Christian Living

E-Mail Newsletters

<< >>

Regis Nicoll is a Centurion of Prison Fellowship Ministries Wilberforce Forum. After a 30-year career as a nuclear specialist, Regis became a freelance writer who writes on current cultural issues from a Christian perspective. His work regularly appears on BreakPoint online and the Crux Project among other places. Regis also teaches and speaks on a variety of worldview topics, covering everything from Sharing the Gospel in a Postmodern Generation to String Theory. As a men's ministry leader in his community, Regis also conducts seminars for the spiritual development of men.

Regis Nicoll

Freelance Writer, Speaker, Worldview Teacher, Men's Ministry Leader

  • Friday, May 16, 2008
    Another Case of Judicial Overreach

    Yesterday the State Supreme Court made California the second state to legalize gay "marriage." They did so in a 4-3 decision that overturned legislation which had banned "marriage" for same-sex couples. Stunningly, the will of the California electorate was effectively overruled by the opinion of one unelected official. And what may come as a surprise to some, six of the seven justices were Republican appointees. 

    The City Attorney who argued the case for the plaintiffs had this to say:

     

    "Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that everybody -- not just in the state of California, but throughout the country -- will have equal treatment under the law."

     

    That's odd. Last time I checked, folks with homosexual orientations have always had "equal treatment under the law" with respect folks with heterosexual orientations: both groups have been free to marry, just not (until recent years) with someone of the same sex.

     

    One is left to wonder when "equal treatment" will allow brothers to marry their sisters, mothers to marry their sons, a woman to marry her dolphin (oops!--that's already been done), and, in light of recent news, a pogonia to marry its (er...his, her?) gardener.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If you would like to share your thoughts on this issue, I invite you to post your comments here.

     

    For further information on gay "marriage," you can refer to my past BreakPoint articles, The Dangers of Same-Sex “Marriage” and Being Gay and Christian.

     

    • Study in My BST
    • Email
    • Print




  • Friday, April 25, 2008
    More Trouble for Darwinism

    Now this is something that should trouble the Darwinian establishment. In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), researchers found “that a deficiency in an enzyme called pyruvate kinase, which is required for energy production in the body, provides protection against malaria infection."

    Here’s the trouble: Darwinian evolution depends on the ability of unguided, naturalistic processes to build genomes over geological time scales. Note that the information content of the smallest genome would fill a 500-page book. (The instructions in the human genome would fill a 50,000 page book!)

    The astute person will wonder how an unconscious process could lead to the creation of what amounts to a mini-library from scratch. The catechistic answer is that genetic words, sentences, and whole books are written through the creative power of genetic mutation. Mutations that have “cash value” in evolutionary “fitness” are accumulated over time, leading to an increasingly complex code of life.

    It’s like believing that, given two hundred million years, a double-wide trailer could become the Taj Mahal from the combined influences of cosmic rays, wind erosion, tectonic movement and quantum effects. As any homeowner knows, it’s precisely such unconscious effects that lead to home deterioration, not home improvement. But, on occasion, even deterioration can have a beneficial effect.

    Consider that double-wide in the tropics without air conditioning. A wind that wasn’t strong enough to destroy it, but sufficiently strong to blow out all the windows, could enhance creature comfort without any structural additions.

    And that was what the researchers in the NEJM found. The enzyme deficiency needed for malaria protection, results from the suppression of genetic instructions rather than from their creation.

    Increased “fitness” by the shuffling or suppression of existing genes, rather than by the accumulation of new ones, is a direct affront to gradualism. While that should rattle the ranks of the Darwinian faithful, their resiliency against such evidence never ceases to amaze.

    Consider the "crystals" and "aliens" offered, in Expelled, as the best answers to the question of life's origin by their most celebrated evangelists. They may be still on the playing field, but the game is long over.

    Comments?

    • Study in My BST
    • Email
    • Print




  • Tuesday, April 22, 2008
    Dawkins Recants After "Expelled"

    In Expelled, Richard Dawkins does an unexpected turn-about...or does he? After stating that he didn’t know how life went live on earth, he suggests that it may have been jump-started with the help of super-advanced aliens—in other words, intelligent causation! But I thought that intelligent design was not a scientific theory—at least according to Judge John Jones and Darwinian evangelists like Dawkins.

    Was Dr. Dawkins serious or did he misspeak? (He seemed, to this reviewer, quite uncomfortable at this point in the interview with Stein.)

    According to Dawkins himself, he was merely handing an “olive branch to these people by pretending to take their ‘space aliens’ political ploy seriously.” Yep, that’s his story and he’s stickin’ to it.

    I’m sorry, but that dog just won’t hunt.

    Dawkins suggests that the intent of his “olive branch” was to contest ID “by setting up its most plausible version and dismissing it.” Problem is, he never dismissed the ET theory in the interview—without prompting by Stein, he offered it as a possible solution to the origin-of-life question without reservation or qualification.

    In rapid retreat from his Expelled disclosure, Dawkins explains:

    “Entities capable of designing anything, whether they be human engineers or interstellar aliens, must be complex—and therefore, statistically improbable. And statistically improbable things don't just happen spontaneously by chance without an explanation trail.” (Emphasis added.)

    Dr. Dawkins, I think you’ve finally got it!. Wait, but no…

    “In fact, natural selection is the very opposite of a chance process…”

    Huh? Quite the contrary, Dr. Dawkins. As long as natural selection is fed by random variation (genetic shuffling and mutation) it remains very much a chance process.

    “…and it [natural selection] is the only ultimate explanation we know for complex, improbable things.”

    We “know"? I think you mean we trust.

    “Even if our species was created by space alien designers, those designers themselves would have to have arisen from simpler antecedents—so they can't be an ultimate explanation for anything.”

    Maybe you've got it after all! For since those "simpler antecedents," be they quarks, neutrinos or the quantum potential, have proven unable to account for the arrival of the first gene on earth, they can’t be the ultimate Explanation either.

    Looks like that ET theory is not only a dog that won't hunt, but is one that has turned on its master.

    What do you think about Dawkins' recantation? Comment here.

    • Study in My BST
    • Email
    • Print




  • Thursday, April 17, 2008
    Academic Freedom Loses Again

    For those who think that the object of science is to follow the truth wherever it leads, there’s this in from the AP: “Some scientists are urging Florida's Legislature to reject a bill that would protect teachers from being fired if they present information challenging evolution.”

    If you’re wondering why any scientific theory should be immune from criticism in institutions which are supposedly training young people for critical thinking, it’s because the stalwarts of science orthodoxy have proclaimed, ex academia, that evolution is “a scientific fact” and that its alternative, Intelligent Design, is “religion posing as science.” Neither is true.

    ID is a research program to discover, scientifically, whether the design in nature, universally acknowledged in the scientific community, is actual or merely apparent. ID does not deny the validity of evolutionary processes—only that naturalistic mechanisms alone are unable to account for the complexity of life. ID is based on scientific criteria and empirical data, similar to that used in fields like archaeology, to determine the authenticity of human artifacts; forensics, to distinguish death by natural causes from murder; and cryptography, to decide whether a collection of symbols is a random string of characters or a message of human origin. ID does not attempt to answer or address whether the designer is divine or extraterrestrial, mortal or immortal, or of natural or supernatural origin. The only attribute ID is concerned with is intelligence. Hence, contrary to all the fear-mongering since Dover, there is no religion being smuggled in with ID.

    Darwinian evolution is another story. Despite the exercised assertions of the evolutionary establishment, Darwinian evolution is not a fact; it's a theory, and not a particularly scientific one at that, for several reasons: 

    1. The evidence trotted out in its support is fraught with holes (the fossil record), frauds (Haeckel’s embryology, fake fossils, staged peppered moths), intelligently designed and controlled experiments (Urey-Miller) or just-so stories to explain how a frog could turn into a prince after eons of random variation, adaptation and natural selection.

    2. Everything it foists as a product of common descent—e.g., similarities in morphology and genomes—is better explained as a product of common design.

    3. Its essential feature, macro-evolution, has never been observed or reproduced even in micro-organisms whose explosive rates of replication should virtually guarantee its validity. Thus, it has no predictive power and, consequently, has not contributed to a single technological or medical advance since it was conjectured 150 years ago.

    4. In fact, Darwinian evolution has a tendency to be a science-stopper, as evidenced by the establishment’s readiness to label apparent inert portions of DNA (expected by the theory) as “junk.” As it turns out, those “inert” regions of DNA are increasingly being found essential in direct or indirect gene expression.

    5. It is not dictated by the evidence or the science, or by reason of its technological usefulness, but by…theology. That’s right!

    For those whose theology makes no room for God or the supernatural, naturalistic evolution promises to answer those BIG metaphysical questions of “How did I get here?” “And who am I?”

    For others who desire a moral universe, but want to exonerate the Law-Giver from any culpability for the existence of evil, theistic evolution gives them a not-so-omnipotent or sovereign God who set things in motion, but has nary a clue as to how they’ll turn out or how to set the course straight. And since he’s not in total control, it turns out that he’s not too particular about those morals either.

    If you doubt the religious underpinnings of Darwinism consider its . . .

    Patron saint: Charles Darwin
    Founding text: On the Origin of Species
    Magisterium: The National Academy of Science
    Holy day: Darwin Day
    Sacred relics: humanoid fossils
    Evangelists: Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Eugenie Scott, Kenneth Miller
    Religious symbol: the Darwin fish plaque, available in assorted styles and colors

    And--as this news item exposes, yet again--its unpardonable sin: “Putting other theories before Darwin.”

    Comments?

    • Study in My BST
    • Email
    • Print




  • “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge.” (Psalms 19:1-4)

    THE “CREATED WORD”
    Among religious critics, God is a myth whose origin is traced to the irrational fears and silly superstitions of man. Beyond the imaginings of weak and gullible people, His existence is nil. For the believer, God is as real as maternal love.

    A mother’s love is not a material object subject to scientific validation; yet it is communicated in material ways establishing a rational basis for belief. The same is true for God. Although the Creator is not a part of the physical world, He has nonetheless revealed himself through it. Like the artisan whose choices of media, colors, and brush stokes are his signature, God has created a masterpiece writing His name in every corner of the canvas.

    God’s masterpiece is “The Created Word”—the corporeal fabric of spacetime through which the divine will is expressed. Of the various ways that God communicates, the Created Word is one (of two) that speaks to every person, directly.

    In combination with the “Imprinted Word”—man’s inborn spiritual, rational, and moral dimensions—the Created Word comprises “general revelation.” It is general because it is universally accessible. Furthermore, it is directly accessible. In contrast to sacred texts, teachings and traditions that come through human agents, the Created Word issues directly from the mouth of God for every ear to hear and understand.

    THE ELECTRON ORBIT
    In a recent online discussion, a Christian asserted that evidence supporting Christianity can be found in every university department. To which one skeptic sniggered, “Well, then, please give me an example from the chemistry department that is best explained by Christianity.” The challenge had a certain swagger.

    I jumped into the fray offering that the atom, the most basic component of chemistry, fit the bill. I explained that the atom is made up of a positively charged nucleus enshrouded in a cloud of negatively charged electrons—all in an unimaginably tiny space. The odd thing is, electromagnetic attraction should cause the atom to collapse almost instantaneously. Searching for an explanation, researchers scratched their heads raw before ascribing the oddity to the “quantum potential.”

    But had they explained it? No. All they did was give it a lofty name—which is all they could do.

    You see, physicists from Heisenberg to Hawking have acknowledged that nature’s innermost region is fundamentally unknowable. It’s not a matter of inadequate tools or techniques, but of the intrinsic opacity of the subatomic world. As quantum pioneer Neils Bohr once admitted, “The quantum world cannot be fully understood nor can physical meaning be applied to its wave-function description… quantum mechanics only explains the external observations. It tells us nothing about the internal structure.”

    That is a bracing admission; but Mr. Bohr should have gone one step further, for surely he recognized that without knowledge of that “internal structure,” even those “external observations” cannot be explained, only described.

    We can attribute subatomic weirdness to the “quantum potential” or the “guiding hand of God,” but only the latter offers an explanation which, as it turns out, accords nicely with the Christian claim: “The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word” (Hebrews 1:3).

    My example didn’t go unchallenged. The interlocutor granted that “God,” as well as any number of things, could be conjectured, but how is He the best explanation for the electron orbit. Moreover, how could a particle physicist distinguish the Christian God from a pagan deity?

    THE BEST EXPLANATION
    I reminded him that since the electronic orbit was not explainable by naturalistic science, the most reasonable conclusion is that it is due to something beyond nature (transcendent).

    Then I mentioned another interesting thing about the quantum potential: According to field theory, it is thought to be the warp and woof of spacetime. In an invisible gossamer-like web, the quantum potential fills the cosmic expanse. It is a wellspring of unimaginable energy fueling the material world and giving birth to exotic particles that continuously emerge and disappear within the folds of the cosmic fabric.

    Together, these characteristics suggest a cause that is transcendent, omnipresent, and omnipotent. While Eastern gods are omnipresent and Greco-Roman gods are transcendent, neither are omnipotent; only the Christian God is all three. He is the One who is “over all, through all and in all” and by whom “all things were made.”

    At this point another skeptic objected that if a supernatural agency was at work, it ought to be scientifically verifiable. It’s a common (and logically flawed) charge.

    A LOGICAL DISCONNECT
    In a 2004 PBS panel discussion, Michael Shermer, editor-in-chief of Skeptic magazine, challenged a Christian physician to explain how God raised Jesus from the dead. As Shermer saw it, the resurrection should conform to what is medically possible, and as a medical professional, the physician should have some idea as to how it was accomplished. In point of fact, it’s quite the opposite.

    If the supernatural could be explained by naturalistic science, it wouldn’t be supernatural. It is right to expect that a world created by supernatural Benevolence be governed by laws that make life predictable. But since those laws are fashioned by Supernature and not the other way around, Supernature can never be reduced to the orderly patterns observed.

    While Supernature interlocks with nature and, at times, manifests itself in nature to give us a sudden, unexpected glimpse, it has no obligation to conform to the laws of nature. Thus, if we are honest, we would expect a barrier to our investigative pursuit—a point beyond which we could probe no further. And that is exactly what we find.

    Although our analytical journey ends in opacity and mystery, we have discovered laws that enable us to build skyscrapers, launch satellites, and surf the internet. And, in the process, we’ve noticed some very peculiar things about our cosmic home.

    WITH US IN MIND
    Imagine driving cross-country and stopping in a town you’ve never been. Gritty, tired and hungry, you look for a motel, and then,

    There’s one! Just beyond that stop light. The sign reads . . . ‘VACANCY.’

    You pull up, check in, and take the key card.

    “Room 1028. That’s my birthday, October 28th. Neat!”

    Upon opening the door, your jaw goes slack.

    A copy of your favorite painting, Van Gogh’s “Avenue of the Poplars in Autumn,” is hanging on the wall; your favorite aria, “Mio Babbino Cara,” is playing on the radio; there’s a basket stuffed with all of your favorite snacks; the complimentary toiletries are the exclusive brands that you buy; and spread out on the coffee table are the latest editions of Golf Digest, Numismatist News, and Skeptic—periodicals that you had been waiting eagerly to read back home.

    The set of coincidences is so unlikely that any reasonable person would assume that the motel staff knew you were coming. And yet the coincidences in our cosmic home are far greater in number and in precision. In fact, researchers have identified dozens of features that have to be just the way they are for life to exist.

    For example, the formation of stars depends on a narrow range of values for the gravitational and nuclear forces; and without stars, there would be no habitable planets. The formation of atoms hinges on the strength of electromagnetism and the masses of the electron, proton, and neutron. If these were varied by more than a small amount, chemistry and biological life would not be possible. Astronomer Hugh Ross has catalogued nearly 60 such conditions, including many involving our solar system such as:

    • The size, temperature, and brightness of our sun
    • The fact that we have one moon and not more or less
    • The distance of the Earth from the sun
    • The Earth’s axial tilt and rotational period
    • The time it takes the Earth to orbit the sun

    The odds that all 60 could come together by chance is 1 in 1060(that’s 1 followed by 60 zeros!), about the same chance as landing heads on 200 consecutive coin flips.

    On top of that, our position in the universe—not too close to the center of the Milky Way and not too far out, and nestled between two of its spiral arms—is the ideal location for making astronomical observations and discoveries. Some have dared called Earth the “privileged planet.”

    We are left with one of two conclusions: our Goldilocks home is a happenstance of mind-numbing improbability or . . . it is a creation meticulously crafted by Someone who had us in mind.

    He who created the heavens,
       He is God;
       He who fashioned and made the earth,
       He founded it;
       He did not create it to be empty,
       but formed it to be inhabited

    He says,
       “I am the Lord
       And there is no other.” (Isaiah 45:18)
     
     
    • Study in My BST
    • Email
    • Print




SPONSOR

Advertise with Us