more questions we answer with science, the less we need God and scripture to explain everything.

6. Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God pursuing us.

My rebuttal:

The Pagan Origins of the Christian Myth
The Bible's Buried Secrets
The Hidden Book of the Bible

And that's just for starters . . .

I'm not declaring that I've disproved God's existence in my rebuttals. However, I am saying that the six arguments offered for God's existence are not sound and cannot prove his existence, either.

Blackened

Science seems to really be the the mortal enemy of faith. Many Christians try to marry faith and science, but they just don't go together. Faith is trusting in what hasn't come to be yet. Sure, maybe you have a promise from God, but that's all you have – trust in his track record from the Bible, from your life experiences, and other people's faith testimonies.

Science needs proof. Test it. Research it. Touch it. Observe it. Record it. Run the numbers and see if there really is a significant difference. Then, maybe you can call it a theory.

Then after that, check back with us . . . we'll let you know later if we think it's true . . . after we test it some more.

Many Christians don't like to follow through with the full implications of science, yet they want to use it when it suites their point. And don't forget about logic. Logic is akin to science – perhaps the heart of the scientific method itself.

Christians use logic when it suites, too. But following the full implications of logic is contradictory to faith. Faith, again, is trusting in what hasn't had any direct evidence. Logic seeks truth through weeding out weak arguments that have no foundation. What gives an argument a true foundation?

Evidence. Hard cold evidence.

That's why people always say that God works in mysterious ways and that his ways are beyond finding out. His ways aren't our ways. In other words, God doesn't work in the realms of logic all the time. That's why we need faith – to trust the things that God does and allows which sometimes seem quite illogical, contradictory, confusing, and unjust.

History slapped me in the face again much like in my previous blog post. But this time, Science joined in, too.

It was like a nasty pimp-slap.

Galileo asserted that the heavenly bodies – including Earth – were all round and that the sun was actually the center of the solar system.

Well Duh!

Well, duh, nothin' . . . . 'cause back then, that idea was heresy. Galileo's observations and mathematics backed his claims with solid evidence. But publishing his findings only earned him house arrest during the latter years of his life. And his arrest was enforced by the Catholic Church!

Say what?!

The Church world back in Galileo's day was the authority on faith and science. And, the Church world said that the Earth was flat* and was the center of the Universe! Why? Because the church world of that time period thought the Bible said so!

Was Christendom wrong to believe the Bible inferred a flat Earth?

Biblical cosmology becomes more and more of a fantasy as we learn more about the physical world, the laws of physics, and the Universe around us.

Physics tells us that the universe must be older than the Bible declares. Either physics contradicts itself or the Bible does. Take your pick.

Admittedly, being raised as a Christian, that was not a hard choice to make at the time.
Clearly, science was wrong.

But, I always wondered how Satan was able to take Jesus to that high place and show him all the kingdoms of the world in a single moment.

Maybe somebody thought the Earth was flat.

So then, the “circle of the Earth” – as Job called it – wasn't a globe after all. It was a flat pancake!

But . . . but . . . but . . . the Bible wouldn't ever imply that! God made the world! He made the Heavens and the Earth. He knew what he was doing! He knew the Earth wasn't flat when he made it.

He knew what he was doing when he took the firmament and partitioned the waters of the ocean from the waters above in the sky.

Pay attention to that description in the first chapter of Genesis. Read it again, slowly. The Earth was a super dome! A flat area for the land. The dome of the sky was covered with a firmament that allowed rain to drip through from the waters above.

Say . . . if you didn't know that the sky went to outer space and that the sun's light reflecting off of our atmosphere made the sky look blue . . . . what might you think about all that blueness?


Did you say, “water”?

I heard a small child ask once, “can lightning hit the moon”?

Sounds silly until you realize that a child has no accurate perception of the heavenly bodies. At least, not until they finally start school and take physical science lessons. But why shouldn't lightning hit the moon? From a child's mind the moon is embedded in the firmament of the Earth – just like the sun and stars.

That's how the ancients thought. Mankind generally saw the Earth and sky in those terms until men like Galileo came along.

Ooohhh . . . so that's why Revelations says the stars will fall to the Earth like figs from a tree! The ancient world thought the stars were in the sky like low hanging fruit on a tree! The perspective they had allowed for the stars to fall from the sky and litter the ground.

The sky can peel back like a scroll. The dome of the Earth can be yanked back like a cover or torn away like an ancient parchment scroll.

Jesus can ride the clouds and every eye can see him. However, not because all the news channels of the world will report on this awesome spectacle. Because, when you live on a flat Earth – everyone can look up at the same time and see him in the sky!

Man, if we just could've kept building that tower of Babel, we could have burst through the dome of the Earth and saw God, touched the sun, and tickled the moon and stars. That's why God had to stop all of their fun.

But, now we know better. All of the heavenly bodies are so very far away. None of it is mounted within our atmosphere or "firmament" like the Bible declares throughout it's text.

This was quite problematic.

How could scripture misrepresent the nature of the world if the Creator divinely authored the Bible?!

Then, all the arguments of the skeptics started caving in on my faith. I had to put forth a conscience effort to brace my beliefs and hold them in place. I didn't give in just yet, but boy oh boy, I sure had some more investigation to do now!

And speaking of the heavenly bodies . . . lets take a look at our sun. An awesome display of power and energy. And through science, we now know how to apply the same principles that make the sun glow.

Nuclear weapons.

The sun is a gigantic nuclear reactor. Hydrogen fuels it just like our hydrogen bombs – which are wimpy and picayune replicas of the sun – in principle at least. That's why you had better wear that sunscreen this summer! That radiation will burn your skin. That's why we have the Aurora lights in the sky. The radiation of the sun is bouncing off of the Earth's magnetic field and atmosphere. That's the other reason why astronauts wear space suits; Space is radioactive. But why doesn't the sun explode into a huge mushroom cloud like our little baby sun-bombs? The sun generates a massive magnetic field that keeps it all from going off like a huge intergalactic nuke! So, the sun is a nuclear reactor keeping itself in a tight furnace-like ball.

The scientific community estimates that the sun started out with enough Hydrogen to burn for 10 billion years. Our bright beauty seems to have about 5 billion years of juice left.


So, in about 5 billion years from now, the sun's core will run out of Hydrogen and flare up in a final burst. The sun will start to balloon and scorch the Earth – eventually swallowing it whole and melting it away. Then, our solar system will forever be covered in night as the sun snuffs out like a candle smothered by melted wax.

Regardless of whether Metallica meant nuclear war or the sun's apocalyptic burn-out, their metal song, Blackened is frighteningly backed by science. You can click the link and check out the lyrics or hear the song on their official web site.


But, the Bible also says that the Earth will be melted away with a fervent heat. Maybe that proves the Bible is prophetic. Well, they've got the “scorched Earth” part right. But not because of prophesy. Physics gives us hard evidence of what's in store for the Earth's future.

Sounds morbid, huh? But I'll tell you this . . . I'd rather be nuked once and for all by the sun 5 billion years from now than to live out eternity in a smoldering bottomless pit that flows with a lake of fire.

* Since this post, I've come to realize that people in Galileo's day did know that the Earth was round and not flat. However, they still thought the Earth was the center of the solar system as well as the Universe. And that still got Galileo into a whole lot of trouble.

I cannot say the same for the Biblical writers, however. They really seemed to believe the Earth was flat.