Happy New Year

Going with family on a little trip. No blog until January 1. Have a happy new year!

I'm a Christian, I just don't go to church

When someone says to me, “I am a Christian, I just don’t go to church,” I know there is one reason given more than any other. “I was forced to go to church when I was younger.” So, what does this mean?

Obviously, it means the person didn’t like church. I don’t think you will hear one of our children saying someday, for instance, “I don’t go to Disneyland because I was forced to go there when I was a child.” The church experience wasn’t a positive one if people say they were forced to go. Well, as an adult, you can actually go wherever you want. It’s not as if an experience with the Christian community is limited to what you remember years ago as a child. Church experiences can be quite different.

By the way, don’t too quickly buy into parents “forcing” their children to go to church as a bad thing. Being an active Christian is an extremely healthy lifestyle. Active Christians statistically have much better mental and physical health than people of no active faith life. I will say, however, that if parents attend a church which is not “youth-friendly,” then they are doing their children a great disservice, by "forcing" them to go there rather than taking them to a church that loves kids. This can make a big difference in the future.

a public Merry Christmas?

I posted earlier about Christmas in the public arena. Let me give an observation that I think is important to note in general. It has to do with issues of faith and values and demographics.

Philip Jenkins in the book, The Next Christianity, speaks of the rapid explosion of Christian faith in the global east and south. The immigrant population coming to America is mainly from these areas. As a result, most immigrants today are Christian. This trend will continue. The types of Christianity most represented in these immigrant groups are traditional Roman Catholic and Pentecostal-influenced Protestant. These groups tend to be quite “traditional” in their morals and values. Joined with existing Americans from these areas, as well as a “traditional,” in many ways, African-American population, America is likely to look far different than many would predict. Obviously, there are large exceptions to cultural generalizations, but I would predict that now and in the years ahead, let’s just say I would be shocked if our nation is leaning left anytime soon.

What does this have to do with Christmas in the public arena? I will give you powerful, yet totally subjective and anecdotal evidence that something is afoot. Shopping and getting the typical “Happy Holidays” from employees is the norm this time of year. Except if your store clerk is Latino/a, Asian, or African-American, which he/she is in many cases in my community. Then you are just as likely to hear, “Merry Christmas.” I can’t think of a time I heard that phrase more often. Interesting development…

natural disasters

Living in earthquake country, whenever I hear of one occurring somewhere else, I take notice. But, when the earthquake is followed by tidal waves, or tsunamis, as they are called, the notice is followed by amazement. I have been through a big earthquake, but waves traveling at 500 miles an hour? I can’t even imagine.

My prayers go out for the families and loved ones of so many; 23000+ at my last check. The devastation of 20 foot walls of water is pronounced. In the days ahead there will be many questions. First among them will be why?

Why did so many die? Most of the death occurred on islands and low-lying coast land. Also, tsunamis are so rare in the Indian Ocean that, unlike other areas of the world, there was no early warning system. Many of the dead were clad in swim suits. There is another why question whenever there is a natural disaster of such magnitude. Why did God do this?

Consider two points. First, only people who live in these kind of island and coastal areas, or are visiting, are going to be affected by tsunamis. We know where we live has an impact of our risk level of certain disasters. Hurricanes in Florida, earthquakes in my backyard; we know what is possible and are willing to take the risk. Humans choose to live where they are susceptible. It’s not a God thing where we settle.

Second, why tsunamis in the first place? Factually, earthquakes and tsunamis are essential to “stir” up nutrients in the world’s oceans. Without them, we would not be here. This is no solace for those who have been so devastated, but without natural “disasters,” advanced life would not be possible on earth.

So, what does this all mean? I don’t know about tsunamis. I don’t know why God designed earth’s life enhancing systems in such a way. I only know that one way or another we all face personal “tsunamis” in our lives. Devastating, unexpected disasters come calling as part of the human condition. And I do know something else.

I know that when I have been wiped out, it was holding on to Jesus that got me through. Jesus was able to bring new life in the midst of the pain. And I know another thing. The earth is not my home. My home is the kingdom of God where I live now, and will live face-to-face with Jesus forever, some day. Martin Luther said it in the old hymn, A Mighty Fortress,

Let goods and kindred go,
This mortal life also.
The body they may kill;
God's truth abideth still.
His kingdom is forever.

I don’t have anywhere else to go. I’ll stick with Jesus.

Christmas carols

What will Christmas look like in the years ahead? In the Church, the birth of Jesus will be celebrated as always. The traditions of Christmas are secure. For many Christians, Christmas carols are our children’s connection to our faith and the faith of the generations before. How?

The vast majority of churches in America where there are actually children present have contemporary worship. Many children grow up not knowing the hymns sung in prior generations. My children fit into this category. They know the praise choruses and modern Christian songs. They don’t know too many hymns.

Now, don’t get too excited about this fact. God says repeatedly in the Bible, “Sing a new song.” I would take the discipleship exhibited by my children and their peers where I worship and match it with any prior generation. They walk the walk, more than ever, in a “strange land,” shall we say.

At the same time, there are signs that hymns are coming back again. In new arrangements. The old hymns are so ancient that now they are becoming “hip” with modern church worship leaders. In the next decade, I won’t be shocked if we are doing a little revisiting of our hymnody. But in the meantime, it is carols that connect the generations. These songs have a lasting power like no other. Why is that?

Composer Ralph Vaughan Williams put it this way:

The carol is so popular because it gives voice to the common emotions of healthy people in language that can be shared by all.

I agree. Music is such a personal taste, but carols transcend the genres. They never seem to get old. And another thing-

we only sing them for a month.

Christmas in the public arena?

Merry Christmas. Well, today is the day. We have finally reached Christmas Eve and I would like to pause and do some inventory. You have undoubtedly had occasion to see the various attempts to bring Christmas into the public arena or keep it out. I will make comments on both points of view.

Keep Christmas out. Honoring Jesus through songs or specific decorations that depict him or use his name, well, I can understand where non-Christians might object. This is simply not a God they believe in and so why are they paying tax dollars to honor him? I have to admit it warmed my heart that my daughter’s public high school choir sang all three verses of Silent Night at the holiday concert, but I can also understand how it might seem rather unfair to the practicing Muslim student who wants to sing in choir, but who is forbidden to commit blasphemy according to the Qur'an and sing those words (“Jesus, Lord at thy birth,” etc.) Now I realize the Muslim could just choose not to participate in that song, but it does cause one to wonder why he/she should be put into that predicament in the first place.

Keep Christmas in. Christmas is a part of our cultural landscape and is not only a celebration of the birth of Christ. The vast (80-85%) majority of our citizens do, however, celebrate this birth. It is a noble part of our heritage. Non-Christians would do well to give their fellow citizens a pass, honoring their fellow citizen’s faith as they are proclaiming peace and goodwill, while not having to honor their Savior. Besides, the birth of one who brought cherished teachings, some of which are universally admired (“pray for your enemies, blessed are the peacemakers…”), can be acknowledged and honored, even if you don’t believe Jesus is God. After all, we honor a preacher of that faith, Martin Luther King Jr., quite extensively in the public arena. Ultimately, America is a bastion of tremendous freedom of religion, almost unprecedented in the world community, and it is not logical to think now Christians are somehow attempting to force religion onto non-Christians.

So, what’s the answer? Legally, Christmas symbolism set up by school staff is allowed in our schools as a teaching tool (Supreme Court, 1998). I think teachers who use the symbols as such are being reasonable. At the same time, I don’t think government employees ought to try to actively promote the Christian faith on public time at public expense, whether in our schools or other government institutions. Christians can do this quite well on our own, thank you very much. Christian students are allowed to reach out in school. Christian teachers are allowed to examine Christianity in class, along with other worldviews. Christian government employees are allowed to share their faith privately at work.

In summary, I think all sides of this debate need to take a time out and look at these issues from the viewpoint of those they disagree with. We can keep Christ in Christmas and respect those who don’t acknowledge him as Christ, in a reasonable, moderate fashion.

what I can't do for you

I am posting about reaching out to potential Christians with the good news of Jesus. Christians call this “witnessing.” Yesterday I posted about what I can do as a Christian to fulfill my role of witness. Now I will look at what I can’t do.

I can’t force you to believe anything. Your faith in Jesus will come to you through the Holy Spirit as a gift. There is nothing you can do to earn Jesus’ love and there is nothing I can do to force you to receive it. In fact, there is nothing Jesus can do to force you to receive it.

I can’t shove my religion down your throat. When I am sharing about Jesus, I am commanded to be gentle and respectful (1 Peter 3:16). If you have had a bad experience with a Christian who was being aggressive and obnoxious, in other words was not following Jesus, than that is too bad. First, a central teaching of Christianity is all people, including Christians who know better, are sinful and in need of forgiveness. If you meet a belligerent Christian you see why there is a need for Christ. Second, don’t be too quick to dismiss the Christian faith because of the behavior of someone who calls himself/ herself a Christian. That is a huge dose of the genetic fallacy in logic. Remember? “First you must show that a man is wrong before you give reasons why.” Jesus can still be God and the Bible can still accurately tell his story even if you meet an obnoxious Christian.

I can’t try to hide the truth. Unlike many other worldviews, Christianity encourages you to put Jesus to the test. Be skeptical. Compare Christianity to other religions and philosophies. Christians are encouraged to do this. Some other worldviews try to keep the Christian message out. Some countries where Islam is the official religion, for example, will not allow Christian teaching, or even Bibles to be read. If Christianity is false, than what is there to be afraid of? You won’t find this with Christianity. We are encouraged to study other worldviews carefully. This helps us when we witness to the non-Christian. If you think Christians try to suppress open-minded thinking, it is just the total opposite. We worship the God who created the mind. I don’t discount that you may have experienced Christians who you thought were “closed- minded.” See the paragraph above for an explanation. Another explanation might be when you call someone “close-minded” what you are really saying is he/she doesn’t agree with you.

what I can do for you

As I alluded yesterday, my primary goal in life is to grow as a disciple of Jesus. A central role of a disciple is witnessing to Jesus. I want you to trust in Jesus as your Lord and Savior. I want you to be a disciple, too. Practically, here are some ways I can go about living my role.

I can pray for you. Jesus is guiding the whole process of receiving the gift of faith and so I communicate with him about you.

I can befriend you. I have to be in relationship with you in order to get to know you and for you to know me. In this way we can explore faith together. This isn’t weird or manipulative as there is nothing more caring and valuable I can do with you than join you in exploring deep issues.

I can listen to you. What do you think about Jesus? Where do you get your ideas about Jesus and the Christian faith? It is important for us to see what we hold in common where we differ.

I can study for you. I have to be informed about Christianity, other worldviews, and the whole process of clear, principled, reasonable thinking. I honor you by making an informed case for Jesus.

I can behave myself. I have to model life the way Jesus would live my life if he were me, as much as possible. It isn’t helpful for you if there is any confusion of me saying one thing and doing another.

relax, I'm a Christian

All people who identify themselves as Christian are not the same. Unlike some other worldviews, you are not “born” a Christian. You are not culturally a Christian. Christians can only really be considered Christians if they follow the authority of the scripture and the model of Jesus. Yes, there are some variations to how these are interpreted, but not much, really. When bad stuff is done in the name of Jesus, one needs only look at scripture and the model of Jesus to sort it out.

That Christians can call themselves Christian but not be Christian is not widely understood by non-Christians. There are so many generalizations about Christians that would take a slight amount of time and effort to understand. This isn’t even deep work. Take evangelism for example.

Some non-Christians are afraid that Christians are going to try to “convert” them. This is a rather narcissistic focus on the part of the unbeliever. We care, but we have other things on our mind, as well.

We Christians are first and foremost concerned about own relationship with Jesus, let alone try to worry about yours. Your relationship with Jesus begins with you and him.

Second, Christians may try to be helpful to guide you to Jesus, but that is simply his command and our pleasure. The same Jesus who tells us to make disciples (Matthew 28:19) tells us to back off if you aren’t interested (Luke 10:10-11). A healthy Christian is a Christian who focuses on receptive people.

If you aren’t interested, I am not going to get any Holy Spirit “brownie” points by bugging you. At the same time don’t get too put out that I actually expressed some interest in you. You might have some explaining to do when you stand before Jesus and tell him you were offended I talked to you about him- He probably sent me.

reaching out in the name of Jesus

Christianity is a religion built on a relationship between the believer and Jesus. This is a relationship strengthened in community with other Christians. We gather in these communities throughout the world. The purpose of our communities is to make disciples (followers of Jesus) out of all people groups everywhere. They are to join us in this same task and privilege. Now, we are not alone in this process.

Jesus said he will send his Spirit to empower us and guide us. And the potential believer is not alone. The same Spirit prepares the potential believer to hear the good news of Jesus. How? Let me mention two ways.

One way all people are prepared to know Jesus is through their conscience. The Bible says God’s ways are “written on people’s hearts” (Psalm 40:8). When you connect with Jesus, you connect with your best, true self.

Another way people are prepared to know Jesus is through what humans do with their conscience. They develop religions and philosophies to explain the world and their place in it. So, the potential Christian already has been thinking on the truths of Jesus where those truths are reflected. This is why it is helpful for Christians to know the basics of other religions and philosophies so we can witness to what we hold in common.

As we think about this, let’s be clear that Jesus is God revealed to the world. He is not hidden in other worldviews. We do not come to Jesus through other religions or philosophies. It’s not necessary. It’s just that truth is truth and Jesus is the sole source of truth.

the silence is deafening

I am still waiting on the massive news campaign about Antony Flew’s announcement. I’m sure at least pastors are going to make the most of the news that the world’s most prominent atheist is no longer an atheist. I noticed Robert Schuller had two film clips of Flew in this morning’s sermon. Kind of like a before and after picture. Before, not believing in God because believing in God is like a “married bachelor.” God is a contradiction. After believing in God “almost entirely because of the DNA investigations.” Flew uses words like extraordinary and unbelievable when considering design.

So, be prepared to hear much about this in churches around the country for some time. Christmas Eve will have a lot of Flew illustrations. At the same time recognize that you will not hear much more about this from anywhere else.

Now, if the pope had said he no longer believes in Jesus… Oh, I suppose there would be a Nightline, 20/20, or at least a brief report on the Discover channel. We’ll have to wait and see on Professor Flew.

A Newsweek Christmas

Every year at Christmas and Easter, it seems Time and Newsweek always have a Jesus cover story. This year is no exception. What they know is Jesus sells. What they don’t know, it usually appears, is Jesus. There is a standard formula that goes like this.

1. Have a non-theologically educated, non-historically educated journalist cast doubt on many aspects of the life of Jesus.
   
2. Find obscure out-of- the mainstream biblical scholars or historians to support some of your hypotheses.
   
3. Rehash the same questions that have been asked for the last 250 years since the Age of “Enlightenment”
   
4. Conclude with nothing startling and no new evidence to refute the basic truths of scripture
   
5. Try again next year

Here is this year's Newsweek article. Here is one of many respected scholarly responses. So, what does this all mean? For Christmas, it always comes down to a couple of basics.

1. The Christmas story is told differently by gospel writers Matthew and Luke
   This is no surprise. All basic Bible students are taught this. What is so astounding are the similarities of the stories between two independent authors.
   
2. The wise men weren’t there when Jesus was born.
   Christians just combined the later visit of the Magi with Christmas Eve for poetic reasons. The Bible never says they were there.
   
3. Christmas was not in December.
   The Bible never said it was. Christians just started celebrating it then because the surrounding culture already had celebrations at this time and they borrowed the culture’s emphasis and “Christianized” it. Like Jesus did when he connected Holy Communion out of Passover or like Christian rock music of today.
   
4. The Virgin birth.
   This is a strange and unusual claim. Miracles always are. Examine the evidence and the response by the earliest Christians. And remember this: After resurrection, all the other miracles are a piece of cake. Our faith rises and falls on the resurrection of Jesus, and nothing more or less than that event.

Well, enough on this topic. I imagine I'll have more to say around Easter time.

what's the big deal?

I have posted about Antony Flew’s “conversion” from atheism to theism. It is not that unusual for this to happen with the scholastically minded (at least honest, seeking scholars), as the origin of life question is not being satisfactorily answered by Darwinian evolution. Getting something out of nothing and getting life from non-life is becoming more difficult to explain in any other way but a super-intelligent creative agent.

But what makes Flew’s conversion newsworthy is, of course, his stature. I have explained it this way, it is like Michael Moore becoming campaign manager for George W. Bush. Don’t take the analogy too far, however, as Flew has had a gracious relationship with the theist’s he has debated over the years. An exclusive interview of Flew by prominent Christian philosopher Dr. Gary Habermas is available online. This is the first major piece since Flew’s announcement, to be published in “Philisophia Christi.” Take a look.

Famous Atheist Now Believes in God

"Famous Atheist Now Believes in God." This is the headline from an AP article last Thursday. I have been writing on atheism the past couple of days and wouldn’t you know it, one of the world’s foremost atheists has second thoughts. Antony Flew, a British philosophy professor, has had a change of mind at 81 years old. Here is an excerpt of a recent interview.

A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature.

That sounds vaguely familiar. This is big enough news that it has caused an instant rebuttal, of sort, but I believe the damage has already been done on this one. Because of the prominence of Flew, his work is frequently cited by atheists attempting to make their case. Time will tell how long that lasts.

In the meantime, remember I mentioned it is up to the theist to make the case for a personal God, for me, the God of the Bible? Sure enough, Flew hasn’t gone that far.

"I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins," he said. "It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose."

Oh well, it’s a start.

the atheist goes first

Complete intellectual honesty requires a serious consideration of there being a God of some sort. It goes back to that critical question that must be answered in a rational fashion: How do you get something from nothing? This question is so foundational and obvious that it puts the ball in the atheist's court.

Until you can make a principled, reasonable case for something to be created from nothing, you must always rely on technique rather than logic. Examples of technique used by atheists might be aggressively questioning the God-believer (theist) and taking the offensive, defaulting to an emotional appeal, or falling into logical fallacies.

Now, when it comes to a specific God, then it is the theist’s turn to make the case in the same principled, reasonable way. A “creative agent” does not automatically turn into the God of the Bible.

So, I would argue the atheist is required to provide the evidence there is no God and the theist is required to make the case for a specific God.

and Christians are different?

Why don’t those who are following Jesus have the same despair as atheists and agnostics? After all, Christ followers disappoint themselves. Christ followers doubt their own abilities to handle life. What’s the difference? It’s all about the Other.

Those who follow Jesus (disciples) can look outside of themselves for help. If there really is a God then this God can actually intervene and provide guidance. In the Christian worldview, this God can forgive and disciples realize this and can bounce back from any disaster they bring upon themselves. If there is a God then this God’s power must be amazing (universe creator, after all). Therefore, to follow this God will bring hope and assurance rather than despair and hopelessness, because the results of faith are immersed in reality.

if there is no God

Have you ever disappointed yourself? Have you ever doubted your own abilities? Now, add to the mix that there is no God. No spiritual realm. So what do you do?

Learn from your mistakes? How do you know you won’t just mess up again? How would you learn in the first place? If there is no God then you are just the circuitry in your brain and that has already disappointed you before. Are you going to try to tell your brain to fire in some different synapses next time so you get the correct decision? How do you know you are thinking correctly in the first place to be able to do even that?

Now you can see how unbelievably difficult it is to fathom there not being a God. I would argue that these kinds of questions are not generally examined by an agnostic or atheist. How could they? Despair is not a sustainable condition. Eventually it will drive one to madness or some psychological or chemical dependence to attempt to mask the hopelessness. In the meantime, how would any decision be made other than what your body and emotions influence you to do? Unless of course, you are not an atheist or agnostic at all.

Maybe, just maybe, you are holding out for something more. He is holding out for you. Tomorrow we’ll look at another way.

girls just want to have fun

I hung out with our soon-to-be 16 year old daughter and her friends the other day. We went to the mall for a quick look and then off to the volleyball banquet at the local soul food restaurant. As I am eating fried okra and hot links watching the young women sing karaoke, it dawns on me what a strange world I have entered. Girls do just want to have fun.

You never saw a group of people so enjoying the company of each other, no posturing, and no one was left out of the mix. I don’t know if it was the fact that they played sports together (has to help), or these young women simply have their act together. Now I am not naïve. I have worked with youth for over 20 years. I coach middle school girl’s basketball; I have seen Bring It On and Mean Girls for crying out loud! But I dare say there is something we can learn from teenage young women.

Pay attention to everyone in the room. Encouragement and affirmation are pretty powerful tools. Don’t take yourself too seriously. Smile a lot. Laugh a lot. Thanks for the lesson 2004 Reseda High School Girl’s Volleyball team. You rock!

some concluding thoughts

I have spent several days now reviewing the debate concerning Darwinian evolution. Those of you who may have glossed-over eyes, you can breathe a sigh of relief, I am done for a while on this topic. Please know that this is an important issue. For example, it is a good entry point for discussion with your atheist or agnostic friends. The debate is not over by a long shot. As evidence for “something else” continues to mount, we will see science adapt. Now I will make some final observations before moving to different topics.

Darwinian evolution is not a crackpot theory. There is much in this theory that has solid evidence behind it. Most scientists wouldn’t call themselves classic Darwinians anyway. In fact, it is said that if he knew the new evidence today, Darwin himself would not be a Darwinist! Most scientists have adapted from this position and have modified their views. The late Stephen Jay Gould is probably the most prominent (he was featured on the Simpson’s after all!) scientist in this camp. Neo-Darwinism, or whatever term is in vogue, questioning some of the aspects of the Darwinian model, is what science is all about. Examine the evidence.

I think it is important to put your cards on the table and examine the evidence. In a proper education environment, the weaknesses of an argument are always clearly stated. Those few “pure” Darwinians left out there will not be able to hold on to a monopoly (intended or not) on public information in government and education much longer. The search will continue.

As far as a Christian view of all of this, I don’t consider the Bible a science book. I don’t base my validating of the biblical texts according to their accuracy with the scientific traditions. At the same time, I find it interesting that there are so many allusions in scripture which “coincide” with the evidence of the latest scientific theories. I address this in detail on my website.

Saying all of this, examining the evidence is what Christian faith is all about. It’s not just good theology; it’s good science.

rare earth

Another challenge to the idea of Darwinian evolution is how common you would expect it to be to find advanced life on other planets, if he Darwinian model were so easy. Even life as advanced or greater than human. But that isn’t proving to be the case at all. In fact, just the opposite evidence is surfacing. We continue to search for the most primitive life forms on any other planet. We are not having a lot of luck! When it comes to advanced life, the odds are unbelievable. It has been worked out to 1 to 10282 odds of there being even one life-supporting body in the universe.

All the work that is being done to show life on other planets in interesting. As I have stated before, part of the problem is that we don’t have a real clue about the origin of life here on earth and so we are going to other planets for the source. It appears miraculous that we have a planet that would support life in the way it does. In fact, here is a use of the word (in quotes, of course) in a paper published by Stanford and MIT physicists that says just that.

"Therefore, livable universes are almost always created by fluctuations into the “miraculous”states discussed above."

Indeed.

random chance?

If life begins and is developed by random chance, then mathematicians get in on the action when it comes to Darwinian evolution. If random chance is an option, one begins to see how improbable it is for life to form in this way. One example I find fascinating is a protein molecule.

A minimally complex cell would need between 300 and 500 protein molecules. The odds of only one protein molecule forming by chance are 1 to 10125. This is a huge number. A number you can’t even comprehend. Michael Behe, author of Darwin’s Black Box, gives an example of what these odds look like.

Take three grains of sand and paint them red. Then hide them individually somewhere in the Sahara desert. Send a friend out to find the grains. They have to pick only three times and each time it has to be one of those red grains. One other thing. They have to do this blindfolded! The odds of your friend finding those three grains and choosing correctly? 1 to 10125.

Now you can see why questions are being raised.

starting from the beginning

When considering the origin of life, you can see why there is a challenge to Darwinian evolution immediately. If natural selection and mutation are the mechanisms that drive the process, first you have to have something to naturally select from and you have to have something to mutate. The Darwinian model presupposes you have life in the first place! But how was that formed?

In origin of life research there is no strongly supported theory at this time. We just don’t know. This doesn’t mean we will not discover a solid origin theory, it just is not happening today and it would be honest to admit as much in the classroom rather than gloss over this fact. Like anything else in life, if you want to know about something, an important part of the process is to start at the beginning.

how do you explain the origin of life?

The greatest difficulty of the Darwinian evolution model is the most obvious- How do you get life from non-life? In the Christian worldview project we are working on, Rich Melheim puts it this way.

“One cannot speak of the origin of life. Today one must speak of the origins of life. The carbonaceous deposits in the oldest known rocks on the planet suggest that life appeared shortly after the earth cooled, then disappeared, then arose again, then disappeared in a series of multiple spontaneous eruptions and mass extinction events. Recently, science has made it disturbingly clear that the conditions on earth were hostile to life arising at each of those times. The chemicals for the “primordial soup” did not exist for the recipe and the UV radiation bombarding the earth would have killed off anything organizing into strands of life without some thing or some one “hovering over” the whole experiment. That life would arise by chance even once is mathematically improbable. That it would arise again and again in absolutely hostile conditions is cause for great skepticism.”

The “primordial soup” was such a slam dunk theory, that scientists have been quite slow in taking it out of high school and university textbooks now that it has shown to be a dead end for first life. Now scientists are looking to outer space and other planets to try to explain where life comes from. Problem is this just delays the inevitable question, “How did life originate?” All the evidence points to advanced life only on earth. If life did originate on other planets or heavenly bodies the question will be the same regardless if it is Earth, Mars, or a moon of Jupiter, “How do you get life from non-life?”

intelligent design

A fourth viewpoint in the Darwinian evolution is intelligent design theory. Most of the scientists questioning the validity of some of the Darwinian model are in this group. The organization most active here would be Discovery Institute. They define intelligent design in this way.

intelligent design- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Intelligent design scientists come from all religions as well as agnostics. Supporters of Darwinian evolution have tried to label them, “creationists,” but this is a failing attempt at the straw man approach, as the scientists are becoming well known in the public arena, including their religious background, or their lack thereof.

Intelligent design theorists use real scientific methodology to support their theory and they are published in peer-reviewed scientific journals despite efforts to isolate them from the scientific community. Presently, intelligent design proponents don’t advocate teaching intelligent design as an alternative to the Darwinian model. Instead they focus simply on teaching the Darwinian model and the challenges to the Darwinian model.

I will give some examples of some of the challenges to the Darwinian model in the days ahead.

theistic evolution

Another viewpoint in the Darwinian evolution controversy is the one held by many mainline Christians. This can be called “theistic evolution.”

Theistic evolution- the view that there is a God who created the universe and set everything in motion. The origin and development of life follows the natural system as given by the Darwinian model.

This is the official position of some Christian denominations. Generally theistic evolutionists would keep speaking of the miraculous in the private faith department and mutation and natural selection in the science department.

The challenge with theistic evolution is it really is simply Darwinian evolution in practice. The question is not, “Could a God have done the creating and continue to create through a Darwinian process?” but rather, “Are there difficulties with the evidence for the Darwinian model to begin with, whether you believe in a God or not?”

real bible/ real science

Another group of people who would challenge the evidence of the Darwinian model as an accurate explanation of the origin and development of life would be those who are labeled, “Old Earth Creationists.”

Old Earth Creationists- those who trust in the God of the Bible and use current scientific critiques when examining Darwinian evolution evidence. This group would say that the Bible gels with big bang theories and the evidence of a 13.7 billion year old universe. The “old earthers” would say the creation story of Genesis One is not 6 literal days but rather 6 “eons” of time. The word “yom” (day) in the Bible language can be translated accurately as:

24 hours
12 hours (daylight)
An undesignated period of time (e.g. the “day” of the Lord)

The most influential “old earth” creationist is Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe ministries. Dr. Ross’s organization is developing a scientifically testable creation model which matches the Genesis One creation account. This group would be in favor of critiquing the Darwinian evolution model in public schools, but not bringing the Bible into the science classroom, as some of the strict biblical creationists would advocate.