tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-54674407913031277472023-11-15T05:31:34.918-08:00Falsifiable Theology"<i>Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, [and] one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be
exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing...</i>"
(Thomas Aquinas, 1273 AD)Martin Lackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10920084847131073355noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5467440791303127747.post-9764386606881194862020-11-21T02:44:00.008-08:002020-11-21T03:04:19.582-08:00We have no idea how life on Earth beganMy late Aunt, Dr Jean Youatt (1925-2017), was a very well-respected
microbiologist in Australia;
<a
href="https://www.science.org.au/learning/general-audience/history/interviews-australian-scientists/dr-jean-youatt-chemist"
>recognised by the Australian Acadamy of Science in 2000 for her
ground-breaking achievements as a female scientist</a
>. Don't ask me why now but, it has occurred that this would be a good place to
post the eponymous item that she wrote many years ago but only sent me in the
year before she died. I believe it speaks for itself:
<i
>This outline needs knowledge of Chemistry and Biochemistry to follow the
arguments. A non-scientist will need to refer to literature or consult
knowledgeable people.</i
>
<i
>Evolutionary biologists avoided this difficult subject even after structures
of proteins and nucleic acids became well known. But it has been admitted by
Professors Davis, Reese and Dawkins recently on TV that we have no idea how
life on earth began. The simplest form of life that can reproduce itself is a
bacterium and for one of them to form there would have to be together in one
place the many components required for one bacterium. There has to be a wall
which separates the organism from its environment and all the walls we know
are complex structures with polymers involving proteins, lipids and
polysaccharides. Inside the cell there have to be proteins and nucleic acids.
The nucleic acids consist of long chains of sugars ribose in RNA and D ribose
in DNA linked by phosphate ester bonds and for each sugar molecule a purine or
pyrimidine base is attached to the sugar and it takes three of these bases to
code for each amino acid in a protein.</i
>
<i
>We consider the structure of RNA. Ribose is a sugar with 5 carbon atoms. If
it is drawn as an open chain it has 3 chiral atoms (related as mirror images)
and thus 23 different structures possible = 8. In the nucleic acid structure
the sugar is in a ring form and two rings are possible and known. Forming a
ring makes a new chiral centre raising our possibilities to 16 but the ring
can be made of 5 or 6 atoms so now 32 possibilities and then with RNA there
are 2 ways the phosphate ester linkage can form so 64 possibilities. In the
living cell the ribose rings are all identical and there are millions of them
needed in just one cell. The deoxyribose of DNA forms a 5 membered ring too
but has one less chiral atom and one way to form the phosphate link so 16 ways
to form and this too requires millions of identical forms in the DNA.</i
>
<i
>In the code for making proteins there are just 5 bases used and they must be
in a specific order to define a proteins structure. The atoms which form the
bases could come together in many other forms further increasing the huge
number of atoms which have to form in such a specific way.</i
>
<i
>"Similarly when we come to consider proteins there are 16 common amino acids
but many other possibilities and proteins which can have 200 amino acids have
to have them in the right order to perform their function. There may be 2000
proteins required. Amino acids formed by chemical reaction which are always a
mixture of 2 chiral forms, that is molecules related to each other as mirror
images which cannot be superimposed. Proteins use only one of these two forms
commonly referred to as the L form. The D and L forms have all the same
chemical and physical properties and so cannot be separated by any common
methods. They can be separated by using reaction with other chiral atoms which
form by enzyme reactions in living cells and in no other way. Sometimes
partial separations have been claimed but not when everything used has been
rigorously freed of all organic compounds and the medium kept sterile
throughout the experiment.</i
>
<i
>Now we have to assume that all the essential structures are in one place at
one time because if they form by chemical reactions the processes are
reversible. This may suffice to show that for a viable organism to come
together there is an astronomical number of alternative structures from which
just one must come. It is worth mentioning that for 60 years or more
scientists have made mixtures of L amino acids, D sugars, vitamins, purine and
pyrimidine bases etc required to grow human cells and cells have been grown
without any reports of new life forms emerging. Thus for the scientist asking
“Did life emerge by chance or was there a creator?” the only position possible
is “I don’t know” and individuals can choose a creator or chance theory to
their taste.</i
>
Martin Lackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10920084847131073355noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5467440791303127747.post-50191713815314393152012-09-30T02:47:00.000-07:002012-09-30T02:48:59.186-07:00Has Hawking killed God?Stephen Hawking is, without question, one of the greatest British scientists to have ever lived but, I think he may have over-reached himself.
In the final programme of a recent 3-part <a href="http://www.discoveryuk.com/web/stephen-hawkings-grand-design/episode-guide/"><i>Grand Design</i></a> television series (broadcast in the UK on the <i>Discovery Channel</i> recently), Hawking posed the question "Did God Create the Universe?"
There was very little I had not already heard in this programme; and I felt that the way in which the whole 'God of the Gaps' meme was dramatised was a bit lame: Hawking politely (but very firmly) placed God in a box marked <i>“superseded and unnecessary superstition”</i>. However, one thing was new; the bluntness of Hawking’s ultimate conclusion that – because both space and time did not exist before the Big Bang <b>and</b> quantum mechanics makes the spontaneous creation of energy possible – there is no need for God to exist <b>and</b> no time for him to have existed. Unfortunately, this is not proof that God does not exist. Indeed the existence of God is no less plausible than multiple universes; 22 dimensions of space-time; or the supposition that we are all in <i>The Matrix</i>-like virtual reality of a superior race.
However, I was left with two concerns: A seriously disabled but brilliant scientist like Hawking would not want God to exist because ultimately (1) his chronic disability would seem ‘unfair’; and (2) his life’s work would seem ‘pointless’ (i.e. <i>“God did it!”</i> is not a scientific explanation). Therefore, whilst I appreciate his predicament, I am inclined to think that scientific attempts to explain the existence of the Universe and/or dismiss the existence of God are unwise.
As it happens, however, I completely refuted the entire premise of Hawking’s third and final programme several years ago (see <a href="http://www.falsifiabletheology.blogspot.co.uk/2008/09/brief-history-of-science.html">'A Brief History of Science'</a> below). This may have only been posted here four years ago; but the final paragraph was actually first written down by me over 25 years ago when I was an undergraduate geology student. Nevertheless, for those pushed for time (ha ha), the essence of my argument is this:
<b>The human mind is incapable of comprehending either infinity or eternity (i.e. an absence of time) but that does not mean they do not exist. On the contrary, science tells us that at least one of them is a reality and, therefore, the same could be said of God.</b>
For those that take the time to read the rest of this "blog", you will discover that I am not a fan of Richard Dawkins either; as I think it is intellectually dishonest to claim there are no questions science cannot answer. People like <strike>Stephen Hawking,</strike> George Smoot (<i>Wrinkles in Time</i>) and Paul Davies (<i>The Mind of God</i>) do not do this. However, if you want a really interesting read, I would recommend <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Oracles-Science-Celebrity-Scientists-Religion/dp/0195310721/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1346845577&sr=8-2"><i>Oracles of Science: Celebrity Scientists versus God and Religion</i> (2007)</a>, by Karl Giberson and Mariano Artigas. If you follow this link (to amazon.co.uk) you will even find a review of the book I recently submitted.Martin Lackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10920084847131073355noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5467440791303127747.post-60140743205127712432009-04-07T13:51:00.000-07:002009-05-15T12:14:23.591-07:00Did Darwin Kill God?Absolutely not! With my thanks to the presenter, Dr Conor Cunningham of Nottingham University, I should like to summarise why I think the programme bearing this title (first broadcast on terrestrial TV in the UK on 31 March 2009) was so good... At the outset, Dr Cunningham made it clear that he is an academic theologian and philosopher; but also a Christian and, clearly, a student of history too. However, none of this prevented him from interviewing people that hold widely differing views for the programme and just allowing them to talk (not arguing with them); even when he would clearly not agree with what they were saying... Over and beyond that, however, the programme was a plea for a ceasefire in a totally unnecessary battle between science and religion. Dr Cunningham's case being founded upon the fact that Young Earth Creationism is primarily a 20th Century invention.<br /><br />Being a geologist, much of this was not new to me, but I was delighted to discover that I am not the first person to have reached the conclusion that such fundamentalist views give people an easy excuse for not dealing with the person and work of Jesus Christ. For example, this was the view of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/41-St-Augustine-Vol-Christian/dp/0809103265">St Augustine </a>a (354-430 AD); and was the conclusion reached by <a href="http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FP.viii.FP_Q68.FP_Q68_A1.html">Thomas Aquinas</a> in 1273 AD as well.<br /><br />Notwithstanding all of the above, I clearly have much to learn (or unlearn) about Intelligent Design (ID), as Dr Cunningham's view is clearly that Evolution is a Fact. However, whereas I accept that ID may be a flawed hypothesis, I still do not accept that Evolution is without flaws itself.Martin Lackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10920084847131073355noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5467440791303127747.post-47262980040652103602008-09-01T13:48:00.000-07:002009-05-07T12:33:43.826-07:00Welcome!The content of this blog started life as a website, so the posts that follow should be read in the order they appear (i.e. like chapters in a book). Obviously, the advantage of a blog is that it makes it very easy for people to comment on what I've written, which is something I would welcome (although I make no guarantee about the timescale of any response from me).Martin Lackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10920084847131073355noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5467440791303127747.post-35372877082588967122008-09-01T13:15:00.000-07:002009-05-07T12:33:43.929-07:00Who is this God Character Anyway?“<em>There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death</em>.” (Proverbs 16:25)<br /><br />The late Douglas Adams is probably best remembered for “<em>The Hitch-Hikers Guide To The Galaxy</em>”; the book in which the Babel Fish appeared. The name is a reference to the story recounted in Chapter 11 of Genesis, the first book in the Bible, in which God is said to have confounded mankind's rebellious nature by introducing lots of languages, so as to make communication between tribes and nations much harder.<br /><br />However, in Adams' comic masterpiece, if you stuck a Babel Fish in your ear, you were instantly enabled to understand anything said to you, in any language, anywhere in the Universe (hence http://babelfish.altavista.com). Here's what the "<em>Hitch-Hikers Guide</em>" has to say about the Babel Fish... <br /><br />'<em>Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.</em> <br /><br />'<em>The argument goes something like this: “<strong>I refuse to prove that I exist</strong>,” says God, “<strong>for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing</strong>.” </em><br /><br />'<em>“<strong>But</strong>”, says Man, “<strong>the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by you own arguments, you don’t</strong>.” </em><br /><br />'<em>“<strong>Oh dear</strong>”, says God, “<strong>I hadn’t thought of that</strong>”, and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. </em><br /><br />'<em>“<strong>Oh, that was easy</strong>,” says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.</em>’ <br /><br />It seems likely that Adams was not seeking to do God any favours here, but the fact remains that there is some truth in what he says (which is partly what makes it funny). After all, the Bible does say “…<em>without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that he exists</em>…” (Hebrews 11:6).Martin Lackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10920084847131073355noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5467440791303127747.post-44184313710924701202008-09-01T13:12:00.000-07:002009-05-07T12:33:43.864-07:00A Brief History of Science"<em>One of our greatest discoveries has been that the universe has not existed forever but that it had a definite beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago</em>." Stephen Hawking<br /><br />For at least the last 3000 years, philosophers and scientists have been on a voyage of discovery. At times they have undoubtedly wandered up some blind alleys; but generally they have been exercising their powers of intuitive deduction to better our understanding of the Universe.<br /><br />However, in the Big Bang Theory, the sensitivity of the initial conditions required to ensure that the Cosmos lasted long enough for the complexity we see around us to develop (in just the right way to bring about useful things like solar systems) is truly mind-boggling. Faced with the remarkable way in which we are indeed suited to our surroundings, a common way for removing the need for a Creator or Designer is to say that, had it been any other way we would not be here to observe it. However, many perhaps more open-minded scientists, such as Paul Davies (1992) and George Smoot (1993), do not accept this argument. They remain honestly bemused by the massive improbability of the Universe being the way it is – able ultimately to support life - purely by chance. Why is it, then, that despite all of this, in many spheres of life and culture, Christianity has continued to be marginalised?<br /><br />For some Christians the (young) age of the earth is a non-negotiable article of faith, but for most it really is not an issue. Yet, it seems many scientists never give Christianity a second thought because they think it’s unscientific and that all its adherents have got their heads buried in the sand. However, even if someone has reservations or doubts about Darwin’s theories (and those which have followed), that does not mean that they must therefore believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old! As with many things in life; it just isn’t as simple as that. <br /><br />So much for science and theology; what about philosophy and theology? One of the things that distinguishes humans from animals is our ability to reason. Certainly, within the animal kingdom, there is a great range in the complexity of thought processes of which any individual type of animal is capable. A baboon can be seen to display behaviour that indicates an ability to think and learn (and thereby to interact with its surroundings), which a goldfish clearly does not. Nonetheless, however clever apes, whales, or dolphins may be, it is widely accepted that humans are the only ones capable of pondering the nature and purpose of their own existence.<br /><br />Philosophy and theology have had a long, healthy, and productive relationship. However, to believe simply that one grew from the other is to fall foul of the central plank of humanist ideology; as many anthropologists believe that “<em>man created god in his own image</em>”. This is not just a very neat summary of their beliefs, however, it is also of course a clever-sounding reversal of Genesis 1:26 – “<em>God created Man in His own image</em>.”<br /><br />Their argument goes something like this: Early Man found many things in the world about him scary and beyond comprehension. So, in order to rid himself of fear, Man invoked the existence of gods, identifying each with an aspect of nature that worried him, such as thunder and lightning, for example. As Man’s understanding has increased – so the argument goes – the scope or necessity for gods has decreased. This is often referred to as the “<em>god of the gaps</em>” theory. Charles Darwin fell into this trap when he put it on record that the problems he could see with his theory of evolution would be solved by the advancement of science in the years to follow. However, this has not proved to be the case... <br /><br />Nevertheless this utopian dreamlike view of science and scientists has since lost little of its popularity, despite being entirely intellectually dishonest (in my opinion). Surely, it would be more honest and humble to admit that, although there are some things about which we can be fairly certain, for example that the sun will come up tomorrow, there are other things that we should admit that we may never know (or, at least, never be able to prove scientifically)? However, there are also some things that are just not in the domain of science to be proven or understood: Surely it is outrageous to suggest that the finite - indeed spatially very limited - mind of Man could ever fully encompass, comprehend, and understand a Universe that is infinite? (and if not infinite then, also that which lies beyond it – but that is another question altogether).Martin Lackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10920084847131073355noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5467440791303127747.post-7028149118881192252008-09-01T13:10:00.000-07:002009-05-07T12:33:43.872-07:00A Brief History of Geology“<em>Geology is a particularly alluring field for premature attempts at the explanation of imperfectly understood data</em>.” (Dana) <br /><br />“<em>Geology has to choose between the rashness of using imperfect evidence or the sterility of uncorrelated, unexplained facts</em>.” (Gregory).<br /><br />In the 18th and 19th Centuries, those who held to the view that science would have all the answers were sadly at odds with a religious establishment that had become suspicious of the motives of all scientists - and considered that, rather than being the pursuit of knowledge and understanding, science was the pursuit of lies and deception. However, ironically, it was hundreds of years earlier, that a Catholic Priest from Poland, named Copernicus, got the ball (or should I say globe) rolling by suggesting that the Earth revolved around the Sun (and not the other way round). Then of course came Galileo, his great Champion. Both men came to be viewed by the Catholic Church of the time as heretics; considered to be peddlers of pernicious and dangerous lies, and were even threatened with excommunication from the Church. <br /><br />So it was that, in their turn, Hutton (the first to find clear evidence [on the south-east coast of Scotland] that the Earth was indeed very old) and Rutherford (the first to try and calculate a sensible age for it) were, at first, denounced and derided by the established Church of their day. But you don’t have to be a geochemist or a geochronologist to work out that the Earth is very old; it really is a "<em>no-brainer</em>" - there are literally mountains of evidence indicating that the Earth is very old and that all its fossil-bearing rocks could not possibly have been deposited in one go. (For example, consider the size of the Grand Canyon - given the extreme slowness of the erosional processes that have produced it; or the thousands of metres of sediments built-up beneath the Mississippi delta - all deposited on a shallow sea-bed that must, therefore, have been subsiding for a very long time). What is also clear, however, is that over geologic time there have been numerous catastrophic floods of the kind recounted in the Bible (in the Story of Noah and his Ark) - in the Middle East and elsewhere on the globe. However, early, naïve thinking on the age of the earth had, in fact, already been abandoned by most theologians, even before Darwin was even out of nappies.<br /><br />Yet, if it is amusing to consider that it was only at the very end of the last century that the Catholic Church officially conceded its error in insisting the Sun orbits the Earth, then it is equally sad that many Evangelical Christians today still feel that it is necessary to try and defend the notion that the Earth is not actually very old. This is “<em>sad</em>" because, post-Darwin, so much of what scientists have discovered actually supports belief in the existence of some sort of Creator (with the possible exception of <strong>String Theory</strong>, which attempts to side-step the issue by invoking 12 dimensions and numerous parallel universes!).Martin Lackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10920084847131073355noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5467440791303127747.post-30074020174435304912008-09-01T13:05:00.000-07:002009-05-07T12:33:43.881-07:00If Age is Not the Issue..."<em>A great many problems in the debate between theology and geology can be resolved if we reject theistic evolution and biblical neo-catastrophism... by rejecting theistic evolution we reject faulty theology... [and] by rejecting neo-catastrophism we reject faulty science</em>." Davis A Young<br /><br />Less than 200 years ago, Christians were well-represented and respected in scientific circles, and 50 years ago were well on the way to recovering from the fall-out from the publication of Darwin’s “<em>Origin of Species</em>” and “<em>Descent of Man</em>” nearly 100 years earlier. However, within the last 40 years <strong>Young Earth</strong> Creationists have jettisoned the notion of a flat earth, but resurrected many of their old unscientific or pseudo-scientific ideas (and invented some new ones), thereby presenting many with a stumbling block on their potential journey to faith.<br /><br />So it is that many are handed an easy, ready-made, excuse for failing to consider the implications of the facts of the life, words, acts, death, and empty tomb of Jesus; by the strict, and unnecessarily literal, interpretation of some parts of the Bible.<br /><br />In addition to realising that “<em>age is <strong>not</strong> the issue</em>”, it is important to appreciate the fact that the Bible is not a scientific or historical textbook. Furthermore, no single part of it should be used in isolation as a means of defending or denouncing any particular world-view, or in defiance of observed reality. The Bible should be rightly considered as a divinely-inspired work, comprised of 66 different books, written over thousands of years, and penned by a variety of different human authors: It is comprised of many different literary styles; allegorical stories, morality tales, poems, songs, letters, diaries, prophecies, as well as the documentary-style texts. Therefore Christians can claim, with considerable justification, that the Bible should be viewed as “<em>a history of revelation and a revelation of history</em>”. <br /><br />However, the Bible does not set out to define <strong>How</strong> things are, but rather <strong>Why</strong> they are: Some things are within the domain of scientific endeavour, and others are not. In amongst the text of every part of the Bible you can find seeds of truth (if you are willing to look and/or able to see). Possibly the most famous example is to be found in the very first sentence of the Bible: “<em>In the beginning God created</em>…” But there are also passages in the Bible that point to the following:<br /><br />that everything on the surface of the Earth originates from interstellar dust in space - "...<em>for he knows how we are formed, he remembers that we are dust</em>." (Psalm 103:14); <br /><br />that the Earth was at first just covered in water - "...<em>the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep and the Spirit of God hovered over the waters</em>." (Genesis 1:2); and <br /><br />that the first land emerged from beneath the waves in the form of volcanic islands - "...<em>[God] set the earth on its foundations... [He] covered it with the deep as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains, but at [His] rebuke the waters fled</em>..." (Psalm 104:5-7). <br /><br />In these respects (and many others) it was truly “way ahead of its time”. Therefore, I believe that the statement...“In the beginning God created…” still confronts cosmologists today with the same truth and potency it did when first perceived some 5000 years ago.Martin Lackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10920084847131073355noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5467440791303127747.post-82986302728762515032008-09-01T13:03:00.000-07:002009-05-07T12:33:43.889-07:00What About Charles Darwin?“<em>He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from the beginning to the end</em>.” (Ecclesiastes 3:11). <br /><br />So what about that great bugbear of Evangelical Christians – Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution? Darwin made many observations of the natural world around him, but he never actually observed evolution taking place or, by way of experimentation, caused it to happen. Instead, he merely collected a great deal of circumstantial evidence that appeared to indicate a trend towards the increasing complexity of organisms with time. However, the fact that moths or finches can and do change in order to adapt to changes in their environment, or the fact that there are obvious structural similarities in a variety of apparently dissimilar organisms, does not prove that we all evolved, by chance, from some kind of protein-rich, primordial chemical soup, as a result of a bolt of lightning (or whatever). <br /><br />Furthermore, after publication of Darwin's theories, nearly 100 years elapsed before scientists came up with any physical evidence that advantageous mutations could be inherited (although generally mutations are not normally passed-on (i.e. inherited)). Nevertheless, the transformation of, say, a fish into a frog is something else entirely and, apart form the fact that such an event cannot possibly be observed or repeated, it is very difficult to see how it could biologically or physiologically happen. Furthermore, if evolution must be conceived as an unguided process, as Professor Richard Dawkins conceded in his seminal book “<em>The Blind Watchmaker</em>”, then how can it possibly initiate or propagate any process that could lead to the eventual development of something as superbly fit for purpose as the human eye?<br /><br />Despite all of this, it seems that if anyone dares to question the orthodox view (that Darwin must have been right) they are automatically branded as a crank, when in fact there are huge problems with explaining the mechanics of how any actual evolutionary process could work. Michael Denton, in his book “<em>Evolution – A Theory in Crisis</em>” (1986), provides just such an analysis: Here we have a well-respected microbiologist who is willing to put his head above the parapet to point out that there are immense difficulties in explaining the mechanics of any evolutionary process, Darwinian or otherwise. That being the case, it is just emotional blackmail on the part of the majority that maintains the status quo. In fact, the assumption that Darwin must have been right because we can’t come up with any sound, “<em>scientific</em>” alternative, is somewhat reminiscent of the Hans Christian Anderson tale of the “<em>Emperor’s New Clothes</em>”.<br /><br />Darwin’s theory of natural selection (not evolution) starts out from the basic assumption that different species were not the result of separate acts of creation by God. This was the point on which Darwin and many others disagreed with the established Church of their time and, having decided this to be the case, they set about “<em>proving</em>” this to be true, by finding observable “<em>evidence</em>” to back up their theories. Many would say Darwin’s was one of the greatest scientific minds to ever grace the planet. However, zealous supporters - and virulent opponents alike - often seem determined not to let the facts of his life and work get in the way of what they have decided is the significance - or danger - of his observations on the workings of nature. It is therefore crucially important to see Darwin as a product of his time; a turbulent period of widespread social and economic upheaval. Adrian Desmond and James Moore did just that in an excellent biography of Darwin, published by Penguin in 1991. <br /><br />In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, England was comprised of a highly-structured society with a much smaller population than today. Therefore, far more than it is today, the nation’s wealth was concentrated in the hands of a very wealthy elite. Power was similarly concentrated, with property ownership being the qualification for having the vote. Despite the highly destructive efforts of King Henry VIII, the Church had remained an incredibly powerful landowner and key part of the Establishment. The Church was therefore heavily implicated in the maintenance of the status quo by those who wanted to bring about reforms. Whereas, for those who feared the consequences of the revolutionary changes and civil unrest which seemed to be happening elsewhere in the world, the Church was the last line of defence against anarchy. Therefore, in the mid-nineteenth century evolution was an idea whose time had come: Many atheist and anti-establishment figures in the scientific community pounced on Darwin’s ideas, and they rapidly became accepted as fact.Martin Lackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10920084847131073355noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5467440791303127747.post-90805527278711710842008-09-01T12:59:00.000-07:002009-05-07T12:33:43.897-07:00Evolution - Fact or Theory?"<em>Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor by-product of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here</em>." Paul Davies <br /><br />Because of a keenly inquisitive mind - and perhaps a slightly rebellious nature - Darwin, in the pursuance of his theories on the origins and workings of nature, set himself on a collision course with the Establishment. In retrospect, it seems probable that his mysterious - and undiagnosed - chronic stomach illness, which dogged his whole life, may have been induced by the stress of knowing the size of the time-bomb on which he was sitting. He prevaricated for over twenty years and - fearful of the backlash from the Church and the Establishment - his life’s work was very nearly pre-empted by the work of others; most especially Alfred Wallace.<br /><br />Many philosophers and politicians have tried to build on Darwin’s ideas (sometimes with disastrous results), such as Karl Marx, Adolf Hitler and, some would say, Lady Thatcher. Similarly, many mainstream and respectable scientists have attempted to take Darwin's ideas and apply them to all sorts of other areas of science, just as Darwin borrowed form the sociologists of his day. <br /><br />There are many well-respected scientists today who, although by no means Christians, are willing to concede that no theory of evolution is without its problems; Michael Denton being just one example. All do, however, accept the evidence from the (fragmentary) fossil record for there having been a tendency for (generally) increasing complexity in life-forms with time. This often seems to come remarkably close to a belief in “<em>a series of creative events</em>” throughout geological history. However, there are also many scientists who are firmly agnostic; those who accept there are many questions that science cannot answer for us, and for whom it is OK to say, “<em>We don’t know</em>”. <br /><br />However, whatever else evolutionary theory may do, it does not - and cannot - explain the origin of the universe, or the origin of life within it.<br /><br />In fact, the list of cosmic coincidences required for our existence in the universe is so long that it prompted Stephen Hawking to remark that "<em>the odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the big bang are enormous</em>." Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson went further, and said: "<em>The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known that we were coming</em>."<br /><br />This paradox is sometimes dealt with by reliance upon the anthropic principle, i.e. "<em>we are here because the universe is the way it is, therefore the fact we are here is not surprising</em>." However, this clever sounding truism, barely disguises the fact that the we're very lucky the universe even lasted long enough for planets capable of supporting life to emerge from the "<em>fall-out</em>" of the big bang itself.<br /><br />In the end, although science should be the objective pursuit of knowledge; and theology the intuitive pursuit of truth, if we want to be truly objective, all that is required of us is to admit that we don’t have - and cannot expect to have - <strong>all</strong> the answers.Martin Lackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10920084847131073355noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5467440791303127747.post-3958753933662634172008-09-01T12:57:00.000-07:002009-05-07T12:33:43.905-07:00The Philosophy of Jesus"<em>Having a clear faith... is often labelled today as a fundamentalism. ...<br />Whereas relativism... looks like the only attitude acceptable to today's<br />standards.</em>" Pope Benedict XVI<br /><br />Relativism pervades every aspect of our thinking; it is the rejection of any notion of absolute truth, or absolute right or wrong. Upon objective examination, most eastern religions and modern philosophies can be seen to have this philosophy at their core. It may be found in the Yin and the Yang of the ancient Chinese, or in the existentialism of Jean-Paul Sartre. <br /><br />However, before going any further down this philosophical road, I believe it is important to mention that the Jesus of the Bible rejected this world-view when he said things like “<em>I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life…</em>” and, let’s be clear, no 4th Century fanatic put these words in His mouth; it was precisely this sort of statement that got Jesus “<em>into trouble</em>” with the religious authorities of His day, and led to his execution by the Roman Occupiers: When brought before the Roman Governor of Judea, Jesus said “<em>Everyone on the side of truth listens to me</em>”, to which Pilate responded “<em>What is truth?</em>”. You can easily imagine the cynical or even sarcastic tone of his voice, but this is indeed, the biggest question of all – and sitting on the fence all your life is just not good enough and – anyway - it is a very precarious position in which to remain.<br /><br />Many Christians may not be ashamed to admit that, were it not for Jesus they would sometimes find it hard to believe in God (even though the Bible says that evidence for God is all around us). Nevertheless, saying such a thing may not be so much of an admission of weakness, but of this spiritual blindness. Most importantly, however, it highlights the importance of objectively assessing the claims of Jesus and responding to them (rather than side-stepping them) if one wants to reach a position of true enlightenment.<br /><br />Having said all that, some readers may be inclined to say “<em>How can you ask me to be objective, or to consider what you say to be objective, when it is quite clear you have already decided what you think?</em>” But, surely, atheists are guilty of the same sort of prejudice; in that many have decided what they want to believe, and have then found satisfying evidence to back up their position...<br /><br />Someone once questioned why Voltaire, the famous French atheist, took off his hat as a mark of respect when a funeral procession went by, to which Voltaire was heard to respond, "<em>Although God and I are not on speaking terms, we can still acknowledge each other</em>..."<br /><br />That is truly a sad, self-inflicted, and unnecessary predicament in which to be.Martin Lackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10920084847131073355noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5467440791303127747.post-22485423572559119132008-09-01T12:54:00.000-07:002009-05-07T12:33:43.912-07:00Prophecy or Pie in the Sky?(Jesus said) "<em>When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed... Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places, and famines</em>..." (Mark 13:7-8)<br /><br />Jesus' earliest followers were not only convinced that he had defeated death (mainly because His tomb was empty); they also believed He would come back again one day (mainly because He said He would)...<br /><br />“<em>A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic on the level of a man who says he’s a poached egg, or else he would be the devil of hell; you must make your choice. Either this was and is God, or else a madman, or something worse. You can shut him up as a demon, or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. But please don’t come up with any patronising nonsense about his being a great moral teacher. He hasn’t left that option open to us. He didn’t intend to</em>.” C.S. Lewis ("Mere Christianity")<br /><br />But Jesus is on record as having made a variety of other remarkable prophecies (as if predicting your own death and resurrection is not remarkable enough...), but I want to focus particularly on those issues that never seem to be very far from our news headlines these days; climate change, natural disasters, wars and famines, and so on.<br /><br />I have often heard Jesus' prophecy of the increase of such things discounted by the argument that global satellite communications and the media revolution we have witnessed over the last 100 years, mean that we just can’t escape hearing about such events. Well, that may be true, but is it not also true to say that God must have known we would “<em>invent</em>” all this wonderful modern technology? Therefore, He knew his prophecy would come true. It’s a bit of a circular argument, but is nonetheless hard to counter.<br /><br />So where does climate change fit into this argument? Well, some scientists argue that we’re heading for an Ice Age, many more fear the spectre of looming Global Warming. What seems almost certain is that the Earth’s climate is becoming more erratic and dominated by extremes of hot, cold, wet and dry. In the opinion of many, mankind’s activities are to blame. Well, can you guess, God knew we’d do that too! However, if that is too simplistic for you, try this: <br /><br />Geologists have long realised that the Earth is unique amongst the planets in our Solar System. In recent years the realisation of just how unique our home planet may be has left many agnostic astrophysicists amazed! The vastness of the Universe is mind-boggling (only a very BIG God could have created it). Despite this, some Cosmologists say that we may yet be alone in it. That would truly make the Earth very rare indeed! Back on Earth though, geologists have now suggested that our climate and the processes that cause earthquakes are very closely linked: Instability in one will cause instability in the other. <br /><br />So, it’s official! The increasing frequency of earthquakes is real, not imagined, and it is not a by-product of the fact that we live in an age of globalised communications!Martin Lackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10920084847131073355noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5467440791303127747.post-60116655341132790472008-09-01T12:49:00.000-07:002009-05-07T12:33:43.920-07:00Are you a Man or a Motor Car?"<em>If all the people that fell asleep in church were laid end-to end...<br />they would be a lot more comfortable</em>." Abraham Lincoln<br /><br />Going to Church doesn’t make you a Christian any more than going to a garage makes you a motor car. However, as those of us with cars can testify, a car needs routine maintenance, re-fuelling and regular servicing, in order to keep it running smoothly. Your relationship with God is no different!<br /><br />However, recent opinion polls suggested that the vast majority of the population believe in God (or admit, at any rate, to praying to somebody or something…). People were asked the questions “<em>Do you believe in God?</em>” and “<em>Do you believe in prayer?</em>” But, even if the majority answered “<em>Yes</em>” to either question, they certainly aren’t filling the pews on a Sunday morning. They aren’t even filling the comfortable but stackable chairs in the more evangelical and modern churches. <br /><br />Some may feel church is irrelevant to them, but for many, I suspect, they just feel it is unnecessary. Many people (especially in hospital for example) answer the question “<em>What religion are you?</em>” by saying “<em>Oh, I’m C of E</em>”, in much the same way that some might say “<em>I’m Aquarius, what sign are you?</em>”… <br /><br />True, going to Church doesn’t make you a Christian - any more than going to a garage makes you a motor car. But, if that is a challenge to all of those of us that do go to Church - what about all those that don’t? <br /><br />Well, I think we can all think of some common excuses… “<em>Churches are full of people who think they’re better than the rest of us!</em>” This really is sad to hear, because to say it, is to turn the Truth on its head: Many Christians go to church precisely because they realise they are no better than anyone else, as St Paul put it: “<em>For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory [glorious standards] of God</em>.” (Romans 3:23). <br /><br />What about… “<em>Oh, churches are just full of hypocrites!</em>” This too is sad because it betrays the fact that many Sunday churchgoers manage to get through life without allowing their faith to impact the other 6/7ths of their week in any positive way - unlike Jesus: Jesus managed to impress everyone he met, and he changed many lives as a result. However, as someone once said: “…<em>the churches are not full of hypocrites, there’s room for plenty more!</em>”…Martin Lackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10920084847131073355noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5467440791303127747.post-85963459120341795892008-09-01T12:45:00.000-07:002009-05-07T12:33:43.834-07:00An Antidote to Religion“... <em>if Christ has not been raised [from death], our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead</em>.” (I Corinthians 15:14-15). <br /><br />Self-awareness and religious belief are commonly accepted as being the things that mark us human beings out as different from the rest of the creatures with whom we share this planet. <br /><br />However, I feel Douglas Adams' invention of the Babel Fish is a sad reflection of the fact that men are willing to put their faith in all sorts of things, but not in God. However, I believe this is also evidence of a more general spiritual hunger in the heart of mankind referred to in Ecclesiastes 3:11 (see the Origin of Species page herein). <br /><br />Whether or not you accept the above premise, all the world's religions are, in essence, different people's ideas about how best to please God, Allah, Brahmin, the Ultimate Reality (call him/her/it what you will...). However, if that is the case, then, whereas many sceptics would say that Christianity is just St Paul's ideas about how to "<em>live a godly life</em>" (i.e. try and make sure God is happy with you) - the truth of the matter is that, using the above definition, Christianity is not a religion, it is, in fact, God's antidote to religion...<br /><br />The central message of the first disciples of Jesus (of whom St Paul later became the greatest exponent) was that all man's attempts to make himself acceptable to God were doomed to fail, but that the God of the Jews had intervened in human history, as promised, to solve the insolvable problem...<br /><br />To those who had turned away from the Roman gods (many of which are the entirely bogus base of astrology and horoscopes today) and turned instead to Christ, the apostle Paul said “…<em>it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – not by works, so that no one can boast</em>.” (Ephesians 2:8-9). <br /><br />In Douglas Adams' "<em>Hitch-Hiker's Guide</em>" books, the answer to the question "<em>What is the meaning of life?</em>" was supposedly "<em>42</em>", but for Christians the answer is to be found in the life (and death) of Jesus who shared our humanity...<br /><br />“...<em>so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death – that is the devil – and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death</em>.” (Hebrews 2:14-15).Martin Lackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10920084847131073355noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5467440791303127747.post-8203828833106758552008-09-01T12:41:00.000-07:002009-05-07T12:33:43.842-07:00A Little About the Author<strong>Martin C. Lack BSc(Hons) MSc FGS CGeol MCIWEM</strong><br /><br />Martin Lack has nearly 20 years of professional experience as a hydrogeologist, and works for a leading environmental consultancy in the UK.<br /><br />He has a Batchelor of Science Honours Degree in Geology (Portsmouth, 1986), and a Master of Science Degree in Hydrogeology (Birmingham, 1990).<br /><br />He is a Fellow of the Geological Society of London and a Chartered Geologist. He is also a Member of the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management.<br /><br />Disclaimer: The views expressed on this website are solely those of the author, and the indication of any academic qualification, professional affiliation or designation, should not be construed as an endorsement of any kind by any academic or professional body mentioned above.Martin Lackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10920084847131073355noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5467440791303127747.post-27708407353769209092008-09-01T12:37:00.000-07:002009-05-07T12:33:43.850-07:00References etc..<strong>References </strong><br /><br />ADAMS, D., The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy. (Pan 1972) <br />DAVIES, P., The Mind of God. (Penguin, 1992). <br />DENTON, M., Evolution – A Theory in Crisis. (Adler & Adler, 1986). <br />DESMOND, A., & MOORE, J., Darwin. (Penguin, 1991). <br />LEWIS, C.S., Mere Christianity. (Collins, 1984). <br />SMOOT, G., Wrinkles in Time. (Little Brown, 1993). <br /><br /><br /><strong>Further (Recommended) Reading </strong> <br /><br />HAYWARD, A., Creation & Evolution - Facts and Fallacies. (Triangle, 1985). <br />WILKINSON, D., God, the Big Bang, and Stephen Hawking. (Monarch, 1993). <br />YOUNG, D.A., Creation and the Flood. (Baker, 1977).Martin Lackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10920084847131073355noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5467440791303127747.post-63807550661158272542008-09-01T12:33:00.000-07:002009-05-07T12:33:43.856-07:00Useful LinksChristians in Science <a href="http://www.cis.org.uk">http://www.cis.org.uk</a><br /><br />Christians in Science Education <a href="http://www.cis.org.uk/cise/">http://www.cis.org.uk/cise/</a><br /><br />Rev. J. Polkinghorne (world-renowned scientific apologetics expert) <a href="http://www.polkinghorne.org/">http://www.polkinghorne.org/</a><br /><br />Weblogs and much more <a href="http://www.starcourse.org/">http://www.starcourse.org/</a><br /><br />Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry <a href="http://www.carm.org/">http://www.carm.org/</a> <br /><br />Apologetics Information Database <a href="http://www.apologeticsindex.org/">http://www.apologeticsindex.org/</a><br /><br />Apologetics Website (General) <a href="http://www.apologetics.org/ ">http://www.apologetics.org/ </a>Martin Lackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10920084847131073355noreply@blogger.com0