The teams in the Superbowl this year are the Steelers (from Pittsburgh) and Cardinals (from Arizona)... right? I think that is right. So I have predictions. It's very scientific. Science is observing patterns. My hypothesis is that certain factors determine victory: home of the team, culture of that home, name recognition, and age of the leader.
My example case is the recent presidential election.
The Winner was a man from the northern city of Chicago, whose culture is fairly urban and industrial. He got enough media attention to be the candidate of choice, whose name everyone knew. He is also one of the youngest presidents in US history.
The Runner Up was a man from the state of Arizona, whose culture is independent (known in some circles as 'maverick'). Though his was a name that has been in the primaries of presidential races for over a decade, he was the candidate no one expected to be the nominee. He came from nowhere. His age was the subject of much discussion, as he would have been among the oldest presidents of the United States.
Can you miss the correlations between the political field and the Superbowl? I predict that:
The Winner will be a team from the northern, urban Pittsburgh. Industrial? You bet. They're called the Steelers. This team has been around for a long time, regular contenders for the AFC championship and won a Superbowl within the last 5 years. They are led by a man who is also young in NFL standards, a recent star in the league.
The Loser will be a team from rough and ready Arizona, this upstart team no one predicted would represent the NFC in the Superbowl for the year. They flew in, as it were, from nowhere. Leading this team is the veteran quarterback Kurt Warner, an ancient in the physical sport of professional football.
My brother says he wants Kurt Warner - a good guy, to be sure - to win tomorrow, but I'm saying the precedent just isn't there. He says, "Hope."
I find that ironic.
To God be all glory.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
What a God Can Do
There’s only two rules worth following, advises Captain Jack Sparrow. “What a man can do, and what a man can’t do.” From a position of logic, this is a good concept to grasp. Certainly civilized people (as opposed to Pirates) recognize that what a man can do should be restrained by what a man ought to do. It is also not always possible to know exactly what a man can and cannot do. Wisdom does not demand that you rise or sink to the expectations of possibility when those expectations are not aligned with reality. And Christians must allow that despite what man cannot do, there are some things God can do anyway.
Christians are quite frequently discussing what God can do. Some even believe He can do anything. Omnipotence is not without its limitations. Those boundaries are merely excluded from affecting the power involved.
In the issue of Creation, many Christians (whose theology is based on philosophy, and not on Scripture) profess belief in a God who could do anything. He could create in six seconds, six days, or six trillion years. And in the question of power, He could.
Where we run into problems is when we add a word and say that God could have created in any amount of time. This is impossible, and I will tell you why.
I believe in a God who cannot lie. And this God, the one God, can communicate to His creatures (whose understanding He created for this purpose) clearly. He did communicate to us, in the Bible. That’s the only way we know who this God is in the first place. If we’re going to throw out the Bible, we might as well toss God away with it. What God says in the Bible is that He created in six days. It is not difficult to understand this from the passages. If that was not what He meant, then God had a failure of communication. Remember. Lying is something God cannot do.
The only timeline, therefore, in which God could have created, is that which He told us: six days.
To God be all glory.
Christians are quite frequently discussing what God can do. Some even believe He can do anything. Omnipotence is not without its limitations. Those boundaries are merely excluded from affecting the power involved.
In the issue of Creation, many Christians (whose theology is based on philosophy, and not on Scripture) profess belief in a God who could do anything. He could create in six seconds, six days, or six trillion years. And in the question of power, He could.
Where we run into problems is when we add a word and say that God could have created in any amount of time. This is impossible, and I will tell you why.
I believe in a God who cannot lie. And this God, the one God, can communicate to His creatures (whose understanding He created for this purpose) clearly. He did communicate to us, in the Bible. That’s the only way we know who this God is in the first place. If we’re going to throw out the Bible, we might as well toss God away with it. What God says in the Bible is that He created in six days. It is not difficult to understand this from the passages. If that was not what He meant, then God had a failure of communication. Remember. Lying is something God cannot do.
The only timeline, therefore, in which God could have created, is that which He told us: six days.
To God be all glory.
Review of The Empty Cradle by Philip Longman
The Empty Cradle, by Philip Longman, is a wide-scope book delving into a truth much more inconvenient than “global warming.” It is a fact that birthrates are falling all over the world, and that in many countries, particularly Western nations, the rates are already below replacement. In this well researched book, the author logically lays out a history of birthrates – particularly in the modern era (since the founding of America), the economic consequences of labor shortages, and some suggestions for stimulating a rise in birthrates again without relinquishing secular equalitarianism. The author’s worldview is specifically secular, and he expresses some fear that religious fundamentalists (that would be me) may inherit the earth by default of having more children. He describes the overcoming faith that such people have, enabling them to go ahead and have multiple children despite cultural and economic pressures that depress the birthrate among pragmatists.
Once upon a time the government was concerned to see birthrates falling (they fell in the United States for about a century between the Civil War and the end of World War II). In the 20th century, however, prominent voices began sounding an alarm of overpopulation – a myth, since the population of the world has multiplied magnificently in the ensuing decades and managing an ever-increasing productivity. Quality of life has improved significantly since the middle ages, when the population of the earth was but a fraction of the present 6 billion.
A few pages are devoted to the causes of declining birthrates. Accessible and legal and socially acceptable birth control (the Pill) is mentioned, along with abortion. Mostly the author discusses the “liberating” policies of equality and the economic forces of increasingly technological jobs. There is also the cultural/materialistic glamorization of adults free of the burden of children.
How important is the birthrate? The middle of The Empty Cradle describes the devastating economic situation we can anticipate when 1) birthrates fall steeply and 2) birthrates fall below replacement levels. The population ages. Aging populations reproduce less even than their parents did. This is a downward spiral with drastic consequences. Most attempts to deal with these results depress the birthrate even more.
Economics effect social structure and the type of government people find acceptable and necessary. As he builds toward the concluding recommendations for turning these trends around, Mr. Longman incorporates a good tutorial on economics, the examples of history, and some political theory. If you’re interested in the power of taxation and laws, read this book.
In Chapter 7 is a discussion of the economic implications of having children, including “opportunity cost.” At one point the author states that “cheaper by the dozen” is true, but he minimalizes this. He is exaggerating when he uses the phrase, really only calculating for two or three children, not by a larger number like a dozen. In a broad economic sense, one woman raising and educating 6-12 children, cooking for them at home, growing her own vegetables, etc. would be a much more efficient means of producing a crop of laborers than the present one. Also the data he uses in calculating the cost of a child is an average, representing the values of a society that prefers things to people. Priorities change (people whose priorities have not changed consider this a sacrifice) and thrift is employed when you really wish to invest in having many children. What the author does not do in analyzing whether all the costs typical of raising a child are necessary or even beneficial, he does for the elderly. There are many pages describing the extension of life expectancies, the ineffectiveness of healthcare, and environmental excesses that cost money to produce and to remedy but which could easily be avoided with a bit more prudence.
The final chapter of the book (none of this book is superfluous; there is not even a summary conclusion – a concise style I appreciate) lists three primary recommendations the author has for making the most of the labor we have and for encouraging adults to invest in the future through bearing a next generation. In keeping with his worldview, the recommendations avoid appeals to virtue or self-responsibility, instead increasing the role of governments wielding taxes and laws to corral the people to a preferred socially beneficial behavior (including more healthy lifestyles and diets). My favorite recommendation is one that would be difficult for a government to force, but which may be the inevitable social response to increasing economic and political pressures from the declining population: return to smaller communities in which production is less efficient but healthier and more viable long term.
All the facts, observations, and analyses of this book had the ring of truth (included are multiple sources and footnotes). I disagree with interpretations in some places, and with prescriptions in others, but benefited from reading the author’s different point of view. This is a book I want to own, to keep on my shelf and to use in home educating my, God willing, many children. The information presented in The Empty Cradle is important for every person to know, and the writing and layout are superb. Therefore, I recommend this book to you, and to all of my friends.
To God be all glory.
Once upon a time the government was concerned to see birthrates falling (they fell in the United States for about a century between the Civil War and the end of World War II). In the 20th century, however, prominent voices began sounding an alarm of overpopulation – a myth, since the population of the world has multiplied magnificently in the ensuing decades and managing an ever-increasing productivity. Quality of life has improved significantly since the middle ages, when the population of the earth was but a fraction of the present 6 billion.
A few pages are devoted to the causes of declining birthrates. Accessible and legal and socially acceptable birth control (the Pill) is mentioned, along with abortion. Mostly the author discusses the “liberating” policies of equality and the economic forces of increasingly technological jobs. There is also the cultural/materialistic glamorization of adults free of the burden of children.
How important is the birthrate? The middle of The Empty Cradle describes the devastating economic situation we can anticipate when 1) birthrates fall steeply and 2) birthrates fall below replacement levels. The population ages. Aging populations reproduce less even than their parents did. This is a downward spiral with drastic consequences. Most attempts to deal with these results depress the birthrate even more.
Economics effect social structure and the type of government people find acceptable and necessary. As he builds toward the concluding recommendations for turning these trends around, Mr. Longman incorporates a good tutorial on economics, the examples of history, and some political theory. If you’re interested in the power of taxation and laws, read this book.
In Chapter 7 is a discussion of the economic implications of having children, including “opportunity cost.” At one point the author states that “cheaper by the dozen” is true, but he minimalizes this. He is exaggerating when he uses the phrase, really only calculating for two or three children, not by a larger number like a dozen. In a broad economic sense, one woman raising and educating 6-12 children, cooking for them at home, growing her own vegetables, etc. would be a much more efficient means of producing a crop of laborers than the present one. Also the data he uses in calculating the cost of a child is an average, representing the values of a society that prefers things to people. Priorities change (people whose priorities have not changed consider this a sacrifice) and thrift is employed when you really wish to invest in having many children. What the author does not do in analyzing whether all the costs typical of raising a child are necessary or even beneficial, he does for the elderly. There are many pages describing the extension of life expectancies, the ineffectiveness of healthcare, and environmental excesses that cost money to produce and to remedy but which could easily be avoided with a bit more prudence.
The final chapter of the book (none of this book is superfluous; there is not even a summary conclusion – a concise style I appreciate) lists three primary recommendations the author has for making the most of the labor we have and for encouraging adults to invest in the future through bearing a next generation. In keeping with his worldview, the recommendations avoid appeals to virtue or self-responsibility, instead increasing the role of governments wielding taxes and laws to corral the people to a preferred socially beneficial behavior (including more healthy lifestyles and diets). My favorite recommendation is one that would be difficult for a government to force, but which may be the inevitable social response to increasing economic and political pressures from the declining population: return to smaller communities in which production is less efficient but healthier and more viable long term.
All the facts, observations, and analyses of this book had the ring of truth (included are multiple sources and footnotes). I disagree with interpretations in some places, and with prescriptions in others, but benefited from reading the author’s different point of view. This is a book I want to own, to keep on my shelf and to use in home educating my, God willing, many children. The information presented in The Empty Cradle is important for every person to know, and the writing and layout are superb. Therefore, I recommend this book to you, and to all of my friends.
To God be all glory.
Eclectic:
economics,
family,
literature,
politics
Doctors
Before you read any farther, I want you to know that this is not my opinion of all doctors, nor is any doctor necessarily guilty of all of these things. However, I feel like venting on the occasional futility of the health care system – into which Americans pour millions upon millions of dollars each year. There have been studies (I read about a few in Empty Cradle) that showed no difference between families that spent 40% more money receiving more health care services than those who didn’t. Some things to think about.
Doctors:Tell you what you already know. For example, “There is a lump.” Or “You are sick.”
Run diagnostic tests. If the results are negative, you are no better off, but they feel content with the job they have done. They are guards of public health, reassuring themselves that you do not have any exotic infectious, quarantine-requiring diseases.
Have no interest in diagnosing what you have if it is inconvenient, only what you do not have.
Say you have a virus, which they refuse to treat, as though it were nothing. Influenza is a virus that has killed thousands or more.
Prescribe and recommend medications that either prolong your symptoms or whose side effects are worse than your symptoms.
Order tests for diseases that are untreatable.
Do not understand tests.
Change their minds.
Inoculate you against diseases which are almost impossible for you to contract.
Charge outrageous prices for exercises you could do yourself at home.
Require useless follow-ups that take them two minutes and cost you a full exam fee.
Believe so much in whatever they were taught by experts in school that they doubt your common sense.
Desire to see you annually for physicals and screenings which will not contribute to your health or quality of life – but may contribute to their statistics, and definitely to their bankroll.
Are enslaved by the insurance and welfare systems, requiring hours of paperwork and follow-up to verify claims.
Stick together.
Leave most of the work to nurses.
Gullibly believe “experts” in almost every other field, rather than thinking critically about subjects outside their college major(s).
To God be all glory.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Any Physicists Reading? I have some questions.
Lately I've been in a state of mind that can soak up information, and comes up with really good questions - well I think they're interesting, leading me to more and more questions (and occasionally to comprehension). One field that's been appealing this week is physics. I'm reading a book, Reinventing Gravity, that has me thinking about the basics of physics - and marvelling at how much of our universe we humans don't understand.
So I would be ok with exhaustive comments answering the following questions, or referrals to books or websites that could help me understand these things. I took physics in high school, no problem, and have given a great deal of skeptical thought to Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. This is because I'm fairly convinced the speed of light is not constant. So if you mention the speed of light in your answer, I'll probably enjoy it more. I understand that I'm missing a few levels of knowledge between high school physics and the edges of theoretical physics I'm trying to reach. Give me your best shot.
You can also use the comment section to add your own questions. The compilation of questions is great food for thought and theory.
Some physics questions:
Are forces energy?
What is light?
Does it have a constant velocity?
Is its speed constant?
If the velocity of light is not constant, what force acts on it?
What is the equal and opposite reaction? (Whence is the energy subtracted?)
What is electricity?
What is magnetism?
What is heat?
Is it motion in and of molecules,
or that which causes motion in and of molecules,
or the output of motion in and of molecules?
What is gravity?
How is gravity related to attraction and acceleration (gravitational mass and inertial mass)?
What is the significance of the relationship?
Does the resistance or escape of an object from gravity take any energy away from the gravity-exerting objects?
Does gravity curve space, or is it the effect of curved space?
If gravity is the effect of curved space, what makes space curved?
Matter and energy?
Is anything else (such as time) curved by these things as well?
If spacetime can be curved, what else can be done to it?
Can spacetime be stretched?
If spacetime can be stretched, what stretches it?
Are opposing forces of gravity like Curling brooms, creating a smooth path for matter and energy?
How do permittivity and permeability relate energy, electricity, gravity, and matter?
What does density have to do with them?
What force causes nature to abhor a vacuum?
(To quote The Little Mermaid), What is fire and how does it burn?
Must fire produce light?
Can light be produced without fire/burning?
Must fire produce heat?
Are there other ways to convert matter to energy?
Oh my goodness, does time have to come into this?
How is time related to the measurement of time?
Must there be a direct correlation?
To God be all glory.
So I would be ok with exhaustive comments answering the following questions, or referrals to books or websites that could help me understand these things. I took physics in high school, no problem, and have given a great deal of skeptical thought to Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. This is because I'm fairly convinced the speed of light is not constant. So if you mention the speed of light in your answer, I'll probably enjoy it more. I understand that I'm missing a few levels of knowledge between high school physics and the edges of theoretical physics I'm trying to reach. Give me your best shot.
You can also use the comment section to add your own questions. The compilation of questions is great food for thought and theory.
Some physics questions:
Are forces energy?
What is light?
Does it have a constant velocity?
Is its speed constant?
If the velocity of light is not constant, what force acts on it?
What is the equal and opposite reaction? (Whence is the energy subtracted?)
What is electricity?
What is magnetism?
What is heat?
Is it motion in and of molecules,
or that which causes motion in and of molecules,
or the output of motion in and of molecules?
What is gravity?
How is gravity related to attraction and acceleration (gravitational mass and inertial mass)?
What is the significance of the relationship?
Does the resistance or escape of an object from gravity take any energy away from the gravity-exerting objects?
Does gravity curve space, or is it the effect of curved space?
If gravity is the effect of curved space, what makes space curved?
Matter and energy?
Is anything else (such as time) curved by these things as well?
If spacetime can be curved, what else can be done to it?
Can spacetime be stretched?
If spacetime can be stretched, what stretches it?
Are opposing forces of gravity like Curling brooms, creating a smooth path for matter and energy?
How do permittivity and permeability relate energy, electricity, gravity, and matter?
What does density have to do with them?
What force causes nature to abhor a vacuum?
(To quote The Little Mermaid), What is fire and how does it burn?
Must fire produce light?
Can light be produced without fire/burning?
Must fire produce heat?
Are there other ways to convert matter to energy?
Oh my goodness, does time have to come into this?
How is time related to the measurement of time?
Must there be a direct correlation?
To God be all glory.
Eclectic:
philosophy,
science
Friday, January 16, 2009
New Links!
You're going to love the links I just added on my sidebar. I've been a subscriber/follower for at least a couple months on each of these.
Kelly, the Word Warrior at Generation Cedar, is a homeschool mom who blogs about current issues especially regarding family values and education. Her defenses of courtship, homeschooling, and God-run family size all match my beliefs and lifestyle very well. She also blogs her thoughts about Christian living, which I have found to be healthy exhortations for my life.
Ann at A Holy Experience writes like an art gallery, beautiful vivid words woven with pictures, truth, and real life. Some highlights are her thoughts on gratitude ("eucharistic living"), the ugly-beautiful, and time. Every sentence she writes is one I want to underline, quote, and share with people. I already sent this link to all my friends; the only other thing I can do is to tell you about her. Be encouraged every day!
As always, thank you for reading my blog. I want to invite you to publicly follow my blog and these others. Bloggers like to know they have readers, and the subscription feature of "following" via Blogger is one of my favorite recent inventions.
To God be all glory.
Kelly, the Word Warrior at Generation Cedar, is a homeschool mom who blogs about current issues especially regarding family values and education. Her defenses of courtship, homeschooling, and God-run family size all match my beliefs and lifestyle very well. She also blogs her thoughts about Christian living, which I have found to be healthy exhortations for my life.
Ann at A Holy Experience writes like an art gallery, beautiful vivid words woven with pictures, truth, and real life. Some highlights are her thoughts on gratitude ("eucharistic living"), the ugly-beautiful, and time. Every sentence she writes is one I want to underline, quote, and share with people. I already sent this link to all my friends; the only other thing I can do is to tell you about her. Be encouraged every day!
As always, thank you for reading my blog. I want to invite you to publicly follow my blog and these others. Bloggers like to know they have readers, and the subscription feature of "following" via Blogger is one of my favorite recent inventions.
To God be all glory.
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Review: Coming to Grips with Genesis
Coming to Grips with Genesis, edited by Terry Mortenson, Ph. D. and Thane H. Ury, Ph. D.
Is the question of the age of the earth too divisive for Christians? Is your interpretation of Genesis, particularly the first eleven chapters, important? Are young-earth creationists good Bible scholars or good scientists? Does Genesis allow for millions or billions of years? Does the rest of the Bible?
Comprised of nearly 450 pages written by 16 men dedicated to the literalism, inerrancy, and theological relevance of Genesis 1-11, this book is a resource for scholars and theologians. Amateur as I am, reading the entire book cover to cover was a challenge. I learned several new words, my favorite of which is phenomenological – just because it is fun to say! Most Creationist books are about science. Some are about the cultural impact of accepting Darwinism. This book is almost unique in that it addresses the theological reasons for believing in a recent 6-day creation of the Heavens and Earth and life in them, as well as, significantly, a global flood.
Christians today cannot even be said to be tempted to doubt the authority of Scripture compared to science; it is almost a cultural given that reasonable Christians will submit their interpretations of the Word of God to the supreme truth of scientific evidence as interpreted by a majority of secular and religious scientists. Coming to Grips with Genesis seeks to show that no compromise on the literal narrative of Genesis 1-11 is based in hermeneutics. Theologians who promote the day-age, framework, poetic, or gap theories for interpreting Genesis are inspired only by their conviction that “science” has proven an age of the earth billions of years beyond that recorded by the only witness, the God of the Bible.
Topics include:
- historic interpretations of Genesis and beliefs about the age of the earth from Jesus, the apostles, early church fathers, reformation theologians, and modern commentators
- possibility of gaps in the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies
- theological implications of death and pain and decay before Adam’s sin
- and discussions of the words, phrases, and style of language in the Creation account of Genesis 1-3, and the Flood narrative in Genesis 6-8.
Dedicated to Dr. John C. Whitcomb, Jr., a short biography and bibliography is included at the end of the book along with a personal tribute describing his impact on each contributor opening almost every chapter. John MacArthur and Henry Morris both endorsed this book with their forewords. Every essay is covered in footnotes, and there is an extensive resource list in the back of the book for more information. There is also an index. Several contributors referred the reader to the Institute for Creation Research’s RATE Project conclusions. As usual, Master Books has maintained a close relationship with Answers in Genesis, and that ministry is frequently cited in the resource list.
Chapter 8, “A Critique of the Framework Interpretation of the Creation Week” by Robert V. McCabe is 38 pages of introduction, discussion, summary, discussion, summary (etc.), conclusion – all about, in my words, the Hebrew word for “and then.” If you take my advice, you will read the first two pages and skip the rest. Trust me that this man looked at every possible detail of this “waw consecutive.” Much more interesting was the work of Stephen W. Boyd in chapter 6, “The Genre of Genesis 1:1-2:3: What Means This Text?” He included the results of his own statistical analysis of waw consecutives as a sign of historical narrative, with other considerations for determining genre.
The chapters that included direct quotes (translated) of church fathers were a helpful and interesting survey of early church theology with the different schools of thought (for example, the way in which most theologians related the age of the earth to their eschatology). One chapter introduced me to Ancient Near Eastern literature. Another emphasized the importance of context in (especially Hebrew) interpreting a passage. A phrase often has a meaning more than the sum of its parts. Page 120 and 121 are a biblical refutation of human empiricism superceding a faith acceptance of the “special revelation” word of God. Chapter 9’s play by play description of the Flood with a timeline and occasional phrase exposition is one of the highlights (and I learned about inclusios and chiasms!). My favorite part (more a reflection on my taste for philosophy than the writing or substance of the rest of the book) was the Epilogue, in which the editors contrast young earth biblical creationism with the Intelligent Design Movement (which tends to compromise the statements of the Bible).
Ultimately, this book is a plea for faithful exegesis of the Bible and a defense of the methods employed and conclusions reached through traditional hermeneutic approach to Genesis consistent with that used on the rest of the Bible. Coming to Grips with Genesis is an intense work, scholarly and detailed. Theologians, seminarians, pastors, and Bible teachers – especially those whose view of Genesis is not firmly opposed to all forms of compromise – are the appropriate audience for this book.
To God be all glory.
Is the question of the age of the earth too divisive for Christians? Is your interpretation of Genesis, particularly the first eleven chapters, important? Are young-earth creationists good Bible scholars or good scientists? Does Genesis allow for millions or billions of years? Does the rest of the Bible?
Comprised of nearly 450 pages written by 16 men dedicated to the literalism, inerrancy, and theological relevance of Genesis 1-11, this book is a resource for scholars and theologians. Amateur as I am, reading the entire book cover to cover was a challenge. I learned several new words, my favorite of which is phenomenological – just because it is fun to say! Most Creationist books are about science. Some are about the cultural impact of accepting Darwinism. This book is almost unique in that it addresses the theological reasons for believing in a recent 6-day creation of the Heavens and Earth and life in them, as well as, significantly, a global flood.
Christians today cannot even be said to be tempted to doubt the authority of Scripture compared to science; it is almost a cultural given that reasonable Christians will submit their interpretations of the Word of God to the supreme truth of scientific evidence as interpreted by a majority of secular and religious scientists. Coming to Grips with Genesis seeks to show that no compromise on the literal narrative of Genesis 1-11 is based in hermeneutics. Theologians who promote the day-age, framework, poetic, or gap theories for interpreting Genesis are inspired only by their conviction that “science” has proven an age of the earth billions of years beyond that recorded by the only witness, the God of the Bible.
Topics include:
- historic interpretations of Genesis and beliefs about the age of the earth from Jesus, the apostles, early church fathers, reformation theologians, and modern commentators
- possibility of gaps in the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies
- theological implications of death and pain and decay before Adam’s sin
- and discussions of the words, phrases, and style of language in the Creation account of Genesis 1-3, and the Flood narrative in Genesis 6-8.
Dedicated to Dr. John C. Whitcomb, Jr., a short biography and bibliography is included at the end of the book along with a personal tribute describing his impact on each contributor opening almost every chapter. John MacArthur and Henry Morris both endorsed this book with their forewords. Every essay is covered in footnotes, and there is an extensive resource list in the back of the book for more information. There is also an index. Several contributors referred the reader to the Institute for Creation Research’s RATE Project conclusions. As usual, Master Books has maintained a close relationship with Answers in Genesis, and that ministry is frequently cited in the resource list.
Chapter 8, “A Critique of the Framework Interpretation of the Creation Week” by Robert V. McCabe is 38 pages of introduction, discussion, summary, discussion, summary (etc.), conclusion – all about, in my words, the Hebrew word for “and then.” If you take my advice, you will read the first two pages and skip the rest. Trust me that this man looked at every possible detail of this “waw consecutive.” Much more interesting was the work of Stephen W. Boyd in chapter 6, “The Genre of Genesis 1:1-2:3: What Means This Text?” He included the results of his own statistical analysis of waw consecutives as a sign of historical narrative, with other considerations for determining genre.
The chapters that included direct quotes (translated) of church fathers were a helpful and interesting survey of early church theology with the different schools of thought (for example, the way in which most theologians related the age of the earth to their eschatology). One chapter introduced me to Ancient Near Eastern literature. Another emphasized the importance of context in (especially Hebrew) interpreting a passage. A phrase often has a meaning more than the sum of its parts. Page 120 and 121 are a biblical refutation of human empiricism superceding a faith acceptance of the “special revelation” word of God. Chapter 9’s play by play description of the Flood with a timeline and occasional phrase exposition is one of the highlights (and I learned about inclusios and chiasms!). My favorite part (more a reflection on my taste for philosophy than the writing or substance of the rest of the book) was the Epilogue, in which the editors contrast young earth biblical creationism with the Intelligent Design Movement (which tends to compromise the statements of the Bible).
Ultimately, this book is a plea for faithful exegesis of the Bible and a defense of the methods employed and conclusions reached through traditional hermeneutic approach to Genesis consistent with that used on the rest of the Bible. Coming to Grips with Genesis is an intense work, scholarly and detailed. Theologians, seminarians, pastors, and Bible teachers – especially those whose view of Genesis is not firmly opposed to all forms of compromise – are the appropriate audience for this book.
To God be all glory.
Eclectic:
Bible,
Creation,
literature,
theology
Design and the Intelligent Design Movement
Over the past decade or so, several scientists, authors, and speakers have joined forces to promote their observations that indicate life originated with a designer. Cells are just too complicated, they say, to have arisen by chance. Spontaneous generation, disproven centuries ago, remains the naturalist’s only option for the origin of biological life. Yet the odds against even a simple single-celled organism arising by chance are astronomical. The molecules have to line up all at once to form proteins, which have to line up quickly into the cells. DNA is a complex code for building life: made up of simple proteins, the series communicates a baffling level of information. Intelligent Design usually rests their case for an original designer at this point, picking back up after life has begun to debate Darwinism’s explanation for the variety of life we witness on earth.
But they could take the matter farther. Even if the remotest of far-fetched chances (this is before mutation or natural selection or heredity can have any impact on the process) came true and all the chemicals and molecules lined up, the language DNA writes still had to come from somewhere. It has no meaning without an Author. That age-old question, “Why?” asked by every two year old since humanity began, remains: both inside science and in the realm of philosophy.
According to the theory of evolution, mutations and natural selection account for increasing complexity and increasing variety among living creatures. (Evolutionists have precious little to explain the acquisition of new information in the DNA; all observable speciation, mutation, and variation consists of loss of information, reduced parameters for variety in future generations.) Evolutionists usually posit that all life arose from a single simple organism (which found sufficient nourishment, reproduced, and gave us the definition of life as we know it). Intelligent Design scientists point out that among the known species, there are many examples of features too complex, too perfectly adapted to be attributed to chance. The advent of each of these mechanisms would have been almost as miraculous as the first life, according to the mathematics. Take vision, wings, migration instinct, sex. Some creatures demonstrate irreducible complexity: all the new parts have to be present and perfect immediately to be functional. In some cases, the slightest difference means death for the creature in whom the feature was derived, and we know that dead creatures don’t pass their genes to future generations.
Complexity, information, and observed natural processes and their limitations are the data. Statistical probabilities are the analyses. Impossible is a logical conclusion. But life exists whether we can explain it or not. So some, purely on scientific grounds, conclude that there may be a designer. If we include this intelligence in the list of natural phenomenon; in other words, accept it as an observable* part of our world, humans can keep studying this marvelous, orderly world, drawing conclusions allowing for design and occasional if not constant intervention by a creative and powerful force.
*Scientists observe evidence for design in other fields (outside of ‘natural science’) all the time. Forensic science, for example, searches for clues that will tell an investigator whether a crime was committed. We not only judge whether there was intelligence, but degrees of intelligence using science. Consider archaeology. We may find a rustic clay pot, or a ziggurat aligned with constellations. Both represent intelligence, but of varying degrees.
Nor does it take a scientist to observe evidence for design. You are walking on the beach. Lying in the sand is a watch. With its gears and correspondence to what you call and measure as time, you conclude that the watch was designed, intelligently. Here most people explain our conclusions using a contrast with something “obviously” not designed, like the sand on the beach. The casual observer can see nothing about the form of the sand that stands out, that indicates someone intentionally smoothed it out and drew in ripples. In fact, we can even explain the tiny size of the particles, their smoothness, and the ripples by natural, consistent, observable events.
Here’s where I differ. Just as we have no explanation (using forces exclusive of a designer) for life, so science cannot explain the origin or structure of these tiny rocks. Under a microscope these crystals and substances reveal a mastery of molecular architecture. Each different rock is functional and unique from other kinds of rock. We’re taught that everything is composed of atoms, those busy bits whirling and attracting and repulsing with a reliability that we need every moment. What keeps the atoms together? What gives them weight? Why are there so many different substances? Even if “naturalists” are right, and the universe began with a big bang, what exploded, why and how? Where did the “what” come from, or the energy for the explosion? Why are there laws, and why are they repeatable? Taking our illustration of the sand, how did it get in the sea to be beaten into fragments, smoothed along a beach, and shaped by the waves breaking on the shore? Why do waves break, and how?
I argue that there is no such thing as naturalism without a designer, because every bit of nature is inexplicable without a designer. The laws of the universe represent order and harmony and intelligence. A cell may be more complex than a grain of sand, but only as the ziggurat is to a clay pot. Both are designed. And everything “natural” is so elegantly structured that its aesthetic far outweighs the clumsy pot made by man.
To God be all glory.
But they could take the matter farther. Even if the remotest of far-fetched chances (this is before mutation or natural selection or heredity can have any impact on the process) came true and all the chemicals and molecules lined up, the language DNA writes still had to come from somewhere. It has no meaning without an Author. That age-old question, “Why?” asked by every two year old since humanity began, remains: both inside science and in the realm of philosophy.
According to the theory of evolution, mutations and natural selection account for increasing complexity and increasing variety among living creatures. (Evolutionists have precious little to explain the acquisition of new information in the DNA; all observable speciation, mutation, and variation consists of loss of information, reduced parameters for variety in future generations.) Evolutionists usually posit that all life arose from a single simple organism (which found sufficient nourishment, reproduced, and gave us the definition of life as we know it). Intelligent Design scientists point out that among the known species, there are many examples of features too complex, too perfectly adapted to be attributed to chance. The advent of each of these mechanisms would have been almost as miraculous as the first life, according to the mathematics. Take vision, wings, migration instinct, sex. Some creatures demonstrate irreducible complexity: all the new parts have to be present and perfect immediately to be functional. In some cases, the slightest difference means death for the creature in whom the feature was derived, and we know that dead creatures don’t pass their genes to future generations.
Complexity, information, and observed natural processes and their limitations are the data. Statistical probabilities are the analyses. Impossible is a logical conclusion. But life exists whether we can explain it or not. So some, purely on scientific grounds, conclude that there may be a designer. If we include this intelligence in the list of natural phenomenon; in other words, accept it as an observable* part of our world, humans can keep studying this marvelous, orderly world, drawing conclusions allowing for design and occasional if not constant intervention by a creative and powerful force.
*Scientists observe evidence for design in other fields (outside of ‘natural science’) all the time. Forensic science, for example, searches for clues that will tell an investigator whether a crime was committed. We not only judge whether there was intelligence, but degrees of intelligence using science. Consider archaeology. We may find a rustic clay pot, or a ziggurat aligned with constellations. Both represent intelligence, but of varying degrees.
Nor does it take a scientist to observe evidence for design. You are walking on the beach. Lying in the sand is a watch. With its gears and correspondence to what you call and measure as time, you conclude that the watch was designed, intelligently. Here most people explain our conclusions using a contrast with something “obviously” not designed, like the sand on the beach. The casual observer can see nothing about the form of the sand that stands out, that indicates someone intentionally smoothed it out and drew in ripples. In fact, we can even explain the tiny size of the particles, their smoothness, and the ripples by natural, consistent, observable events.
Here’s where I differ. Just as we have no explanation (using forces exclusive of a designer) for life, so science cannot explain the origin or structure of these tiny rocks. Under a microscope these crystals and substances reveal a mastery of molecular architecture. Each different rock is functional and unique from other kinds of rock. We’re taught that everything is composed of atoms, those busy bits whirling and attracting and repulsing with a reliability that we need every moment. What keeps the atoms together? What gives them weight? Why are there so many different substances? Even if “naturalists” are right, and the universe began with a big bang, what exploded, why and how? Where did the “what” come from, or the energy for the explosion? Why are there laws, and why are they repeatable? Taking our illustration of the sand, how did it get in the sea to be beaten into fragments, smoothed along a beach, and shaped by the waves breaking on the shore? Why do waves break, and how?
I argue that there is no such thing as naturalism without a designer, because every bit of nature is inexplicable without a designer. The laws of the universe represent order and harmony and intelligence. A cell may be more complex than a grain of sand, but only as the ziggurat is to a clay pot. Both are designed. And everything “natural” is so elegantly structured that its aesthetic far outweighs the clumsy pot made by man.
To God be all glory.
Debate Fallacy
I have encountered in several debates a scenario that frustrates me. For example:
The Queen of England opened a Canadian hockey game by “dropping the puck” during her visit to North America. Insisting that such does not befit a queen, I offered the following points: 1) Queens ought to be dignified to preserve the distinction of their rank. 2) Queens need to connect with and not ostracize their people. 2a) Queens have dignified means of connecting with people. 3) Queens need to portray themselves as relevant to modern people. 3a) There are modern versions of traditional queen events. 3b) Starting a hockey game has no counterpart in traditional queen roles. 4) Hockey is modern, but not dignified. 5) Hockey is violent and unruly. 5a) Queens should not be endorsing symbols or even games portraying lawlessness.
My opponent felt that my argument was fueled merely by my dislike of hockey as a violent and unruly game. Since he personally disagreed, he dismissed this argument without relation to whether such preferences are fitting to royalty and representative heads of state, and with that threw out all of my other arguments, regardless of their relevance or logic.
This tactic is rather desperate, and will not aid in investigation or consensus. Neither is it an honest and logical approach.
To God be all glory.
The Queen of England opened a Canadian hockey game by “dropping the puck” during her visit to North America. Insisting that such does not befit a queen, I offered the following points: 1) Queens ought to be dignified to preserve the distinction of their rank. 2) Queens need to connect with and not ostracize their people. 2a) Queens have dignified means of connecting with people. 3) Queens need to portray themselves as relevant to modern people. 3a) There are modern versions of traditional queen events. 3b) Starting a hockey game has no counterpart in traditional queen roles. 4) Hockey is modern, but not dignified. 5) Hockey is violent and unruly. 5a) Queens should not be endorsing symbols or even games portraying lawlessness.
My opponent felt that my argument was fueled merely by my dislike of hockey as a violent and unruly game. Since he personally disagreed, he dismissed this argument without relation to whether such preferences are fitting to royalty and representative heads of state, and with that threw out all of my other arguments, regardless of their relevance or logic.
This tactic is rather desperate, and will not aid in investigation or consensus. Neither is it an honest and logical approach.
To God be all glory.
Eclectic:
philosophy
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Context Matrix
The other night I watched a movie with a friend. It was a thinking movie, the kind I love. Do people ever tell you a movie is "about" the plot? I mean, a movie or book is rarely about what happens. The events and characters are about something else. Jane Austen was kind enough to tell us in her titles what her books were about. Some people don't realize the subject of their art until they themselves step back to view the metaphor against the big picture.
This movie, it quoted Shakespeare. And even though I'm familiar with about two Shakespeare plays (a comedy - translate: happy ending and a tragedy - translate: everyone dies, but only in the end) and a sonnet, I've figured out that Shakespeare wrote about things. I don't always know what. And so to quote a line from Shakespeare is to imply the subject of his play.
Because my examples are limited, I'm going to use the one I can think of. In Hamlet, the title character arranges for a pointed stage drama designed to convict his mother of her sins. (He ruins the effect by talking straight through the play; Shakespeare should have better appreciated the power of art when left to speak for itself.) In this drama within a play is a woman who worries aloud about whether she is making the right decision. She hesitates to give into temptation. At the end of the play, Hamlet asks his mother for her review of the performance. "Methinks she doth protest too much," says the mother. And so we have a commonly quoted phrase of Shakespeare.
When someone quotes that line, they are often and most correctly implying the context, too. They're even bringing with them the end of the tale, with its vilifications and justifications. Being familiar with the anthologies referenced in works of art can go a long way towards comprehension. Another advandage to interpretation is to have already made a thought venture or two into the subject. The Matrix, I believe, is about fate. How powerful is the human will? Whether I agree with The Matrix's statements on this subject or not, I can more readily grasp those statements because I've spent a lot of time investigating free will and the sovereignty of God.
These references to shared philosophical questions, literary experiences, etc. make up a story-mosaic within the larger story. And it can be done in a movie, in a poem, in witticism, in art, and even in everyday conversation. A frequent form of Context Matrix is the inside joke phenomenon.
My brother writes poetry. Sometimes he just writes whatever is in his head that jumbles into verse form. Some evolutionists wrongly suggest that organisms acquire additional DNA information (to change them into new species) by sort of colliding with other organisms with different DNA (we have the eye factory organism over here, going through generations of natural selection to finally reach vision, and he'll share someday with the organism working out wings and flight). This is not a sufficient mechanism for biology, but it seems to happen in the thought realm of my brother's mind. But he isn't in control of his mental context matrix, of all the things he encounters in his life to fuel his thoughts and shape his experiences. I believe there is a designer at work on each of our lives, and sometimes before we are even aware, He is writing patterns into the mosaic of experiences. Those patterns come out like (good) toxocology reports on my brother's thoughts.
Let me tell you, though, that unless you know my brother on a day-to-day basis, interpreting his poetry is impossible. He doesn't care. For whatever it's worth to you, whatever the words mean to you, take them or leave them. I suppose a lot of art is like that, subjected to the needs and interests of the connoisseur.
I'm really bad at getting metaphors. There is probably a common representative language among poets into which I, for lack of study, have not been initiated. When I do catch on to a metaphor, I'm really excited.
One breakthrough recently is the willingness to admit my ignorance and ask for help in understanding things. (For years I've been trying to help my "blonde" - literal or figurative - friends appear smarter by teaching them to wait a while and see if they catch on before they admit themselves to teasing by that inimitable expression, "Huh?" Now they're teaching me to learn by being willing to ask.) Having a brother like mine helps. Sometimes, you just have to ask the source. Such was my plan of action for a blog I read.
A friend told me that his friend was disappointed in the lack of response to his blog. I've been blogging for two and a half years, and let me tell you, the blog world is big; finding an audience is hard. Out of compassionate curiosity, I found the blog and read it. It didn't make any sense. I mean the words made sense, but they were the plot, not the subject. Months later I checked it again. This time I was convinced that the blog was more than the product of bored hours of creatively mimicing archaic literature. The author was getting at something flying over my head at light speed. So I asked.
And today the author answered. By now I forgot most of what I read, so I have to re-read the post, too. Here it is: The Perilous Journeys of St. Upid I dare you to leave comments (on my blog as well as his) with what you think it's about.
My point here is that my friend understood his friend's blog because he knew the context matrix his friend was using. They've talked in unambiguous language about these topics. They've also both seen Monty Python, which may have helped me if I'd seen more of his stuff. That's your only hint.
To God be all glory.
Eclectic:
context,
literature,
movies,
philosophy,
poetry,
writing
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)