Science is a discipline that theists should be able to enjoy and appreciate--after all, theists invented science in their quest to learn about God. Science should not seen as a potential threat to religious belief. Anyone who claims that science somehow eliminates any need for a God simply doesn't understand existential science very well. Over the past decade or so, I've read a number of "popular" books about biology, paleontology, cosmology, Darwin's theory of natural selection (or "evolution") and other related topics in a personal quest for answers to my personal philosophical/existential questions: Who am I? Why am I here? How did I come to exist? When contemplating those questions one must also ask related questions like: How was the universe created? How did life originate? These latter questions are considered scientific by nature. Of the numerous books I've consumed on related subjects, among the very best I've read was a book titled The Living Cosmos written by Chris Impey, an astronomy professor at the University of Arizona. While I disagreed with some of Professor Impey's conclusions, he is without question an extremely talented writer. He mixes in plausible-sounding scenarios that create vivid imagery that convey his secular ideology regarding religion and evolution, whether he's providing a fictionalized account of the martyrdom of Giordano Bruno or one of an asteroid strike causing the K-T extinction, while grazing dinosaurs remained oblivious to their imminent doom. Professor Impey very accurately described the highly improbable cosmological … [Read more...]
What constitutes a miracle?
Paul Wood says that the headaches were so bad that he couldn't walk down a hallway without using the walls for support. X-rays showed a malignant brain tumor was the problem, although his neurosurgeon thought an aneurysm might have caused bleeding on the brain. His surgery was abruptly canceled after new x-rays revealed the tumor had vanished. Medical professionals refer to this phenomena as "spontaneous remission." One day the patient is dying of some incurable malady, and the next day has completely recovered. Statistically speaking, survival is not the expected outcome. When a person has what is normally considered a fatal illness or injury, we should naturally expect that person to die within a relatively short period of time, or at least have surgery or other treatment to save that person's life. There is no natural explanation for a tumor (and all symptoms) to simply disappear. But rarely, it does happen. According to the pastor of Gravity Church, Paul had inspired his fellow congregation members by saying, "No matter what happens to me, I'm going to be okay. I trust God." Nothing that anyone could possibly say would ever convince Paul Wood that he had not received a miraculous cure from God, facilitated by the power of prayer. Skeptics might argue that Paul's condition was inaccurately diagnosed and his doctors were incompetent, or might look for some other way to explain the inexplicable, but while Paul's recovery might be the exception and not the rule, it's hardly the only exception. Miracles appear to happen relatively frequently, once we start looking … [Read more...]
Molecular Biologist Franklin Harold’s thoughts on abiogenesis
Described as "one of the world's most respected microbiologists" on the jacket of his hardcover book in our local library, Professor Franklin Harold of Colorado State University has included some fascinating observations In his book The Way of the Cell on the topic of abiogenesis, or the scientific hypothesis about the origin of life. If one cares about the mini-reviews on the back cover, they would seem to lend credibility to his claim of expertise on the subject, given the enthusiastic endorsement of his book by renowned biologist Lynn Margulis. Dr. Harold appears to be imminently qualified to write about the subject in question. In my opinion, his chapter titled "Searching for the beginning" is so remarkable we should start at its beginning. Professor Harold writes, Of all the unsolved mysteries remaining in science, the most consequential may be the origin of life. This opinion is bound to strike many readers as overblown, to put it mildly. Should we not rank the Big Bang, life in the cosmos, and the nature of consciousness on at least an equal plane? My reason for placing the origin of life at the top of the agenda is that resolution of this question is required in order to anchor living organisms securely in the real world of matter and energy, and thus relieve the lingering anxiety as to whether we have read nature's book correctly. Creation myths lie at the heart of all human cultures, and science is no exception; until we know where we come from, we do not know who we are. [emphasis added]"Franklin Harold, The Way of the Cell Many people who argue … [Read more...]
The ghost brother of Twisted Sister
(Image: © Paul Natkin\/WireImage) I must admit that the strongest memory I had of the “heavy metal” rock band Twisted Sister was not actually of the band, but a National Lampoon magazine I once owned. The cover bore the picture of an adorable but pitiful-looking dog with a .38 revolver pressed to its head. The cover threatened, “If you don’t buy this magazine, we’ll kill this dog!” It's a well known fact that I'm a sucker for dogs, so I bought a copy. Even years prior to my involvement with animal rescue, I couldn’t resist the idea of saving that poor dog’s life. In retrospect, it may have been the best investment under five bucks I've ever made. That issue wasn't just funny; virtually every word was hilarious. There were spoofs of arcade games like Space Invaders but called “Sperm from Space”, longer articles such as “The Death of Ed McMahon”...even the fake "Letters to the Editor" were priceless. When I read that issue of National Lampoon, I laughed so hard I cried, some of the jokes were so funny. Then my friends passed it around the room and read it in turn, shedding tears of laughter as well. Only our friend Jarvis read the whole magazine from cover to cover and never even cracked a smile, but he was the exception. There was a point to be made here, and it's about Twisted Sister. One of the fake letters to the editor went something along these lines (from memory, so this is not a verbatim quote): Dear Sir: I would like to completely disavow myself from any association with the bands AC/DC, Judas Priest, Twisted Sister, Def Leppard, Motley Crue…after a long … [Read more...]
Common descent versus common design
My latest "Eureka!" moment while arguing that Charles Darwin's famous theory of common descent with modification is actually a rather pathetic explanation for the modern diversity of life came when I realized that the work of Gregor Mendel had been purloined by evolutionary biologists and made the centerpiece of their argument. Clearly, Mendel's research into genetic recombination demonstrated how descent with modification produced variety in plants, and it stood to reason to assume that the same sort of variety was produced by sexual reproduction by animals. Indeed, anyone brave (or foolish) enough to express skepticism at the idea that Charles Darwin's theory explains the origin of new species had better be prepared for an unprecedented degree of anger, scorn, ridicule, and frequent suggestions to consider remedial biology classes. The question remains: does Mendel's work truly explain the origin of new species, or is that explanation flawed? The idea sounds preposterous on the surface, sort of like the plot of a bad science fiction movie titled Planet of the Furless Apes. Darwin famously scribbled "Monkeys make men" in one of his notebooks to capture the idea that modern evolutionary biologists might call "changes of accumulations in allele frequency changes", which is a fancy way of saying that humans evolved from apes when certain DNA patterns become dominant while others become recessive. Humans lost their fur, grew physically smaller but developed bigger brains, simply because we could. It is theoretically possible, and the only other potential explanation in … [Read more...]
