Christianity Archives - Page 50 of 106

Tag Archive for: Christianity

Does Archaeological Evidence Confirm Names, Dates, And Places In The Bible?

4. Is the NT True?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Wintery Knight

I spotted this post on Be Thinking by UK apologist Peter S. Williams. (H/T Eric Chabot at Think Apologetics)

So let me pick the ones I liked most for this post.

Here’s a good one:

Jerusalem and The Pool of Bethesda

John 5:1-15 describes a pool in Jerusalem, near the Sheep Gate, called Bethesda, surrounded by five covered colonnades. Until the 19th century, there was no evidence outside of John for the existence of this pool, and John’s unusual description “caused bible scholars to doubt the reliability of John’s account, but the pool was duly uncovered in the 1930s – with four colonnades around its edges and one across its middle.”[38] Ian Wilson reports: “Exhaustive excavations by Israeli archaeologist Professor Joachim Jeremias have brought to light precisely such a building, still including two huge, deep-cut cisterns, in the environs of Jerusalem’s Crusader Church of St Anne.”[39]

And this one:

Jerusalem and The Pool of Siloam

In the 400s AD, a church was built above a pool attached to Hezekiah’s water tunnel to commemorate the healing of a blind man reported in John 9:1-7. Until recently, this was considered to be the Pool of Siloam from the time of Christ. However, during sewerage works in June 2004 engineers stumbled upon a 1stcentury ritual pool when they uncovered some ancient steps during pipe maintenance near the mouth of Hezekiah’s tunnel. By the summer of 2005, archaeologists had revealed what was “without doubt the missing pool of Siloam.”[40] Mark D. Roberts reports that: “In the plaster of this pool were found coins that establish the date of the pool to the years before and after Jesus. There is little question that this is in fact the pool of Siloam, to which Jesus sent the blind man in John 9.”[41]

I just read this one because I am working my way through John. In case you haven’t read John, you really should it’s my favorite gospel.

Here’s another one:

Herod the Great

We have a bronze coin minted by Herod the Great. On the obverse side (i.e. the bottom) is a tripod and ceremonial bowl with the inscription ‘Herod king’ and the year the coin was struck, ‘year 3’ (of Herod’s reign), or 37 BC.

In 1996 Israeli Professor of Archaeology Ehud Netzer discovered in Masada a piece of broken pottery with an inscription, called an ostracon. This piece had Herod’s name on it and was part of an amphora used for transportation (probably wine), dated to c. 19 BC. The inscription is in Latin and reads, “Herod the Great King of the Jews (or Judea)”, the first such that mentions the full title of King Herod.

Herodium is a man-made mountain in the Judean wilderness rising over 2,475 feet above sea level. In 23 BC Herod the Great built a palace-fortress here on top of a natural hill. Seven stories of living rooms, storage areas, cisterns, a bathhouse, and a courtyard filled with bushes and flowering plants were constructed. The whole complex was surrounded and partly buried by a sloping fill of earth and gravel. Herod’s tomb and sarcophagus were discovered at the base of Herodium by archaeologist Ehud Netzer in 2007.

And one more:

The ‘James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus’ Ossuary

James, the brother of Jesus, was martyred in AD 62. A mid-1st century AD chalk ossuary discovered in 2002 bears the inscription “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus” ( ‘Ya’akov bar Yosef akhui di Yeshua’). Historian Paul L. Maier states that“there is strong (though not absolutely conclusive) evidence that, yes, the ossuary and its inscription are not only authentic but that the inscribed names are the New Testament personalities.“[68] New Testament scholar Ben Witherington states that: “If, as seems probable, the ossuary found in the vicinity of Jerusalem and dated to about AD 63 is indeed the burial box of James, the brother of Jesus, this inscription is the most important extra-biblical evidence of its kind.”[69] According to Hershel Shanks, editor in chief of the Biblical Archaeological Review: “This box is [more] likely the ossuary of James, the brother of Jesus of Nazareth, than not. In my opinion … it is likely that this inscription does mention James and Joseph and Jesus of the New Testament.”

And finally one short one:

Tiberius Caesar

The Denarius coin, 14-37 AD, is commonly referred to as the ‘Tribute Penny’ from the Bible. The coin shows a portrait of Tiberius Caesar. Craig L. Blomberg comments: “Jesus’ famous saying about giving to Caesar what was his and to God what his (Mark 12:17 and parallels) makes even more sense when one discovers that most of the Roman coins in use at the time had images of Caesar on them.”[48]

This is a good article to bookmark in case you are ever looking for a quick, searchable reference on archaeology and the Bible. There are many more examples in that post.

Now some people might be wondering why archaeology doesn’t confirm every detail in the New Testament. And here’s what J. Warner Wallace has to say about that:

But what are we to say to those who argue the Biblical archeological record is incomplete? The answer is best delivered by another expert witness in the field, Dr. Edwin Yamauchi, historian, and Professor Emeritus at Miami University. Yamauchi wrote a book entitled, The Stones and the Scripture, where he rightly noted that archaeological evidence is a matter of “fractions”:

Only a fraction of the world’s archaeological evidence still survives in the ground.

Only a fraction of the possible archaeological sites have been discovered.

Only a fraction have been excavated, and those only partially.

Only a fraction of those partial excavations have been thoroughly examined and published.

Only a fraction of what has been examined and published has anything to do with the claims of the Bible!

See the problem? In spite of these limits, we still have a robust collection of archaeological evidences confirming the narratives of the New Testament (both in the gospel accounts and in the Book of Acts). We shouldn’t hesitate to use what we do know archaeologically in combination with other lines of evidence. Archaeology may not be able to tell us everything, but it can help us fill in the circumstantial case as we corroborate the gospel record.

I think you can form an opinion about the whole New Testament based on the record of confirmations. The verdict is in: the New Testament should be presumed trustworthy.

Evidence in the Flesh for Apologetics

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Dawn Simon

I was raised in a family and a community where religious beliefs were considered personal and virtually never discussed. I attended a Catholic grade school and continued with religion classes through high school. I was a good student and knew what I was supposed to believe – but no matter how hard I tried, I just could not convince myself that any of it was true.

I had a long list of questions but mostly kept those to myself. I was pretty sure that these doubts made me a bad person and I was not eager to advertise this fact. The few times I did seek help left me feeling that there were no answers to my questions. I developed an idea that belief in God was some sort of magical thinking – and while I too desperately wanted this magic, it clearly was not meant for me. Another difficulty I faced was that believers always seemed so sure about their faith. I am not a person who is certain about anything – this too made me think that Christianity – or faith of any kind was not for me.

Moving ahead to my time now in Kearney, Nebraska – I moved here in 2009 and met Tim Stratton a few years later when he was in the early stages of developing his FreeThinking Argument for the existence of God. At this time, there was a fair bit of noise being made in the local newspaper about issues related to evolution and it was attracting attention at work. Because of this I started regularly reading the opinion pieces, as well as associated comments. The name Tim Stratton appeared frequently. To be clear, I did not agree with a single thing he wrote. However, he was unfailingly kind, whereas some people on “my side” were behaving atrociously. This was the first thing I noticed about Tim – and if not for that, I truly might still be an atheist today.

I was able to meet Tim in person at a local public outreach event about evolution. This was a brief meeting – but a short time later he added me as a Facebook friend. This is when the arguing started in earnest (and to be honest has not completely ceased to this day – we just argue about different things now). For a period of about two months, we exchanged messages almost daily that initially were centered on his FreeThinking Argument for the Existence of God. Those discussions could probably best be summarized as exchanges where I would tell him I was not convinced of some specific point (which is my default position) and then Tim would both encourage me and try to convince me. If you know either of us, you already know that these were not short discussions.

About a month into this I was forced to admit — contra many scientifically-minded atheists — that while I was not certain, I did think humans possessed libertarian free will. It is worth noting here that in my discussions with Tim, I had already been relieved of the notion that one needed to be absolutely certain to believe something was true. The natural extension of this was that if I believed I had free will, according to Tim’s argument (which despite my best efforts seemed strong) meant I also believed in God. This realization took my breath away (and the memory of it still does the same) – I know exactly where I was and what I was doing when for the first time in my life I felt like God was talking directly to me.

This was just the beginning though – it took at least 6 months more before I called myself a Christian (Mike Licona’s work on the historical Resurrection eventually sealed the deal). It was an incredibly tumultuous time in my life. I was starting to really believe that Christianity was probably true and while part of me found that exciting, a bigger part was truly terrified at the prospect. Tim helped me at every single step of the way – I have countless stories of doubts and fears that he helped me through with reason and kindness.

During this time, I could not help but compare my conversion story to that of others – and I will admit I found it frustrating. Tim would tell me about other people he had helped and how in a 24-hour period they accepted Jesus Christ as their savior. It was hard for me to understand how this was possible and to be honest, I didn’t think it was fair. Why was it so much work for me? What I came to realize – surely with God’s help – was that my conversion story had to be different because of how I am wired. If God had appeared to me in the flesh, I am certain I would be more convinced of a brain tumor than God’s existence. Reason and argument was the only way it could work for me. I am not proud of that, but it is the truth. I am profoundly grateful that God is able to reach people in a myriad of ways – and specifically that he used Tim and apologetics to reach me.

What Does Thermodynamics Have To Do With The Origin Of The Universe?

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Bob Perry

Big Bang cosmology isn’t the only scientific evidence that the universe had a beginning. There are parallel laws of nature that point us to the same conclusion. We get one of them from the study of thermodynamics. This is not something that is hard to comprehend. You already understand it because you have to charge your cell phone every night.

A battery contains a fixed amount of energy. You can use that energy but you won’t get any more. If you don’t plug it in to recharge it, the battery will eventually go dead. As far as we know, the universe is a “closed system” similar to a giant battery. But it’s not rechargeable.

Barring some outside influence, this kind of process can only go in one direction. We all recognize that this is how energy works. It’s not a mystery. It’s a simple concept that is based on a couple of natural laws:

The Law of Conservation of Energy — energy is neither created nor destroyed; it can only be transformed from one form to another.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics — in a closed system, the total entropy of the system will always increase and this process is irreversible.

So, let’s put these together.

Don’t be freaked out by the term, “entropy.” Think of it as “level of chaos.” Just like the battery, there is only a finite amount of energy in a closed system. The amount of energy cannot be increased; it can only be transformed to a higher level of chaos. An example might help.

To Understand The Second Law Of Thermodynamics, Burn A Match

You have a match in your hand. The head of the match is made of combustible material that has the potential to create a flame. The amount of potential energy concentrated in the head of the match and is fixed. It cannot increase. When you strike the match, the potential chemical energy in the head of the match converts to heat energy in a flame. Then, the heat energy from the flame disperses into the room. Our energy system has gone from a concentrated potential energy source to a flame, to a random dispersal of heat into the air. In other words, it has taken a more “chaotic” form. When we say that “entropy has increased,” that is all it means.

Here’s the key — the process will not go in the opposite direction. You won’t see the heat content in a room suddenly coagulate into a single flame, and then reorganize that flame into a concentrated ball of chemical energy in a single location (like the head of a match). The very idea of such a thing is ridiculous.

Thermodynamics tells us that energy only goes in one direction

The Universe – A Giant Battery

The universe works the same way. Like a giant battery, it contains a fixed amount of energy. As time marches on, the energy inside it becomes more and more useless as it disperses. The “chaos” level (entropy) of the entire system is always increasing. At some point, the usefulness of the energy will run out altogether. Scientists call this “heat death.” The universe is headed toward heat death.

This is a law of nature. It is the basis for the operation of everything from the engine that launches a rocket into orbit, to the biological machinery that runs every cell in your body. And what it means is that we know the whole system — the whole universe — must have started this energy transforming process when its “battery” was full.

The universe had to have a beginning. And, for the same reasons mentioned in our discussion of the cosmological argument, something outside the known universe must have flipped the switch to initiate the beginning of the process. Listen to Frank Turek’s short explanation for the Second Law…

https://youtu.be/Q6tv_L0Bn5w

… and how William Lane Craig connects it to a cosmic beginning:

https://youtu.be/atnk5VBVd-g

The Make-Believe VeggieTales Video about Abortion

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

VeggieTales creator, Phil Vischer, has done some wonderful videos over the years. See what you think about this new 14-minute video he just put out on abortion.

Now, before we analyze the content, what do you think is the main goal of this video? Is it to urge Christians to not merely focus on overturning Roe to reduce abortions? Or, do you think the main goal of the video is to give Christians supposed intellectual and moral justification to vote against Trump and for Biden in 2020?

Since “vote” is in its title, it appears to be a thinly veiled attempt to accomplish the latter. Now, the motive behind the video doesn’t make its contents is necessarily false. Some of it is certainly true. In fact, the video rightly highlights that overturning Roe is difficult, and it’s not the only thing that Christians and other pro-lifers should be doing to end abortion.

But Informed Christians already know that. They are already engaged in ministries to prevent abortion and minister to those hurt by it. They also know that overturning Roe will not end abortion completely in America, but it will save thousands of lives (as the video admits).

If this video is intended to shift evangelical voting priorities, it should fail because the video’s case is built on fallacies and false data. It also leaves out several relevant facts.

It offers the false dilemma that we can only reduce abortions by the methods they suggest OR by overturning Roe. Why can’t we do both? We can and should as most pro-lifers attempt to do.
It tries to make a case that changing the law wouldn’t matter much. It does so by making contrary to fact assertions and citing obviously false stats:
- An “estimated” 800,000 abortions in 1930. Really? Who’s doing the “estimating”? There were only 123 million people in the US in 1930. Today there are 331 million which are known to produce 800,000 abortions each year. Obviously, the 1930 “estimate” is wildly inflated: there were far less than 800,000 abortions in 1930 because we had only 37% of the population that we have now, and there was not the same access to abortion then as now.
- More abortions before Roe and the rate is also lower now? Again, false. According to Dr. Thomas Hilgers, who did the definitive study on this back in 1981, the true annual number of pre-Roe abortions is somewhere between 39,000 and 210,000 with a median of 98,000—nowhere close to the 800,000 cited in the video (which obviously makes their rate claim wrong). How could the video’s authors think their numbers were anything other than make-believe? It defies all experience and common sense to think you’ll get less of something if you make it legal. Does anyone really think we’ll get fewer murders if we just make murders legal? Fewer rapes if we legalize it? Incredibly, that’s what the authors of this video say has happened with abortion, and it nullifies the core of their argument.
It ignores the fact that the law is a great teacher, and that changing it yields great benefits. Many people take their moral cues from the law. They think whatever is legal is moral, and whatever is illegal is immoral. Slavery is a good example. We have a better moral view on slavery now than 160 years ago even though, overall, we are less moral now in most other areas. Why? Because the law has helped teach people since then that slavery is immoral. Similarly, most people thought abortion was immoral in 1973 as evidenced by the fact that most states outlawed it. Now we’re about evenly split. Why? Because making abortion legal made more people mistakenly think it is moral. It is not as this one-minute video unequivocally shows.
It assumes that since Roe hasn’t been overturned yet, it won’t be overturned so we shouldn’t keep it a priority (suspiciously two weeks before the most pro-life president in terms of policy and appointments is up for re-election). They ignore the fact overturning Roe requires a long game that can take many years. It requires a case to come before the court that challenges Roe through state law. This happens infrequently because states are not apt to pass such a law unless they think the court might take it and then vote favorably on it. A conservative court is more likely to welcome such a challenge. With Trump’s three judges, we may finally have such a court. That will be lost if Democrats win and pack the court—a threat Biden refuses to deny.
It ignores the fact that Roe would have been overturned in 1992 had Bork not been “Borked” by Democrats in the Senate (The Planned Parenthood vs. Casey case was at 5-4 decision with Kennedy, Bork’s replacement, writing the atrocious relativistic decision in favor of keeping Roe).

So, what’s really behind this thinly veiled and fallacious attempt? It’s not because the authors have suddenly discovered the non-importance of Roe. After all, do you think this video would exist if Biden was running against Bush rather than Trump?

No, this video exists because Christians are looking for any excuse to avoid voting for Trump. When I ask never-Trump Christians, “If it was Bush vs. Biden, who would you vote for?” They all say, “that’s easy—Bush!” Yet Trump supports more conservative and pro-life policies than Bush. This reveals that they are voting personality rather than policy. (Look, I wish we had a good personality and platform in one candidate. Unfortunately, we don’t. I give Trump and A- on policy and a D on demeanor; Biden gets an F and policy and a C on demeanor.)

But Trump’s caustic and rude personality is no justification for suggesting that life isn’t the most important issue anymore. The first duty of government is to prevent the taking of innocent life, and certainly not to pay for the taking of innocent life (as the Democrat platform advocates with its taxpayer funding of abortion.) While being pro-life doesn’t necessarily make someone a good candidate, being pro-abortion necessarily disqualifies a candidate.

Pro-life author Scott Klusendorf asks you to “imagine a school house that is on fire with children trapped inside. A crude talking man with arrogant tweets is willing to join you risking his life to save kids. Meanwhile, a “nice” man thought to be less haughty and with fewer sarcastic tweets not only refuses to help you, he promises to throw gasoline on the fire. Is there no morally significant difference between the two men? Worse still, should we endorse the arsonist? If you think Biden and the Democrats do not have wicked plans on abortion and will rush to implement them, you have not been paying attention to their campaign promises or the actions Senate democrats–who can’t even bring themselves to outlaw letting unwanted humans die after birth.” In short, policy trumps personality.

If the goal of Mr. Vischer and his narrator (pastor Skye Jethani) is to get Christians to give up on Roe and vote Democrat, I have a question for them: Would you would have made this video if the issue was not abortion and Roe but slavery and Dred Scott? (Dred Scott affirmed slavery by opining that blacks were only three-fifths of a person.)

“Overturning the Dred Scott decision isn’t our top priority anymore. We’ve put justice after justice on the Supreme Court and still haven’t been able to overturn it after all these years. And even if we do overturn Dred, some states will still have slavery. Besides, there are other ways of reducing slavery. And since slavery has decreased under pro-slavery presidents, it’s perfectly fine to vote for Stephen Douglas over Abraham Lincoln.”

Would these men be making that dreadful case? Would they be casting doubt on the moral importance of voting for Lincoln over Douglas? Would they gloss over the fact that Douglas not only wants to keep slavery legal, but he wants you, the taxpayer, to subsidize it?

No one would accept that case. And we shouldn’t accept theirs now. It’s a make-believe case. (For more, see my new video Does Jesus Trump Your Politics?)

The Importance of Critical Thinking

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Kathryn, V.

As a Christian apologist, it is easy to take for granted the understanding that when we impart information to others, they clearly comprehend what we are talking about.

Now, that may be the case with well-studied and well-versed individuals who understand critical thinking, however, the average American has not been exposed to critical thinking unless they have attended university. It is an unfortunate fact that the art of critical thinking is not taught in the vast majority of either primary or secondary schools.

Critical thinking is a skill that is a threat to our culture’s view of political correctness because it encourages people to see things from a different perspective that thinks through an idea or thought and compares it with an opposing view.

Anyone who has studied our western culture for any length of time is well aware that our cultural ideologies have had more influence on the church than the church has had on the culture in the last fifty years.

The vast majority of professing Christians in America today cannot explain why they believe what they believe. This has not been ideal for the Church, as studies show that there has been a sharp decline in church attendance over the past thirty years.

The absence of critical thinking is at the center of this apathy toward the importance of validating one’s belief in absolute truth which is at the core of the Judeo-Christian faith.

Much of this lack of fervor for one’s faith is because many are not sure if the Bible is valid for today’s world. It is a fact that less than nine percent of those individuals who profess to be Christian, believe in biblical inerrancy. Why is this? Part of the answer to this question lies in the inability to think critically. To think critically requires that one ask questions, but to ask a question suggests that one may find an answer that goes against the grain and that would cause friction. It is easier to simply go along with what one is told and then formulate one’s own set of beliefs based on what one feels is right.

Human nature is consistent in that our feelings fluctuate with circumstance (John 2:25) and because of this fact it is imperative that we seek the reality that forms the foundation of our beliefs and not base our eternity on emotions and feelings. Without the knowledge of God, people perish (Hos 4:6), but we cannot truly know the Creator unless we seek him in his word.

It goes to follow, that if you do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture then you cannot truly come to know the character and nature of God.

The problem lies in the reality that all are called to know God and to live in obedience to his word and without a basic belief that the Bible is to be trusted, then there will be a disconnect. There are numerous books that spend at least a full chapter to show how scholars critically validate the Bible, and these include helpful tools that are used in this process. What I have discovered in my own interactions with the average believer, however, is that they do not have the confidence to break down the processes that scholars use to validate the Bible. Most of the reason for this lack of confidence stems from an unfamiliarity with the terminology and processes used in historical and literary research.

It is for this reason that I decided to devote an entire book to the process of how scholars use the tools of historical and literary criticism to validate the Bible, as well as other historically-based documents. The goal is to help the reader become intimately familiar with the terms and processes that scholars use to validate the word of God.

Hopefully, my readers will use the Under Investigation workbook as a tool to help them reach others for the kingdom of God by confidently explaining the scrutiny that the Judeo-Christian Bible has gone through and how other holy books have not been able to withstand the same type of analysis and critical investigation.

Hard Evidence the Book of Acts Was Written by an Eyewitness? A Reply to Bart Ehrman

4. Is the NT True?

By Jonathan Mclatchie

Last week, New Testament scholar Dr. Bart Ehrman published an article at his blog, in which he responded to a reader who had asked him his opinion on a popular approach to arguing for the reliability of the book of Acts. The questioner specifically cites popular apologist Dr. Frank Turek and Acts scholar Dr. Colin Hemer, who have pointed to specific and detailed knowledge demonstrated in the book of Acts that reveal its author to be close up to the facts, well informed and habitually reliable. The questioner noted that “Many of these are insignificant, but others seem to be things ‘only an eyewitness could know,’ like the location of a sailor’s landmark or sea approach to a city.”

Readers who are interested in a presentation of examples of this sort of detailed and specific knowledge shown by Acts may wish to check out this webinar I did with philosopher Dr. Timothy McGrew (which also contains a solid discussion of some of Ehrman’s objections to Acts). This webinar I did with Acts scholar Dr. Craig Keener is also worth checking out. For those more inclined to read written material, I highly recommend Colin Hemer’s book The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, which covers many examples of this. I will also provide a few examples here to give a flavor of the sort of evidence we are talking about. I will list a handful of instances of the titles of local officials that Luke so effortlessly gets right.

Luke gets right the precise designation for the magistrates of the colony at Philippi as στρατηγοὶ (Acts 16:22), following the general term ἄρχοντας in verse 19. Luke also uses the correct term πολιτάρχας of the magistrates in Thessalonica (17:6). He also gets right the term Ἀρεοπαγίτης as the appropriate title for the member of the court in Areopagus (Acts 17:34). He also correctly identifies Gallio as proconsul, resident in Corinth (18:12), an allusion that allows us to date the events to the period of summer of 51 A.D. to the spring of 52 A.D., since that is when Gallio served as proconsul of Achaia. Luke also uses the correct title, γραμματεὺς, for the chief executive magistrate in Ephesus (19:35), found in inscriptions there. Furthermore, when Luke tells us of the riot in Ephesus, he indicates that the city clerk told the crowd that “There are proconsuls” (Acts 19:38). A proconsul is a Roman authority to whom one might take a complaint. Normally, there was only one. So, why does Luke so casually use the plural term (ἀνθύπατοί) here? It turns out that, just at that particular time, there was in fact two as a result of the assassination by poisoning, in the fall of 54 A.D., of the previous proconsul, Silanus (see Tacitus’ Annals 13.1). This, again, is something that would be rather difficult to get right by fluke.

Luke even uses the correct Athenian slang word that the Athenians use of Paul in 17:18, σπερμολόγος (literally, “seed picker”), as well as the term used of the court in 17:19 — Ἄρειον Πάγον, meaning “the hill of Ares”.

Luke also gets right numerous points of geography, sea routes and landmarks. For example, he gets right a natural crossing between correctly named ports (Acts 13:4-5). He names the proper port, Perga, for a ship crossing from Cyprus (13:13). He names the proper port, Attalia, that returning travelers would use (14:25). Luke also correctly names the place of a sailor’s landmark, Samothrace (16:11). He also correctly implies that sea travel was the most convenient means of travelling from Berea to Athens (17:14-15). As I documented in a previous article, Luke even gets the implied location of the island of Cauda correct in Acts 27, despite Ptolemy and Pliny the Elder getting it wrong. And so it goes on and on.

How does Ehrman reply to this argument? He writes,

…I do NOT appreciate Frank Turkey [sic] or Colin Hemer for making the argument, since surely they know better. If they do know better, shame on them for trying to dupe others. If they don’t know better, would someone please tell them to start thinking more clearly?

Unfortunately, in this case as we shall see, it is Bart Ehrman, not Turek or Hemer, who needs to start thinking more clearly. Ehrman asks how we know Acts to be historical reportage rather than legend. He writes,

The traditional answer is that Acts was written by an eyewitness, a person who accompanied Paul on his missionary journeys. The presumption is that if it was written by an eyewitness, then the accounts almost certainly must be historically accurate. I won’t be going into that issue here (of whether eyewitness = accurate), but if you have ever known an eyewitness to an event who got it completely wrong (and if you’re a sentient human being, I bet you have known at least one!) you can immediately see at least one aspect of the problem.

The argument here is actually not that Luke is reliable because he was an eyewitness. Rather, we infer him to be an eyewitness because of, among other things, his demonstrated reliability on so many matters. Luke’s demonstrated meticulousness and detailed accuracy as an historian reveals him to be someone who is close up to the facts, well informed, and habitually reliable. This is best explained by his being an eyewitness. And Luke’s track record of accurate reportage gives us some reason to trust him on matters on which he cannot be directly cross-checked. I discuss some of the reasons why we think Luke was an eyewitness in a previous article, so I will not repeat myself here.

Ehrman notes that,

The reason for thinking Acts was written by an eyewitness is that in four passages in these chapters, the author moves from talking about what “they” (Paul and his companions) were doing to about what “we” were doing. It sounds like he’s including himself in a number of the events as one who was there. The natural conclusion: he was an eyewitness.

This is a simplistic representation of the argument, since there is a lot more to it than that. For a scholarly discussion of why the use of the plural pronoun indicates that the author was an eyewitness, readers may refer to Craig Keener’s commentary on Acts, which covers this in detail. I mentioned in my previous article, for instance, that the “we” pronouns trail off when Paul travels through Philippi, only to reappear in Acts 20 when Paul passes once again through Philippi. This is suggestive that the author had remained behind in Philippi and subsequently re-joined Paul when Paul returned through Philippi.

Returning to the detailed knowledge shown by Acts, Ehrman thinks he has found a flaw in this argument. He writes,

If you can show that the account knows where certain places actually were, and knows details about what were in those places, and landmarks, and so on: doesn’t that show the author must have been with Paul on his journeys? Uh, why would it show *that*?? Wouldn’t it just show that he knew about these locations and what was in them? Wouldn’t you get precisely the same kind of narrative if this was someone who had traveled a good bit himself, or knew others who had, and pieced it all together?

To illustrate this point, Ehrman offers an analogy. He writes,

Suppose in 2000 years someone uncovers a story that describes an event that happened to Professor Bart Ehrman in March 2016. Professor Ehrman taught at the University of North Carolina which was located in a college town named Chapel Hill. That semester he was teaching his course on the New Testament in a large lecture classroom in a building called Hamilton Hall. On the afternoon of March 14, Professor was just leaving his office in Carolina Hall to take the three-minute walk to his classroom, when he heard a massive explosion, and going out of his building he saw that Hamilton Hall had been destroyed in an explosion, killing 172 people. Later investigators discovered that it had been caused by a gas leak.

Now, this future researcher who has uncovered the story decides to look into the archaeological record to see if the account is accurate. He learns that way back then there really was a state called North Carolina, and sees that archaeologists had indeed uncovered a town called Chapel Hill, where there really was a university. More than that, they had excavated the university and had found Carolina Hall and – mirabile dictu – there was an actual map of the campus in the ruins. It turns out one of the major lecture rooms for large classes was a short distance away, within eyesight, in Hamilton Hall. Just as in the story!! Moreover, the records of all the professors from the early 21st century were discovered, and there was a fellow named Bart Ehrman who did indeed teach courses on something called the New Testament, and was teaching one such course in Spring semester, 2016.

BINGO! This story MUST have been written by someone who was a companion of Bart Ehrman who was there to see all these things! How else would he have had all this information about NC, Chapel Hill, the university, Hamilton Hall, Carolina Hall, Bart Ehrman, and a class on the NT that particular semester? And that means Hamilton Hall really was destroyed by an explosion caused by a gas leak, right?

Uh, well, no. Millions of people know about NC, and the existence of Chapel Hill, and that there is a university there. Hundreds of thousands know about both Carolina Hall and Hamilton Hall, and have a general sense of their proximity, and that some fellow named Bart Ehrman teaches NT there. Why would the account of the gas leak-explosion have to be written by someone who was there at the time? Or even someone who knew me? Or someone who observed the event?

Ehrman speaks here as if, in the first century world, the geographical, political, terminological, and other subtle facts that the book of Acts gets right would have been widely and easily known or accessible. However, this is absolutely absurd. The argument for Acts being based on eyewitness testimony is that the book of Acts gets hard things right. Ehrman’s illustration about the University of North Carolina implies a situation where one can easily look up these facts, using modern resources like Google or Wikipedia, and include them in a fictional story. However, in the case of the book of Acts, which was written in a world without the ease of access to information that we enjoy today, Ehrman’s proposed scenario would imply that the author would have had to travel around all of those same places (or at the very least interview people who had been there) and include those very specific facts in an account of historical fiction, a genre that did not even exist at the time. Ehrman’s scenario here is very ad hoc and anachronistic.

A further issue with Ehrman’s statement is his use of the word “must.” None of us are arguing that the evidence proves that Luke was an eyewitness and traveling companion of Paul. We are talking about probabilities, and what best explains the relevant data. It is also not the case that Julius Caesar must have crossed the Rubicon, or that Abraham Lincoln must have emancipated the slaves, though the evidence for those things is very strong.

In Ehrman’s final paragraph, he writes,

I’m not saying that because of this Acts is unreliable historically. I’m saying that if someone wants to argue it is, they need to come up with good arguments instead of completely irrelevant ones. I do understand that if the author had gotten all the geographical information wrong it could be relevant to whether the account was accurate or not; my argument is that getting that kind of information right is not. If Christian apologists don’t see the difference – then I’m afraid I can’t help them.

Now, if all Ehrman meant here is that the correctness of the specific details in Acts doesn’t logically entail the historical truth of the narrative, then I would have to agree (though I do not know anyone who has ever argued that it does). However, Ehrman is here saying something that is much stronger. Here, he is asserting that the arguments in question are “completely irrelevant.” This statement is totally indefensible and is logically impossible, since it cannot simultaneously be relevant if the information is incorrect but completely irrelevant if the information is in fact correct.

We can be charitable here, however, and take him to be speaking colloquially, to mean that the relevance of accurate details in Acts is negligible or not worth speaking of. However, this too is problematic. What is the argument for this? One might conjecture that Ehrman takes it to be part of the background information that Acts is highly realistic fiction, a conclusion he has come to on independent grounds. But how does he arrive independently at this conclusion? In fact, the sort of arguments that Ehrman wields against Acts (such as alleged discrepancies with Paul’s letters) would suggest that it isn’t highly realistic fiction, since on Ehrman’s view Acts is contradicting primary sources for the life of Paul. If the author of Acts went to the trouble of visiting all of the places that he claims Paul travelled to, gathering highly specific information in order to incorporate them into his realistic fictional account of Paul’s travels, why would he also contradict the Pauline epistles, which would have been in wide circulation and therefore much more easily accessible? Ehrman’s standards in regards to those alleged discrepancies are entirely wrong. All of the contradictions Ehrman alleges between Acts and Paul’s letters, as I have documented elsewhere (e.g. see my ongoing series of reviews on this site of Ehrman’s book Jesus, Interrupted) are the result of over-readings, tendentious interpretations, and arguments from silence. The forcefulness that Ehrman ascribes to those, combined with his dismissal of the difficult details Luke gets right concerning geography and other matters as “completely irrelevant” is astounding, and really reveals his unscholarly bias against the New Testament.

To conclude, I do NOT appreciate Bart Ehrman for making the argument, since surely he knows better. If he does know better, shame on him for trying to dupe others. If he doesn’t know better, would someone please tell him to start thinking more clearly? This post by Ehrman represents yet another example of why Ehrman should no longer be taken seriously as a scholarly critic of Christianity, despite his popularity in atheistic and Muslim circles. It is time that Ehrman is called out for his poor scholarship, bad standards, and faulty epistemology. For more on that, I refer you to my ongoing series of reviews at this site of Jesus, Interrupted (part 1, part 2, part 3)

The Slaughter of the Bethlehem Boys

4. Is the NT True?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Ryan Leasure

Moral atrocities litter the historical landscape. And this ought to make us sad. People do bad things. And they’ve been doing bad things ever since Genesis 3. It doesn’t take long for the fall to rear its ugly head in the Bible for in the very next chapter — Genesis 4 — Cain violently kills his brother. Unfortunately, these kinds of events have been occurring ever since.

One thinks of the Holocaust, the genocides in Rwanda, or the untold millions dead from the Russian Gulag camps. Or if you’re a student of the Bible, you might think of the Bethlehem genocide orchestrated by King Herod the Great.

If you’re unfamiliar with this event, in Matthew 2, the Magi traveled to Jerusalem in search of this newborn king of the Jews. When Herod heard that these wise men were looking for a king other than himself, he became disturbed. Matthew tells us that Herod “was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him” (Mt 2:2).

Not one to share his throne, Herod eventually orders the execution of all the boys in Bethlehem who were two-years-old or under (Mt 2:16). Everyone would agree that Herod acted egregiously here. No morally sane person could justify Herod’s swift action. But did it actually happen?

No Historical Record of the Genocide

Skeptics are quick to point out that we don’t have any other ancient sources testifying to this awful event. Not even the other Gospels report it! But doesn’t this seem odd? If Herod really did order the execution of all those little boys, why didn’t Philo or Josephus report it? After all, Josephus wrote a great deal about first-century Palestine — more than anyone else. Yet, he is silent on the matter.

Does this give us reason to reject Matthew’s claim? Certainly, if the President of the United States ordered the execution of all the baby boys in Greenville, SC, we would expect at least two different news sources to cover the event. We can certainly sympathize with the skeptic’s concerns, but I still believe we still have good reason to believe that the genocide occurred.

Herod the Great

While Josephus doesn’t report on this specific event, he tells us a great deal about Herod the Great. Herod was born from noble stock, though he wasn’t technically Jewish. He was an Idumean — a descendent of Esau (something that the Jewish people always held against him). After Pompey conquered Judea, Julius Caesar appointed Herod’s father — Antipater II — as procurator of the region in 47 BC.[1] Antipater subsequently appointed Herod as governor of Galilee at the ripe young age of twenty-five. Less than ten years later, Herod was appointed king of Judea by Caesar Augustus after his dad died by poisoning.

After claiming his throne, Herod quickly married Mariamne I to solidify relations with his Jewish counterparts. But he couldn’t shake the suspicion that she sought to bring him down. This constant paranoia led him to order her execution. Mariamne’s death profoundly affected Herod. He became extremely ill. And though he didn’t die, he remained obsessively paranoid for the rest of his life that others were trying to sabotage his reign.[2]

Known for Two Things

King Herod is known for two things. First, he is known for his building projects. Most notably, Herod orchestrated the rebuilding of the Jewish temple. The building itself towered fifteen stories high, and the temple precincts covered the width of thirty-five football fields. Rabbinic tradition stated, “whoever has not beheld Herod’s building has not yet seen anything beautiful in his life.”[3] In addition to the temple, Herod constructed a number of palaces. He also built a number of theaters, arenas, and amphitheaters for the Greek Games. He established an entirely new city which he named Sebaste in honor of Augustus and even fashioned a temple for the sole purpose of emperor worship. Furthermore, he’s credited with creating the port city of Caesarea Maritima — a marvel of the ancient world.[4]

More relevant, though, Herod was known for his paranoia. Not known for chastity, Herod married ten women who gave him a number of sons.[5] As Herod aged, he became increasingly skeptical of his sons’ devotion. He was so utterly convinced that they meant to overthrow him that he executed three of them (Alexander, Aristobulus, and Antipater III).[6] After a series of executions and imprisonments of his close relatives, Caesar Augustus is reported to have remarked that he would rather be Herod’s pig (hus) than his son (huios).[7] Of course, Herod wasn’t allowed to touch pigs being a Jew. Upon his death bed, Herod ordered the execution of a number of high-ranking officials so that people would mourn at the time of his death rather than rejoice. Thankfully, that order was overturned by his sister after his death. To sum up Herod, Josephus notes, “He was a man who was cruel to all alike and one who easily gave in to anger and was contemptuous of justice.”[8]

Back to Bethlehem

Knowing what we know about Herod, doesn’t his execution order of the young boys in Bethlehem make sense? Knowing how paranoid he was about losing his kingship, it seems almost historically certain that he would have acted this way if he felt his throne was threatened. The Magi were, after all, looking for the one who was “king of the Jews.” If Herod was willing to execute his favorite sons because he thought they were plotting his demise, we can certainly see him ordering the death of his potential replacements.

But why doesn’t Josephus mention this event? I think we have two good explanations. First, Bethlehem was a small town consisting of roughly five hundred people. This means the population of young boys would have been anywhere from 10-20. A sad course of events, yes, but not something that might make it into Josephus’ history books like the execution of the king’s sons.

Second, Josephus’ history books, while extremely helpful for learning about first-century Palestine, are limited in what they report. Case in point, Josephus uses a total of 15,764 words in Antiquities book 18 which covers the span of thirty-two years (AD 6-38). That works out to less than five hundred words per year.[9] By comparison, Matthew uses 18,347 words in his Gospel which only spans three years (about six thousand words per year). This blog post alone is about twelve hundred words. I can’t imagine trying to squeeze the events of this year (especially the kind of year we’ve had) into 500 words. In sum, Josephus had to be selective in what he included in his works.

Conclusion

While we can appreciate the skeptic’s concerns, we don’t need to reject Matthew’s claim that Herod ordered the execution of the Bethlehem boys. Based on what we know of Herod, this execution is consistent with his constant paranoia and subpar character. Additionally, because the execution would have included at most 10-20 boys, Josephus didn’t feel it necessary to include this event in his works since he was limited in space.

Reference

[1] Josephus, Antiquities, 14.8.1-5.

[2] Michael J. Wilkins, “Matthew” in Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary: Matthew, Mark, Luke, ed. by Clint E Arnold (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 18.

[3] Bava Basra, 4a.

[4] Wilkins, Matthew, 18.

[5] Josephus, Antiquities, 17.1.3.

[6] Josephus, Antiquities, 16.10.5-16.11.8, 17.10.1.

[7] Macrobius, Saturnalia, 2.f.11.

[8] Josephus, Antiquities, 17.8.1.

[9] Peter Williams, Twitter Post March 28, 2019.

Challenges to neo-Darwinian theories of development

2. Does God Exist?, Philosophy of Science

By Julie Hannah

In Article 1, “The arising of our universe: design or chance?” I discussed evidence for the design behind our finely-tuned universe, which has convinced some mainstream scientists of the existence of a transcendent Creator. Article 2, “Can living cells arise randomly from non-living chemicals?” presented recent research findings that call into question the theory that living cells could have arisen from random operations on non-living chemicals. This article considers challenges to reductionist aspects of neo-Darwinian theories of evolution.

How does science account for the range of complex life forms? According to the deterministic neo-Darwinian Modern Synthesis model, random errors in DNA-copying cause mutations, and only some of the resulting forms survive the environmental process of natural selection. It is generally agreed that these gene-driven processes can account for some aspects of development, but many scientists are questioning whether they can fully explain the complexity of all life forms. Eugene Koonin, an evolutionary biologist at the National Center for Biotechnology Information makes this blunt observation: “The summary of the state of affairs on the 150th anniversary of the Origin is somewhat shocking: in the post-genomic era, all major tenets of the Modern Synthesis are, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution. So, not to mince words, the Modern Synthesis is gone” (“Origin at 150,” 474–75).

Standard evolutionary theory is being challenged in the following three major areas.

Challenge 1: Only small, continuous changes?

Microevolution involves minor genetic mutations and natural selection. But according to geneticists Baguñà and Garcia-Fernàndez, repeated microevolution does not explain major evolutionary transitions, and as a result, “even to the most unbounded optimist, we are still far from understanding morphological diversity and evolution” (“Evo-Devo,” 706). Evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould argued that there was a fundamental difference between minor adaptations and the formation of new species, an opinion that is also expressed by paleobiologist Douglas Erwin of the Smithsonian Institute in his article, “Macroevolution is More Than Repeated Rounds of Microevolution.” Anthropologist Jeffrey Schwartz points out that some major groups “appear in the fossil record as Athena did from the head of Zeus—full-blown and raring to go, in contradiction to Darwin’s depiction of evolution as resulting from the gradual accumulation of countless infinitesimally minute variations” (Sudden Origins, 3). And Eugene Koonin concludes that “the idea of evolution being driven primarily by infinitesimal heritable changes in the Darwinian tradition has become untenable” (“Origin at 150,” 474).

Challenge 2: Only random variations and natural selection?

Some scientists are questioning the purely random nature of evolutionary change. For example, molecular geneticist James Shapiro makes this observation: “It is difficult (if not impossible) to find a genome change operator that is truly random in its action within the DNA of the cell where it works. All careful studies of mutagenesis find statistically significant non-random patterns of change” (Evolution, 82). Gerd Müller, Head of the Department of Theoretical Biology at the University of Vienna, argues that developmental systems seem to have innate tendencies towards certain solutions, and these tendencies have as strong an influence on development as random DNA variations (“Extended Evolutionary Synthesis,” 4, 7). Professor of evolutionary biology Kevin Laland agrees that “much variation is not random because developmental processes generate certain forms more readily than others” (“Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?” 162).

The theory of random variations also presents unresolved problems. According to genetic biologists Thornton and DeSalle, “It remains a mystery how the undirected process of mutation, combined with natural selection, has resulted in the creation of thousands of new proteins with extraordinarily diverse and well optimized functions. This problem is particularly acute for tightly integrated molecular systems that consist of many interacting parts . . . It is not clear how a new function for any protein might be selected for unless the other members of the complex are already present, creating a molecular version of the ancient evolutionary riddle of the chicken and the egg” (“Gene Family Evolution,” 64).

Simon Conway Morris, who holds the Chair in Evolutionary Paleobiology at Cambridge, also argues that adaptation is not an undirected, random walk through all possibilities. For example, when muscle tissue develops into organs that produce electricity, the process requires very precise amino acid replacements at specific sites, together with accelerated evolution of the new function, and Conway Morris concludes that “there is little doubt that these changes are very far from random” (Runes of Evolution, 38). He therefore argues that while the underlying principles of Darwinian evolution are correct, they do not provide a complete explanation of development, and a more comprehensive theory of evolution is required.

Gould also pointed out that many evolutionists now doubt the exclusive role of natural selection in genetic change (“New and General Theory of Evolution,” 12). And Andras Pellionisz, an expert in genome informatics, suggests that the theory of natural selection should be extended to include goal-directed aspects (“Principle of Recursive Genome Function,” 349).

Challenge 3: What about the complex genetic code?

It is generally accepted that the modern genetic code evolved from a simpler form, but there is no agreement about when or how this initial code evolved. In their article, “Chance and Necessity Do Not Explain the Origin of Life,” microbiologist Jack Trevors and cyberneticist David Abel explain why they believe natural selection could not be the primary mechanism for developing DNA coding (“Chance and Necessity,” 734 – 35):

“Without the machinery and protein workers, the [DNA] message cannot be received and understood. And without genetic instruction, the machinery cannot be assembled . . . It is not reasonable to expect hundreds to thousands of random sequence polymers to all cooperatively selforganize into an amazingly efficient holistic metabolic network.”
“Natural processes, mechanisms, and chemical catalyses do not explain any of these emergent conceptual phenomena. . . . Even ‘meaningful’ RNA or DNA inserted into a lifeless physical world such as the ancient Earth, would not be ‘readable.’ It could not communicate its coded message for protein synthesis unless a language (operating system) context already existed.”
“Contentions that offer nothing more than long periods of time offer no mechanism of explanation for the derivation of genetic programming. No new information is provided by such tautologies. The argument simply says it happened. As such, it is nothing more than blind belief.” In other words, “time made it happen” might be science’s version of “God made it happen.”

Atheist biologist Richard Dawkins insists there is only an “illusion of design in the living world” (God Delusion, 25), and he claims that “cumulative selection, by slow and gradual degrees, is the explanation, the only workable explanation that has ever been proposed, for the existence of life’s complex design” (Blind Watchmaker, 317, original emphasis). However, atheist geneticist and evolutionist Richard Lewontin disagrees, pointing out that Dawkins’s adamant assertion ignores an enormous amount of recent research. He writes: “Dawkins’s vulgarizations of Darwinism speak of nothing in evolution but an inexorable ascendancy of genes that are selectively superior, while the entire body of technical advance in experimental and theoretical evolutionary genetics of the last fifty years has moved in the direction of emphasizing non-selective forces in evolution” (“Billions of Demons,” 29).

Computational physiologist Denis Noble argues that the highly reductionist and deterministic worldview of neo-Darwinism is not a necessary conclusion from the scientific evidence. He expresses the desire of many biologists to “distance [themselves] from the biased conceptual scheme that neo-Darwinism has brought to biology, made more problematic by the fact that it has been presented as literal truth” (“Evolution Beyond neo-Darwinism,” 12). And as Gerd Müller points out, this is not the view of only a handful of fringe scientists because an increasing number of publications call for a major revision of standard evolutionary theory (“Extended Evolutionary Synthesis,” 2).

The more recent approach to evolutionary development is not deterministic or gene-driven. Instead, it argues that there are complex non-random processes at work. However, Laland et al. point out that there is passionate resistance to the newer Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES): “The number of biologists calling for change in how evolution is conceptualized is growing rapidly . . . Yet the mere mention of the EES often evokes an emotional, even hostile, reaction among evolutionary biologists . . . This is no storm in an academic tearoom, it is a struggle for the very soul of the discipline” (“Evolutionary Theory,” 162).

Marcos Eberlin, a winner of the Thomson Medal in Chemistry, summarized a wide range of recent scientific findings in his 2019 book Foresight: How the Chemistry of Life Reveals Planning and Purpose, which is endorsed by three winners of Nobel Prizes in science. Eberlin reaches this conclusion about the evidence regarding the development of life on Earth: it “seems to point beyond any blind evolutionary process to the workings of an attribute unique to minds—foresight. And yes, I know: We’re told that it’s out of bounds for science to go there… [but] I urge you to inspect the evidence” (Foresight, 13–14).

Note

Adapted from A Skeptic’s Investigation into Jesus, J P Hannah.

https://www.amazon.com/Skeptics-Investigation-into-Jesus/dp/1532674619

Used with kind permission from Wipf and Stock Publishers: www.wipfandstock.com.

References

Baguñà, Jaume, and Jordi García -Fernàndez. “Evo-Devo: the Long and Winding Road.” The International Journal of Developmental Biology 47 (2003) 705–13.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/8892395_Evo-Devo_The_Long_and_Winding_Road

Conway Morris, Simon. The Runes of Evolution: How the Universe Became Self-Aware. West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton, 2005.

Eberlin, Marcos. Foresight: How the Chemistry of Life Reveals Planning and Purpose. Seattle: Discovery Institute, 2019.

Erwin, Douglas H. “Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution.” Evolution and Development 2 (2000) 78–84.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1046/j.1525-142x.2000.00045.x

Gould, Stephen Jay. “Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?” Paleobiology 6 (1980) 119–30.

http://www.somosbacteriasyvirus.com/gould.pdf

Koonin Eugene V. “The Origin at 150: Is a New Evolutionary Synthesis in Sight?” Trends in Genetics 25 (2009) 473–75. doi:10.1016/j.tig.2009.09.007.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2784144/

Laland Kevin N., et al. “Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?” Nature 514 (2014) 161–64.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gerd_Mueller/publication/278258986_Does_evolutionary_theory_need_a_rethink_-_POINT_Yes_urgently/links/55cd2f8708aebd6b88e05e5f/Does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-POINT-Yes-urgently.pdf?origin=publication_detail

Lewontin, Richard. “Billions and Billions of Demons: A Review of The Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan.” New York Review of Books 44 (1997) 28–30.

http://www.drjbloom.com/Public%20files/Lewontin_Review.htm

Müller, Gerd B. “Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary.” Interface Focus 7: 20170015.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsfs.2017.0015

Noble, Denis. “Evolution beyond neo-darwinism: a new conceptual framework.” The Journal of Experimental Biology 218 (2015) 7–13.

http://jeb.biologists.org/content/jexbio/218/1/7.full.pdf

Pellionisz, Andras J. “The Principle of Recursive Genome Function.” Cerebellum 7 (2008) 348–59. http://ww.junkdna.com/pellionisz_principle_of_recursive_genome_function.pdf

Schwartz, Jeffrey H. Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species. New York: Wiley, 1999.

Shapiro, James, A. Evolution: A View from the 21st Century. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, 2011.

Thornton, Joseph W., and Rob DeSalle. “Gene Family Evolution and Homology: Genomics Meets Phylogenetics.” Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 1 (2000) 41–73.

https://www.math.auckland.ac.nz/~nicholls/BIOSCI743/thorntonanddesalle.pdf

Trevors, Jack T., and David L. Abel. “Chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life.” Cell Biology International 28 (2004) 729–39.

https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~stevel/565/literature/Chance%20and%20necessity%20do%20not%20explain%20the%20origin%20of%20life.pdf

Facing an Unknown Future with a Known God

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

This past Sunday, my family and I stopped by a local antique store after church. We were there for no reason but to check out their merchandise to see, as my wife says, “if there was anything that we couldn’t live without.” As we navigated our way through the aisles of the store, a sign appeared before me with a message that I needed to hear. The sign read, “Never be afraid to trust an unknown future to a known God.” I have heard people asking God for a sign. I have asked God for the same. Nevertheless, God gave me a literal sign for the moment.

As a bit of a backdrop, my family and I had just attended the last service where I served as pastor. I am about to embark on a new phase of ministry. As such, our lives are in a state of transition. Change is often difficult for us all. Yet this sign served as a reminder that God is not only over all places, God is over time itself which means that we can trust the knowable God with our unknown future. Here are a few reasons why we can believe the sign’s statement.

God is Transcendent. God’s transcendence indicates that God is not restricted by creation. This is something that truly baffles my mind. As a stargazer, I found myself lying on the ground last night looking up at the stars. I found myself lost in the beauty of the Large Magellanic Cloud band of the Milky Way galaxy. I was in awe of the intensity of the glow of Jupiter, Saturn, and Mars. And then it hit me. As immense as the universe is with its numerous stars, planets, and galaxies; the universe and all its parts still do not compare to the transcendent majesty of God. God is not restricted by creation, but rather creation is subdued under the transcendent Creator’s authority. With this in mind, believers can face an unknown future with the confidence that God is able to come through for them in ways that no other being has the capacity to do. God’s sphere of transcendence places him on a level that no other being could attain. God is the highest and greatest of all possible beings.

God is Omnipresent. Omnipresence is God’s attribute that describes God’s ability to be in all places at all times. God is not restricted by space. Therefore, God can always transcend locations enabling God to be near to all people. Paul had this idea in mind when he said to the Athenians that God is “not far from each one of us” (Acts 17:27). God reveals that he fills both heaven and earth through his prophet Jeremiah, saying, “Do I not fill the heavens and the earth” (Jer. 23:24)? While we may not know what tomorrow brings, we can face the future with confidence knowing that God’s presence is always with us.

God is Omnitemporal. God’s omnitemporality indicates that God is the Lord of time. Isaiah writes, “Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the whole earth. He never becomes faint or weary; there is no limit to his understanding” (Isa. 40:28). Alan Padgett contends that God is the Lord of time. Time flows from the being of God. Padgett writes,

“To say that God is the Lord of time would include the fact that he is not limited by any amount of time, either in the actions he can perform or the length of his life. While humans can fear the passage of time, because it brings them closer to the end of their life, God is everliving. He cannot die, and has nothing to fear from the future” (Padgett, GEATNOT, 123).

Since God is the everliving and everlasting God, then God’s children have nothing to fear from the unknown future because God is already in the future, as such. Even death cannot intimidate the believer as the everliving God has granted eternal life to those who trust in him.

God is Omnisapient. Finally, God is omnisapient. Omnisapience refers to the all-wise God. Omnisapience (all-wisdom) differs from omniscience (all-knowledge) in the sense that while knowledge understands certain data, wisdom knows how to make the best decisions with the data available. Wisdom references good decision making. God, being the all-wise God, makes the best decisions for our lives even when those decisions do not make sense to us. Since God is the only being who is self-existent, self-sustaining, omnipresent, and transcendent; God then has access to information that none of us could ever possess. God is love (1 John 4:8). As such, God desires the very best for us, especially God’s children. Therefore, people can trust their lives and their future to the all-wise God.

I am certain that I am not the only person who faces uncertainty in life. With society in turmoil and the world facing a pandemic, nearly everyone has been impacted by the tensions of uncertainty. Nevertheless, we do not need to fret if we trust God. Oswald Chambers rightly holds that our fears arise when we place our trust in humanity or in our own abilities. Chambers notes,

“Our Lord trusted no man; yet He was never suspicious, never bitter, never in despair about any man because He put God first in trust; He trusted absolutely in what God’s grace could do for any man. If I put my trust in human beings first, I will end in despairing everyone; I will become bitter, because I have insisted on man being what no man can ever be—absolutely right. Never trust anything but the grace of God in yourself or in anyone else” (Chambers, MUFHH, 152).

Rather than placing your trust in your abilities or the abilities of other people, trust God with your future. While our future may be unknown to us, the future is fully and completely known by the known God.

Sources

Chambers, Oswald. My Utmost for His Highest. The Classic Edition. Uhrichsville, OH: Barbour, 1935.

Padgett, Alan G. God, Eternity, and the Nature of Time. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1992.

Can living cells arise randomly from non-living chemicals?

2. Does God Exist?, Philosophy of Science

By Julie Hannah

In Article 1, “The arising of our universe: design or chance?” I discussed evidence for the design behind our finely-tuned universe, which has convinced some mainstream scientists of the existence of a transcendent Creator. In this article, I present recent findings related to the theory that living cells arose through random operations on abiotic (non-living) chemicals.

In 1953, scientists Miller and Urey sent sparks through a mixture of gases to produce amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins. This seemed to support the theory that life arose on Earth when non-living chemicals randomly combined to form organic compounds, which then spontaneously developed the ability to replicate. However, this process of abiogenesis has been difficult to confirm and model for the following reasons.

Problem 1: Many steps are still not understood

Atheist biologist Richard Dawkins admits that “nobody knows how it happened but, somehow, without violating the laws of physics and chemistry, a molecule arose that just happened to have the property of self-copying” (Climbing Mount Improbable, 259). George Whitesides, who was awarded the Priestley Medal for Chemistry in 2007, also frankly expresses uncertainty: “Most chemists believe, as do I, that life emerged spontaneously from mixtures of molecules in the prebiotic Earth. How? I have no idea” (“Revolutions in Chemistry,” 15). As recently as 2018, geoscientists Kitadai and Maruyama published an extensive review of research results in abiogenesis and were forced to conclude that several steps in the process are still unconfirmed and remain highly hypothetical (“Origins of Building Blocks of Life: A Review,” 1117, 1142).

Problem 2: The first self-replicating molecule has still not been identified

The replication of living cells requires the presence of both protein and DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). But this poses a chicken-or-egg problem because DNA holds the genetic code for building proteins, but this information can only be accessed if proteins are already present. Philosopher of science Karl Popper explained the problem: “The genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But . . . the code cannot be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a really baffling circle” (“Scientific Reduction,” 270). Microbiologist Jack Trevors and cyberneticist David Abel point out that this DNA-protein problem has still not been solved and remains a scientific enigma (“Chance and Necessity,” 734).

To avoid this dilemma, scientists are trying to identify a molecule that arose before DNA, which could have performed both roles: providing genetic information and also promoting self-replication. This might be RNA (ribonucleic acid), but there are some uncertainties: “The most promising candidate is RNA if a mechanism existed on the primitive Earth for the formation of oligoribonucleotides, and if some of these polymers acquired, by chance, the ability to copy their sequences” (Kitadai and Maruyama, “Origins,” 1138, emphasis added). In Whitesides’s opinion, the proposed RNA world “is so far removed in its complexity from dilute solutions of mixtures of simple molecules in a hot, reducing ocean under a high pressure of CO₂that I don’t know how to connect the two” (“Revolutions in Chemistry,” 15). Kitadai and Maruyama explain that many problems remain unresolved regarding the spontaneous arising of RNA (“Origins,” 1141). And molecular scientists Robertson and Joyce express this opinion: “The myth of a small RNA molecule that arises de novo and can replicate efficiently and with high fidelity under plausible prebiotic conditions . . . [is] unrealistic in light of current understanding of prebiotic chemistry” (“Origins of RNA World,” 7). Nobel-winning biochemist Christian de Duve agrees: “Contrary to what is sometimes intimated, the idea of a few RNA molecules coming together by some chance combination of circumstances and henceforth being reproduced and amplified by replication simply is not tenable” (“Beginnings of Life,” 432). Research chemist Leslie Orgel comments: “It is possible that all of these, and many other difficulties, will one day be overcome and that a convincing prebiotic synthesis of RNA will become available. However, many researchers in the field, myself included, think that this is unlikely” (“Prebiotic Chemistry,” 114).

As a result, some scientists are now looking for an even simpler molecule that preceded RNA. However, this precursor has still not been identified. And in any case, as Robertson and Joyce point out, “all of the arguments concerning the relationship between the fidelity of replication and the maximum allowable genome length would still apply to this earlier genetic system” (“Origins of RNA World,” 9).

Professor of chemistry Robert Shapiro also pointed out that there is still no explanation for how the first self-replicating molecule could have been formed (“Small Molecule Interactions,” 106). It cannot have arisen through natural selection because this process can only operate on an existing self-replicating system, which results in another chicken-or-egg problem.

Problem 3: Laboratory experiments might not replicate conditions on early Earth

When scientists synthesize living molecules in the laboratory, they might be using processes that could not have occurred on the primitive Earth. For example, it is not known whether ribozymes (a type of RNA molecule) could have developed from materials that would have been abundant on early Earth (see Robertson and Joyce, “Origins of RNA World,” 12). Kolomiytsev and Poddubnaya reach this conclusion: “No one has found conditions as yet that could result in the formation of ribonucleotides on the primitive Earth. . . Darwin’s ‘warm little pond’ as well as a pond ﬁlled with self-copying RNA molecules and concentrated solutions of all the biochemical precursors of RNA could scarcely exist” (“Diffuse Organism,” 69–70).Kitadai and Maruyama write: “Various sites for the origin of life have been proposed, including transient melt zones in a frozen ocean, hydrothermal systems within volcanos, and subterranean lithic zones. Although each setting has advantages in some stages of chemical evolution, unsolved problems also remain” (“Origins,” 1121, emphasis added).

Problem 4: Probabilities are low

The proposed evolution of living molecules from abiotic chemicals is extremely complex and requires at least eight different reaction conditions (see Kitadai and Maruyama “Origins,” 1117). Regarding one hypothetical process for the random arising of adenine (a nucleobase of DNA), Robert Shapiro remarks: “While no single reaction or location in this sequence violates the possibilities of chemistry or geology, the need for them to occur in an exact order creates an implausibility comparable to that involved in generating a particular English sentence by hitting word processor keys at random” (“Small Molecule Interactions,” 110). George Whitesides, therefore, makes this admission about the random arising of living molecules: “Perhaps it was by the spontaneous emergence of ‘simple’ autocatalytic cycles and then by their combination. On the basis of all the chemistry that I know, it seems to me astonishingly improbable” (“Revolutions in Chemistry,” 15).

Nobel Prize-winning chemist Ilya Prigogineexpressed a similar opinion: “The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable, even on the scale of the billions of years during which prebiotic evolution occurred” (“Thermodynamics of Evolution,” 23). In other words, the popular claim that random processes could convert chemicals into living cells over sufficient time is not supported by science.

In short,after more than seventy years of heavily funded international research into abiogenesis, there is still “no plausible scenario that can explain all the stages of the origin of life” (Kitadai and Maruyama, “Origins,” 1121), and there remains an “insuperable gap between pre biological chemistry and the ﬁrst living systems” (Kolomiytsev and Poddubnaya, “Diffuse Organism,” 76). A clear route from prebiotic chemicals to nucleotides and living cells remains, in Orgel’s terms, “the Molecular Biologist’s Dream” (“Prebiotic Chemistry,” 119). As a result, some scientists now suggest that organic molecules must have been formed somewhere else in the universe and been carried to Earth on meteors to provide the biological basis for life. However, this merely transfers the problem of life’s origins to a different location.

Notes

Adapted from A Skeptic’s Investigation into Jesus, J P Hannah.

https://www.amazon.com/Skeptics-Investigation-into-Jesus/dp/1532674619

Used with kind permission from Wipf and Stock Publishers: www.wipfandstock.com.

References

Dawkins, Richard. Climbing Mount Improbable. Penguin: London, 1996.

———. The God Delusion. New York: Mariner, 2008.

de Duve, Christian. “The Beginnings of Life on Earth.” American Scientist 83 (1995) 428–37.

http://www2.nau.edu/~gaud/bio372/class/readings/beglifeerth.htm

Kitadai, Norio, and Shigenori Maruyama. “Origins of building blocks of life: A review.” Geoscience Frontiers 9 (2018) 1117–153.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/sdfe/reader/pii/S1674987117301305/pdf

Kittel, Charles, and Herbert Kroemer. Thermal Physics. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Freeman, 1980.

Kolomiytsev, Nikolay P., and Nadezhda Ya Poddubnaya. “The Diffuse Organism as the First Biological System.” Biological Theory 5 (2010) 67–78.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237937058_The_Diffuse_Organism_as_the_First_Biological_System

Orgel, Leslie E. “The Implausibility of Metabolic Cycles on the Prebiotic Earth.” PLOS Biology 6 (2008) 5–13.

———. “Prebiotic Chemistry and the Origin of the RNA World. Critical Reviews in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 39 (2004) 99–123.

Popper, Karl R. “Scientific Reduction and the Essential Incompleteness of All Science.” In Studies in the Philosophy of Biology: Reduction and Related Problems, edited by F. J. Ayala, and T. Dobzhansky, 259–84. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974.

Prigogine, Ilya, et al. “Thermodynamics of Evolution.” Physics Today 25 (1972) 23–28.

Robertson, Michael P., and Gerald F. Joyce. “The Origins of the RNA World.” Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology 4.5 (2012) a003608.

https://cshperspectives.cshlp.org/content/4/5/a003608.full.pdf+html

Shapiro, Robert. “Small molecule interactions were central to the origin of life.” The Quarterly Review of Biology 81 (2006) 105–26.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/fd8a/8ef0c136dd80fa2365332fe409c9f0d35475.pdf?_ga=2.155355579.1445154396.1565957529-266559242.1550312466

Trevors, Jack T., and David L. Abel. “Chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life.” Cell Biology International 28 (2004) 729–39.

https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~stevel/565/literature/Chance%20and%20necessity%20do%20not%20explain%20the%20origin%20of%20life.pdf

Whitesides, George M. “Revolutions In Chemistry: Priestley Medalist George M. Whitesides’ Address.” Chemical and Engineering News 85 (2007) 12–17.

https://cen.acs.org/articles/85/i13/Revolutions-Chemistry.html

Tag Archive for: Christianity

Jerusalem and The Pool of Bethesda

Jerusalem and The Pool of Siloam

Herod the Great

The ‘James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus’ Ossuary

Tiberius Caesar

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

To Understand The Second Law Of Thermodynamics, Burn A Match

The Universe – A Giant Battery

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

No Historical Record of the Genocide

Herod the Great

Known for Two Things

Back to Bethlehem

Conclusion

Reference

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Challenge 1: Only small, continuous changes?

Challenge 2: Only random variations and natural selection?

Challenge 3: What about the complex genetic code?

Note

References

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Sources

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Problem 1: Many steps are still not understood

Problem 2: The first self-replicating molecule has still not been identified

Problem 3: Laboratory experiments might not replicate conditions on early Earth

Problem 4: Probabilities are low

Notes

References

Recommended resources related to the topic: