Thinking to Believe

From the pope’s 9-12-06 homily address at Regensburg:

We believe in God. This is a fundamental decision on our part. But is such a thing still possible today? Is it reasonable? From the Enlightenment on, science, at least in part, has applied itself to seeking an explanation of the world in which God would be unnecessary. And if this were so, he would also become unnecessary in our lives. But whenever the attempt seemed to be nearing success – inevitably it would become clear: something is missing from the equation! When God is subtracted, something doesn’t add up for man, the world, the whole vast universe. So we end up with two alternatives. What came first? Creative Reason, the Spirit who makes all things and gives them growth, or Unreason, which, lacking any meaning, yet somehow brings forth a mathematically ordered cosmos, as well as man and his reason. The latter, however, would then be nothing more than a chance result of evolution and thus, in the end, equally meaningless. As Christians, we say: I believe in God the Father, the Creator of heaven and earth – I believe in the Creator Spirit. We believe that at the beginning of everything is the eternal Word, with Reason and not Unreason. With this faith we have no reason to hide, no fear of ending up in a dead end. We rejoice that we can know God! And we try to let others see the reasonableness of our faith, as Saint Peter bids us do in his First Letter (cf. 3:15)!

Just one more nail in the coffin to the argument that Darwinism and theism are compatible. Agnostic/atheist scientists such as Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldredge claim the realm of science and the realm of religion are entirely separate. The twain shall never meet, and thus can never contradict one another. One can believe in Darwinism and embrace theism. Don’t believe such an absurdity! Darwinism is the creation story of materialistic philosophy: a way of accounting for existence without a supernatural creator. Even if God exists, they argue, He was not necessary to bring the universe into being, let alone into its present form. But if God is not necessary to explain our existence, then He is equally unnecessary in our lives as well. Although Darwinism does not necessarily exclude the possibility of God’s existence, it definitely excludes God’s involvement with the cosmos. And if God is not involved with the cosmos, then Christianity is false, and God is useless to us. We have no contact with him, and he has no contact with us. In fact, he doesn’t want to. This sort of deism is not reconcilable with the Christian conception of God.

Barry A (from William Dembski’s blog) wrote:

Many people say Darwinism is a scientific theory, and as such does not speak to morality or ethics. Strictly speaking, this is true, but like ID, Darwinism also has profound implications for morality and ethics. It is not for nothing that Dawkins said Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. And as Nietzsche was honest enough to admit, an atheist is compelled to say that morality, ethics and justice are illusions. The only thing that exists is a brutal competition of wills. There is no right and wrong. There is only strong and weak. The 20th century was one long bloody lesson in the practical application of Nietzsche’s ideas.

We must always be very careful to distinguish between our science and our metaphysics. ID is science and Darwinism is science. Neither ID nor Darwinism addresses morality, ethics or justice, but both have implications for these matters. ID is consistent with my hope that a loving God exists Who has established a transcendent moral order. Darwinism is consistent with atheism, which in turn is inconsistent with the very idea of objective morality.

“Salvation obtains when accurate knowledge is combined with active trust.”—Greg Koukl, “Truth is Stranger Than it Used to Be”

The MacLaurin Institute has a page full of great audio lectures by the likes of such intellectual powerhouses as Michael Behe, Robert George, J. Budziszewski, Alvin Plantiga, and Dallas Willard. Check it out.

Check out this amazing video showing the inner workings of the cell. Talk about making it come alive!

When I first got into church I enjoyed calling everyone “Brother X” and “Sister X.”  The use of such titles made everyone seem like a family.  Over the years, however, that enjoyment has waned for a couple of reasons.  Now I tend to drop the “brother” bit, and simply call people by their first name.

First, I came to realize that the title–meant to express something beautiful–was being used for ugly purposes. Some view the preface more as an honorary title indicative of personal respect than they do a familial and informal way of referring to one another.  There have been instances in which certain individuals (admittedly always men, always in positions of authority) have berated fellow-believers for not addressing them as “brother X.”  Although this is a minority attitude, the phenomenon did sour my perception of “brother.”

Secondly, the consistent use of the preface seems to keep relationships on too formal of a level.  People we are not particularly close to we call Brother X and Sister X; people we are close to we refer to by their first name.  Why?  Because the preface is too formal.  When the relationship deepens the preface tends to fall out of use naturally.

But doesn’t Scripture use such terminology?  Yes and no.  While the NT commonly uses familial language such as “brother” to refer to fellow-believers in the body of Christ in a generic sense, it only uses “brother” as a personal title for a specific individual on two occasions: Acts 9:17—Ananias called Paul “Brother Saul” (Acts 22:16 recounts same event); Acts 21:20—James called Paul “brother.” (There are 15 additional instances in which specific individuals are named, adding “our brother” or “a brother” (Rom 16:23; I Cor 1:1; 16:12; II Cor 1:1; 2:13; Eph 6:21; Phil 2:25; Col 1:1; 4:7, 9; I Thes 3:2; Phm 1; Heb 13:23; I Pet 5:12; II Pet 3:15; ); however, in every instance “brother” is used as a description, not as a title.)  Compare these two occurrences with the hundreds of others in which people were simply called by their first name.  Calling someone “Brother X” was the exception, not the norm. The opposite is true in most Pentecostal churches.

Don’t get me wrong.  I am not opposed to calling people “Brother X,” or referring to fellow-believers as brothers.  I thank God for the appellation!  How many times have we had the luxury of addressing those whose names we have forgotten with the generic, “Hi brother.  How are you?”  What I am opposed to is using the preface as an honorary title, over-using it, or being afraid to address someone without employing it.  There are times in which it is appropriate to call someone “Brother X,” or just plain “brother,” but let’s not forget that the name of our birth certificates does not begin with “brother” or “sister.

Jean Peduzzi-Nelson, associate professor in the department of anatomy and cell biology at Detroit’s Wayne State University School of Medicine, wrote an article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (posted online 9-02-06) about the current state of stem cell research. She explored the common arguments for the superiority of embryonic over adult stem cells, and found each lacking in practical or rational force.

Peduzzi-Nelson argues that adult stem cells are not only the only source of fruitful stem cell research at this point in time, but that the successes in adult stem cell research may obviate the practical need for embryonic stem cells. While the entire article is worth the read, one portion in particular is worth quoting here. Regarding the potential of embryonic stem cells to form into any one of the body’s 200+ cells Peduzzi-Nelson writes, “The ‘potential of embryonic stem cells to possibly form every cell type’ in the body is amazing but is of little clinical relevance. As long as a stem/progenitor cell is capable of forming the cell types needed for a particular injury or disease, the capability to form every cell type is a moot point.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[1]<!–[endif]–> In other words, so long as adult stem cells are able to form the cells we need to treat/cure disease, it is irrelevant how many other types of cells an embryonic stem cell might be able to create. What is needed are useful cells, not unuseful cells.

And by the way, the reason scientists say embryonic stem cells have the potential to morph into any of the body’s more than 200 cell types is because scientists have not been able to coax embryonic stem cells into doing so. While stem cells do so naturally in the normal development process, scientists have not yet discovered how to replicate the process in the lab.