Barrios line the hills
Barrio homes stacked upon each other 
Me with barrio homes in the background
Some of our team that live in the barrios day in and day out
Monday, April 24, 2006
Welcome to Venezuela
I arrived in Caracas Venezuela late last night. I'm here to work with our teams working with the poor in the barrios as well as helping our staff transition to Venezuelan led leadership. The barrios of Caracas fill the hills. Communities are filled with generations of families that never leave the barrio. Millions of people only know life like this. (Click on a photo to enlarge).
Barrios line the hills
Barrio homes stacked upon each other
Me with barrio homes in the background
Barrios line the hillsBarrio homes stacked upon each other Me with barrio homes in the background
Sunday, April 16, 2006
Happy Easter!
I just wanted to wish you a Happy Easter.I hope you take a moment today to reflect how Jesus' pure love for you is what enabled him to face the cross head on. His desire to give you an opportunity to come to God (which his death provided) gave him the strength to go through the most grusome type of execution known to man.
If you have questions or doubts about whether or not the resurrection actually took place, I'd encourage you to scroll down this page and look at my series of posts from March 30, 2005 through May 10, 2005 or click on the links below.
Did Jesus Really Rise From The Dead? - Introduction
Did Jesus Really Rise From The Dead? - Factors Increasing Reliability
Did Jesus Really Rise From The Dead? - The Empty Tomb Part 1
Did Jesus Really Rise From The Dead? - The Empty Tomb Part 2
Did Jesus Really Rise From The Dead? - The Empty Tomb Part 3
Did Jesus Really Rise From The Dead? - The Appearances
Did Jesus Really Rise From The Dead? - Dying For A Cause
Did Jesus Really Rise From The Dead? - Alternative Views
Did Jesus Really Rise From The Dead? - Conclusion
May the Lord richely bless you this Easter!
Monday, April 10, 2006
Jesus Walked on Ice? (part 2)
<--- Modern Day Sea of GalileeSince some of you may not be familiar with the story of Jesus walking on the water, I will start this post by looking at the biblical account first. The story of Jesus walking on the water can be found in three of the four gospels. It is recorded in John 6:16-21, Mark 6:45-52, and Matthew 14:22-33. Since the account in Matthew has the most detail, I will use it as my base passage.
"Immediately Jesus made the disciples get into the boat and go on ahead of him to the other side, while he dismissed the crowd. After he had dismissed them, he went up on a mountainside by himself to pray. When evening came, he was there alone, but the boat was already a considerable distance from land, buffeted by the waves because the wind was against it. During the fourth watch of the night Jesus went out to them, walking on the lake. When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. "It's a ghost," they said, and cried out in fear. But Jesus immediately said to them: "Take courage! It is I. Don't be afraid." "Lord, if it's you," Peter replied, "tell me to come to you on the water." "Come," he said. Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, "Lord, save me!" Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. "You of little faith," he said, "why did you doubt?" And when they climbed into the boat, the wind died down. Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God."
- Matthew 14:22-33
The Sea of Galilee is 650 feet below sea level, 145 feet deep and surrounded by hills. These physical features make it subject to sudden windstorms that cause massive waves.
Okay, so let me paint the picture for you. Earlier in the evening Jesus sent the disciples on ahead out to sea while he stayed back to pray. Now it’s roughly four o’clock in the morning and there’s a boat full of experienced fishermen out about 3 ½ miles from shore. They are tired from a long night out at sea and then the storm comes in. Because of the geographical features of this sea, fierce winds pick up and massive waves begin crashing around the boat. Verse 24 states that the wind was so strong that the boat couldn’t move against it.
Are you picturing this scene?
For arguments sake, let’s set aside that Jesus, as God incarnate obviously would have the ability to control the laws of nature (after all, he created them). Let’s bring Nof’s theory of ice on the Sea of Galilee into the picture and see what that looks like.
So how is it Jesus, in his sandals and robe, manages to maintain his balance on a piece of floating ice, through a storm fierce enough to hold back a fishing boat full of experienced fishermen, for 3 ½ miles? Have you ever walked on a frozen pond or an ice skating rink without ice skates? It’s incredibly difficult to do even under the best of conditions. I would argue that it would be impossible for a man to do what Jesus did, under the conditions argued by Nof.
But let’s look deeper. In verse 29 we see that Peter wanted to join Jesus on the water. After an invitation by Jesus, Peter gets out of the boat, and walks to Jesus. After a few moments Peter realizes the ferocity of the storm, and takes his focus off of Jesus and onto the waves around him and subsequently begins to sink.
Of course this raises questions for me. If Peter was on ice, why did he begin to sink? Furthermore, if there truly was ice on the water, wouldn’t Peter or the other disciples be able to see it as he readied himself over the edge? Wouldn’t one of them be able to counter Jesus’ apparent miracle with an eyewitness account of floating ice? Yet we have no hint that that happened.
Obviously Nof takes none of this into consideration. His biased approach of supporting his predetermined conclusion leaves no room for critical analysis or plain old common sense.
Coming from a background in law enforcement, I tend to put a lot more weight on eyewitness testimony than I do any other form of evidence. In analyzing this journal article, whether I look at problems with the study, or problems that arise when compared with the biblical account, I am left with one definitive and critical question: If Jesus was doing nothing more than merely surfing on a piece of ice, than why did all of the disciples worship him saying ‘Truly you are the son of God’”?
Jesus Walked on Ice? (part 1)
<---- Current Location of the Sea of Galilee (AKA Lake Kinneret)[click on photo to enlarge]
There is a new study out by Florida State University Professor Doron Nof in the April edition of the Journal of Paleolimnology. The study claims Jesus didn’t walk on water, rather an obscure and rare storm caused part of the Sea of Galilee to freeze, enabling him to walk on ice. Once I was able to stop laughing at the absurdity of this statement, I decided to investigate it for myself and I actually read through the article. (For those of you without access to the journal, you can checkout a news article about it by CLICKING HERE.)
As I began to read the article, I realized that there were some major problems with Professor Nof’s arguments. For ease of reading, I decided to categorize these flaws into two different categories: problems with the study and problems when compared to the biblical text.
My first problem with this study is that it’s speculative and just plain bad science. Professor Nof started his study as a witch-hunt. With a reputation for developing theories of natural causes to biblical accounts (i.e. the flood, parting of the red sea) Nof appears to develop his conclusion first and then tries to find data to support his conclusion. Any 6th grader could tell you that this is the opposite of the true scientific method which seeks to derive its conclusion from the data rather than vice versa.
For example, Nof states “With the idea that much of our cultural heritage is based on human observations of nature, we sought a natural process that could perhaps explain the origin of the account that Jesus Christ walked on water.”
Doesn’t this sound like they aren’t so much interested in discovering truth, no matter where it lies (i.e. the scientific method) but rather intentionally seek to find data establishing a non-miraculous explanation?
In an interview after the study, Nof said “I’m not trying to provide any information that has to do with theology here, all we’ve thought is about the natural process. What theologians or anybody else does with that it’s their business so to speak.”
This may sound nice at first, but think about what he’s actually saying “all we’ve thought about is the natural process.” This means he automatically excludes anything that isn’t a natural process, right from the start. The cards are already stacked against anything miraculous from even being a possibility. His pursuit isn’t to seek truth, but rather to cast doubt. It’s no different than a junior high girl starting a rumor just because she doesn’t like someone.
Nof makes numerous other statements supporting this such as “…our present explanation does not exactly address ‘walking on water’ but rather provides a plausible physical process that has some characteristics similar to those described in the New Testament” but I think you get the point.
But in the interest of fairness, let’s look at what arguments Nof himself claims. Remember, Nof’s whole argument is that the water in the Sea of Galilee was frozen, thereby allowing Jesus to appear to walk on water when in actuality he was walking on ice. Nof argues that while just about impossible for the sea to freeze today, it possibly froze a handful of times over the past 2600 years.
The following are quotes taken directly from Nof:
Throughout recent history there have been no known records of a total ice formation on its top. Furthermore, given that convection requires an initial cooling of the entire lake down to 4°C, it is difficult to imagine how such a low-latitude lake, presently subject to two-digit temperatures during the winter, could ever freeze.
Such a perfect combination of conditions on the low-latitude Kinneret [Sea of Galilee] might well seem miraculous. In the last 120 centuries, Nof calculates the odds as roughly once in 1,000 years. However, during the life of Jesus the prevailing climate may have favored the more frequent formation of springs ice -- about once in 30 to 160 years
"In today's climate, the chance of springs ice forming in northern Israel is effectively zero, or about once in more than 10,000 years."
As natural scientists, we simply explain that unique freezing processes probably happened in that region only a handful of times during the last 12,000 years,"."
So let me make sure I understand, in the last 12,000 years the sea has probably frozen over 12 times, and in today’s world (which is the time frame we are doing the study) it’s practically impossible to have it freeze over, we are discounting the eyewitness testimony from those actually at the scene and are now asserting that the timing was so perfect as to allow an opportunity for Jesus to present himself as a fraud?
In the next post we’ll compare the study to what the Bible has to say about the events of that day.
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Context! Context! Context! (part 2)
I was recently visiting a popular Atheist website. The writer was claiming that the Bible was perverse and disgusting and promoted immoral activity. He then quoted the following verse to substantiate his point:
Genesis 19:32 "Come, let us make our father drink wine, and let us lie with him, that we may preserve our family through our father."
Now based solely off of what is written, I would agree that this incestuous behavior is pretty disgusting. But the real question is whether or not the quoted text is actually representative of what the Bible is teaching. Remember, the Bible in many places is written as a historical narrative. That means that it records what actually happened and just because something is recorded doesn’t mean the behavior was approved of. Let’s now look at the entire story in context (remember Lot and his daughters just barely escaped Sodom and Gomorrah as God began to destroy it and Lot's wife died in the process).
Genesis 19:30-38 “And Lot went up from Zoar, and stayed in the mountains, and his two daughters with him; for he was afraid to stay in Zoar; and he stayed in a cave, he and his two daughters. Then the first-born said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of the earth. Come, let us make our father drink wine, and let us lie with him, that we may preserve our family through our father. So they made their father drink wine that night, and the first-born went in and lay with her father; and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. And it came about on the morrow, that the first-born said to the younger, "Behold, I lay last night with my father; let us make him drink wine tonight also; then you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve our family through our father. So they made their father drink wine that night also, and the younger arose and lay with him; and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. Thus both the daughters of Lot were with child by their father. And the first-born bore a son, and called his name Moab; he is the father of the Moabites to this day. And as for the younger, she also bore a son, and called his name Ben-ammi; he is the father of the sons of Ammon to this day.”
There are several important things to note here. First, Lot was not aware of what was happening so he did not approve of this behavior. Secondly, his daughters secretly plotted against him, drugged him, and then finally raped him. Each bore a son as a result of this activity. (It is also important to note that the daughters were not driven by lust. Rather they were driven by the fear they would never marry and therefore they would be left with no one care for them. This certainly doesn't excuse their immoral behavior, but it does show how the sinful culture of Sodom and Gomorrah caused them to justify their actions.) God will not be mocked and even a cursory study of the Old Testament will show that the Moabites and the Ammonites were among the most wicked people alive during that era.
The sin exhibited by Lot’s daughters had a long and lasting outcome that affected thousands of people. (Think about people you know who seem to have a long family line of problems. They are affected by other’s choices much the same way). The Bible did not record this activity because it supports the behavior but rather to show the real consequences of sin in real people’s lives.
Not simply looking at a verse but the entire context of the passage could be used in many other situations as well. For example, John 11:35 simply says “Jesus wept.” Now if we just look at this verse, someone could claim that an all powerful God was actually more of a crybaby. However, looking at the verse in context we can see that is far from the truth and that in his crying he was not only proving his humanity, but expressing deep heartfelt emotion. Therefore when life throws us its worse and we are heartbroken, we can know that we have a God in heaven who can empathize with us.
This post has gone on to be a bit longer than I intended. I hope you found it useful and see the importance not only for your own understanding of the Bible but in refuting those who simply pick and choose verses to make the Bible say what they want it too. If you’d like more information on this topic, you can CLICK HERE.
Genesis 19:32 "Come, let us make our father drink wine, and let us lie with him, that we may preserve our family through our father."
Now based solely off of what is written, I would agree that this incestuous behavior is pretty disgusting. But the real question is whether or not the quoted text is actually representative of what the Bible is teaching. Remember, the Bible in many places is written as a historical narrative. That means that it records what actually happened and just because something is recorded doesn’t mean the behavior was approved of. Let’s now look at the entire story in context (remember Lot and his daughters just barely escaped Sodom and Gomorrah as God began to destroy it and Lot's wife died in the process).
Genesis 19:30-38 “And Lot went up from Zoar, and stayed in the mountains, and his two daughters with him; for he was afraid to stay in Zoar; and he stayed in a cave, he and his two daughters. Then the first-born said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of the earth. Come, let us make our father drink wine, and let us lie with him, that we may preserve our family through our father. So they made their father drink wine that night, and the first-born went in and lay with her father; and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. And it came about on the morrow, that the first-born said to the younger, "Behold, I lay last night with my father; let us make him drink wine tonight also; then you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve our family through our father. So they made their father drink wine that night also, and the younger arose and lay with him; and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. Thus both the daughters of Lot were with child by their father. And the first-born bore a son, and called his name Moab; he is the father of the Moabites to this day. And as for the younger, she also bore a son, and called his name Ben-ammi; he is the father of the sons of Ammon to this day.”
There are several important things to note here. First, Lot was not aware of what was happening so he did not approve of this behavior. Secondly, his daughters secretly plotted against him, drugged him, and then finally raped him. Each bore a son as a result of this activity. (It is also important to note that the daughters were not driven by lust. Rather they were driven by the fear they would never marry and therefore they would be left with no one care for them. This certainly doesn't excuse their immoral behavior, but it does show how the sinful culture of Sodom and Gomorrah caused them to justify their actions.) God will not be mocked and even a cursory study of the Old Testament will show that the Moabites and the Ammonites were among the most wicked people alive during that era.
The sin exhibited by Lot’s daughters had a long and lasting outcome that affected thousands of people. (Think about people you know who seem to have a long family line of problems. They are affected by other’s choices much the same way). The Bible did not record this activity because it supports the behavior but rather to show the real consequences of sin in real people’s lives.
Not simply looking at a verse but the entire context of the passage could be used in many other situations as well. For example, John 11:35 simply says “Jesus wept.” Now if we just look at this verse, someone could claim that an all powerful God was actually more of a crybaby. However, looking at the verse in context we can see that is far from the truth and that in his crying he was not only proving his humanity, but expressing deep heartfelt emotion. Therefore when life throws us its worse and we are heartbroken, we can know that we have a God in heaven who can empathize with us.
This post has gone on to be a bit longer than I intended. I hope you found it useful and see the importance not only for your own understanding of the Bible but in refuting those who simply pick and choose verses to make the Bible say what they want it too. If you’d like more information on this topic, you can CLICK HERE.
Monday, April 03, 2006
Context! Context! Context! (part 1)
One of the biggest problems we face in quoting from the Bible is that people can make the Bible pretty much say anything that they want. As noted Missiologist, Church Planter, and Professor Tom Steffen put it:
Knowing this, followers of Christ must make sure that when we are quoting from the Bible, we are accurately quoting what the text is saying. Oftentimes when discussing the Bible we can be quick to turn to a verse that substantiates our point. However many people don’t know that the Bible wasn’t originally written this way. There was no “divine inspiration” of chapters and verses. In fact the Bible wasn’t divided into chapters and verses until the medieval times. Stephen Langton first divided the books of the Bible into chapters in 1205 AD and Robert Estienne (Stephanus) further divided each chapter into verses in 1565 AD. Although these divisions don’t affect the truth of the message, they can sometimes cause it to be confusing. We need to be aware of this to have an accurate understanding what the Bible is saying.
Stay tuned for the real life application…
“People’s assumptions about God impact their perception of Scripture. Those who define the Supreme Being as a God of love may approach Scripture as devotional literature. People who view God as logical and linear may view the Bible as a book of verifiable propositions. Atheists who claim that God does not exist may search the Bible for ways to refute his existence. Some approach the Bible as a great work of literary art while others use the text mystically to discern direction for life”
Knowing this, followers of Christ must make sure that when we are quoting from the Bible, we are accurately quoting what the text is saying. Oftentimes when discussing the Bible we can be quick to turn to a verse that substantiates our point. However many people don’t know that the Bible wasn’t originally written this way. There was no “divine inspiration” of chapters and verses. In fact the Bible wasn’t divided into chapters and verses until the medieval times. Stephen Langton first divided the books of the Bible into chapters in 1205 AD and Robert Estienne (Stephanus) further divided each chapter into verses in 1565 AD. Although these divisions don’t affect the truth of the message, they can sometimes cause it to be confusing. We need to be aware of this to have an accurate understanding what the Bible is saying.
Stay tuned for the real life application…
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Did They Really Say That? #1
''We will try to see if he converts to Islam, for Islam is the religion of compassion. But if he does not, Islamic law will be enforced,''
- Afghanistan Supreme Court Judge Ansarullah Mawlavizada in reference to the trial of Afghan Abdur Rahman who faces the death penalty for converting from Islam to Christianity.
- Afghanistan Supreme Court Judge Ansarullah Mawlavizada in reference to the trial of Afghan Abdur Rahman who faces the death penalty for converting from Islam to Christianity.
Monday, March 20, 2006
Food For Thought
I recently received a letter from Voice of the Martyrs an organization that works to meet the needs of persecuted Christians all over the world. The following is an excerpt from that letter and I think it raises a good question about the nature of who Jesus was in comparison to Mohammed.
“Last week I read an article that you may see in a future newsletter. The Christian writer was talking about the violent Muslim riots resulting from the cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban. Mohammed was a warrior and violently killed many for Islam. The writer muses that if someone drew a cartoon of Jesus with a turban, what would they put in it? A fish? A loaf of bread or the name of a hospital or orphanage? This is an interesting thought to ponder…We at VOM are thankful for dedicated readers who realize that the bread and fish, along with the gospel are more powerful than any bomb.”
“Last week I read an article that you may see in a future newsletter. The Christian writer was talking about the violent Muslim riots resulting from the cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban. Mohammed was a warrior and violently killed many for Islam. The writer muses that if someone drew a cartoon of Jesus with a turban, what would they put in it? A fish? A loaf of bread or the name of a hospital or orphanage? This is an interesting thought to ponder…We at VOM are thankful for dedicated readers who realize that the bread and fish, along with the gospel are more powerful than any bomb.”
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Back From Cambodia
I know it has been a few days since I posted. After Indonesia I headed towards Cambodia and there isn't a whole lot of internet access over there. Now I'm home and thought I'd post some pictures from my time there.
This is part of the wall of skulls.
This is a photograph of the Cambodian nationals who work day and night to minister to those dying of AIDS. Some work inside of the building behind us which is used as a hospice while others go out into the community and make house visits. The sacrifice these individuals make in order to make sure that everyone has an opportunity to learn about Jesus, is incredible.
Part of my time in Cambodia was spent eating ethnic food such as this tarantula. Whoever said a life of serving God was boring???
Cambodians love Americans but not for the reasons you might think. Cambodians are predominately Buddhist (about 95% of them). Because of this they have an interesting view of Americans. They believe Americans are wealthy and blessed and in the context of their Buddhist worldview, that must mean we are good people. On our path towards enlightenment we must have been good people in our past life because we are now being rewarded in this life (the reward being wealth, life in America, freedom to travel, etc.).
This is a common form of transportation in Cambodia
.jpg)
The kids in Cambodia are just like the kids I've met in Romania, Indonesia and South Africa. They are joyful and full of love. We as adults, while good intentioned, tend to look past them as human beings loved by God and instead focus on their level of poverty. In my experience children don't see it quite that way. They don't care about the color of your skin or what your salary is. They just love to play and have fun with you.
.jpg)
While in Cambodia I had an opportunity to visit Tuol Sleng. This photo is a picture of thousands of mugshots of the victims lined up throughout the grounds. Here is an excerpt from my journal about my time there...
"Tuol Sleng is the Cambodian version of Auschwitz. It used to be a high school before the Khmer Rouge took it over and turned it into a place to torture people them and then kill them. The people they brought here weren’t criminals. They were priests, teachers, artists, professors; people of skills. The Khmer Rouge wanted to remove these people from society to start afresh. It was so horrible that my eyes tear up just writing this. Historians kept the prison as they found it in order to preserve it as a historical monument so the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge would never be forgotten. As such there are still instruments of torture lying around, blood stains on the ground, and a wall of skulls belonging to victims. A sign at Tuol Sleng told us that of the 20,000 people imprisoned here, only 7 survived. Only 7! Touring Tuol Sleng there are hundreds of “mug shots” of the prisoners who were there. Many of them were children. As I walked up and down the walls of photos I wondered how many children died without ever having had a chance to hear the gospel? Walking throughout the place I tried to tune into my discernment of spirits gift. I felt the place to be a giant vacuum. Completely empty. To have this much evil is beyond human ability alone. There is no doubt demons were involved. Now that their work is done here I feel they have completely left this place, like a soul leaves its corpse behind."
.jpg)
This is part of the wall of skulls.
.jpg)
Tom and I went on a home visit to spend time with this family. Two of the members of this family have AIDS. They live in a squatter home (a makeshift home made of spare parts lying around) behind a shopping area. We took some photos of them and then went to a one hour photo store to have them developed. Here you see Tom presenting those photos as a gift to the family. This family had no photographs of any of their family members. It was a blessing to be able to provide them this small gift..jpg)
In Cambodia a common belief is “wives are for childbearing, prostitutes are for pleasure.” This plays out in that often a man will visit a prostitute, get AIDS, then come home and give it to his wife. Most often the man will die first leaving the woman behind to care for the family. After the man dies the woman must support her family so she often turns to prostitution herself, continuing the cycle.
This little boy, Chantol is 7 years old and he has AIDS. His father died from the disease. His mother is infected. He lives in the house in a squatter community on the Mekong, in the interior of Cambodia.
.jpg)
Some of the staff with the organization I work for, run a place where women with AIDS can come to make crafts to earn an income instead of turning to prostitution. Here we are praying with some of these women.
.jpg)
This is a photograph of the Cambodian nationals who work day and night to minister to those dying of AIDS. Some work inside of the building behind us which is used as a hospice while others go out into the community and make house visits. The sacrifice these individuals make in order to make sure that everyone has an opportunity to learn about Jesus, is incredible.
Part of my time in Cambodia was spent eating ethnic food such as this tarantula. Whoever said a life of serving God was boring???
Saturday, March 04, 2006
Muslim Call to Prayer Video
This is a short video taken in Indonesia of a Muslim call to prayer. Muslims pray 5 times a day and this was the afternoon call to prayer. Like most Muslim areas in the world, you can hear the call throughout the entire city. The mosque is the tall statue in the background.
<---To view the video click on the picture.
The video is pretty short but it is in a Windows Media Player format. For those using Windows there shouldn't be any problem with the playback, but for for those of you with a Mac, if you haven't already, you'll need to download the Windows Media Player for Mac. You can do that by CLICKING HERE.
Heading South into Indonesia
I recently had an opportunity to spend some time with some missionaries down in Indonesia. Due to security reasons I can't tell you exactly who, where, or what (I'm sure you can understand why). However I can tell you that some exciting things are going on down there. God is doing tons and people are coming to Christ. I heard several stories of miraculous events taking place. Please keep Indonesia in your prayers. I wanted to share a few photos with you. These photos were taken in a little village off the side of a main road. Long story short, there is a very good chance that we were the first white people that ever stepped foot into their village. To show that we not only viewed them as human beings but that we wanted to be with them in their own village meant so much to them.
I'll let the pictures speak for themselves...
I'll let the pictures speak for themselves...
Photos From Singapore
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Greetings From Singapore
You may have noticed that I haven’t posted in a while. Well that’s because I’ve been in Singapore the past few days. I’m in Singapore as part of a 3 country trip to work in various ministry contexts. I had a break in my work and thought I’d take a minute to give you some of my initial impressions of the city.
Singapore is very clean and very disciplined, which is what you’d imagine from the wealthiest (per capita) nation in Asia. Being about 1 degree above the equator means its hot and humid but most places have air conditioning inside. Singapore has a unique blend of urban setting and lush tropical greenery.
The country is mostly Chinese, Malay and Indian. (The country even has both a Chinatown and Little India). As such, Singapore is a strategic location for nationals to reach those in places like China and other restricted countries, that Westerners either don’t have access to or won’t have the same success as a national.
So, because of that, right now I’m working with about 80 different pastors who represent 25 people groups. Some of them work with local congregations while others work in a missions capacity. So far the only real obstacle was getting stuck in an elevator but the week is still young. I’d greatly appreciate your prayers and will try to post some pictures soon.
Singapore is very clean and very disciplined, which is what you’d imagine from the wealthiest (per capita) nation in Asia. Being about 1 degree above the equator means its hot and humid but most places have air conditioning inside. Singapore has a unique blend of urban setting and lush tropical greenery.
The country is mostly Chinese, Malay and Indian. (The country even has both a Chinatown and Little India). As such, Singapore is a strategic location for nationals to reach those in places like China and other restricted countries, that Westerners either don’t have access to or won’t have the same success as a national.
So, because of that, right now I’m working with about 80 different pastors who represent 25 people groups. Some of them work with local congregations while others work in a missions capacity. So far the only real obstacle was getting stuck in an elevator but the week is still young. I’d greatly appreciate your prayers and will try to post some pictures soon.
Saturday, February 25, 2006
What does it look like to be a Christian in South Korea?
The long awaited video is finally here. Well it may not exactly be long awaited but it has taken me tons of hours to get it up and running. (If you have problems viewing it, please either email me or leave a comment so I can try to fix it).
This is a video hodgepodge of still pictures, audio and video I created from the time I spent in South Korea. Most of it is taken from the pastors conference I mentioned in my last post. To watch the video just click on the picture.
The video is just under 2 minutes in length but it is in a Windows Media Player format. For those using Windows there shouldn't be any problem with the playback, but for for those of you with a Mac, if you haven't already, you'll need to download the Windows Media Player for Mac. You can do that by CLICKING HERE.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Reflections from my time in South Korea
Last December I was in South Korea. (I know, South Korea in December, can you say freezing?). Well I braved the cold to spend 8 days working with over 60 Korean pastors from all different denominations to help them develop healthy churches.
I found it interesting to learn that approximately 25% of the entire South Korean population are church attending Christians (mostly Presbyterian), yet Korean churches are also experiencing the same problems as American churches, especially in trying to retain the younger post-high school, pre-college age group.
I spent some time working with the new CRM Korea Board of Directors and helping them get established. One of CRM’s core values (CRM is the mission agency I work with) is to raise up nationals to lead the work in their home country and then send out other nationals as missionaries into new countries. So not only is all of our work in South Korea led by South Koreans but they just sent their first missionary into another country.
I wanted to share two quick thoughts with you. These are excerpts from my journal that I wrote while in South Korea:
Tonight while driving through Seoul I looked up at the skyline and noticed there were crosses everywhere. As far as the eye could see there were red, illuminated crosses. It was clear for all to see, there was a heavy Christian presence here in the nation’s capitol. I then realized that just a mere 30 miles to the north [Into North Korea], being known as a Christian or even revealing a cross, could warrant an instant execution. At that moment a wave of sorrow for my brothers and sisters in the north consumed me. I can’t remember feeling anything like it before.
One of the highlights of this trip is to pray and worship with the Koreans. When Koreans pray, it is very powerful, loud and authoritative. Even without knowing the words being spoken, one can almost comprehend the requests based on the passion and power behind them. Interestingly enough, this is also how Koreans sing. They sing at the top of their lungs and with authority. No one stands there wandering if the person next to them will think they are a good singer. It is totally and completely focused on worshiping God. No distractions. I wish more church congregations in America sang this way.
In my next post I'll try to put up some video from South Korea.
I found it interesting to learn that approximately 25% of the entire South Korean population are church attending Christians (mostly Presbyterian), yet Korean churches are also experiencing the same problems as American churches, especially in trying to retain the younger post-high school, pre-college age group.
I spent some time working with the new CRM Korea Board of Directors and helping them get established. One of CRM’s core values (CRM is the mission agency I work with) is to raise up nationals to lead the work in their home country and then send out other nationals as missionaries into new countries. So not only is all of our work in South Korea led by South Koreans but they just sent their first missionary into another country.
I wanted to share two quick thoughts with you. These are excerpts from my journal that I wrote while in South Korea:
Tonight while driving through Seoul I looked up at the skyline and noticed there were crosses everywhere. As far as the eye could see there were red, illuminated crosses. It was clear for all to see, there was a heavy Christian presence here in the nation’s capitol. I then realized that just a mere 30 miles to the north [Into North Korea], being known as a Christian or even revealing a cross, could warrant an instant execution. At that moment a wave of sorrow for my brothers and sisters in the north consumed me. I can’t remember feeling anything like it before.
One of the highlights of this trip is to pray and worship with the Koreans. When Koreans pray, it is very powerful, loud and authoritative. Even without knowing the words being spoken, one can almost comprehend the requests based on the passion and power behind them. Interestingly enough, this is also how Koreans sing. They sing at the top of their lungs and with authority. No one stands there wandering if the person next to them will think they are a good singer. It is totally and completely focused on worshiping God. No distractions. I wish more church congregations in America sang this way.
In my next post I'll try to put up some video from South Korea.
Sunday, February 19, 2006
New Articles Added
Just wanted to point out that I've added four new articles to the "Articles I've Written" section. These articles were written while I was working on my Master's degree.
Friday, February 17, 2006
A Whole New Look
It's alive, It's alive !! Okay, well the site has been alive for over a year now so I shouldn't be too dramatic but I am excited about all the new changes. I'm sure you've noticed the site has a whole new look. Gone is the lighthouse, white background and script, I now have a new template to work with and I think it looks a lot better.
In addition to a new look there are several new feature changes that have been made, and many more that are forthcoming. Since some of them are subtle, I'll take a minute to point them out.
First, I have a picture up. Those of you who don't know me can probably tell why I didn't have a picture up before and all of you who disagree with what I write about can now have something for your WANTED posters.
Second, I formatted the archives into a drop down box so you don't have to do a tremendous amount of scrolling.
Third, at the bottom of the section entitled "My Favorite Places" I now have a link for you to email me, as well as a means for syndication (syndication deals with RSS readers, not newspapers for publishing). Now, I am rather technically challenged so I don't exactly know the details of how syndication works with RSS readers. I think I got it down but if you are using an RSS reader and it's not working, let me know and I'll see what I can do.
Fourth, I now have all my posts listed by title on the side so you can scroll down a short list instead of the whole blog. They look like links but as of now they won't take you to a page. I'm trying to figure out how to make them work, if you know what I need to do, please let me know.
Fifth, I decided to tryout the idea of enabling comments. We'll see how well this works as it's new for me.
But that's not why I'm excited. I'm excited because I finally found an external server in which I can upload files to. This means a whole new world for my site. I can not only upload pictures (to make it no longer just dull text) but videos and articles I've written. (Check out the section entitled Articles I've Written. Right now there is only one but there are many more on the way.)
This should make the site much more visually stimulating. There is one more change though that I am making; the change of content. I will continue to post about apologetic issues, especially contemporary apologetic issues, however I want to branch out into other areas. Specifically the area of missions.
As a missionary I have an opportunity to work with Christians from all over the world. I ususally take many pictures and videos while I'm working with them. I realize that many of you will never have a chance to experience what it's like to be a follower of Jesus outside of the United States (or your home country). So I'd like to begin posting some of these photos and videos so that you will be able to gain a better understanding of life for other Christians.
Having this new content will enable me to begin to post on a more frequent basis. It used to take hours for me to develop the content of my previous posts. This new content will go much faster.
I definitely value your feedback about these new changes. Please let me know what you think.
In addition to a new look there are several new feature changes that have been made, and many more that are forthcoming. Since some of them are subtle, I'll take a minute to point them out.
First, I have a picture up. Those of you who don't know me can probably tell why I didn't have a picture up before and all of you who disagree with what I write about can now have something for your WANTED posters.
Second, I formatted the archives into a drop down box so you don't have to do a tremendous amount of scrolling.
Third, at the bottom of the section entitled "My Favorite Places" I now have a link for you to email me, as well as a means for syndication (syndication deals with RSS readers, not newspapers for publishing). Now, I am rather technically challenged so I don't exactly know the details of how syndication works with RSS readers. I think I got it down but if you are using an RSS reader and it's not working, let me know and I'll see what I can do.
Fourth, I now have all my posts listed by title on the side so you can scroll down a short list instead of the whole blog. They look like links but as of now they won't take you to a page. I'm trying to figure out how to make them work, if you know what I need to do, please let me know.
Fifth, I decided to tryout the idea of enabling comments. We'll see how well this works as it's new for me.
But that's not why I'm excited. I'm excited because I finally found an external server in which I can upload files to. This means a whole new world for my site. I can not only upload pictures (to make it no longer just dull text) but videos and articles I've written. (Check out the section entitled Articles I've Written. Right now there is only one but there are many more on the way.)
This should make the site much more visually stimulating. There is one more change though that I am making; the change of content. I will continue to post about apologetic issues, especially contemporary apologetic issues, however I want to branch out into other areas. Specifically the area of missions.
As a missionary I have an opportunity to work with Christians from all over the world. I ususally take many pictures and videos while I'm working with them. I realize that many of you will never have a chance to experience what it's like to be a follower of Jesus outside of the United States (or your home country). So I'd like to begin posting some of these photos and videos so that you will be able to gain a better understanding of life for other Christians.
Having this new content will enable me to begin to post on a more frequent basis. It used to take hours for me to develop the content of my previous posts. This new content will go much faster.
I definitely value your feedback about these new changes. Please let me know what you think.
Monday, February 06, 2006
An Apology
Dear Readers,
I owe you an apology and a bit of an explaination. As you probably noticed my last posting was the end of September 2005, nearly 5 months ago. Many of you have told me you thought I dropped off the face of the earth. Well I haven't. Unfortunately planning a wedding consumed way more of my time that I expected it would and as such, my blog was among the first of many time consuming activities to be cut. For that I am sorry.
Well the wedding is finished as well as the subsequent honeymoon and receptions (yes plural) and life is ready to begin again. I'm planning to begin blogging again very soon (as in the next week or two). I am wrestling with some format changes. I've been thinking that while I'd like the format to continue to focus heavily on contemporary apologetics in the real world, I'd like it to expand to cover other areas as well.
Since I am blessed to be able to go all over the world and work with Christians in many different countries and cultures I've experienced quite a bit about the "bigger picture." So often we in America think we know exactly what God is doing in the world and the more I travel to meet with other Christians, the more I realize God's plans are so much bigger than we think.
Enough.
As I was saying I'm still deciding on these format changes and would be very interested in your thoughts and comments. You can send me an email at RemovingDoubtsATaolDOTcom.
I owe you an apology and a bit of an explaination. As you probably noticed my last posting was the end of September 2005, nearly 5 months ago. Many of you have told me you thought I dropped off the face of the earth. Well I haven't. Unfortunately planning a wedding consumed way more of my time that I expected it would and as such, my blog was among the first of many time consuming activities to be cut. For that I am sorry.
Well the wedding is finished as well as the subsequent honeymoon and receptions (yes plural) and life is ready to begin again. I'm planning to begin blogging again very soon (as in the next week or two). I am wrestling with some format changes. I've been thinking that while I'd like the format to continue to focus heavily on contemporary apologetics in the real world, I'd like it to expand to cover other areas as well.
Since I am blessed to be able to go all over the world and work with Christians in many different countries and cultures I've experienced quite a bit about the "bigger picture." So often we in America think we know exactly what God is doing in the world and the more I travel to meet with other Christians, the more I realize God's plans are so much bigger than we think.
Enough.
As I was saying I'm still deciding on these format changes and would be very interested in your thoughts and comments. You can send me an email at RemovingDoubtsATaolDOTcom.
Friday, September 23, 2005
Humans Are No Different Than Apes?
This seems to be the case according to the London zoo. I read an article a few weeks ago that said the London zoo was now putting human beings on display. (You can read the article and see pictures for yourself by CLICKING HERE).
As I read through this article several thoughts popped into my mind. The first was, “Are you serious?”
According to the zoo, the purpose of this display is to show that humans are no different than animals. Rather we are simply primates like an ordinary monkey. Polly Wills, the spokeswoman for the zoo, said “Seeing people in a different environment, among other animals…teaches members of the public that the human is just another primate [emphasis mine].”
Just another primate? How many other primates use the telephone on a daily basis? How many other primates invented mass entertainment like television and movies? How many other primates invented methods of transportation allowing them to visit their primate relatives anywhere else in the world in less than 24 hours? How many other primates have put their species on the moon AND the depths of the ocean? Seems to me that at the very least our accomplishments and lifestyle should put us into a whole other category which brings me to my next point.
Aren’t classifications like “primate” and “species” a human invention? Sure there are types of animals that may look similar to the eye, but there is no law that nature imposed on itself in regards to classifications. Prior to scientists developing this classification system there was nothing like it in nature. So to say that humans are just another primate seems kind of pointless. Classifications change and many scientists disagree on certain animals belonging with other animals in the same category.
Perhaps most of all I was surprised by the inconsistencies in the zoo administration’s actions and beliefs. For example, these humans on display are wearing bathing suits with fig leaves on them. My question is why? If we are just another primate shouldn’t we be in the nude as that is our natural state? To put humans in bathing suits is like putting a blanket around the elephant, it isn’t found in nature. I would presume that zoo officials would argue they are wearing clothes so as not to offend anyone. Offend another member of the same species by appearing in our natural state? Hmmm, that’s interesting as I can’t think of a single other animal that does that. Could it be because we have morals and values which are ALSO something that no other species has? How can we be “just another primate” if we are the only ones with morals and values?
My second question is why are the humans allowed to go home at night? Why don’t we just walk down the street, kidnap a few humans and through them in and lock away the key? No other animals get to go home at night. It’s because we have certain values and rights (like respecting life and freedom) which we grant to each other. No other animal does this. So how can we be observing humans as “just another primate” if we have created all of these unnatural stipulations?
For my final thought I find it fascinating that humans in the zoo are covered by fig leaves. Why fig leaves? The only answer that makes sense to me is that it’s taken from the story in Genesis chapter 3. (In Genesis 2:25 we find Adam and Eve, the first man and woman, were naked and felt no shame. After being tempted to, and subsequently, rebelling against God, Adam and Eve “…realized they were naked, so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.” [Genesis 3:7])
But this is peculiar because the zoo officials seem to not have much difficulty taking that part of the story out but they sure don’t buy into the part about God creating man. Seems to me that isn’t very intellectually honest; but that’s a post for another time.
In conclusion, I’d like to leave you with the words from Almighty God himself on how He feels about humans, and let you decide on your own if, as the London zoo advocates, we’re “just another primate.”
As I read through this article several thoughts popped into my mind. The first was, “Are you serious?”
According to the zoo, the purpose of this display is to show that humans are no different than animals. Rather we are simply primates like an ordinary monkey. Polly Wills, the spokeswoman for the zoo, said “Seeing people in a different environment, among other animals…teaches members of the public that the human is just another primate [emphasis mine].”
Just another primate? How many other primates use the telephone on a daily basis? How many other primates invented mass entertainment like television and movies? How many other primates invented methods of transportation allowing them to visit their primate relatives anywhere else in the world in less than 24 hours? How many other primates have put their species on the moon AND the depths of the ocean? Seems to me that at the very least our accomplishments and lifestyle should put us into a whole other category which brings me to my next point.
Aren’t classifications like “primate” and “species” a human invention? Sure there are types of animals that may look similar to the eye, but there is no law that nature imposed on itself in regards to classifications. Prior to scientists developing this classification system there was nothing like it in nature. So to say that humans are just another primate seems kind of pointless. Classifications change and many scientists disagree on certain animals belonging with other animals in the same category.
Perhaps most of all I was surprised by the inconsistencies in the zoo administration’s actions and beliefs. For example, these humans on display are wearing bathing suits with fig leaves on them. My question is why? If we are just another primate shouldn’t we be in the nude as that is our natural state? To put humans in bathing suits is like putting a blanket around the elephant, it isn’t found in nature. I would presume that zoo officials would argue they are wearing clothes so as not to offend anyone. Offend another member of the same species by appearing in our natural state? Hmmm, that’s interesting as I can’t think of a single other animal that does that. Could it be because we have morals and values which are ALSO something that no other species has? How can we be “just another primate” if we are the only ones with morals and values?
My second question is why are the humans allowed to go home at night? Why don’t we just walk down the street, kidnap a few humans and through them in and lock away the key? No other animals get to go home at night. It’s because we have certain values and rights (like respecting life and freedom) which we grant to each other. No other animal does this. So how can we be observing humans as “just another primate” if we have created all of these unnatural stipulations?
For my final thought I find it fascinating that humans in the zoo are covered by fig leaves. Why fig leaves? The only answer that makes sense to me is that it’s taken from the story in Genesis chapter 3. (In Genesis 2:25 we find Adam and Eve, the first man and woman, were naked and felt no shame. After being tempted to, and subsequently, rebelling against God, Adam and Eve “…realized they were naked, so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.” [Genesis 3:7])
But this is peculiar because the zoo officials seem to not have much difficulty taking that part of the story out but they sure don’t buy into the part about God creating man. Seems to me that isn’t very intellectually honest; but that’s a post for another time.
In conclusion, I’d like to leave you with the words from Almighty God himself on how He feels about humans, and let you decide on your own if, as the London zoo advocates, we’re “just another primate.”
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground-- everything that has the breath of life in it-- I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
-- Genesis 1:26-30
-- Genesis 1:26-30
Tuesday, August 09, 2005
Quick Thought
With the postmodern generation/mindset among us, it feels like there has been an influx of criticism towards different evangelistic methodologies (i.e. Evangelism Explosion, 4 Spiritual Laws, Bridge Diagram, Evangelistic Crusades, etc.). It seems that almost everyone I talk to has a very strong opinion about which methods don't work and why they should be abandoned. I find this most ironic as the very generation/mindset that wants to paint everyone as an individual and not generic, in the same breath feels that different evangelistic methods, although not their particular "cup of tea" must not be able to work for anyone else.
I came across this story in an article I read recently and thought that it captured my feelings perfectly (especially when I realize that the conversation must have happened over 100 years ago):
I came across this story in an article I read recently and thought that it captured my feelings perfectly (especially when I realize that the conversation must have happened over 100 years ago):
The story goes that on one occasion D.L. Moody [1839-1899] was criticized for his mass evangelism methods, and he replied to his critic, "I don't like them either. What methods do you use?" When the critic indicated that he didn't use any evangelistic tools or activities, Moody said, "Well, I like the way I do it better than the way you don't." We should keep that in mind, especially when we encounter evangelism practices that make us cringe
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Conclusion to the Series on Intelligent Design
Recent support for the Intelligent Design movement has caused a major wave in scientific communities. Historically Darwinists could write off those that support Intelligent Design as ignorant religious fundamentalists. However a new understanding of the differences between Intelligent Design and Creationism has driven a wedge into their argument. Although Intelligent Design does claim to find substantial evidence in the world for a designer, Intelligent Design does not claim to have knowledge about that designer nor does it seek it.
Intelligent Design has forced many in the scientific community to realize that there is a difference between philosophical assertions and scientific ones. For example, a true Darwinist cannot look at something in the world and say it is “bad.” For that would either be contrary to the “natural selection” viewpoint or it would pre-suppose a designer who made a mistake. Either way it would be a philosophical observation and not a scientific one. It is important for academic integrity for philosophy to remain philosophy and science to remain science.
Intelligent Design has also shown many that its foundational concepts are used in everyday life and accepted without challenge. Crime Scene Investigators, Archeologists, Military Cryptographers and many more use Intelligent Design to help them with their tasks all the time. Yet when these same proven and trusted precepts are moved over to the biological realm, a huge uproar occurs. Intelligent Design has shown that many people are ignorantly living in an inconsistent worldview.
Intelligent Design has brought to the surface several hypocrisies in the scientific community. Scientists are trying to have the best of both worlds when they exclude Intelligent Design when trying to explain origin of life but embrace it when they need to figure out whether something is a worthless rock or priceless artifact. Intelligent Design has also forced the scientific community to reveal its ugly side. As more and more overwhelming evidence for Intelligent Design becomes apparent, more and more of the arguments against it turn to smear campaigns against the person’s character rather than against the theory itself.
In the past few years the Intelligent Design movement has gained massive momentum. More and more top scientists are beginning to study the concepts Intelligent Design utilizes and are beginning to realize the truth behind it. History has shown that there is a pendulum of public opinion that sways back and forth. Since 1859 the pendulum has been swinging towards the theory that evolution contains the answers to the origin of life. However, with the recent developments in Intelligent Design, I believe that pendulum has clearly reached its apex and is rapidly swinging the other direction.
Thank you for taking the time to bear with me through this series. I realized Intelligent Design is not an easy topic to understand and you may be even more confused than when you started. But I hope you have learned a few things and realize that when held to the same standard of other sciences, biology must at least look at Intelligent Design theory as a possibility until evolution moves from a theory to a scientific law.
Intelligent Design has forced many in the scientific community to realize that there is a difference between philosophical assertions and scientific ones. For example, a true Darwinist cannot look at something in the world and say it is “bad.” For that would either be contrary to the “natural selection” viewpoint or it would pre-suppose a designer who made a mistake. Either way it would be a philosophical observation and not a scientific one. It is important for academic integrity for philosophy to remain philosophy and science to remain science.
Intelligent Design has also shown many that its foundational concepts are used in everyday life and accepted without challenge. Crime Scene Investigators, Archeologists, Military Cryptographers and many more use Intelligent Design to help them with their tasks all the time. Yet when these same proven and trusted precepts are moved over to the biological realm, a huge uproar occurs. Intelligent Design has shown that many people are ignorantly living in an inconsistent worldview.
Intelligent Design has brought to the surface several hypocrisies in the scientific community. Scientists are trying to have the best of both worlds when they exclude Intelligent Design when trying to explain origin of life but embrace it when they need to figure out whether something is a worthless rock or priceless artifact. Intelligent Design has also forced the scientific community to reveal its ugly side. As more and more overwhelming evidence for Intelligent Design becomes apparent, more and more of the arguments against it turn to smear campaigns against the person’s character rather than against the theory itself.
In the past few years the Intelligent Design movement has gained massive momentum. More and more top scientists are beginning to study the concepts Intelligent Design utilizes and are beginning to realize the truth behind it. History has shown that there is a pendulum of public opinion that sways back and forth. Since 1859 the pendulum has been swinging towards the theory that evolution contains the answers to the origin of life. However, with the recent developments in Intelligent Design, I believe that pendulum has clearly reached its apex and is rapidly swinging the other direction.
Thank you for taking the time to bear with me through this series. I realized Intelligent Design is not an easy topic to understand and you may be even more confused than when you started. But I hope you have learned a few things and realize that when held to the same standard of other sciences, biology must at least look at Intelligent Design theory as a possibility until evolution moves from a theory to a scientific law.
Thursday, July 14, 2005
Is Intelligent Design Used Today?
In our last post I briefly mentioned the concept of consistency. Today I want to look at examples of Intelligent Design being not only used, but widely accepted in a wide variety of disciplines in today’s world. As we take this quick journey I hope you can quickly see that opponents of Intelligent Design are …….
The concepts behind Intelligent Design are used today in many different disciplines of science. In fact, many different fields of science would not be able to function or even exist without some form of acceptance of Intelligent Design.
For example, a Crime Scene Investigator uses Intelligent Design when he approaches a crime scene and has to determine whether a person died as an accident or the result of foul play.
If an Archeologist finds a weird shaped rock he must determine if it is the result of abnormal weathering or if it was chipped that way by a pre-historic hunter.
A Military Cryptographer must decide if a piece of paper handed to him with jumbled letters is just a random sequence or the enemy’s secret code. All three of these disciplines use precepts, such as specified complexity, found in Intelligent Design.
Naturalists claim that we must have solid natural explanations to work with. Eugenie Scott in her essay entitled The Nature of Change (Click Here to read the article), wrote “…but even if we didn’t [have solid explanations to work with], science only has tools for explaining things in terms of natural causation.”
Again we are faced with an incompatible situation. Scott is claiming that science can only explain things in terms of natural causation. This is true if, and only if, the person establishing scientific guidelines decides to incorporate it. In and of itself there is no reason natural causation has to be a criterion. In fact, it seems quite suspicious that it would be there in the first place. The only logical reason would be to ensure that it could exclude any theory that relies on something that mere human reasoning cannot explain. Again we are faced with the scientific community not actually being interested in the truth, but what fits with their agenda.
Another point to consider is that if Intelligent Design is well received in certain scientific fields but not others, serious problems begin to arise. As seekers of truth and academic integrity we must begin to ask questions about this. For example, how can we trust the Archeologist or Crime Scene Investigator if the objective methods used are only true for his field and not others? Wouldn’t truth be truth regardless as otherwise it would be relative?
Phillip Johnson raises a great question when he asks “If design is a legitimate subject for scientific investigation in the case of computers, communications from space aliens, and peculiar markings on cave walls, why should it be arbitrarily excluded from consideration when dealing with the biological cell or the conscious mind?” We must hold those in the scientific community accountable for hypocritical practices.
I hope you can see that those opposed to Intelligent Design theory really aren’t opposed to the theory in any field whatsoever, except biology. When one becomes opposed to a theory based on personal preferences instead of pursuit of truth regardless of where it leads, we no longer have science, we have chaos.
The concepts behind Intelligent Design are used today in many different disciplines of science. In fact, many different fields of science would not be able to function or even exist without some form of acceptance of Intelligent Design.
For example, a Crime Scene Investigator uses Intelligent Design when he approaches a crime scene and has to determine whether a person died as an accident or the result of foul play.
If an Archeologist finds a weird shaped rock he must determine if it is the result of abnormal weathering or if it was chipped that way by a pre-historic hunter.
A Military Cryptographer must decide if a piece of paper handed to him with jumbled letters is just a random sequence or the enemy’s secret code. All three of these disciplines use precepts, such as specified complexity, found in Intelligent Design.
Naturalists claim that we must have solid natural explanations to work with. Eugenie Scott in her essay entitled The Nature of Change (Click Here to read the article), wrote “…but even if we didn’t [have solid explanations to work with], science only has tools for explaining things in terms of natural causation.”
Again we are faced with an incompatible situation. Scott is claiming that science can only explain things in terms of natural causation. This is true if, and only if, the person establishing scientific guidelines decides to incorporate it. In and of itself there is no reason natural causation has to be a criterion. In fact, it seems quite suspicious that it would be there in the first place. The only logical reason would be to ensure that it could exclude any theory that relies on something that mere human reasoning cannot explain. Again we are faced with the scientific community not actually being interested in the truth, but what fits with their agenda.
Another point to consider is that if Intelligent Design is well received in certain scientific fields but not others, serious problems begin to arise. As seekers of truth and academic integrity we must begin to ask questions about this. For example, how can we trust the Archeologist or Crime Scene Investigator if the objective methods used are only true for his field and not others? Wouldn’t truth be truth regardless as otherwise it would be relative?
Phillip Johnson raises a great question when he asks “If design is a legitimate subject for scientific investigation in the case of computers, communications from space aliens, and peculiar markings on cave walls, why should it be arbitrarily excluded from consideration when dealing with the biological cell or the conscious mind?” We must hold those in the scientific community accountable for hypocritical practices.
I hope you can see that those opposed to Intelligent Design theory really aren’t opposed to the theory in any field whatsoever, except biology. When one becomes opposed to a theory based on personal preferences instead of pursuit of truth regardless of where it leads, we no longer have science, we have chaos.
Friday, July 08, 2005
Arguments against Intelligent Design
Okay, so now we (hopefully) have a basic understanding of what Intelligent Design is. However not everyone believes in this theory. I want to take a moment and look at some of the more common objections that are out there.
One of the biggest problems opponents of Intelligent Design face is that of not mixing scientific assertions with philosophical or religious ones. True science requires a neutral mind open to all possibilities in the pursuit of truth. Yet most naturalists assert that Intelligent Design has no place in science academia and should be kept to religious circles.
Phillip Johnson wrote in Signs of Intelligence:
“Scientific materialists think that advocates of Intelligent Design are either irrational or dishonest because they are advocating as science a proposition that ought to be confined to religion, namely the claim that scientific evidence points to the reality of a designing intelligence in the origin and development of life.”
But how can science honestly say it is pursuing truth if it already has preconceived stipulations set in place?
For example, Robert T. Pennock states in his essay Mystery Science Theater that:
“The origin of species once seemed equally mysterious, but Darwin followed the clues given in nature to solve that mystery. One may, of course, retain religious faith in a designer who transcends natural processes, but there is no way to dust for his fingerprints.”
Here we can already clearly see that Pennock has closed his mind to a creator God simply because he can’t see evidence of it that is up to his standard. In other words, “dusting for fingerprints” would have to fit his own subjective criteria of evidence as opposed to another person’s criterion where the intricacies of ecosystems or complexities of plate tectonics could suffice.
Dembski has a great retort to this problem. In The Design Revolution he says:
“So long as intelligent design has a demonstrable secular purpose – advancing science, enriching the science curriculum, preventing viewpoint discrimination, promoting academic freedom – its motivation even if religious is legally irrelevant.”
Another problem facing opponents of Intelligent Design is that they are acting inconsistently with their worldview. They claim that they will not accept Intelligent Design as a legitimate theory because it has religious suppositions behind it. Yet those in science and academia conceptually accept and even use Intelligent Design in their everyday lives. Although the next post will specifically focus on these areas, I want to bring up one example here.
This is an example Phillip Johnson gives in his chapter of Signs of Intelligence; “If they [science academia that currently reject Intelligent Design] were to receive a signal containing a sequence of prime numbers as portrayed in the movie Contact, they would conclude it came from intelligent beings – without the need for independent evidence of the existence and nature of aliens.”
Here you can see an example of where the scientific community would be stuck between a rock and a hard place. The evidence would clearly show signs of intelligent life, yet the method used to assert this is the very method they deny as religiously based.
Robert Pennock addresses this issue in his essay Mystery Science Theater. (Click Here to read the article). Here he brings up the very issue of the movie Contact and claims:
"…a design inference like that in the movie Contact, for instance, would rely on background knowledge about the nature of radio signals and other natural processes, together with the assumption that a sequence of prime numbers is the kind of pattern another scientist might choose to send as a signal. But the odd sequences found within DNA are quite unlike a series of prime numbers."
But Pennock is mistaken. He is so focused on the specifics involved with the radio signals, that he completely misses the concept being represented; namely that it is possible to make an inference of something you don’t know about from something that you do know about.
Okay, my guess is by now your head is spinning, I know mine is, let’s call it a day and come back later for an analysis of Intelligent Design in use today.
One of the biggest problems opponents of Intelligent Design face is that of not mixing scientific assertions with philosophical or religious ones. True science requires a neutral mind open to all possibilities in the pursuit of truth. Yet most naturalists assert that Intelligent Design has no place in science academia and should be kept to religious circles.
Phillip Johnson wrote in Signs of Intelligence:
“Scientific materialists think that advocates of Intelligent Design are either irrational or dishonest because they are advocating as science a proposition that ought to be confined to religion, namely the claim that scientific evidence points to the reality of a designing intelligence in the origin and development of life.”
But how can science honestly say it is pursuing truth if it already has preconceived stipulations set in place?
For example, Robert T. Pennock states in his essay Mystery Science Theater that:
“The origin of species once seemed equally mysterious, but Darwin followed the clues given in nature to solve that mystery. One may, of course, retain religious faith in a designer who transcends natural processes, but there is no way to dust for his fingerprints.”
Here we can already clearly see that Pennock has closed his mind to a creator God simply because he can’t see evidence of it that is up to his standard. In other words, “dusting for fingerprints” would have to fit his own subjective criteria of evidence as opposed to another person’s criterion where the intricacies of ecosystems or complexities of plate tectonics could suffice.
Dembski has a great retort to this problem. In The Design Revolution he says:
“So long as intelligent design has a demonstrable secular purpose – advancing science, enriching the science curriculum, preventing viewpoint discrimination, promoting academic freedom – its motivation even if religious is legally irrelevant.”
Another problem facing opponents of Intelligent Design is that they are acting inconsistently with their worldview. They claim that they will not accept Intelligent Design as a legitimate theory because it has religious suppositions behind it. Yet those in science and academia conceptually accept and even use Intelligent Design in their everyday lives. Although the next post will specifically focus on these areas, I want to bring up one example here.
This is an example Phillip Johnson gives in his chapter of Signs of Intelligence; “If they [science academia that currently reject Intelligent Design] were to receive a signal containing a sequence of prime numbers as portrayed in the movie Contact, they would conclude it came from intelligent beings – without the need for independent evidence of the existence and nature of aliens.”
Here you can see an example of where the scientific community would be stuck between a rock and a hard place. The evidence would clearly show signs of intelligent life, yet the method used to assert this is the very method they deny as religiously based.
Robert Pennock addresses this issue in his essay Mystery Science Theater. (Click Here to read the article). Here he brings up the very issue of the movie Contact and claims:
"…a design inference like that in the movie Contact, for instance, would rely on background knowledge about the nature of radio signals and other natural processes, together with the assumption that a sequence of prime numbers is the kind of pattern another scientist might choose to send as a signal. But the odd sequences found within DNA are quite unlike a series of prime numbers."
But Pennock is mistaken. He is so focused on the specifics involved with the radio signals, that he completely misses the concept being represented; namely that it is possible to make an inference of something you don’t know about from something that you do know about.
Okay, my guess is by now your head is spinning, I know mine is, let’s call it a day and come back later for an analysis of Intelligent Design in use today.
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
Intelligent Design is not Creationism
One of the ACLU’s biggest arguments is that Intelligent Design is just hidden Creationism. However, Intelligent Design and Creationism are not the same thing!
According to Webster’s New World Dictionary, Creationism is “the doctrine that ascribes the origin of matter, species, etc. to acts of creation by God.” This differs from Intelligent Design in that Intelligent Design only looks for a designing intelligence, and not for information about the designing intelligence. In fact we could be living in a world designed by Martians and as long as it was designed by the Martians this would be totally consistent with the theory of Intelligent Design.
Perhaps William Dembski said it best when he wrote “Creation is always about the source of being of the world. Intelligent Design is about arrangements of preexisting materials that point to a designing intelligence. Creation and Intelligent Design are therefore quite different. One can have creation without Intelligent Design and intelligent design without creation.” (The Design Revolution, 38)
Some people will argue that Intelligent Design is just disguised theology but if they really understand the theory they will realize that it is not. Although it is similar to Creationism in that it has theological implications, it differs in that it does not require specifically theological, biblical presuppositions (i.e. earth created in a day). In fact, even if the Intelligent Design of some structure has been established, it is still a separate question whether a wise, powerful and beneficent God ought to have designed a complex information structure one way or another. (Signs of Intelligence, 10)
Intelligent Design is not concerned with why the designer decided to do something one way and not the other, it is not concerned with what the designer was thinking at the time, and it is not concerned with who the designer is/was. Intelligent Design is only concerned with the fact that there is a designer.
This difference between Intelligent Design and Creationism seems to be a difficult concept to grasp for many Darwinists. For reasons unknown, many seem to attack the individual supporting Intelligent Design instead of attacking the theory of Intelligent Design itself. If you are like me, you may have experienced this yourself.
It seems that because many who support Intelligent Design also happen to be Christians (even though Christianity and Intelligent Design do not have to correlate) makes for an easy target on religious grounds.
For example, Barbara Forrest, a philosophy professor at Southern Louisiana University, wrote a paper titled The Newest Evolution of Creationism. In this paper she states her views on the Intelligent Design movement. The following are some quotes from that paper: (It should be noted that Wells and Johnson are well known supporters of the Intelligent Design movement).
[Jonathan] Wells, influenced in part by Unification Church leader Sun Myung Moon, earned Ph.D.'s in religious studies and biology specifically "to devote my life to destroying Darwinism.”
[Phillip] Johnson, a law professor, whose religious conversion catalyzed his antievolution efforts…
At heart, ID proponents are not motivated to improve science but to transform it into a theistic enterprise.
Note that none of these statements have anything to do with the suppositions set forth by Intelligent Design, but have everything to do with the person that supports it. The quotes listed above are not selected at random but rather give a complete picture as to the nature of the essay. (Click Here to read the article) It is sad to see that those who are considered professionals in their field struggling so badly to find faults with the theory that they are reduced to avoiding it altogether and simply attacking the person.
I hope you’ve been able to see that Intelligent Design theory, although compatible with Creationism, is NOT a requirement for, nor is it a component of creationism.
According to Webster’s New World Dictionary, Creationism is “the doctrine that ascribes the origin of matter, species, etc. to acts of creation by God.” This differs from Intelligent Design in that Intelligent Design only looks for a designing intelligence, and not for information about the designing intelligence. In fact we could be living in a world designed by Martians and as long as it was designed by the Martians this would be totally consistent with the theory of Intelligent Design.
Perhaps William Dembski said it best when he wrote “Creation is always about the source of being of the world. Intelligent Design is about arrangements of preexisting materials that point to a designing intelligence. Creation and Intelligent Design are therefore quite different. One can have creation without Intelligent Design and intelligent design without creation.” (The Design Revolution, 38)
Some people will argue that Intelligent Design is just disguised theology but if they really understand the theory they will realize that it is not. Although it is similar to Creationism in that it has theological implications, it differs in that it does not require specifically theological, biblical presuppositions (i.e. earth created in a day). In fact, even if the Intelligent Design of some structure has been established, it is still a separate question whether a wise, powerful and beneficent God ought to have designed a complex information structure one way or another. (Signs of Intelligence, 10)
Intelligent Design is not concerned with why the designer decided to do something one way and not the other, it is not concerned with what the designer was thinking at the time, and it is not concerned with who the designer is/was. Intelligent Design is only concerned with the fact that there is a designer.
This difference between Intelligent Design and Creationism seems to be a difficult concept to grasp for many Darwinists. For reasons unknown, many seem to attack the individual supporting Intelligent Design instead of attacking the theory of Intelligent Design itself. If you are like me, you may have experienced this yourself.
It seems that because many who support Intelligent Design also happen to be Christians (even though Christianity and Intelligent Design do not have to correlate) makes for an easy target on religious grounds.
For example, Barbara Forrest, a philosophy professor at Southern Louisiana University, wrote a paper titled The Newest Evolution of Creationism. In this paper she states her views on the Intelligent Design movement. The following are some quotes from that paper: (It should be noted that Wells and Johnson are well known supporters of the Intelligent Design movement).
[Jonathan] Wells, influenced in part by Unification Church leader Sun Myung Moon, earned Ph.D.'s in religious studies and biology specifically "to devote my life to destroying Darwinism.”
[Phillip] Johnson, a law professor, whose religious conversion catalyzed his antievolution efforts…
At heart, ID proponents are not motivated to improve science but to transform it into a theistic enterprise.
Note that none of these statements have anything to do with the suppositions set forth by Intelligent Design, but have everything to do with the person that supports it. The quotes listed above are not selected at random but rather give a complete picture as to the nature of the essay. (Click Here to read the article) It is sad to see that those who are considered professionals in their field struggling so badly to find faults with the theory that they are reduced to avoiding it altogether and simply attacking the person.
I hope you’ve been able to see that Intelligent Design theory, although compatible with Creationism, is NOT a requirement for, nor is it a component of creationism.
Friday, July 01, 2005
What is Intelligent Design?
Seems like we should probably start out by defining exactly what Intelligent Design is. According to William Dembski (perhaps the world’s leading scholar in the field of Intelligent Design), Intelligent Design is the name given to a theory of science that states “there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence.” (William Dembski’s The Design Revolution, page 27).
Now Intelligent Design uses several factors including specified complexity (independent improbable patterns [more on this later]) and irreducible complexity (organisms that cannot be broken down into smaller functioning organisms like some kinds of bacteria) as proof of its existence.
But it is important to define what we mean by the word “intelligent.” According to the book Signs of Intelligence (by Dembski and Kushiner), the intelligent design community understands “intelligent” to refer to “an intelligent agency, irrespective of skill or mastery.”
Confused yet? I hope not, but I had to get that out of the way to set up our foundation.
Intelligent Design is the antithesis of Darwinism. Darwinism, also known as Naturalism, states that the natural world is all there is. It believes the world is exclusively explained in natural terms. Darwinism states that factors such as natural selection and random variation account for life on the planet. When a naturalist (it should be noted that naturalist and Darwinist are interchangeable for this series of posts) talks about science, he will speak from the perspective that the natural world is all there is.
This perspective is contrary to one who subscribes to Intelligent Design. A supporter of Intelligent Design would feel that the results of an intelligent agency can be detected empirically and that the natural world bears evidence of intelligent agency. They would also likely say that naturalism is not only bad philosophy but bad science (we’ll look at this more in depth later).
When dealing with Intelligent Design there are two important facts to keep in mind. First, Intelligent Design is not creationism. I will go into more details later but let me state that Intelligent Design does not account for who designed the world, only that it was designed. In other words, Intelligent Design does not require a belief in God.
Secondly, from a Christian perspective, it is important to remember that Intelligent Design is not an apologetic. Although it does have implications for use in apologetics, it is more pre-evangelistic in nature. (Kind of hard to use it to defend God’s existence if it doesn’t require God’s existence eh?)
Okay, I think that’s good enough for a brief introduction to our topic. I think that this post will be the most complicated of all of them because it sets the foundation. I would recommend re-reading it a few times if you are still confused.
Now Intelligent Design uses several factors including specified complexity (independent improbable patterns [more on this later]) and irreducible complexity (organisms that cannot be broken down into smaller functioning organisms like some kinds of bacteria) as proof of its existence.
But it is important to define what we mean by the word “intelligent.” According to the book Signs of Intelligence (by Dembski and Kushiner), the intelligent design community understands “intelligent” to refer to “an intelligent agency, irrespective of skill or mastery.”
Confused yet? I hope not, but I had to get that out of the way to set up our foundation.
Intelligent Design is the antithesis of Darwinism. Darwinism, also known as Naturalism, states that the natural world is all there is. It believes the world is exclusively explained in natural terms. Darwinism states that factors such as natural selection and random variation account for life on the planet. When a naturalist (it should be noted that naturalist and Darwinist are interchangeable for this series of posts) talks about science, he will speak from the perspective that the natural world is all there is.
This perspective is contrary to one who subscribes to Intelligent Design. A supporter of Intelligent Design would feel that the results of an intelligent agency can be detected empirically and that the natural world bears evidence of intelligent agency. They would also likely say that naturalism is not only bad philosophy but bad science (we’ll look at this more in depth later).
When dealing with Intelligent Design there are two important facts to keep in mind. First, Intelligent Design is not creationism. I will go into more details later but let me state that Intelligent Design does not account for who designed the world, only that it was designed. In other words, Intelligent Design does not require a belief in God.
Secondly, from a Christian perspective, it is important to remember that Intelligent Design is not an apologetic. Although it does have implications for use in apologetics, it is more pre-evangelistic in nature. (Kind of hard to use it to defend God’s existence if it doesn’t require God’s existence eh?)
Okay, I think that’s good enough for a brief introduction to our topic. I think that this post will be the most complicated of all of them because it sets the foundation. I would recommend re-reading it a few times if you are still confused.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)