Category: Books
The Case For A Creator
Written by Lance Ponder
Thursday, 13 March 2008 04:02
4 Comments

Book Overview: Part I

The following is an overview of The Case For A Creator by Lee Strobel. I call it an overview rather than a review because I’m not so much stating what I think of it as I am putting it into my own words. Before continuing further I want the reader to be aware that while I am condensing and paraphrasing the key points raised by Mr. Strobel, I do not share all of his views. For example, although Mr. Strobel does not come right out and say it, when reading his book it becomes obvious he does not take the Genesis account of 6-days as literal and he does not accept the biblical plain text interpretation of a “young earth” with human history extending back a mere 6000 years. In spite of this and other less significant differences of opinion, the book made numerous excellent points which should aide anyone in defending faith in the Divine Creator.

How has Evolution come to be assumed as fact?

There are several simple forms of evidence offered as proof of evolution. The evidence can be very compelling. Evolution, once taught as theory, is today taught as fact in most public schools in the United States and much of the rest of the Western world. Once these proofs are properly presented to confirm the assumed fact of evolution, the student is then led to trust evolution to be at the basis of all other areas of science. In a society where children are taught evolution as a fact, it should not be surprising most higher education and professional organizations dismiss dissenters out of hand. With most of today’s adult population accepting evolution, there are too few people with the conviction to stand against it. Also, the scientific community is highly prejudiced and tries to mute any from within their own ranks who would oppose the naturalist culture.

What is the most popular evidence for Evolution?

Proof 1: We can create life from non-life in a lab. In 1953 Stanley Miller, with the help of Harold Urey, reproduced an artificial atmosphere to simulate early earth conditions, put the right soup components into that atmosphere, then applied electricity. The result was the spontaneous organization of organic molecules.

Proof 2: Darwin’s sketch of the “tree of life” proves a similarity of kinds. From common ancestry animal life sprung up and branched out in many directions resulting in a multitude of kinds. The tree idea is reinforced with associated sketches showing similarity of kinds along any given branch. This is done by showing various kinds of primates, for example, arranged by size and body structure. It can likewise be shown with similar fish, frogs, or even snakes.

Proof 3: Embryos look alike. German biologist Ernst Haeckel produced drawings of embryos of various dissimilar animals appearing very similar at their earliest stage of development. Since life forms start out looking very similar, they must in fact be very similar.

Proof 4: The missing links have been and are being found. To evolutionary paleontologists, perhaps the most important find appearing to fill the missing gap between bird and reptile is archaeopteryx, first discovered in a German quarry. The fossils of this creature show wings, feathers, and the wishbone of a bird, but with a lizard-like tail and claws on its wings. Along the same lines are other missing links such as Java Man, archeoraptor, and bambiraptor.

Refuting the Miller experiment

Since this experiment was of a scientific nature, it is perhaps the easiest to refute. The experiment was based on bad science and the results were presented as bad science. The basis of the experiment was the premise that the atmosphere of the early earth was somewhat different. The atmosphere assumed for the experiment was made up of methane and ammonia. Scientists almost universally agree that earth’s atmosphere, no matter how far back in time, could never have been primarily methane and ammonia. Even if it were, the resulting spontaneous molecules generated by passing an electric charge through the atmosphere were not the building blocks of life. To say the molecules were organic does not imply life or even the building blocks of life. Rather, it implies carbon-based chemicals. The organic chemicals created were actually cyanide and formaldehyde. These chemicals not only are not building blocks of life, they are deadly to life, as is the atmosphere they come from. Miller literally created embalming fluid.

Refuting the tree of life sketch

There are many ways to tear apart this evidence, but to use evolutionary science against itself, there are a handful of important considerations. Darwin’s theory presupposes the slow increase of organic order. Paleontologists have determined that rather than a slow increase in diversity of complex creatures, the Cambrian explosion requires a nearly simultaneous appearance of huge numbers of diverse animals about 540 million years ago. To compensate, the tree must instead become more of a bunch of bushes. The distinct gaps between kinds present a huge problem requiring links which are missing.

The science of taxonomy is branch of biological science which codifies the distinctions between kinds. It’s the branch that explains differences between species, kingdoms, genus, and so forth. The very ability to distinguish distinct gaps between kinds, both in living animals and in the fossil record, in itself, refutes the premise of evolution. Dating methods present a form of circular logic. Rocks are dated based primarily on fossil content. Certain types of fossils, called index fossils, are the primary instruments used for dating. Fossil layers, which is to say rock placement, in turn establishes relative fossil age.

Finally, look at Darwin’s own book, Origin of Species, and consider the very requirements Darwin himself puts forward for his theory to be validated. In 1859 the minutia within a living cell was unimagined. We know today there are thousands of amino acids, DNA, RNA, and all sorts of very specialized molecular structures, which are, in and of themselves, more complex than many complicated man-made machines.

Editor's Note: View Part II 

 
Harry Potter: Ultimate truth through myth and symbolism
Written by Chad Phillips
Tuesday, 24 July 2007 11:47
1 Comment

Editor's note: The following piece was first published in November of 2005. A revised version later appeared in the "Op-Ed" section of The Corydon Democrat, a weekly newspaper in the Southern Indiana area. With the release of the latest movie in the Potter series, and the allegedly final installment of the series in book form, I decided to bring this commentary out of mothballs. ENJOY!

By Chad Phillips
MTW contributing writer

Someone much older and wiser than me once said, The River of truth runs between the banks of two extremes. This seems a fitting analogy for a debate which continues ironically enough between evangelical Christians. That debate centers around the popular series of Harry Potter books by author J.K. Rowling. The latest movie adaptation from the series was released in November, and my instincts tell me it will renew the controversy.

The brief treatment which follows is an attempt to shed some light on the discussion. I also wanted to draw out some of the inconsistencies which arise from the often myopic explorations of well meaning Christians who are both the victims and the perpetrators of friendly fire in the war over Harry Potter.

This is essentially an in house debate. I fully understand the reluctance of some Christians to embrace the books as a matter of conscience and religious ideology. But I want to emphasize that this need not be something which divides us. Even in my own church there are people who disagree with me on this issue, and I do consider them friends as well as family in the body of Christ.

Before getting into it, I have something to say to my Christian brethren out there. If you havent read any of the books or seen the movies, dont send me any hate mail until you do. Far too many of us have taken a position on this subject without so much as a glance at the material. Examine the books for yourself; then decide.

So why is it that in Christian circles people are up in arms at the mention of Harry Potter? The simple answer is the Biblical mandate against witchcraft. The logic goes something like this. Harry Potter is a wizard who attends Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Witchcraft is explicitly forbidden in the Bible. Since Harry as the protagonist of the story uses witchcraft, it follows that these stories encourage its use, and perhaps would lure the impressionable mind of a child into the occult.

Furthermore, since the books seem to be aimed at children, the fact that they get darker with each installment is not very comforting to Christians intent on raising their children with a Biblical paradigm. Beyond that, I will point out that given what I know so far about these stories, I am much more concerned about the increasingly violent nature of subsequent volumes of HP than I am about anything else I see modeled therein.

So perhaps as Christians we are wise to be cautious of Harry Potter. If the premises of the critics are true, we could rest here with nothing more to say on the issue. However, a big part of me believes this view may be ever so slightly alarmist, for several reasons. 1. We underestimate the power of the word of God to equip the mind and spirit of a child. 2. We confuse style with substance, and 3. As a general rule we tend to make our decisions about such things based on opinions of others, as opposed to doing our own research.

My own opinion comes by way of taking a hard look at witchcraft from the Biblical perspective as well as that of secular history. I also examined the arguments of those on both sides of this debate. Finally, first hand exposure to the books and the movies that have followed have really rounded out my perspective. Though, having actually analyzed only two installments myself, I can hardly be considered an expert on the subject. All I can do is tell you what I've discovered thus far in my own journey. Certainly, as more information comes to light concerning these stories, it will be brought to bare on this writer's perspective. To my surprise, what I've found so far is that these stories are chock full of (believe it or not) medieval Christian symbolism and real life situations illustrating moral absolutes.

Some years ago, philosopher Author Holmes wrote a book in which he states, all truth is Gods truth wherever it be found. And in Rowlings books we dont just encounter darkness, but the light of transcendent truth. These stories illustrate moral truth as an absolute embodied in the concepts of good and evil. Rowling also does an excellent job showing us the consequences of choosing one or the other. Therefore, it seems to me that to dismiss these stories without a closer look at their moral implications is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

It was Dostoyevsky who declared that If there is no God, then all things are permissible. This is a significant insight because the fact that moral absolutes are taught in the series implies an ultimate foundation for truth and therefore an ultimate authorship for it. Without an ultimate foundation for moral truth there can be no right or wrong, no good or evil. Things just are.

To illustrate this, theres a scene in the screen play, Harry Potter and the Sorcerers Stone, where Harry has to choose between helping the man who is the very personification of evil, (Lord Voldemort) or standing his ground to fight him. Harrys dilemma is moral. He can choose evil by helping Voldemort or he can stand up to him and probably loose his life in the process. As Harry ponders his decision, Voldemort says the following words, There is no good and evil. There is only powerand those too weak to seek it. Harrys response is to reject Voldemort and his postmodern world view by calling him a liar and standing his ground to fight the good fight. The point, which cannot be ignored, is that in selecting a paradigm embodying moral absolutes as Rowling has done implies an ultimate moral law, and therefore an ultimate law giver. Such constructs cannot exist without a supreme deity. People in general, and Christians in particular know that deity as God.

But what of the charge that Harry Potter promotes or teaches witchcraft in defiance of scripture? Christian author John Grainger will help us answer this question. He has written eloquently on the subject and points out a critical distinction between the magic used as a backdrop in the Harry Potter series, and the magic or sorcery prohibited in scripture. In the case of the former, the magic used by both the good guys and the bad guys in the series is incantational. This particular brand of magic has its roots in European literary works of fantasy. This is the stuff of pretend.

Contrariwise, invocational magic rendered sorcery or witchcraft in the scripture involves the conjuring of spirits or demons to manipulate people, objects, and circumstances. So there is a significant dichotomy between both incantational and invocational magic. Where the latter is factual, the former is fantasy.

An additional problem I see with some critics of the series is logical inconsistency. Ive found that some of same people who think Harry Potter is evil have no problem with other literary works of the same genre. The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, The Chronicles of Narnia, and Shakespeares The Tempest all fall into this category.

Perhaps the coup de gras of the whole debate though, is that even the Bible describes a witch conducting a sance for King Saul (1Samuel 28). Should we bar reading that passage because somebody might take an unhealthy interest in the occult? Of course not. So then to be logically consistent, those who censure the Potter series must also censure other literary works incorporating the same subject matter.

What is fundamentally at issue for me as a Christian is the relationship between the actions of people, and the resulting consequences of those actions exemplified in these stories. Our preoccupation with that cause and effect relationship might even explain our fascination with literature incorporating these ideas. For we never seem to tire of mythic concepts like the battle between good and evil, and the Biblical principle of reaping what we sow.

These notions are not exclusive to the Potter series and necessitate a reexamination of self in the light of Gods transcendent truth. Therefore I believe that a moderated approach to these books as well as others from the same genre can provide teachable moments with our children. They remind us of the bitterness of poor choices and the sweetness of wise ones. And they help us to reconnect with something mysterious which weve lost in the age we live inthe power of archetypal myths and the all but lost language of symbolism hardwired into our very being.

 
This week’s ‘Thank you’ goes to Dan Brown
Written by Chad Phillips
Friday, 06 July 2007 05:01
1 Comment

By Chad Phillips
MTW contributing writer

In late May and through June of 2006 I wrote a series of articles critiquing the source material for Dan Brown's book, The Da Vinci Code. What I remember most of all about the experience was my disdain for Brown, a man who, in my opinion, undermined a lot of people's faith with his novel and who probably gave many others another excuse NOT to believe in the Christ of faith/history. In particular I felt that Brown had deliberately misrepresented Christianity because he realized in doing so he could profit from it.

Well, it's amazing the perspective one can gain in a year. I now realize that I really should be thanking Dan Brown for his attack on the faith. That's right, thanking him. Let's face it, Brown's book will make you better or bitter. Those who took Brown's claims at face value weren't enlightened by it's contents because they never bothered to check Brown's claims against the facts, which is unfortunate. Some of those people were believers who after reading Brown's book lost their faith. But I must ask, if it hadn't been Brown, wouldn't someone or something else have done the job? And let's be realistic, for those whose minds are sufficiently closed to the gospel anyway, Brown's novel just gave them another excuse NOT to believe in the Christ of faith/history.

What about those of us who had the audacity to question Brown's research and do some fact checking? Well, our faith was actually strengthened. Brown's attack on Christianity forced us to go deeper in order to answer the questions and fabrications raised in his novel.

Also, many people, for the first time began to inquire about Christianity. Brown's novel piqued the curiosity of seekers who wanted to know more about this man named Jesus and I think that's pretty awesome.

It is, then, with a certain amount of ambivalence that this week's "thank you" goes to Dan Brown.