Religion and Morality

The Connection between Religion and Morality
By WAYNE JACKSON

There are exceptions to most every rule. And exceptions are precisely that; they are exceptions. Let me explain.

There are some people who have no religious philosophy. They profess not to believe in any Supreme Being. In spite of this, they lead reasonably respectful lives. They do not murder, commit adultery, or embezzle from their employers.

On the other hand, there are those who profess to be quite religious, and yet, clearly, they are as far from godliness as one can be. The notorious Ku Klux Klan is an apt illustration of the disconnect between “profession” and “possession.”

As a general rule, however, the person who truly believes in God, and who has some sense of the moral principles set forth in the Bible, is a better person. He is less to be feared in the neighborhood, and is more likely to be a savoring influence in his community.

George Washington once warned that it is folly to suppose that “morality can be maintained without religion.” Studies repeatedly have shown this statement to be true.

Some months ago, author David Myers penned an essay titled “Godliness and Goodliness,” which appeared in the magazine Sightings (4/11/01). Myers called attention to the fact that in one “U.S. national survey, frequent worship attendance predicted lower scores on a dishonesty scale that assessed, for example, self-serving lies, tax cheating, and failing to report damaging a parked car. Moreover, in cities where churchgoing is high, crime rates are low. . .In Provo, Utah, where more than 9 in 10 people are church members, you can more readily leave your car unlocked than in Seattle, where fewer than a third are.”

A report by University of Pennsylvania criminologist Byron Johnson, which combined the results of some forty studies and probed the relationship between religion and juvenile crime, revealed that most delinquent crimes are committed by youngsters who have “low levels of religious commitment.” Children who attend church become delinquent with far less frequency than those who do not.

According to Myers, studies have demonstrated that the most benevolent people of our society are the ones who are involved in religious activity. Americans who never attend church give about 1.1% of their income to charity. Those who are weekly church-goers (who constitute only 24% of the population) give two and one-half times as much as the non-religious, and account for almost half (48%) of all charitable contributions given.

Several other surveys have shown that the highest rates of “volunteerism” are by the religious, as compared to those in whose lives religion was deemed “not very important.”

A poll of 502 teens, conducted earlier this month, by the Christian News Service, determined that more than 80% of those surveyed disciplined their sexual activity on the basis of their faith values.

And so while there always will be exceptions, the general truth is this: Those who believe in God are much more likely to have respect and concern for their fellows than those who do not. Read Romans 3:10-18 for the divine assessment of this matter.

PRAYER IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Prayer in Public School Constitutional?
by Kevin Cain, M.Min., J.D. and Dave Miller, Ph.D.


The 111th Congress is currently in session in Washington D.C. A joint resolution has been submitted to Congress that would make prayer in public school constitutional again. House Joint Resolution 6 (H.J. Res. 6) is titled “Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to voluntary school prayer.” This joint resolution is sponsored by Representative Jo Ann Emerson (R) of Missouri. It proposes an amendment that would allow prayer back into our public schools and public institutions. The resolution proposes the following amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by any State to participate in prayer. Neither the United States nor any State shall prescribe the content of any such prayer (House Joint Resolution 6).

Not only would this amendment allow prayer in public schools and public institutions, but it would prevent the government from compelling any person to participate or from controlling the content of that prayer. Presumably, the term “public institutions” includes state legislatures, city council meetings, and the like, and other forums in which public prayer has recently been constitutionally challenged.

In January 2009, this resolution was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. On February 9, 2009, it was referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, where it remains today (H.J. Res. 6). The Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties is comprised of:

Chairman Nadler (D) NY

Ranking Member Sensenbrenner Jr. (R) WI

Baldwin (D) WI

Cohen (D) TN

Conyers Jr. (D) MI

Delahunt (D) MA

Franks (R) AZ

Gohmert (R) TX

Jackson Lee (D) TX

Johnson (D) GA

Jordan (R) OH

King (R) IA

Rooney (R) FL

Scott (D) VA

Sherman (D) CA

Watt (D) NC (Committee on the Judiciary)

This amendment to the Constitution is an attempt to constitutionally overturn Supreme Court cases holding that prayer in public schools and other public institutions is unconstitutional because it purportedly violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”). In 1962, the Supreme Court in Engel v Vitale ruled that New York’s practice of beginning school days with a prayer composed by school officials violated the Establishment Clause (Engel v Vitale, 1962). Subsequently, the Supreme Court held that legislation allowing a school to provide a moment of silence or voluntary prayer violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (Wallace v. Jaffree, 1985). In Lee v. Weisman, the Supreme Court held that student-led prayers at a high school graduation ceremony were unconstitutional as they violated the Establishment Clause (1992). Finally, and most recently, in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, the Supreme Court held that student-initiated and student-led prayers at a football game violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (2000). This is the current status of the law regarding prayer in public schools from kindergarten through high school.

The law on prayer in public institutions is less clear. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Marsh v. Chambers that the Nebraska Legislature did not violate the Establishment Clause when it hired a chaplain to lead a daily prayer before the legislature (1983). The Court reasoned, “In light of the unambiguous and unbroken history of more than 200 years, there can be no doubt that the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer has become part of the fabric of our society” (1983). Commonly known as the “Fabric of America” test, the Court based its ruling on the notion that the practice’s historical significance and longevity removes it from the realm of any effort to unconstitutionally establish a religion. However, in 2004, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that city council members in Great Falls, South Carolina violated the Establishment Clause by engaging “as part of public business and for the citizenry as a whole, in prayers that contain explicit references to a deity in whose divinity only those of one faith believe” (Wynne v. Town of Great Falls, 2004). That same court one year later held that a county board’s practice of opening board public meetings with a prayer was not unconstitutional (Simpson v. Chesterfield Cty. Bd. of Supervisors, 2005). Hence, the guidance provided by the courts on prayer in public institutions is less than clear.

Joint House Resolution 6 would constitutionally undercut these cases and require courts to interpret the First Amendment in a way that does not preclude the use of prayer in public schools and public institutions. This proposed constitutional amendment would allow this country to hearken back to the sentiments expressed by Justice Douglas in Zorach v. Clauson, who penned the oft-quoted phrase, “We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being” (Zorach v. Clauson, 1952). Justice Douglas went on to describe a paradigm for interpreting the Establishment Clause which has been lost in Establishment Clause jurisprudence:

When the state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe. Government may not finance religious groups nor undertake religious instruction nor blend secular and sectarian education nor use secular institutions to force one or some religion on any person. But we find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence (Zorach v. Clauson, 1952, emp. added).

Under Article V of the Constitution of the United States, an amendment to the Constitution can be proposed by either (1) two-thirds of both houses of Congress or (2) by a convention called by application of two-thirds of the state legislatures, and requires that any proposed amendment be ratified by the legislatures of (or by conventions held in) three-fourths of the states (Constitution of...). However, the first hurdle House Joint Resolution 6 must clear is to make its way out of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. It may seem like this proposed amendment has a long way to go, but each journey begins with a single step.

But would not reinstating prayer in the classroom mean that prayers would be framed to include Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and other non-Christian religions? To answer that question, consider how this matter was handled for nearly 200 years in America. The public schools across the nation were riddled with Christian activity—from Bible readings to prayer. At that time, were there no Muslims, atheists, or Hindus in American schools? Of course there were. But no provision was made for their beliefs. While they were not persecuted, their non-Christian values were not incorporated into the fabric of the educational environment. Similarly, if a Christian family were to emigrate to Japan, Iran, or Cuba—no adjustments would be made to accommodate the Americans—nor should there be. The Founders recognized that the day might well come (though they shuddered to consider it) when many or most Americans would have abandoned the Christian system. In that case, the voters would place into political office and onto school boards those who would alter the fundamentally Christian orientation of the nation and its longstanding institutions (which is precisely what is happening). What has, in fact, prevailed for most of America’s history in schools is the practice of generic, denominationally-neutral Christian prayers and Bible readings. Since the vast majority of Americans still profess affiliation with the Christian religion, there is no legitimate reason why the nation’s schools could not return to their former condition. While we would not endorse prayers that promote a particular denominational stance, generic petitions to God are entirely appropriate. Even pagan monarchs of old recognized the critical importance of such—and were approved by God for their actions (e.g., Daniel 3:28-29; 6:25-27). Contrast such rulers with Pharaoh who defiantly declared, “Who is the LORD, that I should obey His voice to let Israel go? I do not know the LORD, nor will I let Israel go” (Exodus 5:2).

The important question here is: what step will you take? We can pray for these lawmakers, congressmen and congresswomen, who currently hold the fate of this resolution in their hands. We can politely encourage these legislators through calls, e-mails, and letters to let them know where their constituents stand on this issue as well as the importance of returning Bible reading to the classroom (cf. Miller, 2009). We can also place people in office who believe in prayer and the Christian heritage of this nation. So, take a step in the right direction.

This is not an effort to get the government to do what Christians should be doing. The Lord’s people must be busy praying constantly (1 Thessalonians 5:17). Specifically, one of the things we should pray for is our civil leaders, that they may conduct the affairs of government in such a way that we may live quiet and peaceful lives (1 Timothy 2:1-2). It is the duty and privilege of every church and every Christian to consistently pray and cast all our cares on our heavenly Father (1 Peter 5:7). That notwithstanding, prayers that saturate our communities, our schools, our government, our work, our homes, and our lives that reflect and proclaim our reliance on God and his saving grace as a people and as a nation, as Justice Douglas so aptly put it, “follows the best of our traditions.”

REFERENCES
Committee on the Judiciary—Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, [On-line], URL: http://judiciary.house.gov/about/subconstitution.html.

Constitution of the United States, [On-line], URL: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html.

Engel v Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962).

H.J.RES.6, Library of Congress, [On-line], URL: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:hj6.

House Joint Resolution 6, [On-line], URL: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.J.RES.6.

Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992).

Miller, Dave (2009), “How Important is the Bible to America’s Survival?” Reason & Revelation, 29[4]:25-31, April, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240115.

Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983).

Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000).

Simpson v. Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, 404 F.3d 276 (4th Cir. 2005).

Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985).

Wynne v. Town of Great Falls, 376 F.3d 292 (4th Cir. 2004).

Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952).





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

Copyright © 2009 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
We are happy to grant permission for items in the "In the News" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org

Biblical Accuracy

Melchizedek, Abraham, and Biblical Accuracy
by Wayne Jackson, M.A.

Q.

Could you please explain what the Bible means when it speaks of the Old Testament priest Melchizedek as being “without father, without mother, without genealogy”? How could this be possible?

A.

The science of archaeology has been a multiple benefactor to the Bible student. It has helped to clarify some passages that heretofore may have been a bit obscure. Too, this discipline frequently has shown that the biblical record bears the marks of genuine history.

After Abraham settled in Hebron, and Lot, his nephew, pitched his tent in the vicinity of Sodom, a confederation of Mesopotamian kings invaded the region of Sodom and Gomorrah and took numerous captives, among whom was Lot. The Genesis record reveals that when Abraham heard of the tragedy, he and 318 servants from his household pursued the hostile eastward-bound armies. The patriarch attacked the pagan forces and rescued his nephew, taking considerable booty in the process (Genesis 14:1ff.). The accuracy of the biblical record has been questioned in several particulars.

First, the historicity of the names of the opposing kings (Anuaphel, Chedorlaomer, Arioch, and Tidal) has been disputed. However, it has been demonstrated from Mesopotamian inscriptions that these names were common to the Tigris/Euphrates region, and that they are not “fictional forms” (Vos, 1963, p. 69). It even has been shown that the name “Abraham” was not novel in that ancient environment (Finegan, 1946, p. 61). The Bible is remarkably precise.

Second, some critics have contended that there was no eastward line of march at the time of Abraham, and thus have alleged that the Mosaic narrative is erroneous. The famous archaeologist, W.F. Albright, admitted that he “formerly considered this extraordinary line of march as being the best proof of the essentially legendary character of the narrative” (1935, p. 142, emp. added). Albright’s discoveries in this region, however, forced him to revise his opinion of the Genesis text. Professor Stephen Caiger, who was not a strictly conservative writer, conceded that “there seems [to be] no reason to question a factual basis of Genesis 14” (1944, p. 34).

As Abraham returned from his victory over the eastern kings, he encountered the mysterious Melchizedek, “king of Salem” (Jerusalem), who was designated as both a king and priest. Abraham paid “tithes” to the monarch and, in turn, was blessed by him. The New Testament makes Melchizedek a symbol of our king and priest, Jesus Christ (Hebrews 7:15). But the writer of the book of Hebrews makes a curious statement regarding Melchizedek. He says that the ancient ruler was “without father, without mother, without genealogy” (7:3).

Numerous speculations have surrounded this allusion. Origen, an ancient writer (A.D. 185-253) imagined that Melchizedek was an angel. Hierakas, toward the end of the 3rd century A.D., thought that he was a temporary incarnation of the Holy Spirit. Some even have suggested that he was the pre-incarnate Logos (Christ, as depicted in John 1:1,14)—a concept contradicted by Hebrews 7:3, which notes that the king was merely “like unto” the Son of God.

Archaeology has shed light on the enigmatic expression “without father, without mother, etc.” A.H. Sayce, who served as professor of Assyriology at Oxford, called attention to an inscription from the famous Tell el-Amarna tablets (discovered in 1887 in Egypt). These tablets describe the conditions of Syria and Palestine about 1400-1360 B.C.


Several of the Tell el-Amarna tablets are letters written to the Pharaoh by Ebed-tob...the king of Uru-Salim [Jerusalem], who begs for help against his enemies. He tells the Pharaoh that he was not like the other Egyptian governors in Palestine, nor had he received a crown by inheritance from his father or mother; it had been conferred on him by “the Mighty King...” (1906, 3:335).
So, observing the similarity of language, we conclude that Melchizedek’s kingship/priesthood had not been derived genealogically; He had received his commission directly from God Himself. Indeed, as the Scriptures affirm, his was an appointment “of God Most High” (Genesis 14:18). Accordingly, by way of analogy, we are forced to affirm that the current reign/priesthood of our Lord is a direct and divinely authored administration. We are grateful to archaeology for this bit of assistance in understanding what otherwise might be perceived as an obscure reference.


REFERENCES
Albright, W.F. (1935), The Archaeology of Palestine and the Bible (New York: Revell).

Caiger, Stephen L. (1944), Bible and Spade—An Introduction to Biblical Archaeology (London: Oxford University Press).

Finegan, Jack (1946), Light from the Ancient Past (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).

Sayce, A.H. (1906), “Melchizedek,” Dictionary of the Bible, ed. James Hasting (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).

Vos, Howard (1963), Genesis and Archaeology (Chicago: Moody).



Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org

THE LAST DAYS....ARE YOU READY?

A Study of Last Things
By WAYNE JACKSON

April 14, 2009

Bookmark and Share
The New Testament was written in Koine Greek, the common language of the Mediterranean world. It was a tongue spoken in Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem, etc., just as it was in Athens. That Providence chose this language for the composition of the New Testament is beyond doubt to any serious investigator. It is the most colorful, expressive form of communication ever known to man.

A study of the original words, even by the novice, can be one of the most thrilling endeavors of the Bible student. This procedure depends, of course, upon the student’s recognition that the very words of Scripture are sacred, and thus intended to convey a divine message (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Let us consider the word eschatos. It is the basis of our English word “eschatology,” a term theologians use of Bible teaching about last things, e.g., the return of Christ and the end of the world.

Eschatos is found fifty-two times in the Greek Testament. Mostly it is rendered as “last,” with but a few minor variations, e.g., “uttermost.” The New Testament writers employed the word in a variety of ways and there are some very interesting lessons derived from a study of this term.

The word could be used in a territorial sense. The gospel was to be spread to the “uttermost” part of the earth (Acts 1:8; 13:47), or as one might express it colloquially, to the “last place of the earth.”

Occasionally eschatos referred to the final portion of a quantity. When Jesus spoke of a man being thrown in prison and not being released until he had paid the “last” penny he owed, the Lord was suggesting an eternal punishment for the wicked (Matthew 5:26; cf. 18:34).

The most common use of the term has to do with the final thing of a preceding sequence. For example, it was on the “last day” of the Feast of Tabernacles (a seven-day celebration) that Christ extended the invitation for men to come and quench their spiritual thirst with the “water” he could provide (John 7:37).

In this article, I would like to illustrate how this New Testament word teaches some wonderful truths that instruct the serious soul.

Last Days
Several centuries before the birth of Christ, the prophet Joel foretold that the Spirit of God would be “poured forth” in the “last days” (2:28-29; cf. Isaiah 2:2-4). There is no question about when this prophecy commenced its fulfillment. Peter, on the day of Pentecost, quoted the text and announced, “[T]his is that which has been spoken through the prophet Joel” (Acts 2:16). He was, of course, referring to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles on that occasion.

Many people labor under the illusion that the expression “last days” is a special signal indicating a time period just before the return of Christ. Would-be modern prophets point to certain “signs” they think they identify within the Scriptures and frantically declare, “The end is near; we are in the last days.” Of course we are in the last days. This era has already spanned two thousand years.

In Paul’s second letter to Timothy, he spoke of certain “grievous times” that would characterize the “last days.” And then, to his young co-worker, he urged: “[F]rom these also turn away.” The verb is a present tense, middle voice, imperative form—a command to this effect, “Be turning yourself away from,” thus demonstrating that Timothy himself was living in the last days (cf. Hebrews 1:1; 1 Peter 1:20).

The truth of the matter is, the expression “last days” refers to the final dispensation of history—in contrast to the Patriarchal period (from Adam to Moses) and the Mosaic age (from Moses to Christ). If the world continues yet for thousands of years, it still will be the last days. Incidentally, if we are now in the last days, that leaves no room for a millennial period.

The First and the Last One
In an Old Testament context in which the Lord asserted his everlasting nature in contrast to the passing use of idols, Isaiah exclaimed: “Thus says Jehovah, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, Jehovah of hosts: I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there is no God” (44:6). Note the two persons referred to as “Jehovah” in this text.

In his appearance to the apostle John on the island of Patmos, Christ lifted a phrase from that text and made application to himself: “I am the first and the last, and the Living one” (Revelation 1:17-18; cf. 2:8; 22:13).

What is the significance of the expression “first and the last”? “It is the well-known attribute of God, the Eternal” (Alford n.d., 1790; cf. Thayer 1958, 253). The utterance is a firm affirmation of deity on the part of the Lord Jesus Christ. Compare the similar expression applied to the Father in Revelation 1:8: “I am the Alpha and the Omega, says the Lord God.” Compare that with the description Christ in Revelation 22:13: “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last.” The same expression is used of both the God and Jesus.

The Last Offer
In the week prior to his crucifixion, Christ gave several warnings of doom to those who were on the verge of killing him. In a parable commonly known as that of the wicked husbandmen, a man planted a vineyard, furnished it lavishly, and rented it out to husbandmen—or, as we might style it, sharecroppers. When harvest drew near, he sent a series of servants to collect his fruits. These were treated shamefully, some even killed. Finally, the landlord sent a “beloved son,” who was to be the “last” (eschatos) offer (Mark 12:6).

That is a significant announcement. The beloved son, of course, represents Jesus, and the clear implication is that Christ “is the last and crowning effort of divine mercy” (Trench 1877, 209). And if he is rejected, as the writer of Hebrews later observes, “there remains no more a sacrifice for sins” (10:26). There is no hope of salvation apart from Jesus Christ (cf. John 14:6).

The Last Shall Be First
Several times in his teaching, Jesus employed the statement, “The last shall be first, and the first last,” or some equivalent.

The rich young ruler, because of his unwillingness to follow Christ, had gone away sorrowfully (Matthew 19:16-30). Subsequently Peter, perhaps somewhat boastfully, said, “Lo, we have left all.” Then, in an almost bargaining disposition, he asked, “What then shall we have?” (v. 27). The Lord promised ample blessings; however he cautioned, “But many shall be last that are first; and first that are last” (v. 30).

The Savior then told the parable of the laborers in the vineyard (Matthew 20:1-16). A man hired workers for his vineyard. They were employed, however, at different hours of the day—from early morning all the way to the eleventh hour (note the twelve-hour work day). When time for payment came, amazingly those who had worked the least were paid the same wages! The other laborers complained that such was unfair. But the lord of the vineyard explained that the grumbling was inappropriate; as lord, he had the authority to do as he pleased, and such was entirely “lawful” (v. 15).

Jesus thus concluded with the statement, “The last shall be first, and the first last” (v. 16). Several important truths are implied. As sovereign, God may do as he pleases, and it always will be right (Genesis 18:25). Human assessments of his operations are far from perfect. The disciples were constantly making poor judgments and they needed to be taught better. They quarreled about who would be the greatest (Luke 22:24), and some petitioned for places of prominence (Mark 10:37). They down played Mary’s generous gift bestowed upon her Lord not long before his death (Matthew 26:8). They needed to learn the principle that God will exalt the humble (Matthew 26:13; cf. Mark 12:42; 1 Peter 5:5-6), and humble the exalted (cf. Daniel 4:28-37). There is much for all of us to learn from the last-first principle.

The Last Adam
In one of his Corinthian letters Paul characterized Jesus as the “last Adam.”

bq. So also it is written, The first man Adam became a living soul. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first, but that which is natural; then that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is of heaven. As was the earthy, such also are they who are of the earth: and as is the heavenly, such also are they that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly (1 Corinthians 15:45-49).

What is the significance of this declaration? It is a rather complicated statement. But briefly: As man’s earthly life was derived from Adam (whose origin was out of the earth), we partake of the nature of the earth (Genesis 2:7). However, for those who yield to him as Savior, Christ becomes a giver of life.

First, there is the life that results from his incarnate role as an offering for sin, which brings a living fellowship with God. Ultimately though, in view of this context pertaining to the bodily resurrection, by virtue of his own resurrection (as “firstfruits” [vv. 20, 23]) Christ will bestow upon his people a new, living body in the final resurrection of the dead (Clandish 1989, 238ff). As the apostle wrote elsewhere, the Lord Jesus “shall fashion anew the body of our humiliation, that it may be conformed to the body of his glory, according to the working whereby he is able even to subject all things unto himself” (Philippians 3:20-21).

The Last State
Three times the expression “last state” (or an equivalent) is found in the New Testament. Each of these has an interesting application.

The Pending Fate of Judaism
In an unusual illustration, Christ told of a man who was possessed of a demon. The unclean spirit left the unfortunate man but presently returned with seven other spirits, more evil than itself. The “last state” of the man was worse than the first.

What was the Lord’s application? “Even so shall it be also with this evil generation” (Matthew 12:45), i.e., the generation alive when Christ spoke these words. Clearly the reference is to those events that led to the complete destruction of Jerusalem and the fall of the nation (cf. Matthew 23:36; 24:1-34). The tribulation suffered at the hands of the Romans in A.D. 70 was worse than anything the Hebrew nation had ever known (cf. Matthew 24:21). More than a million Jews were slaughtered and thousands were taken captive.

Some have suggested that this could not possibly refer to the destruction of Jerusalem. But Carson responds:

There have been greater numbers of deaths—six million in the Nazi death camps, mostly Jews, and an estimated twenty million under Stalin—but never so high a percentage of a great city’s population so thoroughly and painfully exterminated and enslaved as during the Fall of Jerusalem (1984, 501).

The Impact of Jesus’ Resurrection
Immediately after Christ died and was buried, the chief priests approached Pilate and informed him that Jesus had foretold his own resurrection—“after three days” he would rise from the dead (Matthew 27:63). They urged the governor to secure the tomb, lest the disciples come, steal the body, and proclaim a resurrection. Should that occur, they frantically exclaimed, the “last error” (deception) would be worse than the first (v. 64). The Jews were mortified at the thought that the body might disappear. And it did! And for twenty centuries they have struggled with trying to explain what happened; but neither they, nor anyone else, has been able to provide a logical explanation for the empty tomb—other than the resurrection.

The Horror of Apostasy
Peter wrote regarding certain Christians who had escaped the defilements of the world through their knowledge of the Lord Jesus. But he warned that should any apostatize, the “last state” for them would be worse than the former. It would be far better never to have known the gospel than, having embraced it, to then turn away (2 Peter 2:20ff). This text reveals that: (a) a child of God can fall from grace and ultimately be lost, and (b) there will be a greater level of culpability at the judgment for apostates than for those who never obeyed the truth (cf. Matthew 11:20ff; Luke 12:47-48; Hebrews 10:28-29).

The Last Enemy
In Paul’s marvelous chapter in defense of the bodily resurrection of the dead, the apostle proclaims, “The last enemy that shall be abolished is death” (1 Corinthians 15:26). Several truths may be extracted from this compact text.

Death is personified as an enemy. In Greek, the terms “hate” and “enemy” derive from the same root. Death is the result of Satan’s malicious hatred of both God and man (cf. Matthew 13:39). This enemy is the “murderer” of the human family (John 8:44).

Death is an enemy that ravages our mortal bodies. It robs of beauty, strength, and dignity. It immerses humanity in suffering. It steals our loved ones from us. It saps the strength of nations. It takes but never gives. Its monstrous appetite is never satiated.

The verb rendered “shall be abolished” (katargeitai) is present, passive form—literally, is being destroyed. This generally is regarded as a form that expresses “certain futurity,” conveying a tone of confidence; it does not merely predict—it affirms (Lenski 1963, 679). Some suggest it may also hint of a “process now being conducted” (Green 1907, 298). Death is “swallowed up in victory” (1 Corinthians 15:54), and Christ is the Victor! And his people share in the fruits of that victory.

The Last Day
Five times in the Gospel of John there is a record of Jesus speaking of the last day of human history (see John 6:39, 40, 44, 54; 12:48), together with an additional reference to the last day by Martha (11:24). Some important truths can be extracted from this collection of texts.

Both the resurrected righteous (John 6:39-40) and the resurrected wicked (John 12:48) will be brought forth on the last day. Accordingly, the dogma of premillennialism is false, for it asserts that there is one resurrection for the righteous and another (one thousand years later) for the wicked. Logically, there cannot be two last days. This theory is also contradicted by Jesus’ affirmation that all of the dead will be raised in the same “hour” (John 5:28-29). Likewise there is Paul’s declaration that there is but a “resurrection” (singular) for both the just and the unjust (Acts 24:15).

Since both the resurrection of the body and the day of judgment are to occur on the last day (John 11:24; 12:48), and as the last day has not yet occurred, the doctrine of radical preterism is demonstrated to be false. (This is the idea, alleged by a few misguided souls, that the second coming of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, the judgment day, and the end of the world all occurred in A.D. 70 at the time of Jerusalem’s destruction. The proponents of this view, of course, redefine these events to conform to their own theological agenda.)

Conclusion
A simple study of the term “last” is rewarding indeed, and this is but a sampling of the treasures that lie beneath the surface of the English Testament.

For further information see our books, The A.D. 70 Theory – A Review of the Max King Doctrine, and Treasures from the Greek New Testament. Both are available from Christian Courier Publications. Call toll free: 1-888-818-2463.

Sources/Footnotes
Alford, Henry. n.d.. The New Testament for English Readers. Chicago, IL: Moody.

Carson, D. A. 1984. Matthew. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Vol. 8. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Clandish, Robert S. 1989. Studies in First Corinthians 15. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel.

Green, Samuel. 1907. Handbook to the Grammar of the Greek Testament. London, England: Religious Tract Society.

Lenski, R. C. H. 1963. The Interpretation of First and Second Corinthians. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg.

Thayer, J. H. 1958. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Edinburgh, Scotland: T. & T. Clark.

Trench, R. C. 1877. Notes on the Parables of Our Lord. London, England: Macmillan.

A Confirming Evidence of Bible Inspiration

Brevity – A Confirming Evidence of Bible Inspiration
By WAYNE JACKSON

October 6, 2006

Bookmark and Share
It is almost in the genetic nature of biographers and popular journalists to string together miles of words in the depiction of significant historical events. This particularly is true when tragedy is involved. The word flow is extrapolated even more when brutal conduct is under consideration. Man’s inhumanity to his fellows has stained millions of pages of literature — both ancient and modern. A single example should suffice to illustrate the point.

President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas at 12:30 p.m. CST on Friday, November 22, 1963. This incident, of but a few seconds, has been called a defining moment in history. Tons of paper have been utilized in newspaper accounts, magazine articles, and books describing the details of this day of horror in American history. Examples of this sort of journalistic fervor could be multiplied countless times. I mention this to establish the background for a very important point I wish to make.

The Trials of Paul
Aside from the Lord Jesus Christ himself, Paul is the most prominent character adorning the pages of the New Testament. Tracing the apostle’s movements throughout the book of Acts is a fascinating investigation. The more one studies the matter, however, the more apparent it becomes that Luke’s record in Acts is extremely abbreviated — and that, quite obviously, by divine design.

The chronology of the New Testament is by no means a precise science. Following the systems set forth by Thompson (823ff), McRay (73ff), Williams (299), and others (with some slight variation among them), Paul’s conversion has been dated at c. A.D. 34 (some four years after the death of Christ). Finegan puts the crucifixion of Jesus at A.D. 33, and the conversion of Paul at 36 (395).

During the apostle’s second missionary journey, he established the church at Corinth and remained with that congregation for eighteen months (c. 49-51; Acts 18:1-11). While on his third campaign (18:23ff), Paul wrote a letter to the church in Corinth, commonly called First Corinthians (c. early 53). Finally, later that year, the tireless traveler dispatches another epistle to this church — Second Corinthians.

Thus, between the time of Paul’s conversion, and the date of Second Corinthians, there is a span of some 20 to 23 years (allowing for some flexibility in the dating). Remember this; it will be important as we develop our argument.

Baffling Brevity
In his monumental work, Evidences of Christianity, completed in 1886, J.W. McGarvey, who served as Professor of Sacred History at Kentucky University, contended that one of the “confirmatory” evidences of the credibility of the New Testament, is the “brevity” that characterizes the records (219ff). He focused especially upon the four Gospel Accounts.

In this article, our focus will be a small section in Second Corinthians.

As noted above, the approximate time between Paul’s conversion, and the penning of Second Corinthians, was about 20 years or slightly more. This period of time begins with Acts 9:1, and concludes at 20:1, with Paul’s arrival in Macedonia (cf. 2 Corinthians 2:13b; 7:5). This segment embraces a total of 411 verses that span the two decades.

When one considers that a considerable portion of this material involves single events (cf., for example, the episode relating to Cornelius – 10:1-11:18 — 66 verses; and the Judaizing problem in chapter 15 – 29 verses), it is a startling revelation to contemplate how much historical information in this span has been excluded from the sacred record purposefully. Luke was extremely selective! Let me illustrate this.

Paul’s Defense of His Apostleship
In Second Corinthians 10:1 through13:10, the renowned apostle defends his apostolic authority against certain critics. These people obviously claimed superiority over Paul. As a portion of his argument, the tireless missionary is willing to lay his credentials of dedication down by the side of his agitators! He thus writes:

“Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as one beside himself) I more; in labors more abundantly, in prisons more abundantly, in stripes above measure, in deaths often. Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day have I been in the deep; in travels often, in perils of rivers, in perils of robbers, in perils from my countrymen, in perils from the Gentiles, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; in labor and travail, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness” (11:23-27).

In these four verses (only 78 words in the Greek text), there is far more not said, than said. Let us, therefore, give consideration to a few of these phrases, as chronicled by God’s messenger to the Gentiles.

In Prisons
Paul declares that he was “in prisons more abundantly” than his opponents. Note the plural form, “prisons.” The term rendered “more abundantly” signifies more in number and greater in intensity.

In the life of Paul up to this point, however, there is only one recorded imprisonment — that in Philippi (Acts 16:23ff). The imprisonments at Jerusalem, Caesarea, and Rome will not come until later (Acts 21-28).

When and where, then, were these imprisonments? How long were they? What were the horrors connected with them? The Spirit of God chose not to detail them, though we might long to know. Apparently, the case in Acts 16 is sufficient to make the point.

Stripes
Stripes are marks or wounds left by blows (cf. Acts 16:23). These could be implemented by “rods” or by the lash. With reference to the latter, some authorities suggest that the offender was laid on the ground and beaten in the presence of a judge (McClintock, 789). At a later period the, Jewish Mishnah provides another picture:

“The minister of the synagogue was to stand on a raised stone inflicting the blows ‘with all his might,’ using a redoubled calf strap, to which two other straps were attached. Thirteen blows were delivered to the chest and twenty-six to the back. The severity of this beating can be inferred from the provisions made in the event the offender defecated, urinated, or even died as a result of their blows” (Barnett, 542).

Paul declares he had received “stripes above measure.” He then is more specific: “Of the Jews five times I received forty stripes less one. Three times I was beaten with rods.” The expression “in deaths often,” in addition to many harrowing episodes, probably denotes how close to death he came during these beatings.

Back to our main point: on not a single page of the New Testament is there mention of Paul’s five floggings by the Jews (a total of 195 stripes). In this connection we should mention that the Jews did not always require the full complement of forty stripes. The authorities could not go over forty (Deuteronomy 25:3), but they were not required to go that far. Nonetheless, in each case, Paul received the full measure — a commentary on the intensity of Jewish hate for the man of God.

Paul mentions that three times he was beaten with rods. This was the Roman method of punishment, and it was not limited to a prescribed number of stripes. The incident at Philippi (Acts 16) accounts for one of these episodes, but what of the other two. When were they inflicted, and for what reason? The record is completely silent — an exceedingly strange circumstance — from a biographer’s viewpoint.

How could Luke possibly restrain himself in providing some of the details of these bloody occasions? Did Christian brothers rush in to retrieve the unconscious warrior? Did gentle sisters minister to his emaciated frame? Was Luke, the beloved physician (Colossians 4:14), present at any of these beatings — aside from the time at Philippi (cf. the use of first person pronouns, beginning at Acts 16:10)? We clamor for the facts but the Spirit was mute! How very unlikely if the narrative was solely human in composition.

Shipwrecks
As the apostle continues his list of hardships in the Master’s service, he briefly mentions that once he was “stoned.” Doubtless this alludes to the incident at Lystra on the first missionary campaign (Acts 14:19). But in this letter to Corinth he provides no details whatever. The next reference is even stranger.

Paul declares: “three times I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day in the deep.” We know of the shipwreck that occurred when the apostle was en route to Rome, appealing his legal case to Caesar (Acts 27:1-28:16), but this came several years later.

As observed earlier, these three incidents had to have occurred between the time of his conversion (Acts 9), and the writing of Second Corinthians from Macedonia (Acts 20:1-2). One can easily trace Paul’s known sea travels by consulting maps of the apostle’s three missionary journeys, involving the Mediterranean and Aegean seas. But in the book of Acts there is not a trace of these calamities. It is as if the sea itself consigned the terrifying events into the depths of oblivion.

What historian, left to his personal passions, would have omitted these dramatic incidents? And what of that “night and day in the deep”? How could one possibly fail to set forth the circumstances of that life-threatening danger? Were there other survivors? Were any of the apostle’s companions with him? How was he rescued?

Our souls agonize for the details! Why were they not provided? The answer is a simple one — the minute details of these incidents were not essential to the glorious plan of human redemption being revealed!

If one cannot see the restraint that shrouded the sacred narratives, and acknowledge the calm hand of the Spirit of God in the composition of the New Testament documents, he lacks considerable perception — both of the feverish impulses of journalists, and of the nature of sacred literature.

Sources/Footnotes
Barnett, Paul (1997), The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).

Finegan, Jack (1998), Handbook of Biblical Chronology (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).

McClintock, John & James Strong (1970 edition), Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (Grand Rapids: Baker), Vol. VIII.

McGarvey, J.W. (1956 edition), Evidences of Christianity (Nashville: Gospel Advocate), Vol. IV.

McRay, John (2003), Paul – His Life and Teaching (Grand Rapids: Baker).

Thompson, W.R. (1975), The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, Merrill C. Tenney, Ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan), Vol. 1.

Williams, David (1999), Paul’s Metaphors – Their Context and Character (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).

FALSE CHARGES

False Charges Against Creationism
By WAYNE JACKSON

June 16, 2009


When one encounters an ideological position with which he disagrees, there are several possible reactions. He could reflect honestly upon the new idea, carefully research it, and give it an honest evaluation. That certainly would be the noble thing to do. Then again he might, if the viewpoint makes him uncomfortable, simply ignore it, hoping it will go away.

On the other hand he may, as a result of intense philosophical bias, immediately reject it with a vengeance. In such a case, it is possible that one may so despise a teaching that he will caricature it. That is, he will present it in an absurd light so that, hopefully, he can deter others from even giving it consideration.

Unfortunately, this latter approach has been demonstrated repeatedly in the modern creation-evolution controversy. Evolutionists (and religionists who have been influenced significantly by them) constantly misrepresent biblical creationism in the effort to bolster their own faltering cause. In this article, I propose to highlight some of these spurious attempts to discredit the biblical teaching regarding the doctrine of creation.

Charge: Creationists believe that the world was created in 4004 B.C.
Response: John Lightfoot (1602-1675), a Hebraist of Cambridge University, once suggested that the creation events of Genesis 1 transpired the week of October 18-24, 4004 B.C., with Adam being made on October 23 at 9:00 in the morning (Ramm 1954, 174). For this speculation, of course, there is absolutely no support. Nevertheless, this incident has been resurrected repeatedly by evolutionists (both atheistic and theistic) in an attempt to discredit modern creationism. There simply is no validity to this charge or tactic. What creationists do contend is this:

First, the Bible clearly indicates that both the earth and the human family came into existence during the same week. The earth, in its rudimentary form, was created on the first day of the creation week (Genesis 1:1), and man and woman were fashioned on the sixth day of the same week (1:26ff).

Second, that initial week was a literal week of seven normal days. This is demonstrated by a consideration of Exodus 20:11 where it is apparent from the context that the days of the creation week were of the same type as the sabbath day, which every Hebrew was required to observe weekly.

Third, there are chronological data in the Scriptures which indicate that the human family, back to Adam (the first man [1 Corinthians 15:45]), has been in existence only several thousand years—certainly not millions of years, as evolutionists claim. While there may be some minor elasticity in the genealogical records (cf. Genesis 11:12; Luke 3:35-36), attempts to accommodate the biblical genealogies to evolutionary anthropology result in gross textual distortion. As J. Barton Payne noted, this concept “leaves the Bible’s detailed lists of figures as generally pointless” (1975, 831).

Charge: The creationist concept of a relatively young earth is the result of a millennialist theology.
Response: This argument generally is employed to intimidate those who reject the notion of premillennialism (as well they should), but who are inclined to accept the Genesis record at face value, thus accepting the fact that all living kinds were made within the same creation week. An example of this ploy is seen in the following allegation: In referring to “scientific creationism,” one compromising writer alleged that “the theological basis of most” of this type of teaching is the result of “the close association with millennial tradition” (Clayton 1993, 20; see Sears 1983, 415, for the same charge). Of course, not a word of proof was offered for this baseless charge, because there is none.

There is absolutely no intrinsic connection between the affirmation that the entire creation was accomplished in six literal days—a truth clearly set forth in the Scriptures—and the theological speculation (with no semblance of scriptural support) that Christ will return to the earth and reign for one thousand years on David’s throne in Jerusalem. I have dealt with this matter more specifically elsewhere (Jackson 1985, 17-20). We are gratified that agnostic writer Ronald Numbers, in his book, The Creationists, has noted correctly that the writings issuing from Apologetics Press—of which I was co-founder and board president for many years—have not been associated with any type of premillennial assumptions (1992, 315).

Charge: Creationists believe that God specifically made each individual species of plant and animal life.
Response: While some writers of the past argued for the fixity of species, modern creationist scholars do not. Those who have given ample study to the biblical text and who have confidence in its reliability simply affirm, in the language of Scripture, that God made all biological organisms “after their kind”’ (Genesis 1:11ff). The term “kind” (Hebrew, min) is employed thirty-one times in the Old Testament (ten times in the initial chapter of the Bible). It is a generic word that certainly allows for considerable biological modification. As professor W. H. Rusch has observed: “There is absolutely no justification for equating this Genesis ‘kind’ with the species of the biologist” (1959, 14).

In Leviticus 11:16, Moses referred to “the owl . . . after his kind,” and yet there are more than 250 known species of owls. The original dog family probably included the potential for producing the more than two hundred different breeds of domestic dogs, the Australian dingoes, coyotes, wolves, jackals, foxes, and maybe even hyenas (though these animals now are classified as different species). Walter Kaiser has commented:

God created the basic forms of life called min which can be classified according to modern biologists and zoologists as sometimes species, sometimes genus, sometimes family or order. This gives no support to the classical evolutionist view which requires developments across kingdom, phyla, and classes (1980, 503-504).

What creationists insist is this: the Bible does not allow for the notion that all biological life forms have descended from a common ancestor (or even a few initial forms). Invertebrates do not produce vertebrates; fish do not evolve into reptiles; reptiles do not become birds; birds are not transformed into mammals, etc. Creationists believe that both Scripture and science support horizontal variation within basic kinds, not vertical evolution. There is a vast difference between the two.

Charge: Creationists are anti-science.
Response: There is no truth to this charge. The fact of the matter is, creationists recognize that science deals with present phenomena; this discipline, by the very nature of its methodology, is incapable of determining events-processes that transpired thousands of years ago. Paul Weiss expressed it like this:

All science begins with observation, the first step of the scientific method. At once this delimits the scientific domain; something that cannot be observed cannot be investigated by science (1965, 411).

It is a scientific fact that water freezes at 32°F. It is not a scientific fact that biological life was spontaneously generated a few billion years ago. Such a notion is evolutionary speculation. Self-confessed agnostic Robert Jastrow has addressed this very point:

Perhaps the appearance of life on the earth is a miracle. Scientists are reluctant to accept that view, but their choices are limited; either life was created on the earth by the will of a being outside the grasp of scientific understanding, or it evolved on our planet spontaneously, through chemical reactions occurring in nonliving matter lying on the surface of the planet.

The first theory places the question of the origin of life beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. It is a statement of faith in the power of a Supreme Being not subject to the laws of science.

The second theory is also an act of faith. The act of faith consists in assuming that the scientific view of the origin of life is correct, without having concrete evidence to support that belief (1977, 52).

Creationists do not reject genuine (proven) facts of science. What they do dispute are unsupported theories that have been designed to explain those facts. For instance, it is a fact that there are certain similarities between the bone structures of animals and men. However, it is an unsubstantiated speculation to suggest that this indicates that humans evolved from animals. Creationists are not opposed to true science.

Additionally, it is worthy of mention that many of the greatest minds in the history of science have been committed firmly to the idea of supernatural creation. Men like Newton, Pasteur, Kepler, Lister, Boyle, Pascal, and others—household names in science—were not atheists; they believed that science and the concept of creation were quite compatible. It is the worst form of misrepresentation to suggest that those who believe in creation are anti-science (see Jackson 1993, 25-27).

Charge: Creationists take the Bible literally.
Response: When the charge is made that creationists take the Bible literally, the aim is to leave a negative impression. It is implied subtly that a literal perception of the biblical text reflects an antiquated, uneducated viewpoint. The truth is, such an allegation hints of the inclination to interpret the Genesis record in a symbolic (mythological) way. The real motive behind such an ambition is to accommodate the Mosaic record to Darwin’s evolutionary ideology. Two observations need to be made regarding this criticism:

First, there are no negative connotations per se associated with literalism. When the Declaration of Independence affirms that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,” it is a valid assumption that the term “men” denotes real human beings, and that the authors of this document believed that there is a literal Creator. It is quite reasonable to view this reference in a literal way. In fact, a basic rule of literature interpretation is this: a statement ought to be viewed as literal unless there are compelling reasons for rejecting a literal concept and assigning figurative meaning to the language. There is no reason to view the creation narrative as a figurative treatise. There is a solid body of evidence which indicates that a literal God literally created the entire literal universe in six literal days. Again, we insist there is nothing, except anti-supernatural bias, that searches for symbolism in Genesis 1.

Second, even literal and historical events can be depicted with figurative terminology without any sacrifice of genuine historicity. When the Old Testament affirms that the Ten Commandments were written with the “finger of God,” even though we acknowledge that Jehovah is not physical, and thus anthropomorphism was employed to describe him, we still must conclude that God himself actually gave the Decalogue in a miraculous fashion. When Jesus foretold that he had a dreaded “cup” to drink, we recognize the symbolism, yet we are aware that the Savior literally was going to be subjected to the bitter pangs of Calvary. Thus, the charge of literalism against creationists is meaningless.

Charge: Creationists attempt to make the Bible a textbook on science.
Response: Again, the accusation is completely false, and, in reality, is a thinly-veiled suggestion that the Scriptures are not trustworthy in scientific matters. In logic, there is an invalid form of reasoning known as false obversion. Such a fallacy obtains when one attempts to draw a negative conclusion from a positive statement (or vice versa). For example, a salesman in New England had difficulty selling white eggs, because people were used to buying brown eggs. So, he inserted in his store window a sign that read: “Our eggs are guaranteed not to turn brown.” Of course, white eggs can be kept under refrigeration for six months without turning brown. But he wanted people to draw the inference that the brown eggs people were purchasing were once white eggs that had turned brown. He committed the fallacy of false obversion. Similarly, when critics charge: “The Bible is not a textbook on science,” they generally are suggesting that it is factually flawed in areas of science. They then have committed the same fallacy (see Dillow 1981, 1).

While it certainly is true that the Scriptures never were intended to be a textbook on biology, geology, chemistry, mathematics, etc., it is not the case that they contain blunders in these disciplines. For example, in its use of figurative language characteristic of apocalyptic literature, the book of Revelation suggests that twelve thousand people were “sealed” unto God from twelve different tribes of Israel. The reader has every right to expect that the total number of this symbolic company would be 144,000—which is exactly the figure given by the inspired writer (7:4).

The Bible is not a textbook on physics, but when it contends that the creation process is “finished” (Genesis 2:1), and thus by implication that nothing is being created currently, we are gratified to note that this is precisely what the first law of thermodynamics suggests.

And when the Scriptures affirm that the universe is “growing old” (Hebrews 1:11), we can expect that to be a statement of fact, as indeed the second law of thermodynamics confirms. Just because creationists contend that the Scriptures are accurate, even when touching on incidental matters of science, does not mean that they are attempting to make the Bible into a science textbook.

Charge: Creationists believe that dinosaurs never existed.
Response: A charge occasionally made against creationists, in an attempt to make them look ridiculous, is the assertion that these simple folk believe that dinosaurs never existed in the past. It is alleged that creationists contend that God merely placed dinosaur bones in the earth’s strata to make it appear that these huge creatures once roamed this planet. Can this accusation be documented from a solitary publication distributed by scholars of the creationist movement? It cannot.

While it may be true that a rare, uninformed religious person, who does not know how to deal with the issues surrounding the dinosaurs, will advance this uneducated opinion, it certainly is not representative of those who are well informed in Bible-science matters. The truth is, creationists have published a considerable body of excellent material dealing with dinosaurs. Actually, we teach a more balanced and correct view of the dinosaur phenomenon than do the evolutionists.

True creationists—and we refer to those who have not yielded to the compromises of theistic evolution—not only argue that dinosaurs lived upon the ancient earth, but also contend that these marvelous examples of God’s wisdom and power were contemporary with ancient humanity, and that very likely there are allusions to dinosaurs and other extinct reptiles in the Bible. The book of Job (40:15ff) very well may contain references to these creatures (see Jackson 1983, 85).

In conclusion we confidently affirm that the creationist case is quite strong and is not weakened by the misrepresentations of those who have no confidence in the Scriptures.

Sources/Footnotes
Clayton, John N. 1993. Book Reviews. Does God Exist? 209(2).

Dillow, Joseph C. 1981. The Waters Above. Chicago, IL: Moody.

Jackson, Wayne. 1983. The Book of Job. Abilene, TX: Quality Publishing.

Jackson, Wayne. 1985. Premillennialism and Biblical Creationism. Reason & Revelation, 5.

Jackson, Wayne. 1993. Are Faith and Science Compatible? Christian Courier, 29.

Jastrow, Robert. 1977. Until the Sun Dies. New York, NY: Warner.

Kaiser, Walter C. 1980. Kind. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Vol. 1. R. L. Harris, C. L. Archer, B. K. Waltke, eds. Chicago, IL: Moody.

Numbers, Ronald. 1992. The Creationists. New York, NY: Knopf.

Payne, J. Barton. 1975. Chronology of the Old Testament. Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Vol. 1. Merrill C. Tenney, ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Ramm, Bernard. 1954. The Christian View of Science and Scripture. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Rusch, Wilbert H. 1959. Darwinism, Science and the Bible. Darwin, Evolution, and Creation. Paul A. Zimmerman, ed. St. Louis, MO: Concordia.

Sears, Jack Wood. 1983. How The Worlds Were Framed. Studies in Hebrews. Dub McClish, ed. Denton, TX: Valid Publications.

Weiss, Paul. 1965. Elements of Biology New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

The New Face of Heresy

The “Emerging Church”—The New Face of Heresy
By WAYNE JACKSON

May 5, 2009

Bookmark and Share Recently, Charles Colson, a leading evangelical writer, pointed out:

Last June a Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life survey found rampant doctrinal ignorance among American Christians. Fifty-seven percent of evangelicals believed people who follow religions other than their own can enjoy eternal life. The results were so unexpected that Pew repeated the survey, asking more specific questions. The answers were virtually unchanged. Astonishingly, about half believed that everyone, atheists included, was going to end up in heaven. Heaven for the godless? That’s the old heresy of universalism (2009).

The thinking of many who profess an identification with some form of “Christianity” has become mushy indeed. Here is a typical comment from a student of the so-called neo-evangelical community.

It is not now, nor was it at the time of the reformation, the correct teaching or doctrine which brought the reformation. It was being willing to challenge the Church with living out the doctrine which mattered most. Today we need a reformation of less teaching and more living (emphasis added).

This statement is senseless. How about more teaching and better living? How can there be correct living without proper teaching?

If we may borrow an expression from Solomon, “there is no new thing under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9); the same old heresies just undergo superficial theological cosmetic surgery—or to use another metaphor, they are recycled. Let us reflect upon several old ideas with new faces.

Universalism
Universalism asserts that there will be the final and complete salvation of all beings. The dogma was taught by some of the early church writers, e.g., Clement and Origen of Alexandria, who lived in the mid-second to mid-third centuries A.D. There is no biblical basis for this dogma (see The Growing Trend Toward Universalism). Yet most folks seem to be inclining to the notion that almost everyone—if not literally everyone—will be saved ultimately.

Postmodernism
The expression “postmodernism” is not found in Van Harvey’s book, A Handbook of Theological Terms, published in 1968. It is a relatively new designation. Postmodernism denies universal truth. Supposedly, truth is how each individual feels about things, not how they really are. Hence, supposedly there is no exclusive, true gospel. The facts of Christianity must be redefined by a new vocabulary in preaching, writing, and worship. This is a wrong-headed ideology.

The Emerging Church
The so-called “emerging church” is the stepchild of postmodernism. This ideology contends it is arrogant to believe that one knows the truth; instead the “truth” is that truth is only determined subjectively, being fashioned by culture, not Scripture. Is this concept even remotely associated with a logical thought process?

It is contended that each person must find his own way to God, and not be addicted to “bibliolatry.” This sounds like the philosophy of those rebels who lived in the dark ages of Israel’s history (Judges 21:25). The “emergist” believes all are arrogant who do not subscribe to his elastic view of truth. He absolutely knows one cannot know absolute truth.

Several of these aberrant ideas have found their way into churches that once were conservative. For example, it is argued by an increasing number that we cannot declare as gospel truth that those are wrong who disagree with our “traditional” teaching. All teaching is now declared to be mere tradition.

What difference does it make whether one believes that baptism is “*for* [unto, to obtain] the remission of sins,” or whether it is “*because of* remission of sins.” It is alleged that gospel preachers of bygone years who debated with the sectarians on the design of baptism were misguided. Some are contending that the mode of baptism is irrelevant; sprinkling is as valid as immersion, and those baptized as infants must not be excluded from Christian fellowship. To speak of a "non-immersion baptism” is an oxymoron, because “baptize” by definition signifies “to immerse.”

“Emerging” churches are restructuring the worship format. The Lord’s supper is being offered in conjunction with special events, e.g., weddings. The communion memorial is not restricted to the Lord’s day; instead groups step beyond the biblical pattern and provide it on weekdays, ignoring a New Testament that is undergirded with historical truth, namely the Lord’s resurrection on Sunday.

The music issue is wide open among a growing number of churches. A prominent church in Dallas (that once hosted a respected school of preaching) recently advertised for a “minister of music.” One of the stipulations was that he must be able to play the guitar or the electronic keyboard. Choirs, praise teams, clapping to accompany singing, etc., are becoming standard fare in a number of churches. Performance is rapidly supplementing congregational worship. Biblical authority yields to emotionalism. It is the new “will-worship” (Colossians 2:23).

These are trying times for the body of Christ. But it is not a time for despair. Instead, courageous men and women must keep the ship of Zion on a straight (and strait) course within the boundaries of divine truth. Truth will prevail in spite of the winds of change—and irrelevant statistics.

Sources/Footnotes
Colson, Charles and Anne Morse. 2009. Doctrine Bears Repeating. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/april/10.72.html.

One Sick Animal----or is it an Animal!

California Supreme Court Upholds “Marriage” Constitutional Amendment
by Kevin Cain, M.Min, J.D.


[EDITOR’S NOTE: The following article was written by one of A.P.’s auxiliary staff writers who holds a M.Min from Freed-Hardeman University and a J.D. from the South Texas College of Law.]

In Strauss v. Horton, a controversial and highly publicized case, the California Supreme Court recently handed down a surprising decision upholding a California constitutional amendment that states, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” This case involved a constitutional challenge to California’s Proposition 8, the subject of considerable news coverage during the election in November 2008. The 6-1 decision written by Chief Justice Ron George was issued on Tuesday, May 26, 2009. However, upon closer examination of the court’s opinion, the purported victory may be a victory only in semantics.

This high-profile case is the product of legal wrangling and posturing that has been going on in California for some time now. In 2004, the California Supreme Court ruled in Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco that public officials in San Francisco acted unlawfully when they issued marriage licenses to homosexual couples. However, the court emphasized that the question of the constitutional validity of California’s current marriage statutes (which limited marriage to a man and a woman) was not before the court at that time (Lockyer v. City..., 2004). In other words, the court was politely soliciting a constitutional challenge to the California statute limiting marriage to a union between a man and woman.

Not surprisingly, the issue of the constitutionality of California’s marriage law was addressed in In re Marriage Cases in 2008. In that case, the court held that homosexual couples are entitled to the protection of the constitutional right to marry contained in the privacy and due process provisions of the Constitution of California. The California Supreme Court reasoned that by granting access to the designation or title of “marriage” to opposite-sex couples and denying such access to same-sex couples, the California marriage statutes violated the privacy and due process rights of same-sex couples and violated their right to the equal protection guaranteed by the Constitution of California (In re Marriage Cases, 2008).

In response to the Marriage Cases, Proposition 8 was passed by a majority of California voters (52.3%) on November 4, 2008 (Strauss v. Horton, 2009). This proposition, which is now a part of the Constitution of California, states in its entirety, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California” (Article I, Section7.5). There is no doubt but that Proposition 8 was a legitimate attempt to constitutionally overturn the holding in the Marriage Cases. However, the reach of that effort was significantly curtailed by the court’s recent holding in Strauss v. Horton.

In the March 2000 California election, the California Family Code was revised by Proposition 22 to include the following limitation on marriage: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California” (Section 308.5). This is the identical language adopted in Proposition 8. The difference between Proposition 22 in 2000 and Proposition 8 in 2008 is that Proposition 22 amended a California statute, while Proposition 8 amended the Constitution of California. The California Supreme Court held in the Marriage Cases that the California Family Code (amended by Proposition 22), which granted access to the designation “marriage” to only heterosexual couples, but not homosexual couples, was unconstitutional as it violated homosexual couples’ state constitutional rights of privacy, due process, and equal protection (In re Marriage Cases, 2008). The table was now set for Proposition 8, which upon being passed on November 4, 2008, was challenged in court the following day, November 5, 2008, in Strauss v. Horton (2009).

In Strauss v. Horton, the California Supreme Court went to great lengths to reaffirm its holding in the Marriage Cases, and described its holding in the present case as a mere narrow exception to the rule in the Marriage Cases that it is unconstitutional to limit marriage to heterosexual couples. The court went to great lengths to emphasize that the new constitutional amendment “refers only to ‘marriage’ and does not address the right to establish an officially recognized family relationship, which may bear a name or designation other than ‘marriage.’” This was based on the conclusion that “the language of [Proposition 8], on its face, does not purport to alter or affect the more general holding in the Marriage Cases that same-sex couples, enjoy the constitutional right, under the privacy and due process clauses of the California Constitution, to establish an officially recognized family relationship” (Strauss v. Horton). Simply put, Proposition 8 only eliminated the right of homosexual couples to the designation of “marriage” without “otherwise affecting the constitutional right of those couples to establish an officially recognized family relationship” (Strauss v. Horton).

The issue then remained as to what to do with those homosexual “marriages” that took place in California after Proposition 8 was passed. The court estimated that 18,000 “marriages” were entered into by homosexual couples after Proposition 8 was passed until this court’s opinion was released on May 26, 2009. The court held that the amendment, without explicit language to the contrary, must be applied prospectively and not retroactively. That is, the amendment would only be applied as of May 26, 2009, and all homosexual “marriages” after November 4, 2008 and before May 26, 2009 would be recognized as “marriages” in the state of California.

To say that Proposition 8 was a controversial and high-profile matter in California is putting it lightly. The violence that stemmed from this election over Proposition 8 was a matter of public record, although it was somewhat difficult for some to discover these facts due to the limited and biased media coverage. The legal interest in this case was overwhelming. First, the opinion generated by the California Supreme Court was 185 pages. The list of attorneys, special-interest groups, and law firms representing the pro-homosexual agenda in this suit was remarkable (373 attorneys, 153 organizations, and 33 law firms representing the pro-homosexual position; compared with 40 attorneys, 20 organizations, and 5 law firms representing the pro-Proposition 8 position). In other words, this was a highly anticipated and hard-fought legal battle, although somewhat lopsided.

The problem here is not that this purported “victory” for conservative groups appears to be a matter of semantics over the use of the term “marriage.” The problem here is not that the attorneys, special interest groups, and law firms representing the homosexual agenda far outnumber their opponents. The real problem is the fundamental way this battle is being fought. There are numerous legal arguments over the constitutionality of statutes, propositions, equal rights, due process, strict scrutiny, and other terms of legalese. For the moment, the majority of the people support the biblical definition of marriage. History shows that the majority may soon dwindle and marriage laws could be reversed. So the pressing question is where is the call to morality, ethics, godliness, Christianity, and Scripture? In the midst of all this debate about a homosexual lifestyle, there appears to be little to no attention given to these spiritual matters that really count—the very matters that the Framers of the Constitution shared and defended (cf. Miller, 2003). If we continue to fight worldly battles with worldly weapons, worldly arguments, and worldly wisdom, we may occasionally win a battle, but we will ultimately lose the war. “For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:4-5, NASB). Paul did not use the enticing words of man’s wisdom, but preached Jesus Christ and Him crucified so that the Corinthians’ faith would not rest in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God (1 Corinthians 2:1-5).

This lawsuit is evidence of the culture war that is escalating around us. It is taking place in our capitals, in our legislatures, in our courts, in our schools, in our neighborhoods, and in our homes and churches. A Christian has four choices: (1) fight on the wrong side; (2) remain neutral (which means you are lending unwitting support to the wrong side whether you realize it or not [Matthew 27:24]); (3) fight with the wrong weapons; or (4) fight with the right weapons. I have often heard the phrase, “Don’t bring a knife to a gun fight.” If you are fighting in the culture war that is raging, are you fighting with a proverbial knife when those around you wield superior fire-power?

We must fight, but not physically. Those who resort to physical violence when purportedly taking the “Christian” perspective are clearly in error and do great harm to the cause of Christ. The Bible teaches us not only to correct those in error, but to do so lovingly (Ephesians 4:15). Jesus told Peter to put up his sword because Christ’s kingdom is not of this world, and because those who live by the sword will die by the sword (Matthew 26:52; John 18:36). Moreover, we are commanded to love and pray for our enemies (Matthew 5:44; Romans 12: 17-21). In light of these admonitions, are you fighting in the battle, and are you fighting with the right weapons?

It is time to rally the troops and prepare for war. So, love your enemies and pray for them. Pray for their souls; pray for their hearts to be softened; pray for doors of opportunity to be opened so that God may be glorified. Therefore...

Put on the full armor of God, that you may be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore, take up the full armor of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm. Stand firm therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; in addition to all, taking up the shield of faith with which you will be able to extinguish all the flaming missiles of the evil one. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. With all prayer and petition pray at all times in the Spirit, and with this in view, be on the alert with all perseverance and petition for all the saints, and pray on my behalf, that utterance may be given to me in the opening of my mouth, to make known with boldness the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains; that in proclaiming it I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak (Ephesians 6:11-20, NASB).

May we use these weapons boldly and fearlessly, use them with love, but most important, use them.

REFERENCES
California Family Code, [On-line], URL: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=300-310.

Constitution of California, [On-line], URL: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1.

In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th 757 (Cal. 2008).

Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco, 33 Cal.4th 1055 (Cal. 2004).

Miller, Dave (2003), “The Founders on Homosexuality,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3769.

Strauss v. Horton, (Cal. May 26, 2009), [On-line], URL: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S168047.PDF.

A MISSING LINK! "IDA"

Ida—A Missing Link?
by Eric Lyons, M.Min. and Kyle Butt, M.A.

It has been called, not just “a discovery of great significance” (“The Link,” 2009), but the “most significant scientific discovery of recent times” (Leonard, 2009, emp. added). Some scientists claim “it will finally confirm irrefutably Sir Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution” (Leonard, 2009, emp. added). Dr. Jens Lorenz Franzen of Senckenberg Research Institute in Germany referred to it as “the eighth wonder of the world” (as quoted in Scally, 2009), and confidently proclaimed: “When our results are published, it will be just like an asteroid hitting the Earth” (“The Link”). Apparently, Google was so enamored with the find that on May 20 the search engine mogul incorporated an illustration of the animal into its logo. So what’s all the hoopla about? “Our earliest ancestor,” of course (“The Link”). At least, that is what some evolutionists and their friends in the media are telling everyone.
Dubbed Ida (pronounced Ē-da), this 23-inch, lemur-like fossil found in a quarry near Frankfurt, Germany is reportedly the “most complete fossil primate ever discovered” (“Did a Strangely...,” 2009). That, in and of itself, is noteworthy. And, if that was all that was being reported about the fossil, there would be no controversy. Unfortunately, however, some evolutionists have placed the fossil on the Darwinian pedestal.

What can be said about all of Ida’s fanfare? First, no concrete proof has been given (nor can logically be given) for dating the fossil at “47 million years old.” [All evolutionary dating is based upon circular reasoning and/or built-in assumptions (see “The Geologic...,” 2003; DeYoung, 2005; Woodmorappe, 1999).] Second, the “proof” that the animal is an ancient ancestor of humans is nothing more than evolutionists’ speculation about the fossil. Obviously, since evolutionists believe that all humans evolved from fish, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals over multiplied millions of years, any number of fossil finds could be served up as “evidence” for evolution, when in fact, the fossils are simply the remains of once-living animals—nothing more, nothing less.

In truth, scientific laws such as the Law of Biogenesis preclude the possibility of Darwinian evolution. The DNA molecule and the mind-boggling complexity of the information it contains defy a naturalistic origin. In addition, the problem of human consciousness evolving from inorganic chemicals has never been adequately answered by the Darwinian camp. The fact is, Darwinians cannot prove that humans (or any other organisms) evolved from lower life forms, much less prove that Ida is our ancient ancestor. [NOTE: For a thorough refutation of alleged human evolution, see Harrub and Thompson, 2003).

Third, and perhaps most telling, is the fact that many in the evolutionists own camp have “questioned the conclusions of Hurum and his colleagues about how closely it [Ida—EL/KB] is related to ancestors of monkeys and humans” (Ritter, 2009). John Fleagle, distinguished professor at the State University in New York, referred to the scientists’ analysis of Ida as “‘a pretty weak link’ between the new creature and higher primates” (as quoted in Ritter). “Quite frankly,” Fleagle said, “It doesn’t really tell us much about anthropoid origins” (as quoted in Ritter). In an article appearing in New Scientist titled “Why Ida Fossil is not the Missing Link” (emp. added), Chris Beard, curator of vertebrate paleontology at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, wrote:


In order to establish that connection [between Ida and anthropoids—EL/KB], Ida would have to have anthropoid-like features that evolved after anthropoids split away from lemurs and early primates. Here, alas, Ida fails miserably. So, Ida is not a “missing link”—at least not between anthropoids and more primitive primates. Further study may reveal her to be a missing link between other species of Eocene adapiforms, but this hardly solidifies her status as the “eighth wonder of the world” (2009, emp. added).
Beard added: “I actually don’t think it’s terribly close to the common ancestral line of monkeys, apes and people.... I would say it’s about as far away as you can get from that line and still be a primate” (as quoted in Ritter). He further stated that rather than a primate “aunt,” this creature is “more like a third cousin twice removed” (as quoted in Ritter). In his article that is favorable toward the find being an evolutionary link, Tom Leonard conceded: “She is not a direct ancestor of humans and monkeys but it provides a good indication of what such an animal may have looked like” (2009, emp. added). Chris Beard concluded his article by saying: “Instead, Ida is a remarkably complete specimen that promises to teach us a great deal about the biology of some of the earliest and least human-like of all known primates, the Eocene adapiforms” (2009, emp. added).
So, if Ida is not an evolutionary link between anything, what is “she”? Philip Gingerich, president elect of the Paleontological Society in the U.S., described the creature as “a young female adapid” (Naik, 2009). What are adapids? The Princeton University Web site WordNet defines the term as: “extinct small mostly diurnal lower primates that fed on leaves and fruit; abundant in North America and Europe 30 to 50 million years ago” (“Adapid,” n.d.). Notice that adapids are simply “lower primates.” Basically, Ida looks like a lemur that does not have a tooth comb or a grooming claw (Naik, 2009). Some have suggested that the creature did not have “a wet nose,” but Dr. Gingerich is on record as saying: “We can’t say whether it had a wet nose or not” (as quoted in Naik, 2009).

Creationists have long contended that you can divide all of the supposed links of human evolution into two easily identifiable groups—humans and non-humans. Ida is nothing more than a young primate, that happens to be the “least human-like of all known primates.” In truth, one of the most effective ways to assess this find is to simply look at a picture of it. It is easily identified as a cat-sized primate almost identical to a lemur. Any person who has not been indoctrinated with Darwinian teaching would never connect the creature to anything remotely human. We shudder to think what future generations who have shed the false Darwinian assumptions will say when they look back on such unscientific propaganda that so many in our society have embraced. “Ida” certainly did not give rise to humans, but it sure has made a monkey out of the media.

REFERENCES
“Adapid” (no date), WordNet, [On-line], URL: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=adapid.

Beard, Chris (2009), “Why Ida Fossil is not the Missing Link,” New Scientist, May 21, [On-line], URL: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17173-why-ida-fossil-is-not-the-missing-link.html.

DeYoung, Don (2005), Thousands...Not Billions (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).

“Did a Strangely Human-Like Primate Give Rise to Monkeys, Apes, and Us?” (2009), Discover, May 18, [On-line], URL: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/05/18/did-a-strangely-human-like-primate-give-rise-to-monkeys-apes-and-us/.

“The Geologic Timetable and the Age of the Earth” (2003), Apologetics Press, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/courses_pdf/hsc0304.pdf.

Harrub, Brad and Bert Thompson (2003), The Truth About Human Origins (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Leonard, Tom (2009), “Scientists Unveil Stunning Fossil,” Telegraph, [On-line], URL: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5351315/Scientists-unveil-stunning-fossil.html.

“The Link” (2009), [On-line], URL: http://www.revealingthelink.com/.

Naik, Gautam (2009) “Fossil Discovery is Heralded,” The Wall Street Journal, [On-line], URL: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124235632936122739.html.

Ritter, Malcolm (2009), “Early Skeleton Sheds Light on Primate Evolution,” Yahoo! News, May 20, [On-line], URL: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090520/ap_on_sc/ancient_primate.

Scally, Derek (2009), “Fossil Ida a Crucial Finding for the Understanding of Early Human Evolution,” Irish Times, May 21, [On-line], URL: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/0521/1224247034331.html.

Woodmorappe, John (1999), The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research).

"Be still and Know that I AM GOD".

“Be Still and Know That I Am God” – Revisited
By JASON JACKSON

March 13, 2009

Bookmark and Share
“If you were running for your life, would it matter?” That was General Odum’s motto; he learned to put everyday problems into perspective, weighing them against his World War II experiences. Captured by Rommel’s infamous Afrika Korps, Odum later escaped when the German plane transporting him and other prisoners of war was shot down by Allied Forces over France. After a month of hiding and dodging Nazis, the skin-and-bones Odum finally met up with friendly troops. He learned what few things really matter when you’re running for your life.

Where do you run to when you need a safe place to hide? I’ve never had to hide like General (this was his name, not his rank); most of us haven’t. But whether we realize it or not, a greater threat is here. Life in the flesh is a perilous time, because greater than any physical danger is the demoralizing presence of our adversary, the devil. Remember Peter’s warning: “Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour” (1 Peter 5:8). [All Scripture references are from the ESV unless otherwise noted.]

In addition to the sin-danger with which men flirt to the point of madness, one’s world can fall apart instantly. The English poet Alfred Tennyson felt the common plight when he wrote, “Never morning wore to evening, but some heart did not break.” If your world falls apart, to whom shall you go? As the steady North Star provides orientation in darkness, so the forty-sixth Psalm is higher ground for the worn soul seeking refuge.

The Psalm Introduced
Psalm 46 divides into three sections as indicated by the contemplative selah after each group of verses. In the first section (vv. 1-3), there is an opening declaration that God is our refuge and strength; therefore, the Lord’s people need not fear even in the bleakest of circumstances, illustrated by a crumbling earth and turbulent sea that surrounds and threatens God’s people. In the second part (vv. 4-7), the city of God is the calm in the storm. The nations surge, hostilities rage, but the voice of Jehovah subdues them.

The refrain expresses the rationale for hope when there is none: “The LORD of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our fortress” (v. 7). The last part (vv. 8-11) invites the people of God to consider God’s past interventions in the affairs of men as solid evidence of his abiding presence, again concluding with the encouraging affirmation, “The LORD of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our fortress” (v. 11). He marshals the armies (i.e., “hosts”) of heaven to do his bidding; he is the true God who involved himself in Jacob’s life, providing gracious blessings and protection to the fulfillment of his promises. Thus, he is the God who is willing to use his power on behalf of his people to fulfill the gracious promises that he has made. He is with us!

The Psalm Investigated
If you love Psalm 23, you’ll love Psalm 46. J. Clinton McCann Jr. noted the similarities between these psalms—a soul-stirring thread—when he wrote: “Like Psalm 23, the fundamental affirmation of Psalm 46 is the assurance of God’s presence” (1993, 136). How we cherish the knowledge of his presence; many of our hymns reflect the treasured thought, “God with us” (“A Wonderful Savior,” “A Mighty Fortress,” “Rock of Ages,” etc.).

The reader should understand much of the Old Testament language and background of this psalm, and an extensive line-by-line consideration of such will have to remain unexplored in this present study. Such a neglect here does not reflect a lack of appreciation for the general historical context and rich Hebrew poetry that characterizes this psalm. However, this ancient poem, given and preserved by God, fittingly describes issues that transcend the dispensations and are relevant to men of every age. This study will focus upon such matters. Just as the prophet announced for God, “For I, Jehovah, change not; therefore ye, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed” (Malachi 3:6, ASV), we realize that the God of Jacob is with us—Christians. Rather than alter our view on Psalm 46, the New Testament enhances our appreciation of the vivid truths revealed in this great psalm.

Our Confidence
“God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble” (v. 1, ASV). He, and he alone, is the ultimate security. He is exceedingly ready and available for us in trouble—in practice, not in mere theory. Paul motivated Christians to pursue heavenly things: “For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God” (Colossians 3:3). There is no other place like it; nothing comes close. Trouble will find you, so flee to the fortress of souls.

Since God is the one to whom we can flee—who protects us without and strengthens us within—we will not fear. The defiance of faith in uncertainty and peril is justified, because God is with us: “Therefore, we will not fear, though the earth do change, and though the mountains be shaken into the heart of the seas; though the waters thereof roar and be troubled, though the mountains tremble with the swelling thereof” (vv. 2-3, ASV).

Observe the words “change,” “shaken,” “roar,” “troubled,” and “tremble.” The situation is desperate since the earth appears to be on the brink of destruction. The figures describe the worst-case scenario; the most dreaded thing is happening. Even if the world should crumble beneath our feet, we will not wonder: “Has God forsaken us?” In fact, we will not fear; he is with us. The psalm admits that the Lord’s own are not immune from trouble (cf. Hebrews 5:8-9). We live in an unstable world, an environment hazarded by sin’s curse. He sustains us in the midst of trouble, and that is what a person needs to know as he lives with a view toward better days.

Our Calmness
Abruptly, a surreal tranquility is painted by words of calmness and confidence: “There is a river, the streams wherefore make glad the city of God, the holy place of the tabernacles of the Most High” (v. 4, ASV). In contrast to the chaos, there is the calm, pure river, which is the source from which the streams (i.e., canals) irrigate, bring life, and add beauty in the very city of God—the place of his tabernacles (note the plural “dwelling places”). His presence is like the river—life-giving and sustaining. Naturally, since he is the Most High (cf. 97:9).

Those who reside in God’s city (i.e., in a covenant, saved relationship with God) are blessed because he is there: “God is in the midst of her; she shall not be moved: God will help her, and that right early” (v. 5). Or to express the thought in another way, “No water can swallow the ship where lies the Master of ocean and earth and skies.”

Unparalleled stability results from the abiding presence of God. Therefore, gladness characterizes God’s city, even though nations topple around her because of foreign aggression. If she trusts in him, if she is faithful to him, she shall not be moved. What can he do? “He uttered his voice, the earth melted” (v. 6).

The psalmist’s confidence may stem from recent manifestations of God’s awesome presence and intervention. A. F. Kirkpatrick was convinced that Psalm 46 celebrates the delivery of Jerusalem when 185,000 Assyrian corpses littered the environs of Jerusalem—thanks to the Angel of Jehovah. He wrote, “The miraculous deliverance of Jerusalem from the army of Sennacherib in the reign of Hezekiah (B.C. 701) may be assigned as the occasion of these Psalms [i.e., 46, 47, 48], with a probability which approaches certainty” (1906, 253).

Albert Barnes appeared equally convinced, but less emphatic (1950, 40). In actuality, the Bible relates many interventions of the Lord on behalf of his people, including 2 Kings 19. These “intrusions” reveal that the true and living God has made his presence felt for his people; accordingly, the point that he is not far from us has been substantiated on numerous occasions since the beginning of time (cf. Acts 17:27-28; Romans 15:1-5). We may not know with certainty the immediate circumstances behind this psalm, but we do know, “The LORD of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our fortress.”

Our Conviction
Psalm 46 not only affirms the reality of God’s presence, it also invites men to behold the evidence: “Come, behold the works of Jehovah, what desolations he hath made in the earth” (v. 8). He has broken the weapons of war; he rules in the kingdoms of men. The plagues of Egypt, the walls of Jericho, the victories of Gideon, the defeat of Goliath, the fiery furnace, Daniel’s lions, and scores of other divine manifestations are a testimony to the fact that God, who does not change, has the same concern for us today as he had for his children of former days.

Our most important consideration, however, is not our skin—it’s our soul. More important than our biological life is our spiritual life (cf. Matthew 10:28). This world is not all there is nor all that matters. When sin takes hold of us, or circumstances overwhelm us, it is God to whom we must flee. Run to him in your heart and mind—what you know of God, heaven, eternity, and judgment. Hope will sustain you in the darkest hour.

The Psalm Incorporated
If we adopt the thinking of Psalm 46, should we expect a miraculous deliverance from trouble? No. First, God does not need to work a miracle to help us in trouble. Second, the miracles of the past continue to teach us (cf. John 20:30-31); their repetition is unnecessary for the accomplishment of his will. Trust in him, believe in him, for the Lord has said, “I will never leave you nor forsake you” (Hebrews 13:5). Do you believe him?

You also must “come, behold the works of the Lord” (v. 8). Come, behold the baby of a virgin; come, behold the daughter of Jairus; come to the tomb of Lazarus; come to Gethsemane; come, behold the crown of thorns; behold the empty tomb. Jesus Christ has abolished death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel (2 Timothy 1:10). “So we can confidently say, ‘The Lord is my helper; I will not fear; what can man do to me?’” (Hebrews 13:6).

Isn’t that what we want to know? That if the world falls apart, if the unthinkable happens, in the end we’ll be saved? Paul, in a Psalm 46 frame of mind, says also, “What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?” (Romans 8:31-32). Significantly, neither the psalmist nor Paul were students of Campbell, Stone, or McGarvey; but, contrary to the voices of change that necessary inference is a modern invention, both inspired writers invite us to draw necessary inferences about God’s love and presence in our lives based on what God has done in the past.

Thus, calm confidence should adorn God’s people—no matter what. “Be still, and know that I am God” (v. 10, ASV). God’s people are commanded to “be still.” The imperative gives a solemn duty to those in a covenant relationship with God (cf. Galatians 3:26-29). The duty represents a spiritual disposition that ought to characterize those to whom God’s unfailing promises have been given. “Be still” considers that we are finite and that God is infinite. That being the case, we need to drop our hands, go limp, relax, and “chill out.” This spiritual calm that God commands does not come from a lack of troubles; it derives from a steady, deep reflection on the ways God has intervened in history on behalf of his people (cf. Romans 15:4).

God’s past provides calm for our future. He is the ruler of kingdoms of this earth and the all-powerful Creator of the universe. We may be pressed, perplexed, and pursued, but not unto despair (cf. 2 Corinthians 4:8-9). If you are the last man or woman standing, be still, stand fast, be strong. “God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble. Therefore we will not fear, though the earth do change” (vv. 1-2).

Sources/Footnotes
Barnes, Albert. 1950. Notes on the Old Testament: Explanatory and Practical. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.

Kirkpatrick, A. F. 1906. The Book of Psalms. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

McCann, J. Clinton, Jr. 1993. A Theological Introduction to the Book of Psalms. Nashville, TN: Abingdon.

Design---Maybe that c0uld be!

An Atheistic Assault upon the “Design” Argument
By WAYNE JACKSON

January 17, 2005

Bookmark and Share
William Paley (1743-1805) was a British theologian/mathematician/logician who produced several erudite works, not the least of which was his volume called Natural Theology (1802). In this work, Paley argued that just as a watch logically implies a skilled, intelligent “watch-maker,” even so, a structured universe points to an intelligent universe-Maker.

The fundamental premise of the argument is this: when one observes an object that reflects design, the logical conclusion is — it had a designer.

Some atheists contend that this argument “proves too much,” hence, “nothing.” One of their ilk recently framed the following argument and subsequently offered his response [LogCabin.net].

“[T]he claim [of the theist] is: (1) Everything we’ve encountered that appears to have been designed does in fact have a designer; (2) The universe does appear as if it has been designed; (3) Thus, the universe has a designer; (4) This designer is God.”

We will ignore the fact that this critic has oversimplified the argument; instead, we will examine the premise he thinks negates the “design” argument. The gentleman continues:

“Among the numerous objections to this venerable argument is that it lacks
internal consistency. If we are truly wedded to the claim that organized
complexity and purposefulness requires a designer, God — presumably the most complex and purposeful of all entities — must also have a designer (a
‘mega-god’ who, following the same reasoning, would also require a designer, a ’mega-mega-god, who, following the same reasoning).”

The foregoing argument is flawed in several particulars, not the least of which is that it does not take into consideration what constitutes “design,” and how “design” is identified. Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1983) defines the noun “design” as follows:

“the arrangement of parts, detail, form, color, etc., especially so as to produce a complete and artistic unit; artistic invention; as, the design of a rug” (p. 492).

Observation and Perception
In Paley’s work, he repeatedly called attention to the reason one may conclude that a watch (or the universe) is characterized by design; such is possible because constituent elements may be observed. Hence, the shape, arrangement, etc., characteristic of the parts, imply design, thus, a designer.

Observe the British scholar’s language: “when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive”; again, “We see a cylindrical box”; or, “We next observe,” etc. (Natural Theology in: The Works of William Paley, Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson, 1839, p. 435; emp. supplied).

The argument repeatedly is punctuated with references to visual observation and analysis. One may reason that an object has been “designed” by examining it. This is the basis of the design argument, even as employed by biblical writers (cf. Psalm 19:1ff; Romans 1:20).

Since it obviously is the case that our atheist philosopher has never “seen” God, nor does he admit even the existence of such a Being, he cannot assume that the ultimate Cause has been “designed.”

The fact is, logic forces one to the conclusion that the origin of all material objects was caused by a non-material, eternally-existing Entity. There is not a particle of evidence that any material object has the power to create itself.

The Uncaused Cause
Had there ever been a time when absolutely “nothing” existed, nothing would exist today, because “nothing” cannot produce “something.” If the atheist’s case were true, the universe itself must be eternal, or else eternal nothingness would have prevailed forever, and we would not be contemplating this issue.

Since it is a reality, therefore, that “something” exists (e.g., the universe and we ourselves), then it must follow that some kind of “something” has existed always. That something, by default, must be either “material” or “non-material.” The logical “law of the excluded middle” demands that conclusion.

But the reality is this: science and logic point to the fact that matter is not eternal. Dr. Robert Jastrow has been characterized as the “greatest science writer” of this generation. He classifies himself as an agnostic (that you may know that he is not biased toward creationism). Jastrow, however, argues vigorously for the “beginning” of the universe on the basis of various astronomical data.

“It is really very surprising that the labors of the astronomers, studying the Universe through their telescopes, should have brought them to the conclusion that the world had a beginning. Scientists feel more comfortable with the idea of a Universe that has existed for ever, because their thinking is permeated with the idea of cause and effect. They believe that every event that takes place in the world can be explained in a rational way as the consequence of some previous event. If there is a religion in science, this statement can be regarded as its main article of faith. But the latest astronomical results indicate that at some point in the past the chain of [material] cause and effect terminated abruptly. An important event occurred — the origin of the world — for which there is no known [material] cause or explanation” (Until the Sun Dies, New York: Warner, 1977, p. 11).

I have bracketed the term “material” twice above, because that is precisely the thrust of Professor Jastrow’s discussion, and this clarification does no injustice to his affirmation. He even speaks of that moment at the beginning when “pure energy flashes into being” and the “first particles of matter appear” (p. 4).

To his astronomical argument may be added the evidence from the Second Law of Thermodynamics, namely the reality that the universe is wearing out, growing old, and thus obviously had a beginning point, and so is not eternal.

Since it is the case that the material universe is temporal, and that it clearly, then, was caused by some eternal, non-material, non-visible source, no atheist is in a position to contend that this source is composed of elements that required a previous designer. That concept is a non-sequitur — the conclusion does not follow the assumption. On the other hand, if the eternal source is God, a self-sufficient Being, then he is not the result of a pre-existing designer.

Answer Your Own Argument
In attempting to avoid the conclusion that the universe was designed by an un-designed Designer, our atheist friend, while claiming that “supernatural design” is not a viable option for explaining the universe, yet conceding that “mere chance” is not a reasonable explanation for its “design,” he opts for the “Darwinian” concept of “natural selection.” This really is a hypothesis that is quite absurd, and for several reasons.

First, even if one admits that there is some limited validity to the principle of natural selection, i.e., the elimination of weak organisms resulting in the survival of the stronger, such does not explain the origin of the non-organic universe. No one, to my knowledge, contends that “natural selection” works in the inanimate world. It is supposed to be a function within the biological community.

Second, as the famous Dutch botanist Hugo DeVries (1848-1936), himself an evolutionist, once observed: “Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest” (emp. supplied). “Natural selection” explains the beginning of nothing.

Third, since “natural selection” supposedly was the complex wonder-force that “designed” the natural world, then the “complexity” of the “natural selection” process itself, according to our philosophical friend, must also point to a designer.

But this is the very argument that purportedly rebuts the “supernatural design” argument (read it again in the 6th paragraph of this article). This means, then, according to our critic’s own logic, the “designer” of the “natural selection” method must have been designed by something further back, that also was designed, etc., etc. ad infinitum.

And so, to adopt our adversary’s jargon, there he goes, “chasing” those mega-mega-designers down that “rabbit hole” of infinite darkness. Clickety click, clackety clack, he meets himself coming down the track!

A logical person can clearly see that there is no validity in this skeptic’s attempt to nullify the grand “design” argument for the existence of God.

AND YOU TELL ME "THERE IS NO GOD"!

This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240140 - it was originally published in Reason & Revelation, 29[5]:37-39



The RNA World Hypothesis Explained and Unexplained
by Kathleen Hamrick and Will Brooks, Ph.D.


[Editor’s Note: The following article was written by A.P. auxiliary staff scientist Will Brooks and one of his students. Dr. Brooks holds a Ph.D. in Cell Biology from the University of Alabama at Birmingham and serves as Assistant Professor of Biology at Freed-Hardeman University.]

One of the goals within the discipline of biology is to define life. This goal, however, is no simple task. While we can have an intuitive understanding of what it means to be alive, forming this understanding into a precise definition of life poses a dilemma for scientists. Life comes in many shapes, sizes, colors, and forms, so placing all these variations of life into one nice definition is seemingly impossible. To circumvent this problem, scientists have defined life by stating characteristics shared by all life forms. To be considered “alive,” a system of molecules must possess each of these characteristics. Examples include (1) the ability to sense and respond to stimuli, (2) the ability to acquire and utilize materials for energy, (3) the ability to store genetic information in the form of DNA, and (4) the ability to self-replicate. All living organisms share these basic characteristics, and those systems of molecules which lack even one of these basic characteristics is not considered to be a living organism.

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is the genetic material used by all living organisms to code for life. DNA can be thought of as the genetic fingerprint of each organism because it is unique to each species of organism. During the process of self-replication, this genetic code is duplicated and identical copies (discounting rare instances of mutation) are given to each progeny of an organism, maintaining the fingerprint and thus the identity of that organism. The function of DNA as the genetic material of an organism is to provide a code for the production of another group of molecules known as proteins. Proteins serve a host of functions for an organism. They are known, appropriately, as the workhorses of a cell, because they carry out the vast majority of organismal tasks, including catalysis.

A catalyst is any substance capable of increasing the speed of a chemical reaction. Within each living organism on Earth, millions of chemical reactions take place every minute. The majority of these reactions are prompted by a very large group of protein catalysts known as enzymes. These enzyme-mediated chemical reactions range from those used to synthesize various metabolites to those used to break down ingested foods. By serving as enzyme catalysts, proteins play a crucial role in all living organisms. For without enzymes, organisms would be both unable to break down the food that they ingest and unable to make the necessary metabolites needed to sustain life.

While the vast majority of functional enzymes within living organisms are proteins, scientists have discovered that another group of molecules, known as ribonucleic acids (RNAs), are also capable of catalyzing some chemical reactions (Kruger, et al., 1982). RNAs are very similar in structure to DNA, differing only in the type of sugar used to form the molecules—DNA utilizes deoxyribose and RNA utilizes ribose. While DNA is the vital genetic code that is passed down between parents and offspring, RNA also plays an important role. Ribonucleic acids are a messenger system that carries the DNA code from the cell’s nucleus, the home of DNA, to the cellular cytoplasm where proteins are synthesized. These are known as messenger RNAs (mRNA). Furthermore, another group of RNAs, known as ribosomal RNAs (rRNAs), is used along with proteins to build the cellular structure known as the ribosome, which is the cellular location at which proteins are made. So, RNA plays several related roles in the process of protein production: (1) it carries the genetic code from DNA to the ribosome, (2) it helps form the structure of the ribosome, and (3) it functions in catalysis.

While there are a few other examples (reviewed in Fedor and Williamson, 2005), the catalytic properties of RNA are best seen in the ribosome. When proteins are synthesized by an organism’s cells, small units known as amino acids are chemically linked together to form a long, linear chain. This chain of amino acids is known as a polypeptide or protein. The chemical bond that links together each amino acid in the chain is called the peptide bond. Because each of the 20 amino acids are very similar in structure, the same peptide bond is formed between every unit of the polypeptide chain. The chemical reaction that forms this peptide bond requires catalysis. The protein-rRNA complex that we know as the ribosome has long been known to serve as the site as well as the catalyst in forming the peptide bond. But, scientists were surprised to discover that the protein component only serves as a structural element of the ribosome. It is the RNA component of the ribosome that serves as the catalyst (Nissen, et al., 2000). This catalytic RNA has thus been termed a ribozyme.

Later it was discovered that yet another group of RNAs, the small nuclear RNAs (snRNA), were also capable of catalyzing a chemical reaction (Valadkhan and Manley, 2001). When produced by the cell, mRNA must undergo a series of maturation steps before it is fully functional as a genetic message (Alberts, et al., 2002, pp. 317-327). One of these steps toward maturity is the process of splicing. Newly synthesized mRNA contains large regions, spread throughout its length, that do not directly code for protein production. These non-coding regions are called introns. To make the mRNA mature and functional as a code, each intron must be removed from the mRNA and the remaining coding regions, known as exons, must be linked or spliced back together. These “cut-and-paste” events occur within the cell’s nucleus within a structure that we call the spliceosome. Like the ribosome, the spliceosome is a large complex of both protein and RNA, in this case snRNA. Amusingly, these protein-RNA complexes have been dubbed small nuclear ribonucleoproteins or “snurps.” Interestingly, scientists found that not protein, but RNAs were responsible for catalyzing the chemical reactions that take place during these splicing events. RNAs were carrying out chemical reactions on other RNAs.

Scientists were very excited by these revolutionary findings. Now, they had a single type of molecule, RNA, that possessed two very important properties. First, it was very similar in structure to DNA and thus theoretically could also store genetic information. Second, it could function as a catalyst like proteins. In 1986, Walter Gilbert coined the phrase “RNA World” and initiated what is now known as the RNA World Hypothesis (Gilbert, 1986). This hypothesis on the origin of life states simply that because RNA has the dual ability to both store genetic information and catalyze chemical reactions, it must pre-date DNA and proteins, both of which supposedly evolved after and perhaps from the RNA.

The RNA World Hypothesis is widely accepted by evolutionists, because it provides an alleged solution to a long-recognized problem in evolutionary theory. Consider how proteins are made by a cell. First, DNA which holds the genetic code is converted into RNA through a process known as transcription. This process is similar to how one would copy a letter from one piece of paper onto another sheet. The contents of the letter remain unchanged, only the medium—the paper—has changed. RNA carries this information to the ribosome, where it is read and used as a code to make a protein through a process known as translation. This process can be compared to translating the copy of the letter from one language into another. Nucleic acid (DNA and RNA) is changed into another molecule altogether: protein. This linear progression of DNA to RNA to protein is known in biology as the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology (Alberts, et al., 2002, p. 301). Of the three components in the path, only DNA has the capacity to be replicated. So, while DNA stores the genetic code and can be replicated, it cannot perform any chemical reactions. And, while protein can perform chemical reactions, it cannot store genetic information. So, in evolutionary thinking, which came first—DNA or protein? Making the problem even more difficult, DNA relies upon proteins during its own replication. DNA does not self-replicate of its own accord. It must have protein enzymes to facilitate this process. So, what came first—the chicken or the egg? DNA or protein? Each relies upon the other. You should begin to see how RNA might solve this problem. If RNA can both store genetic information and catalyze chemical reactions, and if it evolved first, we have a single molecule that stores information and can catalyze its own replication, a self-replicating genetic material.

In order to prove this theory plausible, a set of conditions must be created to favor the spontaneous formation of RNA molecules without the aid of a biological catalyst. This would have had to be the starting point for an RNA world. One necessary component for RNA formation would be a steady supply of nucleotides, the building blocks of RNA. Scientists speculate these nucleotides were created from other small molecules present, or were generated in space before arriving on earth. Ribose, the sugar used in RNA, is assumed to have arisen from formaldehyde via the formose reaction. The mystery of the addition of nucleotides onto a ribose backbone remains unsolved by scientists attempting to create conditions of a primitive Earth (Müller, 2006, 63:1279-1280). Once these RNA molecules were formed completely by chance, they would have to have possessed or evolved the ability to catalyze reactions leading to self-replication. After sustaining itself through several replications, the RNA would then need to gain the ability to create a barrier between the extraneous materials surrounding it, in order to isolate the beneficial products from those proving non-functional. Thus, a membrane of sorts would have had to evolve and be maintained (Müller, 63:1285-1286). These steps are only the basics, proving the task much too complicated to occur by mere chance.

In all known organisms living today, DNA and not RNA is the genetic material. DNA has advantages over RNA which make it a more suitable molecule to store the very important genetic code. First, DNA is a double-stranded molecule while RNA is single-stranded. The double-stranded nature of DNA gives it the ability to be replicated in a much simpler series of steps. When DNA is replicated, each of the two complimentary strands serves as a template on which to build another strand. The result is that in one step, each strand of DNA is replicated to produce four total DNA strands or two identical double helices. RNA, however, is single-stranded. In order for it to be replicated, two sequential rounds of replication would be required. First, a complimentary strand would need to be synthesized from the original parental strand. Only then could that new complimentary strand be used to re-make the parental strand. As stated before, DNA and RNA differ in the sugar which makes up the molecule’s backbone. Deoxyribose, the sugar used in DNA, differs from ribose used in RNA, by lacking one organic functional group known as alcohol. The absence of this alcohol group greatly increases the stability of DNA over RNA. In ribonucleic acids, this
–OH group is capable of initiating chemical reactions which favor breakdown of the RNA molecule. For these and other reasons, DNA is a much more stable and preferable genetic material. This is made obvious by the fact that all living organisms use DNA, not RNA, as their permanent storage medium of genetic information. It also indicates that RNA would be an unsuitable medium by which to initiate life.

Evolutionists would have us to believe that non-living elements and molecules joined together and developed increasing biological capabilities. Those who believe in intelligent design reject this hypothesis, insisting that neither RNA nor living cells are able to evolve spontaneously. While some disagreement exists among those in the evolutionary community on the time frame for such alleged reactions to occur, the consensus is that, given large amounts of time, single-celled bacteria were formed. But all known biological principles militate against this notion. Even billions of years could not provide mechanisms for the reaction products to evolve advantageous characteristics and form DNA and cell proteins, let alone create strings of RNA nucleotides, arriving at just the right sequence in order to code for a functional protein. The four nucleotide bases that form RNA (adenine, guanine, cytosine, and uracil) can be arranged in an exponential array of combinations and lengths. For an actual, functional protein to be coded, a precise sequence of nucleotides must be obtained. Forming the code for even one protein by evolutionary means is impossible, without even considering the necessity of the number that work together in a single cell.

There is no scientific evidence to suggest that RNA is spontaneously being created and capable of forming pre-cellular life today. While some artificial ribozymes have been created in the laboratory (reviewed in Chen, et al., 2007), there are still significant holes in reproducing an RNA world to support the hypothesis. The ribozymes created artificially lack the abilities to sufficiently process themselves, and there is no evidence of them producing large quantities of advantageous nucleotide sequences. Moreover, no system has ever created cellular life. There is even significant debate among scientists over the conditions and constituents of a “prebiotic Earth” model.

The RNA World Hypothesis is simply another attempt by scientists to explain the origin of life to the exclusion of the divine Creator. Given the absolute impossibility of life originating from the reactions of non-living matter, it can be justified that RNA did not predate other biological molecules. All biological molecules were created together to work in concert. RNA was designed to be the essential intermediate between DNA and proteins, making our cells capable of sustaining life as it was created. The designer of this system must be the intelligent Designer, the God of the Bible.

REFERENCES
Alberts, Bruce, et al. (2002), Molecular Biology of the Cell (Oxford: Garland Science).

Chen, Xi, et al. (2007), “Ribozyme Catalysis of Metabolism in the RNA World,” Chemistry and Biodiversity, 4:633-656.

Fedor, Martha and James Williamson (2005), “The Catalytic Diversity of RNAs,” Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology, 6(5):399-412.

Gilbert, Walter (1986), “The RNA World,” Nature, 319:618.

Kruger, Kelly, et al. (1982), “Self-splicing RNA: Autoexcision and Autocyclization of the Ribosomal RNA Intervening Sequence of Tetrahymena,” Cell, 31(1):147-57.

Müller, U.F. (2006), “Re-creating an RNA World,” Cellular and Molecular Life Science, 63:1278-1293.

Nissen, Poul, et al. (2000), “The Structural Basis of Ribosome Activity in Peptide Bond Synthesis,” Science, 289:920-930.

Valadkhan, Saba and James Manley (2001), “Splicing-related Catalysis by Protein-free snRNAs,” Nature, 6857:701-707.





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

What is a Deist?

This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240126

AP Content :: Bible Bullets

Was Thomas Jefferson a Deist?
by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


The propaganda that has been spouted incessantly since the 1960s is that the Founders of the American Republic were deists. Deism is currently defined as: “The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation” (American Heritage..., 2000, p. 479). This assessment of the Founders’ beliefs is so thoroughly embedded in societal consensus that the one who questions it is immediately discounted as an ignorant fool.

Thomas Jefferson is one of the Founders typically singled out as a deist. Apart from the fact that only a very small handful of the Founders might be legitimately styled “deists”—with the overwhelming majority of the Founders being believers in the God of the Bible and the validity of the Christian religion—it is interesting that Jefferson never actually claimed to be a deist. In fact, quite the opposite is the case. He explicitly claimed to be a Christian. Granted, his writings indicate that he doubted the deity of Christ; nevertheless, he identified himself very clearly with the precepts of Jesus.

Several proofs of this fact are available to the objective appraiser of history. For example, in a letter written from Washington, to prominent Founder Dr. Benjamin Rush, on April 21, 1803, Jefferson explained:

Dear Sir, In some of the delightful conversations with you, in the evenings of 1798-99, and which served as an anodyne to the afflictions of the crisis through which our country was then laboring, the Christian religion was sometimes our topic; and I then promised you, that one day or other, I would give you my views of it. They are the result of a life of inquiry & reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other (1803, emp. added).

Observe that Jefferson insisted that those who accused him of being anti-Christian simply did not know his actual views. In a letter to a longtime friend, Charles Thomson, on January 9, 1816, Jefferson affirmed:

I, too, have made a wee-little book from the same materials, which I call the Philosophy of Jesus; it is a paradigma of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw (1816, emp. added).

Based on these two quotations, it is evident that some, perhaps most, of Jefferson’s negativity toward Christianity was, in fact, simply revulsion for the perversions and corruptions of true Christianity. Another proof of this point is seen in Jefferson’s letter to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse on June 26, 1822:

The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man. 1. That there is one only God, and he all perfect. 2. That there is a future state of rewards and punishments. 3. That to love God with all thy heart, and they neighbor as thyself is the sum of religion. These are the great points on which he endeavored to reform the religion of the Jews. But compare with these the demoralizing dogmas of Calvin: 1. That there are three Gods; 2. That good works, or the love of our neighbor are nothing; 3. That faith is everything, and the more incomprehensible the proposition, the more merit in its faith; 4. That reason in religion is of unlawful use; 5. That God, from the beginning, elected certain individuals to be saved, and certain others to be damned; and that no crimes of the former can damn them, and no virtues of the latter save. Now which of these is the true and charitable Christian? He, who believes and acts on the simple doctrines of Jesus? or the impious dogmatists of Athanasius and Calvin? Verily I say that these are the false shepherds foretold as to enter not by the door into the sheepfold but to climb up some other way. They are mere usurpers of the Christian name, teaching a counter-religion made up of the deliria of crazy imaginations, as foreign from Christianity as is that of Mahomet. Their blasphemies have driven thinking men into infidelity who have too hastily rejected the supposed Author himself with the horrors so falsely imputed to him. Had the doctrines of Jesus been preached always as purely as they came from his lips, the whole civilized world would now have been Christian (1822, emp. added).

Regardless of how one feels about Jefferson’s ardent repudiation of Calvinism and the concept of the Trinity, it is nevertheless evident that Jefferson portrayed himself as one who praised Jesus and embraced the basic doctrines of Christianity.

The fact is that, like most of the Founders, Jefferson believed that Christianity was the best system of morality on which to situate the Republic. In a chapter titled, “The Influence of Judaism and Christianity on the American Founding,” Michael Novak relates an account by Ethan Allen who reported a conversation that took place during Jefferson’s presidency. While on his way to church one Sunday morning, he met a friend who questioned his religious convictions. Jefferson retorted: “No nation has ever yet existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has ever been given to man and I as chief Magistrate of this nation am bound to give it the sanction of my example” (2000, p. 159). Novak observed that Jefferson believed that Christianity “is crucial to the American Republic...and gave biblical Christianity public support. His letters show that he also believed in a divine Judge and, provisionally, in eternal life” (p. 179; cf. Gaustad, 1996). This same attitude is further manifested in a letter Jefferson wrote to James Fishback on September 27, 1809:

The practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, He [the Creator] has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses (1809, emp. added).

Thomas Jefferson was certainly one of the least religious of the Founders of the American Republic. Yet, these few allusions demonstrate that even he regarded Christianity and the doctrines of Jesus Christ to be indispensable to the founding and perpetuation of the nation. That is the salient point. Those who throw up “deist” and other aspersions in an attempt to denigrate the role Christianity played in the founding of America, deserve the same epithet that Jefferson directed toward those of his detractors who misrepresented his views, which, he insisted, were “very different from that anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions.”

REFERENCES
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2000), (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin), fourth edition.

Gaustad, Edwin (1996), Sworn on the Altar of God: A Religious Biography of Thomas Jefferson (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Jefferson, Thomas (1803), “Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803, with Syllabus of an Estimate of the Merit of the Doctrines of Jesus, with Copies,” The Thomas Jefferson Papers Series 1. General Correspondence. 1651-1827, Library of Congress, [On-line], URL: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mtj1&fileName=mtj1page028.db&recNum=190&itemLink=%2Fammem%2Fcollections%2Fjefferson_papers%2Fmtjser1.html&linkText=6. Also: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006656.jpg.

Jefferson, Thomas (1809), “Thomas Jefferson James Fishback, September 27, 1809,” The Thomas Jefferson Papers Series 1. General Correspondence. 1651-1827, Library of Congress, [On-line], URL: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mtj1&fileName=mtj1page044.db&recNum=269&itemLink=/ammem/ collections/jefferson_papers/ mtjser1.html&linkText=7& tempFile=./temp/~ammem_8A8E&filecode=mtj&prev_filecode=mtj&itemnum=2& ndocs=2.

Jefferson, Thomas (1816), “Thomas Jefferson to Charles Thomson, January 9, 1816,” The Thomas Jefferson Papers Series 1. General Correspondence. 1651-1827, Library of Congress, [On-line], URL: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/P?mtj:36:./temp/~ammem_KbiS::.

Jefferson, Thomas (1822), “Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waterhouse, June 26, 1822,” The Thomas Jefferson Papers Series 1. General Correspondence. 1651-1827, Library of Congress, [On-line], URL: http://memory.loc.gov/ cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mtj1&fileName=mtj1page053. db&recNum=252&itemLink=/ammem/collections/ jefferson_papers/mtjser1.html&linkText= 7&tempFile=./temp/~ammem_Wd8k&filecode= mtj&next_filecode=mtj&prev_filecode=mtj&itemnum=14&ndocs=59.

Novak, Michael (2000), “The Influence of Judaism and Christianity on the American Founding,” in Religion and the New Republic: Faith in the Founding of America, ed. James H. Hutson (Rowman & Littlefield), [On-line], URL: http://books.google.com/books? hl=en& id=YwW_g8qr68MC&dq= james+hutson+religion+founding& printsec=frontcover&source= web&ots=5Jcv1w_HPg& sig=LTl2mt1beTOrfAboUcU2igSnTHg& sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum= 1&ct=result#PPA159,M1.





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

Copyright © 2009 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Bible Bullets" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org

A Coherent Definition of God

A Coherent Definition of a God
by Kyle Butt, M.A.


Renowned atheistic spokesperson, Dan Barker, has been debating the existence of God for over two decades. One of his favorite assertions is that no one can coherently define God. Since, he claims, no one can define God, we should conclude that there is an extremely high probability that God does not exist. In my debate with him on God’s existence, two minutes and four seconds into his opening speech, he stated: “There’s no coherent definition of a God. How can we debate something that we can’t even define? God is defined as a spirit, but what is that?” He admitted that this argument does not disprove God, but he claimed that it makes the idea of God so unlikely and improbable that we should simply “round up” and disbelieve in God (Butt and Barker, 2009).

As with many of Barker’s other statements, his “no coherent definition” idea is simply an assertion that seems plausible only until it is critically analyzed in light of sound reasoning. First, God can be defined in such a way that brilliant men and women for thousands of years have been able to intelligently discuss God’s attributes, existence, and qualities? In fact, the vast majority of standard dictionaries give a working definition that most third-graders understand. For instance, the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary gives the following definition for “God”: 1. “the supreme or ultimate reality: as a: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe” (2009). The American Heritage Dictionary’s primary definition of “God” is: “1. God a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions” (2000, p. 753). Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, a massive volume of almost 3,000 pages, defines “God” as: “the supreme or ultimate reality: the Deity variously conceived in theology, philosophy, and popular religion: as a (1): the holy, infinite, and eternal spiritual reality presented in the Bible as the creator, sustainer, judge, righteous sovereign, and redeemer of the universe who acts with power in history carrying out his purpose...” (1993, p. 973).

So coherent, in fact, is the definition of God that it is absent from books such as The New York Times’ Everyday Reader’s Dictionary of Misunderstood, Misused, Mispronounced Words (1972). The term “God” is defined in every major dictionary, it is absent from the books that compile words that are difficult to understand, and the term has been used in meaningful conversation for thousands of years since the dawn of humanity. In order for a person to say that God cannot be coherently defined, he would need to change the meanings of the words “coherent” or “defined.” The fact that the term “God” is included in this article, and the reader can differentiate it from all the other concepts and terms being discussed, goes a long way to proving that the term can be meaningfully defined.

But let us dig deeper into Barker’s assertion and deal with another idea he presents. Barker has a problem with the term “spirit,” and he claims that no one knows exactly what a spirit is. Thus, he suggests, God cannot be something that no one can explain. In answer to Barker’s assertion, we could simply give another list of dictionary definitions of the word “spirit.” The Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary gives several meanings of the word, including: “1: an animating or vital principle held to give life to physical organisms” or “4: the immaterial intelligent or sentient part of a person” (2009). A lengthy list of dictionary definitions would most likely bore the reader, but it would show that the term “spirit” is used in common parlance, easily understood, and discussed.

The idea that Barker seems to be presenting, then, is not that people have a difficult time defining or discussing terms like “God” or “spirit.” Barker seems to be indicating that since everybody’s definition of a “spirit” is not identical, and since we do not know everything about a “spirit,” then the concept must be unproductive. Of course, if we eliminate all the concepts that we do not unanimously agree upon or that we do not completely understand, our discussions would be extremely limited. For instance, in Richard Dawkins’ book The Selfish Gene, Dawkins attempted to define the word “gene,” but he noted: “My definition will not be to everyone’s taste, but there is no universally agreed definition of gene” (2006, p. 28, emp. added). Charles Darwin himself, when discussing the term “species” (which term was in the title of his most famous book) wrote: “Nor shall I here discuss the various definitions which have been given of the term species. No one definition has satisfied all naturalists; yet every naturalist knows vaguely what he means when he speaks of a species” (1860, p. 38, emp. added). Quotes like these two could be multiplied and are sufficient to show that there need not be unanimous agreement about a term in order for it to have meaning.

Furthermore, it would be impossible to limit our vocabulary to concepts that are completely and fully understood. Can we use words that describe things that we do not totally understand? Indeed, not only is it permissible, but it is commonly practiced by all. For instance, in his book, The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins stated: “Nobody has yet invented the mathematics for describing the total structure and behaviour of such an object as a physicist, or even of one of his cells. What we can do is understand some of the general principles of how living things work, and why they exist at all” (1996, p. 3, emp. added). Notice that Dawkins admits that we cannot fully understand and describe a single cell, but that does not stop us from defining its generalities and using them to discuss the concept of a “cell.” In Robert Hazen’s series, Origins of Life, he has an entire lecture titled “What is Life?” In that lecture, he attempted to define the term “life,” but he noted that he had seen at least 48 definitions, “Yet, remarkably, no two definitions are the same” (2005, p. 49). He further stated: “As you can imagine, scientists crave an unambiguous definition of life. Such a definition remains elusive” (p. 50). Hazen quipped that many scientists are “loath to draw too narrow a definition [of life—KB] in our present state of ignorance” (p. 51, emp. added); “I would argue that scientists in the early 21st century are in the same boat [as those in the 18th century—KB]—no position to define life.... To summarize this lecture, there is no simple answer to the question, ‘What is life?’” (p. 58). Using Barker’s line of reasoning in light of Dr. Hazen’s lecture on life, there must be no such thing as life, since we do not have a definition upon which all scientists agree. As you can see, such a conclusion is irrational. Furthermore, Barker and the scientific community have no qualms discussing ideas such as dark matter, dark energy, and black holes, even though these concepts cannot be accurately defined.

DEFINING “SPIRIT” POSITIVELY
In the cross-examination section of our debate, Barker asked me what a spirit is. I stated that a spirit is a “non-physical, incorporeal mind.” He responded by saying, “But that doesn’t answer the question. You told us what it is not. You said it is non-corporeal, non-physical. But positively, what is a spirit?” (2009). Notice that my definition included the positive concept of a spirit being a mind. Barker conveniently focused on the words “non-physical” and “incorporeal,” but intentionally ignored the definition of spirit as a mind. Barker refuses to deal with the concept of an immaterial mind because he is a materialist. In his debate with Peter Payne, Barker stated: “We are natural creatures. The natural world is all there is” (2005). What Barker means by the term “natural” is: “composed of physical matter.” His atheistic philosophy will not allow him to admit that there is anything other than matter. This false, materialistic assumption is his fundamental problem with the term “spirit.” It has been shown extensively and definitely, however, that humans possess an immaterial, rational mind that cannot be relegated to mere physical matter (see Harrub and Thompson, 2004; Thompson and Harrub, 2004). The mere fact that you can read, comprehend, analyze, and assess Barker’s assertion proves that something immaterial is at play.

Incidentally, Barker’s assertion that negative terms cannot be used to give positive meaning to something is vacuous. In his book godless, Barker gives a lengthy definition of what he believes the term “atheism” means. He stated: “It turns out that atheism means much less than I had thought. It is merely the lack of theism. It is not a philosophy of life and it offers no value.... [T]o be an atheist, you don’t need any positive philosophy at all.... Basic atheism is not a belief” (p. 98, emp. added, italics in orig.). According to Barker, atheism can be defined in purely negative terms without offering a single positive concept, the very thing he accuses those who define “spirit” of doing.

Furthermore, in answering his question during the cross-examination, I mentioned two words, darkness and cold, that are often understood in negative terms. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines darkness as: “1 a: devoid or partially devoid of light: not receiving, reflecting, transmitting, or radiating light” (2009, emp. added). Even though “darkness” is defined in negative terms as the absence of light, there is no doubt that darkness exists.

CONCLUSION
God is the uncaused, all-powerful, all-knowing, merciful, gracious, eternal Spirit whose personality and attributes are manifested in the pages of the Bible. Virtually every dictionary gives an understandable and reasonable definition of God, books that deal with difficult words omit God, and God has been the main subject of discussion and study of the vast majority of the most brilliant thinkers for millennia. The rhetorical tactic suggesting that God cannot be defined is nothing more than an assertion based on a materialistic philosophy that is unfounded. In truth, God can be clearly defined and delineated from all other entities to such an extent that Dan Barker and I can be involved in a formal debate and both know exactly what (or rather Who) we are discussing—God, the God of the Bible.

REFERENCES
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2000), (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin), fourth edition.

Barker, Dan and Peter Payne (2005), Does Ethics Require God? [On-line], URL: http://www.ffrf.org/about/bybarker/ethics_debate.php.

Barker, Dan (2008), godless (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press).

Butt, Kyle and Dan Barker (2009), Does the God of the Bible Exist? (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Darwin, Charles (1860), On the Origin of Species By Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life (New York: The Modern Library), second edition.

Dawkins, Richard (1996), The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton).

Dawkins, Richard (2006), The Selfish Gene (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 30th Anniversary Edition.

Harrub, Brad and Bert Thompson (2004), “The Origin of the Brain and Mind—Parts 1 & 2,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1.

Hazen, Robert (2005), Origins of Life(Chantilly, VA: The Teaching Company).

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (2009), [On-line], URL: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary.

The New York Times Everyday Reader’s Dictionary of Misunderstood, Misused, Mispronounced Words (1972), ed. Laurence Urdang, (New York: Weathervane Books).

Thompson, Bert and Brad Harrub (2004), “The Origin of Consciousness—Parts 1 & 2,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/498.

Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1993), (Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster).





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

Copyright © 2009 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Darwin Day Debate" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org