Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Darwin Endangered
Rabbi Daniel Lapin is quite right to draw a connection between Darwinism and morality ("Darwin is Dead," November 1995). Phil Johnson's book Reason in the Balance (which Lapin cites) puts it colorfully: "I have found that any discussion with modernists about the weaknesses of the theory of evolution quickly turns into politics, particularly sexual politics." Why? Because modernists "typically fear that any discrediting of naturalistic evolution will end in women being sent to the kitchen, gays to the closet, and abortionists to jail."
Though their fears are exaggerated, people are right to sense instinctively that more is at stake in scientific theories than science - that a connection exists between the material and the moral orders. Darwinism is regarded as the factual foundation for a host of liberal theories in fields that deal with human behavior: law, ethics, education, anthropology, even theology.
The reason the evolution controversy generates such high emotion is not that people care passionately about, say, changes in the size of finch beaks but that they sense a potential challenge to their moral choices.
Nancy R. Pearcey
Reston, Virginia
"You Guys Lost: Is Design a Closed Issue?
By Nancy Pearcey
The setting was one of those notoriously colorful debates over evolution that scientists hate but the public loves. The combatants in this case were Vincent Sarich and creationist Duane Gish. Eventually Sarich turned to Gish in exasperation and denounced the debate as an exercise in redundancy. After all, he said, the same debate was conducted a hundred years ago, and "you guys lost."1 In other words, Sarich was saying, creation was discredited back in the nineteenth century by Darwin, so why are you resurrecting a dead issue?
It is commonly assumed that the battle over Darwinism was waged in the nineteenth century, and that Darwin won the day because his theory was supported by the scientific evidence. To cite just two examples, zoologist Ernst Mayr asserts that "Darwin solved the problem of teleology, a problem that had occupied the best minds for the 2000 years since Aristotle." Douglas Futuyma writes that "By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous."2 In the modern world, Darwin's theory tends to be accepted by each new generation for the simple reason that it is part of the outlook in which we are reared and educated.
Yet I suggest that there are good reasons for returning to the site of battle and asking whether it was won fair and square. I propose to show that the battle was not won by Darwin in the sense normally intended: I will argue that Darwin was a turning point in biology not so much because the empirical evidence was persuasive but primarily because his theory proved useful in advancing a particular philosophy--a philosophy of science first of all and in many cases a general metaphysical position as well.
In modern culture, science is accorded intellectual authority to define the way the world "really is." The persuasive power of Darwinian theory stems from the aura of scientific factuality that surrounds it. If it can be shown that historically the primary motivation for advancing Darwin's cause was not so much scientific as philosophical, then the theory loses much of its persuasive force. For scientists have authority to tell us how the natural world functions, but they have no comparable authority to tell us what philosophy we ought to hold. If the motivation for accepting Darwinism was primarily philosophical, then we in the twentieth century are justified in calling for a resurrection of the old debate.
In this chapter, I will first examine the writings of Darwin's core supporters in the nineteenth century. Contrary to a common misconception, Darwin did not actually win over many contemporaries to his theory. Even those who identified themselves as supporters often did not in fact accept his theory of natural selection. It was not until the 1930s and 40s, with the development of the modern synthesis (i.e., the combination of Darwin's theory with findings from genetics), that natural selection was finally accepted as the central mechanism of evolution. Those who insist that Darwin closed the issue are anachronistically reading back into history the views held by most modern biologists.
Why, then, did Darwin become the focal point of debate in the nineteenth century, even for many who did not accept his theory? The answer has to do with a shift in the philosophy of science from an older epistemology that allowed for mind as a real cause in nature to a new epistemology that admitted nothing but natural causes. Darwin's theory seemed to show that a completely naturalistic account of living things was possible; as a result, it attracted many supporters whose main interest was in promoting naturalism, even if they shrugged off the theory's scientific details. By probing the writings of the early Darwinists, I propose to show that their motivation was in fact primarily philosophical.
Second, I will look briefly at those who adopted a peacekeeping strategy, seeking to reconcile design and Darwin. What effects did their efforts have historically?
Third, I will analyze one of the most important strategies Darwin and his supporters used in order to discredit design. As the battle became more heated, they sought to make design implausible by casting it as perpetual miracle. In so doing, they set up a straw man that continues to be useful to modern-day Darwinists.
Finally, I will suggest that the success of Darwin and his cohorts in the nineteenth century had much to do with their political expertise. They understood clearly that the battle is not only about ideas but also about institutions and power.
The Non-Darwinian Darwinians
The argument that Darwin won the day back in the nineteenth century, so why don't we all go home, ignores a key fact: namely, that Darwin did not win over most of his contemporaries. His theory was accepted by only a handful of scientists for a good three-quarters of a century, gaining wider support only after Mendelian genetics had provided a clearer understanding of heredity. The majority of Darwin's contemporaries came to agree that some form of evolution or development had occurred, but most championed other mechanisms and causes to explain the process. Generally they insisted either that God was directing the process or that it was propelled forward by some internal directing force.
Historian Peter Bowler goes so far as to suggest that the Darwinian revolution should be more accurately labeled the non-Darwinian revolution (which is the title of his book on the subject). Bowler argues that Darwin should be seen as "a catalyst that helped bring about the transition to an evolutionary viewpoint," but not specifically to a Darwinian viewpoint. Most commonly evolution was seen as an orderly, lawful, goal-directed, and purposeful process analogous to the development of an embryo to an adult--"the preordained unfolding of a rationally ordered plan," often a divine plan. As Bowler puts it, "once convinced that evolution did occur, they [Darwin's followers] turned their backs on Darwin's message and got on with the job of formulating their own theories of how the process worked." 3
Ironically, even those who championed Darwin's cause, and who identified themselves as Darwinians, did not generally adopt his theory. That is, they did not accept his proposed mechanism for evolution, which gave pride of place to natural selection. Many were Lamarckians or speculated on other mechanisms for evolution. These historical facts provoke a question: If even Darwin's supporters did not accept his proposed scientific mechanism, what exactly was his appeal?
The answer is that Darwin illustrated how one might frame a completely naturalistic account of living things--an accomplishment that was attractive to those whose metaphysical stance was naturalistic, and to others who felt that at least science itself should be completely naturalistic. Though his supporters did not think Darwin had succeeded in identifying the mechanism of evolution, still he had shown how one must reason in order to succeed eventually. He had focused on presently observable processes (processes of "ordinary generation," as he put it), and extrapolated those processes into the past. In short, it was not the specifics of Darwin's theory so much as his naturalistic methodology that attracted support.
For some time, pressure had been building to frame a naturalistic approach to biology. Since the triumph of Newtonian physics, many scientists had announced their intention of extending the domain of natural law to all other fields. But the complexities of living things had defied all attempts to fit them into any naturalistic mold. As Huxley asked plaintively in 1860, "Shall Biology alone remain out of harmony with her sister sciences?"4 For those caught in this dilemma, Darwin came to the rescue. His goal was to show how biology might be transformed to fit the naturalistic ideal already dominant in other fields of science. And not only biology but also the human sciences since, in explaining all life by completely naturalistic causes, his theory included human origins.
Neal Gillespie, in Darwin and the Problem of Creation, sums up the point neatly:
"It is sometimes said that Darwin converted the scientific world to evolution by showing them the process by which it had occurred. Yet the uneasy reservations about natural selection among Darwin's contemporaries and the widespread rejection of it from the 1890s to the 1930s suggest that this is too simple a view of the matter. It was more Darwin's insistence on totally natural explanations than on natural selection that won their adherence."5
Robert Young, in Darwin's Metaphor, makes a similar point. The principle effect of the 19th-century debate, he writes, was not providing an acceptable mechanism for evolutionary change. Rather it was "eliciting faith in the philosophical principle of the uniformity of nature"--bringing "the earth, life, and man under the domain of natural laws." From the 1860s to the 1930s, acceptance of Darwin's theory of natural selection actually declined, while adherence to naturalism as a foundational assumption in biology increased. As Young puts it, there was ongoing debate about the mechanism of evolution, but "the uniformity of nature was progressively assumed to apply to the history of life, including the life and mind of man."6 In short, both the primary motivation for supporting Darwin and the principle effect of his work was not so much scientific as philosophical.
Charles Darwin
This interpretation is borne out by examining the writings of key nineteenth-century Darwinians--beginning with Darwin himself. The typical account, certainly in popular works, portrays Darwin as a man forced to the theory of natural selection by the weight of the facts. But professional historians tell a different story. Long before formulating his theory, Darwin nurtured a sympathy for philosophical naturalism. He was therefore predisposed toward a naturalistic theory of evolution even when the evidence itself was weak or inconclusive.
In a personal letter, Darwin describes his gradual loss of religious belief and slide into naturalism. By the late 1830s, he writes, he had come to consider the idea of divine revelation in the Old Testament "utterly incredible." He had also rejected the biblical concept of miracles: In his words, "The more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become." This commitment to "the fixed laws of nature" preceded Darwin's major scientific work, and made it virtually inevitable that he would interpret the evidence through a naturalistic lens.
Gillespie notes the same progression. Once Darwin had decided, in the late 1830s, that "creationist explanations in science were useless," Gillespie writes, then "transmutation was left as virtually the only conceivable means of species succession." When Darwin began to consider the origin of species, "he did so as an evolutionist because he had first become a positivist, and only later did he find the theory to validate his conviction."7
Even when he found the theory, Darwin was quite aware that it could not be confirmed directly. Modern Darwinians often imply that the theory is so clearly supported by the facts that anyone who fails to concur must be intellectually dishonest or deranged. But Darwin was not so dogmatic. He described his theory as an inference grounded chiefly on analogy. And he praised the author of one review for seeing "that the change of species cannot be directly proved and that the doctrine must sink or swim according as it groups and explains phenomena."8 In an 1863 letter, he amplified by pointing out that evolution by natural selection was "grounded entirely on general considerations" such as the difference between contemporary organisms and fossil organisms. "When we descend to details," he wrote, "we can prove that no one species has changed [i.e., we cannot prove that a single species has changed]; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not."9 In other words, Darwin was quite aware that the scientific evidence was short of compelling.
Hence the key to Darwin's own thinking is his philosophical commitment. Consider his stance on the origin of life. In the last sentence of the Origin of Species Darwin resorted to Pentateuchal language, speaking of life, "with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one." (In a later edition he added, "by the Creator.") But over time Darwin drifted toward a more consistently naturalistic position, provisionally accepting the spontaneous generation of life from inorganic material despite a striking absence of evidence for the theory at the time. In a 1882 letter, he wrote: "Though no evidence worth anything has as yet, in my opinion, been advanced in favour of a living being, being developed from inorganic matter, yet I cannot avoid believing the possibility of this will be proved some day in accordance with the law of continuity." Here is the naturalist's faith: Darwin is confident that a naturalistic theory will be found, not because the facts point in that direction but because he believes in the "continuity" of natural causes.10
This belief achieved almost religious status for Darwin. Years later William Darwin was to describe his father's attitude toward nature in near-devotional terms: "As regards his respect for the laws of Nature," William wrote of his father, "it might be called reverence if not a religious feeling. No man could feel more intensely the vastness and the inviolability of the laws of nature."11 Darwin's intellectual journey seems to illustrate the adage that if one rejects a Creator, inevitably one puts something else in its place. In Darwin's case, he assigned god-like powers to the laws of nature.
To the end of his life, Darwin struggled with a residual belief in theism, so there is some question whether he held strictly to metaphysical naturalism. But there is no question that at least he held to methodological naturalism in science. He did not argue that design was a weak theory, nor even a false theory; he argued that it was not a scientific theory at all. In 1856 he wrote to Asa Gray: "to my mind to say that species were created so and so is no scientific explanation, only a reverent way of saying it is so and so."12 As philosopher of biology David Hull writes, Darwin dismissed special creation "not because it was an incorrect scientific explanation but because it was not a proper scientific explanation at all."13
On the other hand, when Darwin's own ideas were attacked, he defended them by arguing that at least his proposed theory was naturalistic--which begged the very question that lay at the heart of the controversy. As Young writes, "Whenever [Darwin] was really in trouble . . . he appealed to the very principle which was at issue, the uniformity of nature." Darwin's contemporaries understood his strategy precisely. As John Tyndall said in his 'Belfast Address' in 1874: "'The strength of the doctrine of Evolution consists, not in an experimental demonstration (for the subject is hardly accessible to this mode of proof), but in its general harmony with scientific thought.'"14 The underlying assumption is that genuinely "scientific thought" must be naturalistic. And once that assumption is granted, some form of naturalistic evolution will win the day by default.
Herbert Spencer
In his autobiography, Herbert Spencer recounts in excruciating detail the process by which he developed a naturalistic outlook, beginning when he was a boy. Over time, he writes, "a breach in the course of [physical] causation had come to be, if not an impossible thought, yet a thought never entertained."15 As in Darwin's case, members of Spencer's family described his adherence to naturalism in near-religious terms. His father drew a parallel between the son's naturalism and the father's own religion: "From what I see of my son's mind, it appears to me that the laws of nature are to him what revealed religion is to us, and that any wilful infraction of those laws is to him as much a sin as to us is disbelief in what is revealed."16
This semi-religious attachment to naturalism explains why Spencer eventually became a tireless promoter of Darwinism. It was not because he was persuaded by Darwin's scientific theory; indeed, he rejected Darwinism and embraced Lamarckianism. Yet Spencer saw clearly that once he had embraced philosophical naturalism, he had no alternative but to accept some form of naturalistic evolution. As he puts it, having discarded orthodox Christianity, he developed an "intellectual leaning towards belief in natural causation everywhere operating." And in that naturalistic leaning, "doubtless . . . a belief in evolution at large was then latent." Why latent? Because "anyone who, abandoning the supernaturalism of theology, accepts in full the naturalism of science, tacitly asserts that all things as they now exist have been evolved." In short, Spencer accepted naturalism first, and then accepted evolution as a logical consequence. He goes on: "The doctrine of the universality of natural causation, has for its inevitable corollary the doctrine that the Universe and all things in it have reached their present forms through successive stages physically necessitated."17 Just so: Once one accepts the philosophy of naturalism, some form of naturalistic evolution is an "inevitable corollary." Finding a plausible scientific theory is secondary.
In Spencer's writings we get a glimpse of the intellectual pressure that impelled him toward a naturalistic view of evolution. "I cheerfully acknowledge," he writes in The Principles of Psychology, that the hypothesis of evolution is beset by "serious difficulties" scientifically. Yet, "save for those who still adhere to the Hebrew myth, or to the doctrine of special creations derived from it, there is no alternative but this hypothesis or no hypothesis." And no one can long remain in "the neutral state of having no hypothesis."18
Similarly, in an 1899 letter, he writes that already decades earlier, "in 1852 the belief in organic evolution had taken deep root"--not for scientific reasons but because of "the necessity of accepting the hypothesis of Evolution when the hypothesis of Special Creation has been rejected." He concludes with these telling words: "The Special Creation belief had dropped out of my mind many years before, and I could not remain in a suspended state: acceptance of the only conceivable alternative was peremptory."19 Here is a candid admission that Spencer was driven by a sense of philosophical necessity--naturalistic evolution was "the only conceivable alternative" to creation--more than by a dispassionate assessment of the scientific evidence.
Thomas H. Huxley
Thomas Huxley christened himself Darwin's and offered his natural "combativeness," as he put it, in service to the cause. So it may come as a surprise to learn that Huxley was never convinced that Darwin's theory of natural selection amounted to much scientifically. Huxley argued that the effectiveness of the mechanism would not be proved until a new species had been produced by artificial selection. By the 1879s he was even speculating on the existence of a "law of variation" that would somehow direct evolution, an idea he favored over Darwin's concept of random variations.
What, then, gave Huxley his bulldog determination to fight for Darwin? The answer is, once again, largely philosophical. Before his encounter with Darwin, Huxley writes, "I had long done with the Pentateuchal cosmogony." He had also surveyed early forms of evolutionary theory, but found them all unsatisfactory. And yet, he writes, he continued to nurse a "pious conviction that Evolution, after all, would turn out true."20
When Darwin published the Origin, Huxley welcomed it as a vindication of that "pious conviction." As his son Leonard Huxley writes, "Under the suggestive power of the Origin of Species," his father experienced "the philosophic unity he had so long been seeking."21 Huxley himself recalls that the Origin "did the immense service of freeing us for ever from the dilemma--Refuse to accept the creation hypothesis, and what have you to propose that can be accepted by any cautious reasoner?"22 Apparently Huxley, like Spencer, was so eager to be freed from that dilemma that he was willing to champion any naturalistic theory, even one he himself found scientifically implausible, so long as it provided an alternative to creation.
Consider Huxley's response to spontaneous generation. His son notes that "there was no evidence that anything of the sort had occurred recently." (Louis Pasteur had discredited all currently held theories of spontaneous generation.) Nevertheless, his father persisted in believing that "at some remote period, life had arisen out of inanimate matter"--not because of any scientific evidence but as "an act of philosophic faith."23
Huxley was especially sensitive to pressures to bring biology under the naturalistic framework that had become dominant in other fields of science. Geology had recently been placed on a new philosophical footing by Charles Lyell, and Huxley writes that it was Lyell's Principles of Geology that persuaded him that new life forms must be generated by "ordinary agencies" at work today (by which he meant natural agencies). In his words, "consistent uniformitarianism postulates Evolution as much in the organic as in the inorganic world."24 In 1859 he wrote to Lyell: "I by no means suppose that the transmutation hypothesis is proven or anything like it. But . . . . I would very strongly urge upon you that it is the logical development of Uniformitarianism, and that its adoption would harmonize the spirit of Paleontology with that of Physical Geology."25 That spirit, of course, was a consistent and relentless naturalism. As Huxley wrote elsewhere, the "whole theory crumbles to pieces" if one denies "the uniformity and regularity of natural causation for illimitable past ages."26
Huxley was what Bowler terms a "pseudo-Darwinian": someone who rallied to Darwin for philosophical reasons even while remaining unconvinced of his scientific theory. In Bowler's words, Huxley was "guaranteed" to support Darwinism because of his "empiricist philosophy."27 Or, as Gillespie puts it, he "leaned toward transmutation from intellectual necessity."28 Huxley expresses his philosophical credo eloquently in Man's Place in Nature (1864): "Even leaving Mr. Darwin's views aside, the whole analogy of natural operations furnish so complete and crushing an argument against the intervention of any but what are called secondary causes, in the production of all the phenomena of the universe; that . . . I can see no reason for doubting that all are coordinate in terms of nature's great progression, from formless to formed, from the inorganic to the organic, from blind force to conscious intellect and will."29 As he put it more simply in a 1859 speech, if the world is governed by uniformly operating laws, then the successive populations of beings "must have proceeded from one another in the way of progressive modification."30 In other words, if you accept philosophical naturalism, then something very much like Darwinism must be true a priori. This explains why Huxley was willing to do battle for Darwin, without being overly concerned about the scientific details.
Deduction from a Philosophy
"You guys lost" may be a fair assessment of the intellectual battle in the 19th century. But the question is how the battle was lost. It is often said that what made Darwin unique is that he provided a genuinely scientific mechanism for evolution--that others had proposed vague or idealist causes but in natural selection Darwin provided the first genuinely empirical mechanism. Yet, since most of Darwin's supporters did not accept his theory, that cannot be the reason for his success. I have argued that the battle was "rigged"--that Darwinism won less because it fit the empirical data than because it provided a scientific rationale for those already committed to a purely naturalistic account of life.
Both Darwin's supporters and opponents understood that philosophical naturalism was the central issue. Among opponents, Princeton theologian Charles Hodge wrote an essay titled What Is Darwinism? He answered bluntly that Darwinism is tantamount to atheism: "Natural selection is selection made by natural laws, working without intention and design." And "the denial of design in nature is virtually the denial of God."31 Among supporters, Karl Vogt noted happily that Darwin's theory "turns the Creator--and his occasional intervention in the revolutions of the earth and in the production of species--without any hesitation out of doors, inasmuch as it does not leave the smallest room for the agency of such a Being."32 Emil de Bois-Reymond wrote: "The possibility, ever so distant, of banishing from nature its seeming purpose, and putting blind necessity everywhere in the place of final causes, appears, therefore, as one of the greatest advances in the world of thought." To have "eased" this problem, Bois-Reymond concludes, will be "Charles Darwin's greatest title to glory."33 And finally, August Weismann: "We must assume natural selection to be the principle of the explanation of the metamorphoses because all other apparent principles of explanation fail us, and it is inconceivable that there should be another capable of explaining the adaptation of organisms without assuming the help of a principle of design." Apparently only Darwinism would keep biology safe from design.34
Darwin and Design
Is it necessary, however, to drive such a sharp wedge between design and natural causes? Many if not most of the scientists in the Darwinian and post-Darwinian era sought some kind of middle ground. They gave God a directing role in evolution and asserted his constant supervision over the process. They located design not in the "contrivances" of living things (to use Paley's word) but in the laws that created those contrivances.
Gillespie calls this position nomothetic creation (creation by law) or providential evolution, depending on how much leeway is allowed to divine initiative. This category would include men such as Asa Gray, Charles Kingsley, the Duke of Argyll, St. George Jackson Mivart, Baden Powell, Robert Chambers, Richard Owen. Despite important differences among these men, they agreed that natural laws are expressions of divine purpose, and that God or mind directs or preordains the course of evolution. John Herschel states the position clearly: "An intelligence, guided by a purpose, must be continually in action to bias the directions of the steps of change--to regulate their amount--to limit their divergence--and to continue them in a definite course. We do not believe that Mr. Darwin means to deny the necessity of such intelligent direction."35
But Mr. Darwin did mean to deny the necessity of such intelligent direction. The design argument pointed to characteristics of living things that seemed analogous to the products of an intelligent mind, with its capacity for forethought, purpose, and design. The challenge Darwin took on was to identify completely natural processes capable of mimicking the products of a mind. Gillespie describes Darwin's goal in these words:
"It has been generally agreed (then [in Darwin's day] and since) that Darwin's doctrine of natural selection effectively demolished William Paley's classical design argument for the existence of God. By showing how blind and gradual adaptation could counterfeit the apparently purposeful design that Paley . . . and others had seen in the contrivances of nature, Darwin deprived their argument of the analogical inference that the evident purpose to be seen in the contrivances by which means and ends were related in nature was necessarily a function of mind."
Put simply, Darwin proposed to show that purposeless nature could "counterfeit purpose."36
Hence he emphatically rejected any attempt to sneak purpose in by the back door, so to speak. Consider his response to Asa Gray, who wedded Darwinian theory to fairly conservative Christian theology. Gray denied that variation, the raw material of natural selection, was random; instead he opted for a teleological view of evolution. In fact, Gray fancied that he comprehended the implications of Darwin's theory better than Darwin himself. In a letter written in 1863, he confessed to a bit of cunning: "Under my hearty congratulations of Darwin for his striking contributions to teleology, there is a vein of petite malice, from my knowing well that he rejects the idea of design, while all the while he is bringing out the neatest illustrations of it."37
But Darwin's response to Gray's notion of divine direction was unequivocal: In a letter to Lyell he wrote, "If I were convinced that I required such additions to the theory of natural selection, I would reject it as rubbish." Two years later he wrote again to Lyell: "The view that each variation has been providentially arranged seems to me to make Natural Selection entirely superfluous, and indeed takes the whole case of the appearance of new species out of the range of science." To say that variations are divinely ordained adds nothing scientifically, Darwin went on: It "seems to me mere verbiage." He summed up his view by charging that "Gray's notion [of guided variations] seems to me to smash the whole affair."38
Notice that Darwin's objections to providential evolution are twofold. First, it makes natural selection "superfluous," "rubbish," "mere verbiage." Natural selection was intended to replace design; hence, the presence of both is redundant. As Darwin wrote in his autobiography, "The old argument from design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. . . . There seems to be now more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows. Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws."39 The effort to superimpose divine direction onto a completely naturalistic process Young labels "theistic naturalism," an oxymoron that has resurfaced in recent debates.
Second, Darwin objected that adding divine purpose to evolution takes the discussion "out of the range of science." The implication is that science cannot countenance intelligent causation in any form. In Darwin's mind, divinely ordained evolution was no different in principle from direct creation. Both were inadmissible in science. As Hull notes, "Darwin insisted on telling a totally consistent naturalistic story or none at all."40
Those who reformulated Darwin to accommodate design were hoping to prevent the takeover of the idea of evolution by philosophical naturalism. They sought to extract the scientific theory from the philosophy in which it was embedded. But the two proved inseparable and, ironically, the effect of their effort was precisely the opposite of what they had hoped: It sped the acceptance of philosophical naturalism. As Hull writes, "The architects of the demise of teleology were not atheistic materialists but pious men . . . who thought they were doing religion a good service" in restricting God to working through natural laws. "What these men did not realize was that by pushing God further and further into the background as the unknowable author of natural law, . . . they had prepared the way for his total expulsion."41
Gillespie tells the same story: The restructuring of the design argument to adapt to evolution, he writes, was an important "step in the secularization of science and its eventual intellectual separation from theology." The idea of designed or directed evolution "eased a generation of often reluctant scientists into a 'naturalistic' and ultimately positivistic world view." In this naturalistic world view, God had no significant function and divine action was not required for a true understanding of the world. As a result, religious belief became "private, subjective, and artificial"; God "was, at best, a gratuitous philosophical concept derived from a personal need."42
Once God had been reduced to a "gratuitous philosophical concept" based on personal need, Darwin and his cohorts could afford to be tolerant toward religious believers. In the mid-1870s, Young writes, there are signs of the "benevolent tolerance of the victors."43 Religious believers could be treated gently so long as they agreed that God did absolutely nothing in the natural world studied by science. As Gillespie explains, the strategy of relocating design from contrivances to laws "gave the game to the positivist." It removed from the idea of design "any identifiable sign of divine action"--stripped it of any empirical content.44 And toward those who clung to such a tame and vacuous concept of design, even the most aggressive Darwinist could afford to be indulgent.
"Every Trifling Detail"
Another important facet of the nineteenth-century debate is the strategy employed to discredit design, and to redefine science in strictly naturalistic terms. As the debate intensified, Darwin and his allies increasingly identified creation with perpetual miracle. Historically, Paley and other proponents of design had insisted on the reality of both primary and secondary causality at work in the world. But the Darwinians ignored that history. Instead, they presented design as the denial of all secondary causes. They portrayed a designed world as a world at the mercy of divine caprice and arbitrary whim.
For example, in the Origin Darwin describes his opponents as holding that each variety of finch on the Galapagos Islands sprang full-blown from the Creator's hand. Moreover, he also describes his opponents as holding that the islands' unusual flora and fauna were "created in the Galapagos Archipelago, and nowhere else."45 Design was presented as the belief that God had created each minor variety in its present location--giraffes in Africa, tigers in Asia, and buffalo in America. Darwin referred to this as the theory of "multiple centres of creation," and in the Origin he demolished it.
Interestingly, Darwin concedes that, at the time, the idea of creation in situ rested on empirical, not theological, grounds.46 For example, it appeared to be the only explanation for the existence of the same species on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. Surely no organism was capable of migrating across thousands of miles of salt water. Be that as it may, Darwin focused his argument on places such as the Galapagos Archipelago, where evidence for migration was strong. Was it really plausible that each variety of finch and tortoise had been specially created for each of the tiny islands, some of which were, in Darwin's words, hardly more than "points of rock"? For myself, he stated, "I disbelieve in . . . innumerable acts of creation."47
Much of the Origin is taken up with arguments for variability and migration. The idea of separate creations would be more plausible, Darwin noted in his journal, if each island had a completely unique set of plants and animals. But since many of the organisms are variations on a common theme, it is difficult to resist the conclusion that they descended from a single set of ancestral species that originally migrated to the islands. This and other patterns of geographical distribution, Darwin insists, are "utterly inexplicable on the ordinary view of the independent creation of each species." He warns that anyone who rejects the idea of migration, "rejects the vera causa of ordinary generation with subsequent migration, and calls in the agency of a miracle."48
What do we say to all this? The views Darwin attributes to proponents of design are so foreign today that we have to read our history books to learn about them. No design theorist today denies the reality of variation or migration. The consensus among even the strictest biblical creationists is that the Galapagos finches were not separately created but represent variations within a single species. For example, James Coppedge in Evolution: Possible or Impossible dismisses them as "only minor adaptation within types, as would be expected in any design of creation."49 Wayne Frair and Percival Davis in A Case for Creation note that the finches "may serve as an example of diversification" but "not evolution in the usual sense, because the changes were relatively minor."50 Walter Lammerts, who made detailed measurements of a large collection of Darwin's finches, notes that they exhibit complete intergradation of bill and body size. He concludes that the birds constitute a single species, "broken up into various island forms as a result of chance arrangement of their original variability potential."51
Clearly, design does not require the rejection of either variability or migration. In fact, historians have been hard put to explain why Darwin was so preoccupied with a position that, already in his own day, naturalists had all but abandoned. Some historians attribute it to Darwin's ignorance of the current state of the debate; others think he was setting up a straw man. I suggest he was framing a false choice between perpetual miracle and completely closed naturalistic world. His argument ran like this: Either invoke direct divine action to explain every phenomenon in biology ("call in the agency of a miracle"), or else admit that every phenomenon can be explained by natural processes of "ordinary generation."
Darwin urged this false choice again and again. In The Descent of Man he acknowledged that "our minds refuse to accept" an explanation of the universe based on the idea of "blind chance." Yet the alternative, he went on, is to believe that "every slight variation of structure,--the union of each pair in marriage,--the dissemination of each seed,--and other such events, have all been ordained for some special purpose."52 Darwin wrote to Sir John Herschel: "One cannot look at this Universe with all living productions & man without believing that all has been intelligently designed; yet when I look to each individual organism, I can see no evidence of this. For, I am not prepared to admit that God designed the feathers in the tail of the rock-pigeon to vary in a highly peculiar manner in order that man might select such variations & make a Fan-tail."53
In pressing the point, Darwin could not resist ridicule. In a book on the fertilization of orchids, he described design proponents as those who view "every trifling detail of structure as the result of the direct interposition of the Creator."54
In a letter to Asa Gray he wrote: "I cannot think that the world, as we see it, is the result of chance; and yet I cannot look at each separate thing as the result of Design." He confessed that he could not believe pigeon tail feathers were led to vary "in order to gratify the caprice of a few men."55 He asked Lyell: Could he really think that the deity had intervened to cause variations in domestic pigeons "solely to please man's silly fancies"?56
The argument became downright silly when Darwin challenged his friends to say whether God had designed his nose. He wrote to Lyell asking whether he believed that the shape of his nose "was ordained and 'guided by an intelligent cause'."57 In a similar vein, he asked Gray: "Do you believe that when a swallow snaps up a gnat that God designed that that particular swallow should snap up that particular gnat at that particular instant?"58
In these almost facetious comments Darwin was ignoring centuries of debate among Christians over the balance between God's direct activity and the action of created causes. As Anglican theologian E.L. Mascall writes, "The main tradition of classical Christian philosophy, while it insisted upon the universal primary causality of God in all the events of the world's history, maintained with equal emphasis the reality and the authenticity of secondary causes."59 Scottish theologian Thomas Torrance sums up this balanced view by speaking of the "contingent order" of creation. "Contingency" refers to the fact that the creation is not autonomous. It is not self-originating or self-sustaining; it was created by God and depends continually upon His power. On the other hand, "order" refers to the fact that God does not work in the world by perpetual miracle. He has set up a network of secondary causes that act in regular and consistent patterns.60 As Christopher Kaiser points out in his book Creation and the History of Science, attempts to conceptualize this balance have carried on since the time of the church fathers--notably by Basil of Caesarea in the fourth century.61 Darwin ignored this rich history and slashed the Gordian knot by insisting that one must choose either God or nature. Give any quarter to divine activity, he implied, and the entire world becomes an arena of perpetual and arbitrary miracle. On the other hand, allow that minor variation and diversification can be accounted for by natural processes, and one must place all the world and all life solely under the domain of natural law.
This false dichotomy continues to be useful to Darwinists today. Admit that natural processes account for the diversification of finch beaks or peppered moths or fruit flies, we are told, and one is logically committed to admitting that the same processes are adequate to create birds and fruit flies in the first place. Only recently has this strategy begun to wear thin, with biologists recognizing that minor variation is not the means of producing major innovations. Simply put, micro-evolution is not the mechanism for macro-evolution. Yet examples of micro-evolution continue to be exhibited as the prime factual evidence supporting naturalistic theories of evolution.
The Politics of Science
In considering how Darwin won the day, we must not ignore politics. The changes sought by nineteenth-century Darwinists were not only intellectual but also institutional. The older epistemology of science accommodated both religion and science: It allowed theology to place limits on the ideas acceptable in science. Once again, this was a balance rooted as far back as the church fathers. The second-century apologists accepted as much as they could of the science of their day (which was a product of Greek philosophy), but they insisted on certain limits: For example, they rejected the idea that the universe is eternal and instead insisted on an absolute beginning, on God's creation of the world ex nihilo.62
But the new naturalistic epistemology promoted by the Darwinists was aggressively autonomous. It demanded that science be completely independent of theology. Gillespie writes: "The very existence of a rival science or of an alternative mode of knowledge was intolerable to the positivist"; he was "intolerant of all other claims to scientific knowledge. Anyone not of his tribe was a charlatan, an imposter." As a result, these disagreements did not remain merely academic: They precipitated a struggle for power over social institutions. As Gillespie explains,
"It was not enough to drive out the old ideas. Their advocates had to be driven out of the scientific community as well. . . . In order for the world to be made safe for positive science, its practitioners had to occupy the seats of power as well as win the war of ideas. Both were necessary to the establishment of a new scientific orthodoxy."63
Many scientists are understandably uncomfortable with the idea that skill in politics and public relations help a theory gain acceptance. They like to believe that the dominant factor in the success of a theory is the objective evidence in its favor. Yet sociologists of knowledge are right in stressing that science is to some extent a social process, and that an advantage is gained by those who are skillful at controlling the social process, at attracting supporters while isolating opponents.
In hindsight, the strategies pursued by the nineteenth-century Darwinists are clear. Before publishing the Origin, Darwin carefully cultivated a nucleus of biologists who were prepared to support his work. These early converts then followed basic political strategies: They presented a unified front in public; they conceded minor points in order to make major points; they were willing to accept as allies people who disagreed over the details; they minimized open controversy that might alienate doubters and fence-sitters, while cultivating younger scientists who were open to the new ideas. In this way, the Darwinians gradually gained a majority. Their supporters were able to influence the educational system as teachers. They took control of the editorial process at scientific periodicals so that editors and referees became willing to accept papers from a Darwinian viewpoint. The new journal Nature was founded at least in part as a vehicle for spreading the Darwinian message. Darwin won the day in part because his supporters were adept at employing PR tactics, and they simply out-maneuvered their rivals.64
It would appear that latter-day design theorists have caught on. Today the movement has capable leadership (such as that provided by Phillip Johnson); it has launched a professional journal (Origins and Design), started a fellowship program at the Discovery Institute, founded an honors program at Biola, and is holding professional conferences (the Mere Creation Conference in 1996). I suggest that we are well on our way to building our own institutions, and there is surely reason to hope that we may one day turn the tide.
In closing, I would like to pose a sampling of questions that emerge from a survey of the history of the evolution debate. Since the nineteenth century, these have been among the most frequently raised objections to design, yet they have not been adequately answered by design theorists:
An understanding of history. The nineteenth century marked the birth of historical consciousness in every field, from philosophy to the sciences. But the notion of design was essentially static, and as a result it was swept away by theories that offered some account of the history of life. How do up-dated versions of design get beyond a static view of life, and account for history?
Mind as cause. What exactly is meant in speaking of a mind or intelligence acting in nature? What is primary causality? How is such a notion scientific? Does such a notion introduce sheer "mystery" and "caprice," as Gillespie puts it? One of Darwin's margin notes from 1838 reads as follows: "The explanation of types of structure in classes--as resulting from the will of the deity, to create animals on certain plans--is no explanation--it has not the character of a physical law / & is therefore utterly useless--it foretells nothing / because we know nothing of the will of the Deity . . . . "65 Darwin is quite right: We cannot directly know the will of God. How then can it be scientific to speak of divine intention and divine action in the world?
End of science?. Does design imply an end to scientific inquiry? Sir Joseph Dalton Hooker said he embraced Darwinism--what he called the "newest doctrines"--"not because they are the truest but because they do give you room to reason and reflect." By contrast, the old doctrines of design "are so many stops to further inquiry; if they are admitted as truths, why there is an end of the whole matter, and it is no use hoping ever to get to any rational explanation of origin or dispersion of species--so I hate them."66 Hooker's view is shared by many today: i.e., that to attribute something to design is not to explain it at all. It is to throw in the towel, to halt inquiry, no give up hope of any rational explanation. How do modern design theorists answer this objection?
Does the concept of design have any empirical content?. In the Origin, Darwin twits the design theorists of his day for allowing that some structures result from secondary causes, while insisting that others are designed, but offering no principle for distinguishing between the two. Why not just attribute all of them to secondary causes? he asks. In his words: "Several eminent naturalists have of late published their belief that a multitude of reputed species in each genus are not real species; but that other species are real, that is, have been independently created. This seems to me a strange conclusion to arrive at. They admit that a multitude of forms, which till lately they themselves thought were special creations . . . have been produced by variation, but they refuse to extend the same view to other and very slightly different forms. Nevertheless they do not pretend that they can define, or even conjecture, which are the created forms of life, and which are those produced by secondary laws. They admit variation as a vera causa in one case, they arbitrarily reject it in another, without assigning any distinction in the two cases."67 If design theorists insist on the reality of both primary and secondary causality, what principle do we offer for distinguishing between their effects?
The problem of evil. Darwin wrote there was just "too much misery in the world" for him to believe in design: "I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice."68 Other examples were "the young cuckoo ejecting its foster-brother" and "ants making slaves."69 How do contemporary design theorists explain the presence of evil in a designed world?
What philosophy of science does design theory entail?. Hull writes that older theories of design rested on two pillars: a Baconian understanding of induction, with its claim of guaranteeing absolute certainty, and an essentialist metaphysic. James Moore in The Post-Darwinian Controversies echoes the same theme, describing Christian anti-Darwinists as those who sought "ultimate certainty through inductive inferences," with the corollary belief that the world "contains a finite number of fixed natural 'kinds.'"70 Does the notion of design in fact require us to embrace these philosophical positions?
Is God Unconstitutinal #2
The Established Religious Philosophy of America, Part 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Meet the Author: Phillip E. Johnson
Phillip Johnson has been a professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley, for 26 years. He received his B.A. from Harvard and his J.D. from the University of Chicago. Johnson is the author of Darwin on Trial, a work which contends theories of evolution are based on philo-sophical naturalism. Since the writing of his book, Johnson has spoken and debated extensively with experts on the issue.
--------------------------------------------------------
Despite the great cultural authority of modernist philosophy today, I believe its hegemony will come under severe challenge in the 21st century. This is a complex subject that requires book-length treatment, but I will attempt here to describe briefly how the five apparent advantages of modernism may turn into disadvantages.
First, naturalism is not "the way things really are." The impression that science has validated naturalism is a metaphysical illusion. What has happened is the enterprise of historical science--the scientific picture of the history of the Cosmos from the big bang to the appearance of human consciousness--has been defined by metaphysical naturalists as the application of their philosophy to cosmic history. This is best seen in terms of the history of life, where it is axiomatic with evolutionary biologists and chemists that only purposeless, unintelligent material processes were involved in creating the immensely complex and diverse forms of life that exist today.
As the experience of Dean Kenyon, professor at San Francisco State University, illustrates, the alternative possibility--that a pre-existing intelligence brought life into existence for a purpose--is ideologically unacceptable and may not be considered. In my experience many evolutionary scientists, including professors at Christian institutions, are so thoroughly indoctrinated in the premise that science means naturalism that they are unable to formulate the concept of intelligent cause as a hypothesis, or to imagine how something might show signs of being created by intelligence rather than by non-intelligence.
The dogma that life is the product of unintelligent material processes is not only unproven, it is quite improbable when it is not assumed as part of the definition of science. An attempt to back up that statement would be beyond the subject of this paper; the case is made in books like my own Darwin on Trial and Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen's book The Mystery of Life's Origin. A substantial literature following up on these books is already in press or in preparation, and I am confident that unbiased investigation will eventually undermine the monolithic materialism of the biological research community.
My point for now is not to argue the case for the existence of a creator, but to point out the importance of the issue. Many Christian intellectuals have mistakenly assumed that naturalism in science can be smoothly combined with theism in religion and ethics, as if naturalism and theism were "two truths" that do not conflict with each other. But theological or ethical reflection makes sense only against a corresponding background reality. If naturalism is "the way things really are," then theistic religion does not go out of business, but it does change its character. It becomes tacitly understood as part of human subjectivity, so that the test of a good religious belief is not objective truth, but whether the belief has beneficial effects in the life of the believer.
The spirit of religion in a culture where only naturalism can be objectively true is captured by the remark attributed to President Eisenhower: "Every American should have a religion, and I don't care what it is." The same relativistic spirit pervades Yale Law Professor Steven Carter's recent defense of "religion in general" in The Culture of Unbelief.
The metaphysical problem explains why Christians as such have next to no scholarly standing in the secular academy. When George Marsden complained in a recent paper that theistic thinking remains shut out of academic discourse, Berkeley History Professor David Hollinger replied by doubting whether theists have anything distinctive of value to say. It is a fair point in a naturalistic academic culture. If God is a product of the human imagination, how can attributing human beliefs to this imaginary being add anything of objective value to the conversation? On the other hand, if God is objectively real, and if our culture is ignoring that reality, then theists have something as valuable to say as did the prophets of Israel in their time.
Does Modernism Equal Rationality?
The second advantage claimed for naturalism is that it is equivalent to rationality, because it assumes a model of reality in which all events are in principle accessible to scientific investigation. Recall the Los Angeles Times editorial, which characterized reliance on the supernatural (after the ultimate beginning) as "seek[ing] refuge from scientific uncertainty in the irrational." When an unusual scientist like Dean Kenyon suggests the possibility that organisms may contain a kind of complex information that can come only from intelligence, scientists--including many who are professors at Christian institutions, recoil in horror from the thought. Any visible sign of God's activity seems to threaten a world of constant miracles where nothing can be predicted with confidence.
The assumption that nature is all there is, and that nature has been governed by the same rules at all times and places, makes it possible for natural science to be confident that it can explain such things as how life began. This advantage comes at a heavy price, however. Naturalism opens up the whole world of fact to scientific knowledge, but by the same token it consigns the whole realm of value to human subjectivity. This consequence is unavoidable, because humans created by purposeless material processes can have nothing but themselves to look to in deciding how life ought to be lived. On questions of value, science, the only source of objective knowledge, cannot supply answers. On naturalistic assumptions science can say a lot about how creation may have occurred, but one thing it can never say is that the world so created is good. Only God can say that.
Of course I am describing the famous fact/value dichotomy, which says that we can have knowledge of facts but only beliefs about values. The inevitable consequence is that the relativistic position on values or ethics always has the upper hand. Yale Law Professor Arthur Leff expressed this whimsically in an outstanding lecture that I have quoted elsewhere. Say that adultery (for example) is wrong, Leff said, and you are likely to be met by "the grand sez who." There may be arguments against committing adultery, but there are counter-arguments as well (love must not be denied). Who can decide? A bumper sticker common in college towns like Berkeley says "Question Authority." I have heard of another sticker that reads: "Who are you to tell me to Question Authority?"
The practical consequences of this anarchy on value questions are visible in our naturalistic universities today. On the "fact" side of the campus, in the hard sciences, a model of objective knowledge rules. On the "value" side, in the humanities, we find multiculturalism, post-modern- ism, and deconstruction. The most influential voices in the humanities tell us our thought should not seek to provide a "mirror of nature," and that truth is relative to particular interpretive communities, who interpret texts by standards valid only for them. Multiculturalism and postmodernism are even beginning to threaten part of the realm of natural science, as the panicky tone of the Los Angeles Times editorial indicates. Where science continues to provide valuable technology it will probably be safe, but historical sciences like physical anthropology have little to do with technology and provide fertile terrain for mythmaking.
The growing irrationalism on value questions suggest that a need may be felt for a broader concept of rationality, one which invites us to consider the possibility that writers like Dante and Milton knew something important which we have forgotten in our desire to maximize our control over the material world. Of course, a desire to have a more comprehensive model of rationality cannot be satisfied if modernist naturalism is "the way things really are," but it may dispose humanists to look favorably upon efforts to sub-ject naturalistic assumptions to critical scrutiny.
Does Naturalism Liberate?
The third advantage claimed for modernism is that it is liberating, especially in the area of sexual behavior and gender roles. Obviously the death of God makes people free from rules based upon what had been thought to be the word of God, and therefore invites a rethinking of such things as gender roles and sexual morality. We all know that this trend has gone very far, but some people think it should go still farther. Kristine Gebbie, the White House Assistant for AIDS programs, says that we are still a repressed, Victorian society that does not talk frankly about sex, especially in terms of emphasizing the positive side of sexual experience to teenagers. I would not have thought our faults lay in that direction, but Ms. Gebbie's view that the sexual revolution has not gone far enough is common in some circles, and especially among sex educators.
My own opinion is Gebbie does not represent the wave of the future. Our nation is undergoing an epidemic of illegitimate births, with rates of illegitimacy among whites now soaring to 28 percent while rates among inner city blacks in some areas are over 80 percent. The majority of these illegitimate births are to teenagers.
A constitutional democracy is in serious trouble if its citizenry does not have a certain degree of education and civic virtue. That virtue is not likely to be cultivated effectively in families headed by unmarried teenagers. Experience has shown condoms are not the answer to the problem of teen pregnancy, nor do they help make absent fathers more responsible. If our opinion leaders do not grasp the dimensions of the problem, and persist in thinking our situation calls for more sexual liberation rather than self-control and family responsibility, I think they may learn better before long. But changing this situation will take powerful medicine, and not just words of exhortation. It may take a basic change in thinking.
Is Naturalism Democratic?
The fourth advantage of modernism is said to be that it is democratic. Consideration of this claimed advantage takes us back to the naturalistic model of rationality. Modernism begins with the death of God, and this begins when modern people, enlightened by science, grasp that God was never anything but a projection of our own selves, or perhaps our fathers' selves. It seemed to follow that when we discarded the illusory God, we would retain everything of value in religion, but relocate it in human experience, which is where religion must have come from in the first place. Knowledge founded on human experience, and thus in principle accessible to everybody, would provide a basis for a democratic political and ethical conversation to which all could contribute on equal terms. Combined with free public education, a secular monopoly of public discourse could secure democratic liberty and minimize religious discord.
It should be evident by now, however, that things may work out very differently. What modernism may lead to is a growing doubt that there is any such thing as objective truth, with a consequent fragmenting of the body politic into separate groups with no common frame of reference. We hear much less about truth these days in the academic world than we hear about knowledge and power. Power ideologies, as 20th century history has demonstrated, are every bit as dangerous as religious fanaticism. Fragmentation in the academic world mirrors the fragmentation in geography, where empires are splitting up and the remnants are threatening to go to war with each other. The great need of the 21st century may turn out to be a unifying vision, and I do not think that science will be able to provide it.
Benevolent Neutrality of Modernism?
Finally, I noted that modernism as a ruling philosophy has been acceptable or even welcome to many theists. If each religious group could maintain its identity and values in private life, under the benevolent neutrality of modernists indifferent to religious controversies, then why protest? This comfortable arrangement depends, however, on a large and robust sphere of private activity. In the early twentieth century, the scope of government, especially national government, was modest. As the decades have gone by, however, the institutions of government directed by modernist philosophy have grown much more all-encompassing. Confining religion to private life means something entirely different when practically everything is regulated by public standards.
For example, even public schools used to be private in the sense they were responsive to parents and local community values; now they are much more under the control of professional educators carrying out national policies based on modernist assumptions. Anti-discrimination laws also reach very far, and informal coercive policies of the same sort (such as have been directed against the Boy Scouts) reach even farther. Accrediting agencies are beginning to impose "diversity" standards upon private colleges, and this concept may eventually require institutions not only to accept students and faculty who do not believe in or practice Biblical moral standards, but even perhaps to maintain a campus atmosphere that is supportive of practices that the churches have traditionally discouraged. Legal scholars are already discussing proposals to remove tax exemptions from churches that do not meet secular requirements of gender equality. The political climate may not be prepared for such strong measures yet--but the history of anti-discrimination and affirmative action laws shows how rapidly such measures can expand.
These examples are symptomatic of a broader problem. Believers in God cannot effectively in-sulate themselves from modernist influence by retiring to the sanctuary of private life. Modernism invades the sanctuary not only in the form of legal regulation, but through television, academic literature, and every form of cultural penetration. As a result, religious colleges, seminaries, and church bureaucracies are saturated with modernist thinking. As this becomes increasingly apparent, Christians are not likely to remain satisfied with a naturalistic culture that will not leave them alone.
I will give just one current example. My own denomination, the Presbyterian Church (USA), is embroiled in a controversy over an international women's conference that denominational bureaucrats helped to sponsor last year, titled "Re-Imagining God, Church, and Community." The publicity has focused upon various horrors that occurred there, involving worship of the goddess Sophia, but I will not go into details because my point is a more general one. The very title of the conference implied its modernist foundations, regardless of what specific events were planned. The conference organizers considered it natural to "re-imagine God" because they took for granted the modernist assumption that God was imagined by humans in the first place. In re-imagining God to fit late 20th century feminist ideology, they were merely doing what modernists think theists always do. They were projecting their own qualities and desires onto an imaginary deity, and worshipping themselves. That such a conference could be planned by church staff, and subsidized with church funds awarded through regular processes, indicates that a very large party within the church has no idea that there is anything wrong with that way of thinking about God.
In some ways the situation is discouraging, but in other respects it is good that the corruption is so apparent that many congregations within the denomination are finally grasping what is at stake and taking strong action to curb the abuses. The important thing is they learn that the problem goes beyond specific abuses and reflects a penetration of the church by a nonChristian philosophy which employs God-talk for relativistic ends. I am seeing many signs that the willingness to challenge modernist assumptions is growing among Christians. I find this very encouraging, because modernist penetration of the church is most dangerous when its philosophical roots are concealed, and Christians are fooled into thinking that they and the modernists are still fundamentally on the same side.
If modernist naturalism were true, there would be no objective truth outside of science. In that case right and wrong would be a matter of cultural preference, or political power, and the power already available to modernists ideologies would be overwhelming. We would have no hope. But modernism is not true, and scientific research does not really support it if we can disentangle science from its domination by naturalistic metaphysics. All that requires is a determination to focus attention on the verbal manipulations and circular reasoning by which naturalism retains its power. Once the light is in the world, we know that the darkness can never put it out.
Editor's Note
This concludes a two-part article taken from a lecture Johnson delivered for a March 1994 conference on "Regaining a Christian Voice in the University," sponsored by Fieldstead & Company and InterVarsity Christian Fellowship.
Is God Unconstitutional
The Established Religious Philosophy of America, Part 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meet the Author: Phillip Johnson
Phillip Johnson has been a professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley, for 26 years. He received his B.A. from Harvard and his J.D. from the University of Chicago. Johnson is the author of Darwin on Trial, a work which contends theories of evolution are based on philosophical naturalism. Since the writing of his book, Johnson has spoken and debated extensively with experts on the issue.
------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 27, 1994, The Los Angeles Times published an editorial defending orthodox science against a host of enemies. First on the enemies' list came the infamous creationists, of course, who engage in what the Times called "pernicious efforts...to infiltrate the public schools with the arrant nonsense of 'creation science.'"
The L.A. Times warned that science also faces new enemies on the left, however. These include Afro-centrists who promote theories of black racial superiority and Native Americans who question the "well-established anthropological fact" that their ancestors migrated to America from Asia across the Bering Strait.
The Times also deplored the fact that aid and comfort is given to these enemies of science by certain "post-modernist" scholars, who argue that all knowledge is relative and that mainstream Western scientists therefore have no greater authority to explain reality than other thinkers.
In short, The Los Angeles Times saw the authority of science as being under attack from all directions, with some of the attacks coming from prestigious or fashionable academics of the left. The editorial response was a straightforward declaration of cultural war against the critics. The newspaper did not consider the possibility that the contemporary scientific world view might actually contain any subjective or debatable elements, although it did acknowledge that individual scientists sometimes commit fraud or error.
With respect to any challenge to scientific doctrines from religion, the Times quoted the current President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, genetics professor Francisco Ayala of the Irvine Campus of the University of California and a former Catholic priest, as saying that "science does not contradict religion."
In interpreting what it took Ayala to mean, however, the Times drew a firm line in the sand. It stated, "Religion has a legitimate role in the discourse over the ultimate origin of matter, a mystery that science may never solve." After that ultimate beginning, however, to ascribe any role to God in the history of the cosmos would be to "seek refuge from scientific uncertainty in the irrational." The editorial went on to warn that departure from scientific orthodoxy on the subject of biological evolution would lead inevitably to "intellectual and economic suicide," because "scientific and technological prowess is critical to American competitiveness in a global economy." The Times even advertised a "hotline" 800 number that "right-thinking" parents and teachers were encouraged to call for assistance "in resisting the forces of ignorance."
Intolerance Bordering on Hatred
An on-going academic freedom case at San Francisco State University provides another illustration of the extreme disapproval with which the current scientific orthodoxy regards the concept of a God who does not retire from all further activity after the ultimate origin of matter. Biology professor Dean Kenyon was the co-author 26 years ago of a respected book entitled Biochemical Predestination, which supported the orthodox scientific theory that living organisms evolved from non-living chemicals through natural chemical processes. As the years went by, Kenyon's doubts grew, however, and eventually he concluded that the evidence did not support the assumption that unintelligent material processes are capable of forming living organisms by chemical evolution.
As instructor of a large introductory course for non-majors, Kenyon taught his students the prevailing theories of chemical and biological evolution, but he also taught the weaknesses of those theories and suggested that life might in fact be the product of "intelligent design" - however distasteful that prospect might be to orthodox scientific materialists. A few students complained, and the professor was called on the carpet. The department chairman and the dean of science told him that his teaching of intelligent design amounted to Biblical creationism, and that to consider this possibility favorably was to bring the forbidden topic of religion into science. To ensure that he had no further opportunity to advocate such absurdities, Kenyon was removed from his regular classroom duties and relegated to laboratory supervision.
Kenyon challenged this administrative action by bringing a complaint before SFSU's Academic Freedom Committee. The committee ruled that professors of biology, like those who teach other subjects, have a right to dissent from the prevailing orthodoxy in their field. It, therefore, unanimously urged the administrators to reinstate Kenyon in his normal teaching assignments. The dean and department chairman balked at first, but they gave way after the full academic senate voted to support the committee's recommendation. Kenyon had won a victory, and students at San Francisco State will at least temporarily be exposed to a viewpoint which the reigning authorities in the scientific world regard with a disgust bordering on hatred.
How long this victory will last is questionable, however. In February, the biology faculty at San Francisco State adopted, by vote of 27 to 5, a resolution declaring, "There is no scientific evidence to support the concept of intelligent design," and therefore "the intelligent design view is not scientific." In context, the statement, like many others on the subject from the scientific community, tries to combine two discordant propositions. On the one hand, the scientific authorities want to say that intelligent design is not eligible for consideration because it is religion, not science, and on the other hand they want to say they have thoroughly considered the concept and rejected it as false.
The apparent purpose of this confused declaration is to set the stage for some effort to prevent Kenyon from telling students that he thinks there is evidence for intelligent design, but what will happen next is anybody's guess.
A Creating God vs. a Created God
The bitter debate over whether "creation" or "intelligent design" may be considered as a possibility in scientific discourse is no minor matter. Behind it lies one of the most important questions of human existence: Did God create Man, or did Man create God? Theism - whether Christian, Jewish, or Islamic - proclaims the former. Scientific naturalism, the philosophy of contemporary natural science, proclaims the latter. According to the scientific naturalist version of cosmic history, nature is a permanently closed system of material effects that can never be influenced by something from outside - like God, for example. For governmental and educational purposes today, science is defined as proceeding from naturalistic premises, and science is given exclusive authority to portray objective reality. This means scientific naturalism is effectively the established religious philosophy of America.
God, in this metaphysical system, is inherently a product of human imagination, and therefore a relic from prescientific times, when humans knew no better than to attribute to a supernatural being their own existence and that of everything else they encountered. Science has allegedly changed all that, and made all educated persons aware that we are in reality products of mindless, purposeless, material processes. In the words of one of the most influential of modern Darwinists, the Harvard paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson, the "meaning of evolution" is "Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind." Evolutionary scientists often blur that message for tactical reasons, but they will never abandon it. Whatever you may think that word "evolution" means, the people who direct science education mean by it that our existence is an accident, and we are responsible to no creator.
Some scientific naturalists are aggressive atheists, but most take the line of The Los Angeles Times editorialist: God may exist, and may even be allowed to establish the initial conditions at the absolute beginning of space and time, but thereafter God must mind his own business and stay out of "our" cosmos. In particular, God must neither program the evolutionary process in advance nor step in from time to time to give it a nudge - unless He is prepared to endure the combined wrath of The Los Angeles Times and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. We might say the problem with God is not that He does not exist, but that naturalistic philosophy has relegated Him to the ranks of the permanently unemployed.
Scientific naturalism provides our established religious philosophy with its picture of reality. Liberal rationalism provides its ethical and political starting point. If we are accidental products of a purposeless cosmos, as science currently tells us, then there are no objective values which we are obligated to respect. Value is inherently a human creation in a naturalistic universe. As individuals or as societies, we create values out of our imagination, just as we created God, and we can recreate those values as we choose. That is why marriage, for example, can be culturally redefined at any time. Marriage is not inherently a lifetime union between a husband and a wife, looking to the production of children. It was defined that way in a pre-modern culture, and our modernist or post-modernist culture can redefine it to include arrangements intended to be only temporary, or same-sex unions, or even arrangements involving multiple partners. Why not, now that we know the God who supposedly created marriage was in fact created out of the imagination of our ancestors?
Modernism Defined
The long name for our established religious philosophy is scientific naturalism and liberal rationalism; for convenience I will simply refer to it as "modernism." Modernism is typically defined as the condition that begins when people realize God is truly dead, and we are therefore on our own. Modernism has a number of real or apparent advantages that have enabled it to become the ruling philosophy of our time. I will first state these advantages now, as a defender of modernism might describe them. My critique will come later.
(1) Modernism's metaphysical foundation rests firmly upon scientific naturalism, which is "the way things really are." Through science we now know that nature, of which we are a recently evolved part, really is a purposeless system of material causes and effects, whether we like it or not. Any other system - particularly one based upon supposed divine commandments - would therefore be founded upon illusion rather than reality. The fact is man invented God, rather than the other way around. Once science has established the facts, there is no going back to prescientific beliefs, however attractive those beliefs may have been in their time.
(2) Modernist naturalism equals rationality because it excludes consideration of miracles, defined as arbitrary breaks in the chain of material causes and effects. This way of defining rationality is particularly important to scientists, who see the success of science as inextricably linked to the presumption that no supernatural mind or spirit ever interferes with the orderly (but purposeless) course of natural events. For most modernists, the identification of naturalism with rationality is so complete that they do not think of naturalism as a distinct and controversial metaphysical doctrine, but simply assume it as part of the definition of "reason."
(3) Modernist naturalism is liberating, especially in gender roles and sexual behavior, because it frees people from the illusion that outdated cultural norms have permanent validity as commands of God. Persons who attack scientific naturalism, or the theory of evolution, probably do so as part of a disguised agenda to re-establish a patriarchal and stifling code of sexual behavior. Thus The Los Angeles Times has repeatedly attacked the Vista, California (San Diego County), School Board for threatening to allow challenges to Darwinism in the curriculum and for attempting to institute a sex education curriculum based upon abstinence rather than "safe sex." The modernist media see challenges to Darwinism or sexual freedom for teenagers as equivalent manifestations of religious fundamentalism, and hence unconstitutional.
(4) Modernist naturalism supplies the philosophical basis for democratic liberty, because it relies only upon knowledge which is in principle available to every citizen. Persons who wish to make public policy from some divine revelation are inherently undemocratic, because they assert authority based on knowledge revealed only to them, and hence is not available to others.
In contrast, the observations and methods of reasoning employed by science are universally accessible in principle, although the special study required limits the capacity of ordinary citizens to understand them in practice. If public debate is carried out only on the basis of knowledge derived from sensory experience and scientific investigation, then in principle everyone can participate on equal terms. Debates between competing supernaturalistic ideologies can be settled only by force, whereas debate on naturalistic principles is open to reason and hence to peaceful solution.
(5) Finally, modernist government is acceptable even to many religious people, including theists who prudently want to avoid clashing with natural science. Modernism is not anti-religious, as we have seen, provided that "belief in God" stays in its proper place in private life. Believers may have their own churches, and may send their children to private religious schools if they can afford to do so, provided they do not try to claim a place for their views in the public square by, for example, seeking to advocate them in the public schools.
To the extent that the religious folk agree to remain in the sanctuary of private life, and cede control of the public square and especially public education to the modernists, the modernists can afford to leave them alone. If faced with a genuine challenge to their right to rule the culture, however, modernists would have to fight back by making explicit what is already implicit in their philosophy: man created God rather than the other way around. Theistic religion can escape the potentially lethal scrutiny of modernist science only by accepting modernist domination of public life.
Rule by modernists may actually be more acceptable to many theists than rule by theists. Theistic religion takes many forms, and Protestants, Catholics and Jews may in some cases be more suspicious of each other than they are of modernist agnostics, who claim to be "neutral" on disputed questions of religious doctrine.
The restriction of religion to private life therefore does not necessarily threaten the vital interests of the majority religion, if there is one, and it protects minority religions from tyranny of the majority. It also provides theistic religion in general with a measure of protection from the potentially lethal scrutiny of scientific naturalism.
When I describe modernist naturalism as the established religious philosophy of America, therefore, I do not mean that everyone is required to believe it. The American version of modernism does not aspire to obliterate theism, as Soviet Marxism did, but to marginalize it and thus render it harmless. Modernism is established in the sense that the intellectual community, usually invoking the power of the federal judiciary and the mystique of the Constitution, vigorously and almost always successfully insists that law and public education must be based upon naturalistic assumptions.
Although the national motto may be "In God We Trust," good citizens of the modernist state trust in God only with respect to matters that concern no one but themselves and their families. When they take actions that affect others, trust in God becomes unconstitutional.
Editor's Notes
Phil Johnson's article will be continued in the next Real Issue where he will critique these five apparent advantages of modernism and explain their consequences.
Theism and Big Bang Cosmology
Overview
Kalam Argument
The Beginning of the Universe
Universality of Causation
The Nature of the Creator
The Kalam Argument
The Kalam tradition of Muslim thought rejected Aristotelianism and, in particular, Aristotle's thesis of the eternity of the world of matter and motion. The Kalam thinkers, culminating in the work of al-Ghazali, attempted to prove that the universe had a beginning and therefore, was created in time. The basic Kalam argument takes the following form:
The universe had a beginning.
Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
Therefore, the universe has a cause, which is God.
We will take up each of these points in this lecture: the beginning of the universe, the scope of causation, and the nature of the creator of the universe.
The Beginning of the Universe
The Kalam tradition had a number of arguments for the existence of a beginning of the universe. These arguments have been revived in recent years by William Lane Craig. In addition to these philosophical arguments, there is a body of physical evidence for the beginning of our universe. On the other side, there are philosophical arguments against the possibility of an absolute beginning. We will look at Kant's presentation of these arguments in the discussion of the antithesis of the First Antinomy in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Finally, in A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking offers a speculative model of a beginningless universe.
Philosophical Arguments for a Beginning
In the Kalam tradition, there were two types of philosophical arguments for a beginning of the universe. The first was based on the thesis (borrowed from Aristotle) that an actual infinity is impossible, together with the assumption that the elements of the past are still actual. The second is based on the idea that time is constructed by a process of "successive addition". Consequently, an infinite past would be possible only if an infinite series of successive additions could be completed, which is obviously impossible.
Aristotle believed that an actual infinite was impossible. Many philosophers, mathematicians and scientists, from Aristotle's time until the twentieth century, have agreed with him. However, a substantial number of philosophers and mathematicians believe that the development of the mathematics of the infinite in modern set theory (first formulated in the late 19th century by Georg Cantor) has shown that an actual infinite is possible. Cantor himself was a Christian, who believed that the existence of infinite collections (such as the collection of all natural numbers, or all real-valued functions) followed from the infinity of God's mind. It would be possible to pose a dilemma to the agnostic: if infinite sets are possible, this would seem to require an infinite mind through which these sets could exist. Alternatively, if infinite sets are impossible, then the past would have to be finite, forcing us to posit a cause of the beginning of time and motion.
William Lane Craig, following the lead of the Kalam thinkers, poses a number of paradoxes which are supposed to show that actual infinities are impossible. One example is that of Hilbert's hotel (invented by the mathematician David Hilbert). If Cantorian infinities were possible, there could exist a hotel with infinitely many rooms, one for each natural number. Suppose that at the end of the day, every room is occupied. After the No Vacancy sign is lit, a weary traveller arrives and demands accomodation. Since the traveller is a set theorist, he points out that the hotel has plenty of room: if every guest will move from his present room (room n) to the next room (n+1), every guest can still be accomodated, and in addition, room 1 will now be available. In fact, even if a party with infinitely many members arrive, all the visitors can be accomodated. Each present guest must move from room n to room 2n. As a result, all of the odd-numbered rooms become available, with plenty of room for all of the new arrivals.
Another example is mentioned by al-Ghazali. Suppose that the sun and moon have each been revolving around the earth throughout an infinite past. There are 12 revolutions of the moon for every revolution of the sun. As we go back in time, the gap between the number of months and years grows ever wider, yet, taken as a whole, there are an equal number of elapsed months and years (both infinite). Cantorian set theory agrees with this paradoxical result: the cardinal number of months and years is exactly the same.
Bertrand Russell discusses a similar paradox, which he called the Tristam Shandy paradox. Tristam is writing is own autobiography. He takes a whole year to write down the events of a single day. In an infinite amount of time, Shandy can complete the task. Here's a time-reversed version of the paradox: suppose that Tristam is clairvoyent -- he writes about his own future. Last year he wrote about today's events; in the year before last, he wrote about yesterday's events. Today, he has just completed an infinite autobiography, cover all the events of his infinite past, despite the fact that, as we go farther in the past, Shandy is every further behind in the task -- i.e., 1000 years ago, he was still writing about the events of only the last three days.
Aristotle agreed that an actual infinity is impossible. Nonetheless, he believed that the universe is infinitely old. Apparently, Aristotle did not believe that events in the very remote past are still in any sense actual. He clearly rejected the idea that future contingent events are already actual. Perhaps he would have said the same thing about past events that occurred so long ago as to leave absolutely no trace. The Kalam thinkers appealed to the fact that there seems to be a clear difference between the past and the future. The idea of affecting or influencing the past is odd in a way that that of influencing the future could never be.
A second Kalam argument was based on the idea that time is built up by a process of successive addition. In order to have an infinite past, reality would have to have just completed an infinite task. However, an infinite task cannot be completed in time, since if it were first completed at time t, then at time t - 1, the infinite task would have remained incomplete. However, since the difference between t and t-1 is finite, an infinite task was already completed at t-1. These two infinite task must differ only by the fact that the past completed at t is one day longer than the past completed at t-1. However, "one day longer" has no meaning when applied to infinite series.
What the Kalam argument seems to overlook is the difference between infinities of size (cardinal number) and infinities of order (ordinal number). It is an infinite series that is first completed at time t, namely, the series consisting of all times earlier than t. This series is distinct from the series first completed at time t-1, despite the fact that the size of the set of past times is exactly the same. The series ending at t includes time t-1, while the series ending at t-1 does not.
It is interesting to note one crucial difference between the Kalam arguments and the alternative Aristotelian tradition. The idea of an infinite regress plays no explicit role in the Kalam arguments. The existence of an infinite causal regress and of an infinite past are independent: we can have one without the other. For example, we can imagine an infinitely old universe in which all causal regresses are finite, tracing back to some eternal First Cause. Each neighborhood of the universe would be only finitely old, but the whole succession of neighborhoods could be infinite. Conversely, we could have infinite causal regresses without an infinite past. Suppose that for each real number r greater than 0, there is a moment of time and a distinct event occuring at time t+r. We could then regress through infinitely many events, starting at event t+1 and approaching ever closer to t (without ever arriving there).
Physical Evidence of a Finite Past
There are two kinds of physical evidence that point to the finitude of the past: thermodynamic considerations, and evidence of cosmic expansion. Thermodynamics dictates that the entropy (disorder) of the universe increases over time. Had the universe already existed for an infinite length of time, we would have reached the state of heat death -- the state in which all energy is uniformly distributed in the form of a constant temperature Second, we observe that the universe is expanding uniformly in all directions. Had the universe existed for an infinite period of time, the density of matter would have become zero. In fact, we have increasingly good scientific evidence of a physical singularity, an absolute beginning to space and time, about 16 billion years ago. From this singularity, our universe arose in a "Big Bang" event.
The weight of current evidence seems to be on the side of the hypothesis that the universe will go on expanding forever -- that the power of gravity is insufficient to bring about a reversal of the expansion. This seems to rule out the possibility of an eternally oscillating universe, one in which every Big Bang is eventually followd by a Big Crunch. Thus, the evidence suggest that the Big Bang is the very beginning of the universe.
There has been some speculation in recent years that our universe (which we can define as the cone of space and time emerging from the Big Bang) is only a small part of much larger physical realm. In some cases, the argument for a finite past applies with equal force to this larger multiverse. In other cases, the speculations are so vague that no definite conclusions about the origins of the multiverse are possible. When we reach the fourth point, the nature of the creator, the existence of such non-theistic explanations of the origin of the Big Bang will justify some caution in jumping too quickly to an identification of the Big Bang with the absolute beginning of creation.
Kant's First Antinomy
Immanuel Kant, the great German philosopher of the Enlightenment, believed that human reason is wholly unequal to the task of cosmology. Human reason is able to gain knowledge about the "phenomenal world" -- the realm of possible human experience. The "world" as a totality, Kant thought, is not a possible object of our experience. Consequently, any speculation about the nature of the world is futile. In particular, Kant believed that human reason falls into unavoidable self-contradictions whenever it attempts to investigate the nature of the cosmos. These contradictions he called "the antinomies". Kant's First Antinomy concerned the age and extent of the universe. According to the Thesis, the world is finite in age and in space. According to the Antithesis, the world is infinite in both respects. Kant believed that compelling arguments could be given for each side of the antinomy. Kant accepted and used one of the two forms of the Kalam argument in his proof of the Thesis: the argument from successive addition.
On the side of the antithesis, Kant argues that the idea of a beginning of the universe is incoherent, as is the idea of a spatial limit of the world. Kant assumes that if the universe begins to exist at time t, then before t there must lie an infinite expanse of "empty time", time during which nothing happened. Similarly, Kant believed that beyond the spatial limits of the universe would lie an infinite expanse of "empty space". Kant repeats Aristotle's argument that empty time is impossible, since nothing could differentiate one moment from another. Similarly, Kant insists that empty space is impossible.
Kant believed that science must treat the universe as infinite in space and time, without turning this operational or methodological principle into a metaphysical thesis. Modern cosmology seems to refute this claim of the scientific necessity of the Antithesis view. According to standard cosmology, the universe is finite in both time and space. At the same time, cosmology agrees with Aristotle and Kant in rejecting the idea of empty space and time. The reconciliation of these two views is possible because cosmology holds that space and time are themselves finite. Before the original singularity, there is no time. Space is finite but unbounded -- it curves back upon itself, like the surface of a finite sphere.
The failure of Kant's prescription of the Antithesis as the guiding principle of scientific cosmology should sound a cautionary note. We must be careful about dictating methodological rules to science, that constrain the theories or models that scientists are allowed to entertain. Scientists must be free to follow the evidence wherever it leads, even if it should lead in the direction of the supernatural.
Hawking's No-Singularity Model
In A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking presented a new model of a beginningless universe. Hawking does not challenge the idea that the universe is finite in space and time. Consequently, there is no time earlier than 16-10 billion years ago. Nonetheless, if the univese does eventually collapse back into a infinitesimal point, and if we use a mathematical technique known as "imaginary time", we can model space-time as a smooth, uneventful surface, with the Big Bang as the North Pole and the Big Crunch as the South Pole. Hawking's model involves "spatializing" time -- turning time into a spatial dimension, no different from the familiar three dimensions of space. Hence, his model involves a radical rejection of change and becoming: the universe is an unchanging, multi-dimensional whole, given once for all. Change is merely variation along a static dimension.
Hawking's model is highly speculative, based on what Hawking believes a quantum theory of gravity (which does not yet exist) must be like. In addition, mounting evidence against the eventuality of the Big Crunch spoils the symmetry of Hawking's model. However, the main problem with Hawking's model is its incorporation of an unbelievable view of time and change. When using physical theory in metaphysical investigation, one must be aware of a GIGO principle: garbage in, garbage out. When using a physical theory in metaphysics, one must be careful not to incorporate metaphysical absurdities in one's interpretation of that theory. Otherwise, any metaphysical conclusions one bases on this interpretation will be vitiated by these prior absurdities. In Hawking's case, he uses the technique of imaginary time, and interprets this technique as reflecting the true nature of the world. This means that Hawking starts out by assuming that time is no different from a spatial dimension, that there is no real becoming in the world. This is obviously false: physics can tell us many surprising things, but if a physicist tells us that there is no such thing as the passage of time, we have good grounds for concluding that a serious mistake has been made. As soon as we interpret Hawking's model in a way that treats time in a credible way, we find (as Hawking himself admits) that the initial singularity re-appears.
The Universality of Causation
The Kalam argument depends on the assumption that everything that begins to exist must have a cause of its coming-to-be. This is a principle that nearly everyone (even skeptics like Hume) admits is difficult to doubt. It is especially difficult to believe that a given thing that has begun to exist really happened through no cause whatsoever.
Nonetheless, Quentin Smith (a philosopher at Western Michigan) has argued that quantum mechanics provides us with some evidence that events can occur uncaused. It is true that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle guarantees that there are certain microscopic events that cannot be predicted in advance. Smith's argument depends on his identification of causation and predictability: where there is unpredictability, there is an absence of causation.
This is a highly controversial view of causation. In two weeks, we will spend some time considering a variety of conceptions of causation. For now, let me say that Smith seems to have confused causation with determinism. There is no absurdity in the idea of indeterministic, non-necessitating causation. The decay of a uranium atom is caused by the preceding state of the atom, whether or not anything about that state determined or necessitated that the decay should occur when it did. Similarly, my power of will is the cause of my free actions, even if those actions were not predetermined by any state of that will.
Others have used the creation of virtual particles from the vacuum as evidence that things can begin to exist without a cause. If the energy involved is small enough, and the period of existence is short enough, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle allows particles to emerge from "nothing" and to disappear shortly thereafter. However, this argument fails to distinguish between something containing no energy or particles and sheer nothingness. In quantum mechanics, the vacuum is not a nothing. It is the indeterministic cause of the temporary existence of the virtual particles.
Smith has a second argument, one that suggests that the original singularity could not have been caused. In general, causes precede their effects in time. According to the standard model of cosmology, there is no time prior to the singularity. Consequently, we have good reason to believe that the singularity was uncaused.
Of course, the fact that the singularity could not have been caused by any preceding physical state is exactly what the defender of the Kalam argument needs to argue for the existence of a supernatural cause. The issue is: does the impossibility of a physical cause provide any reason for doubting the exitence of any cause whatsoever? This is another crucial issue that we will take up in two weeks.
In thinking about the relationship between time and creation, a number of important questions emerge:
When did the universe begin?
When did God create?
What "precedes" the universe?
Let us let t = 0 represent the time of the singularity, at which the volume of the universe was zero. Did the universe begin at t = 0, or at some point thereafter. Some have argued that the singularity was not a real event, but only the ideal limit of a process of expansion. The main reason for this opinion is the suspicion that zero volume and infinite density and temperature are not physically possible states of our universe. On this view, the universe begins to exist immediately after t = 0.
This possibility opens again the question of an infinite temporal regress. Were there infinitely many different stages of the universe, each corresponding to positive values of t, closer and closer to 0. If we reject the possibility of infinite regresses, then we must say that there have been only finitely many distinct states of the universe, each taking place during some finite interval of time. Consequently, there must have been some earliest stage of the universe's existence, which endured during the period from t=0 until t=r, for some positive r.
When did the action of God's creating the universe occur? There are four possibilities:
At some time before t = 0.
At time t = 0.
At some time after t = 0.
At no time, from eternity.
If we adopt the first hypothesis, we must distinguish between two kinds of time: physical or measurable time (that begins with the singularity), and metaphysical or supernatural time (that extends for some period, perhaps eternally, prior to the singularity).
The choice between the first three hypotheses presents us with a version of Zeno's paradox. If we say that the cause occurs before t = 0, then it would seem that God's action was ineffectual, since the universe did not come into being until t = 0. Alternatively, if we say that the cause occurred at or after t = 0, it would seem that God's action was redundant, since the universe already existed at the time of God's action.
Zeno's paradox is a problem, not just for the creation, but for any theory of instantaneous action. For example, suppose that one billiard ball causes a second to move, via an event of physical contact. If we say that the second ball is already moving at the time of contact, then the action of the first ball seems to be redundant. However, if we say that the second ball is not yet moving at the time of contact, then the action of the first ball seems to have failed to have any effect.
The most common solution to the paradox takes the following form. Think of the cause and the effect as taking place over finite intervals, not at instantaneous points. Causes and events should be adjacent events -- sharing a common boundary-point. At the boundary point, neither event is taking place, although one is in state of ceasing-to-be, and the other in a state of beginning-to-be. For example, at the point of contact, the second ball is not yet moving, but it is in a state of beginning-to-move. Similarly, we could say that at time t = 0, the universe does not yet exist, but it is in a state of beginning-to-exist. As I suggested before, the first stage of the universe's existence is an interval beginning at t = 0.When, then, does God's act of creation take place? We must locate it either at t=0 (as an instantaneous event), or outside of our time dimension altogether.
Can an event or situation in timeless eternity have an effect in time? Can there be other time dimensions, unrelated to our own, and can events in one dimension affect those in others? Once again, we find ourselves confronting deep questions about the relation of time and causation?
Assuming that the universe begins to exist at t = 0, what "precedes" the universe (in the causal order)? Again, there are several possibilities:
An infinite regress empty time.
An infinite regress of time, filled by a variety of states of the Divine Mind.
An infinite regress of time in another dimension, filled by a variety of states.
A timeless state of eternity.
Someone who accepts the Kalam arguments against the possibility of an infinite past will be forced to accept either (1) or (4). Al-Ghazali and William Lane Craig both seem to opt for (4). Hugh Ross, in contrast, seems to embrace option (3). He argues that that time is, by definition, the dimension of causal order. Consequently, if there is no temporal priority, there can be no causal priority.
Options (2) and (3), if they both include a God whose mental past is infinitely long, both run afoul of the Aristotelian/falsafa cosmological argument, since they would commit us to an infinite causal regress involving the internal states of God's mind.
Some early Moslem thinkers, including al-Kindi, adopted option (1). They argued that only the exercise of God's free will could explain why the universe came into being when it did, rather than earlier or later. All of these moments of empty time were equivalent, and al-Kindi argued that it is the function of the will to choose between indistinguishable options.
The Nature of the Creator
If the Kalam argument is successful, we reach the conclusion that the universe has a cause. This cause must itself be without beginning (since otherwise, it would be merely part of the universe, and not its cause). The cause must have immense power, in order to bring the universe into existence. However, it is difficult to see how the Kalam argument can give us the existence of an infinite or necessary being. It also has some difficulty in establishing the personality of the cause.
As I mentioned above, some defenders of Kalam have argued that the cause of the universe must be a personal creator, endowed with free will, since otherwise it would be impossible to explain how the universe could have come into existence when it did, rather than earlier. These thinkers introduced the concept of "determination" to describe this indeterministic relation between God and the beginning of the universe.
William Lane Craig argues that only a personal, omnipotent being could, acting from a timeless eternity, bring into being a world of time. Craig imagines a divine act of fiat ("Let there be time..") occurring contingently in the realm of timelessness, thereby bringing about the dimension of time. He concludes that we can best explain the universe by postulating a personal creator.
Does the idea of a creation ex nihilo, the contingent bringing-into-existence of a world, entail that the world have a beginning in time? Some have thought so -- Maimonides and Hawking, to mention two we have discussed. Hawking clearly assumes that if there is no beginning of the world, then the world could not have been created by a personal God. Aquinas, in contrast, disagreed. He contended that God's act of freely creating occurs in eternity. The world resulting from this free act could have a beginning or not, as God chose. As it happens, it seems to have had a beginning, but this is not a necessary condition of creation.
Copyright © Robert C. Koons. All Rights Reserved.
The Real Issue
Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meet the Author: Dr. Walter Bradley
Walter Bradley received his Ph.D. in materials science from the University of Texas at Austin. After eight years at the Colorado School of Mines, he came to Texas A&M University where he is currently a professor and Senior TEES Research Fellow in the department of mechanical engineering. He has received two teaching awards, one national and five local research awards, and from 1989-1993 served as the head of the department. He has received over $4,000,000 in research grants and contracts resulting in the publication of 100+ technical articles. He has been honored for his technical contributions by being elected a Fellow of the American Society for Materials. He and his wife, Anne, have two grown children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the spring of 1987, I agreed to give a presentation on Christianity and science at Cornell University for Campus Crusade for Christ while I was there on business. Having spoken for almost 10 years on "Thermodynamics and the Origin of Life," a rather narrow presentation which was too technical for the average audience, I decided to experiment with a broad, popular level treatment of Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God.
I was totally unprepared for what was to happen that evening and subsequently. Over 550 students and faculty jammed into the lecture hall on a Friday evening, with over 50 more turned away due to lack of even standing room.
As I gave my presentation with eagerness that evening, I knew God was doing something special in and through my life. The presentation was followed by a lively question and answer time which continued for nearly two hours, after which a group of about 50 students elected to stay for further informal discussions which went past midnight.
It was the beginning of one of the most exciting adventures of my life: challenging students and faculty alike to consider the overwhelming evidence from modern science for the existence of God. During the past seven years, it has taken me to all of the Ivy League schools (except Columbia) most of the Big Ten schools (except University of Iowa), and about half of the Big Eight, Southwest Conference, and Pac-10 west coast schools.
The response everywhere has been overwhelmingly positive despite that a significant majority of the audiences have been comprised of nonChristians and nontheists. A professionally made video has further extended the ministry opportunity the Lord has given me through this presentation.
Happily, along the way I have discovered many additional areas in which alternative evidences for the existence of God can be found, persuading me of two things: (1) God's fingerprints are ubiquitous in his creation, giving "clear evidence of his eternal power and divine nature through the things that have been created" (Romans 1:19-20); and (2) almost anyone who works in a field of science could potentially develop a presentation of this type in their area of expertise.
It is important in such a presentation to acknowledge the limited goal: namely, to demonstrate the character of the universe clearly suggests an intelligent creator. While Hume and later Kant argued convincingly that one cannot prove the existence of God through teleological, or design arguments, it is fair game to study the universe and ask whether it is more reasonable to posit that such a universe could have originated from chemical and physical laws alone, or that it has the markings of an intelligent creator.
When I first began presenting Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God, I was usually met with strenuous objections that such an enterprise was completely inappropriate-that to infer anything about God from science was illegitimate.
However, with the publication of a large number of books in this area by secular scientists over the past six years, this objection has become the exception rather than the rule. Even popular magazines are getting into the fray (e.g., "What Does Science Tell Us About God," Time magazine cover story, Dec., 1992; "Does the Universe Hold Clues to God?" Chronicle of Higher Education, May, 1993; "10 Great Unanswered Questions of Science," Discover cover story, Nov., 1992; "Science and the Soul," cover story for Omni, Oct., 1993).
In a fascinating book entitled A New Guide to the Debate About God, philosopher Martin Prozesky (a nonChristian) evaluates the various arguments for and against the existence of God. He considers the arguments from science, especially the big bang, the origin of life, and the anthropic principle to be net positive evidence for God's existence, with the strongest arguments against the existence of a theistic, Christian God being philosophical (evil) and theological (why so many people are going to hell without having heard of Christ).
It is a shame so much of the dialogue of the last 35 years between Christianity and science has centered on the age of the earth and creation science. It has left the average person, Christian and nonChristian alike, with the impression that modern science and the Bible are seriously at odds, maybe irreconcilably so.
It is ironic this impression has developed during the same period of time that scientific understanding and the attitudes of many modern scientists have moved strongly toward belief in an intelligent creator as a result of the scientific discoveries of the past 35 years. A preoccupation with the age question has only diverted discussion from the strong, scientific supporting evidence for Biblical theism, putting this very bright light under a bushel basket, so to speak.
In the remainder of this article, I would like to summarize the scientific evidence which I use in my presentation of Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God. I note, however, this is such an active field today that I am continuously scurrying to replace current information with even better information as it becomes available.
I encourage faculty to study this subject further for their personal satisfaction, and to assemble a presentation of their own. I recommend three books as excellent sources for this information: J. P. Moreland's The Creation Hypothesis (InterVarsity Press, 1994); and Hugh Ross' The Fingerprint of God (Promise Publishing Co., 1989), and The Creator and The Cosmos (Navpress, 1992). As I get five times as many invitations to speak as I can accept each year, there is a need for a pool of faculty prepared to speak on this subject to whom these invitations could be referred.
Key Elements for Scientific Evidence
Up until 1960, there was a general optimism that the more we learned about nature through our scientific investigations, the more we would be able to explain the world around us, including its origin, and render belief in God unnecessary, though not impossible. During the past 30 years, we gradually became aware of flies in the ointment of naturalism, and they have grown to the point that doubt now exists as to whether they can ever be removed.
The Washington Post, describing an international conference held in Washington D.C. in the late 1980s, noted,
Many scientists who were not long ago certain that the universe was created and peopled by accident are having second thoughts and concede the possibility that some intelligent creative force may have been responsible.
It should be emphasized one cannot scientifically prove or disprove the existence of God. Nevertheless, it is perfectly permissible to study the character of the universe and ask, "What does it reasonably suggest: an intelligent creator, or a universe which is in some sense self-caused?" I will consider in a cursory way just three such flies: (1) evidence for design in the universe; (2) the origin of the universe; and (3) the origin of life.
Evidence for Design
Evidence for design comes from three sources: (1) the simple mathematical form that nature takes; (2) the coincidence that the universal constants are exactly what they need to be to support life of any type on this planet; and (3) the coincidence that the initial conditions in many different situations are also critical and happen to have been exactly what they needed to be for the universe and life to come into being.
In a mathematical sense, we can say the universe is described by deceptively simple and elegant differential equations which just happen to have universal constants which are exactly what they need to be and initial conditions precisely prescribed to allow for the unfolding of a suitable habitat for life and for the appearance of life itself.
Nature Bound by Simple Mathematics
As a young physics student in high school, I was surprised and pleased to learn that the many diverse observations in nature find their description in such a small number of simple mathematical relationships such as Newton's laws of gravity and motion or Maxwell's equations of electricity and magnetism. It would probably surprise many of our earliest scientists to discover that today the universe is adequately described by such a small number of fundamental physical laws, represented by simple but elegant mathematical relationships, that they can be easily written on one side of one sheet of paper.
The equations of physics have in them incredible simplicity, elegance, and beauty. That in itself is sufficient to prove to me that there must be a God who is responsible for these laws and responsible for the universe,
said astrophysicist Paul Davies in his book Superforce (1984). The famous Russian physicist, Alexander Polyakov put it this way in Fortune magazine (October, 1986),
We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it.
Coincidence of the Universal Constants
One of the remarkable discoveries of the past 30 years has been the recognition that small changes in any of the universal constants produce surprisingly dramatic changes in the universe, rendering it unsuitable for life, not just as we know it, but for life of any conceivable type. In excess of 100 examples have been documented in the technical literature and summarized in such books as the Anthropic Cosmological Principle (1986).
For example, if the strong force which binds together the nucleus of atoms were just five percent weaker, only hydrogen would be stable and we would have a universe with a periodic chart of one element, which is a universe incapable of providing the necessary molecular complexity to provide minimal life functions of processing energy, storing information, and replicating. On the other hand, if the strong force were just two percent stronger, very massive nuclei would form, which are unsuitable for the chemistry of living systems. Furthermore, there would be no stable hydrogen, no long-lived stars, and no hydrogen containing compounds.
As a second example, if the relationship between the strong force and the electromagnetic force were to vary only slightly, we would not have the quantum energy levels which allow the remarkable conversion of beryllium to carbon (nearly 100% efficient) and the partial conversion of carbon to oxygen. With slight changes in either of these constants, we would have had a universe either rich in beryllium and little, if any, carbon or alternatively, a universe rich in oxygen with no carbon.
Since carbon is unique in its ability to chemically bond with almost all other elements in bonds that are stable but not too difficult to break (playing the critical role of the round pieces in a tinker toy set), it is remarkable that these forces are so precisely tuned to provide carbon in abundance, along with oxygen which is critical in its own right.
Many additional examples could be cited. If I rolled a dice and got a "6," you would not be surprised. If I rolled a dice five times and got a "6," you would begin to be a little suspicious. However, if you rolled the dice 1,000 times and got a "6" each time, you would be certain that there is something funny about the dice. So it is with our quirky universe in which everything has to be just so and is indeed found to be. Hume and others have argued incorrectly that it is not surprising that everything is just so, else we would not be here to observe it. The well known atheist J.L. Mackie (Miracle of Theism, p.141) saw the flaw in Hume's criticism:
There is only one actual universe, with a unique set of basic materials and physical constants, and it is therefore surprising that the elements of this unique set-up are just right for life when they might easily have been wrong. This is not made less surprising by the fact that if it had not been so, no one would have been here to be surprised. We can properly envision and consider alternative possibilities which do not include our being there to experience them.
Sir Fred Hoyle, the famous British astronomer and agnostic, in The Intelligent Universe commented on the cosmological coincidences discussed by Mackie, "Such properties seem to run through the fabric of the natural world like a thread of happy coincidences. But there are so many odd coincidences essential to life that some explanation seems required to account for them."
"Slight variations in physical laws such as gravity or electromagnetism would make life impossible . . . the necessity to produce life lies at the center of the universe's whole machinery and design," stated John Wheeler, Princeton University professor of physics (Reader's Digest, Sept., 1986).
University of Virginia astronomers R.T. Rood and J.S. Trefil conclude their book Are We Alone? by estimating the probability of life existing anywhere in the universe to be one in a billion, and thus conclude the existence of life on planet earth, far from being inevitable, is the result of a remarkable set of coincidences.
"If I were a religious man," Trefil wrote in the concluding chapter, "I would say that everything we have learned about life in the past twenty years shows that we are unique, and therefore, special in God's sight." Instead he concludes that life on planet earth is a remarkable accident, unlikely to have been replicated anywhere else in the universe, which his book powerfully argues.
Initial Conditions
Initial condition problems are found in many places in our scenario of the origin of the universe, its development into a suitable home for us, and the origin of life. These initial condition problems have, in fact, grown much worse with the recognition that many critical processes in the origins scenario are nonlinear, and therefore, require particularly precise initial conditions. Trefil and Rood's book cited above mentions some of these problems in detail. I will also discuss, briefly, initial conditions problems having to do with the origin of the universe and the origin of life.
In summarizing this section, it is clear that there does appear to be something unique and special about our home in the universe and our existence in it.
Origin of the Universe
Cosmology is not neutral when it comes to philosophy and theology. A universe that eternally existed is much more congenial to an atheistic or agnostic worldview. By the same token, a universe that began seems to demand a first cause; for who could imagine such an effect without a sufficient cause?
In a dramatic address to the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1977, Robert Jastrow, Professor at Columbia University and Founder and Director of the Goddard Space Center, made a presentation which was later published as a book entitled God and the Astronomers. In this presentation, Jastrow, who is himself an agnostic, argued that the evidence for the Big Bang cosmology had been quite superior to competing cosmologies since 1929, but that many scientists had refused to accept it because they did not like the philosophical implications.
For example, Sir Arthur Eddington commenting on the Big Bang in the 1950s noted, "Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant . . . I should like to find a genuine loophole."
By the 1970's, after the discovery of the background radiation in 1965, John Gribbin in Nature said,
The biggest problem with the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe is philosophical-perhaps even theological-what was there before the bang? This problem alone was sufficient to give a great impetus to the Steady State theory; but with that theory now sadly in conflict with the observations, the best way around this initial difficulty is provided by a model in which the universe expands from a singularity, collapses back again, and repeats the cycle indefinitely.
[Articles published in 1984 in Nature by Guth and by Bludman clearly demonstrate the impossibility of a "bouncing" universe.]
Jastrow went on to argue that it is time that astronomers begin to acknowledge the philosophical implications of their discoveries. Jastrow concluded his presentation (and his book publication of it) with the comment, "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story [of the big bang] ends like a bad dream. For the past three hundred years, scientists have scaled the mountain of ignorance and as they pull themselves over the final rock, they are greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
Furthermore, recent measurements by the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) and by the Hubble Space Telescope, both reported in 1992, seem to confirm beyond any reasonable doubt that the Big Bang cosmology is indeed correct. George Smoot, Professor at the University of California at Berkeley and Principle Investigator of the COBE team which made the discovery, said regarding these new observations, "What we have found is evidence for the birth of the universe . . . It's like looking at God."
"The scientific community is prepared to consider the idea God created the universe a more respectable hypothesis today than at any time in the last 100 years," Frederic B. Burnham, science historian, declared.
It is worth noting that Steven Hawking's book, A Brief History of Time, has as its stated purpose to try to escape the implications of the Big Bang, to which he strongly objects for philosophical reasons, not scientific ones. His book is filled with conjecture not rooted in observational science and should be taken not as careful science, but as a polemic argument motivated by Hawking's own "religious" beliefs. The very fact that Hawking felt compelled to write such a book indicates the force of the Big Bang in arguing for a theistic universe.
Information Theory and Origin of Life
There is a necessary molecular complexity required to provide minimal life functions: processing energy, storing information, and replicating. Chemical evolution, as distinct from biological evolution, cannot look to mutation and natural selection to solve its problems (which don't solve the problems of macroevolution either).
Chemical evolution addresses the development of living systems from a prebiotic soup which did not initially have molecules, much less systems, capable of replicating. The production of molecules such as protein, RNA and DNA from a prebiotic soup is extremely difficult to imagine. The original euphoria associated with the making of building blocks such as amino acids under prebiotic conditions by Stanley Miller in 1952 has gradually been replaced with a somber recognition that the assembly of such molecules into function biopolymers is indeed the real problem. It is analogous to the problem of selecting a sequence of letters by randomly picking out of a box of typeset and hoping to accidentally get a sequence that corresponds to words, sentences, and coherent paragraphs.
"The current scenario of the origin of life is about as likely as a tornado passing through a junkyard beside Boeing airplane company accidentally producing a 747 airplane," Sir Fred Hoyle suggested in The Intelligent Universe.
In an article in Scientific American (February, 1991), Sir Francis Crick wrote, "The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going."
In the same article, Harold Klein who chaired a National Academy of Sciences committee which reviewed the origin of life noted, "The simplest bacterium is so damned complicated from the point of view of a chemist that it is almost impossible to imagine how it happened."
Anyone who thinks recent work on RNA has or will solve the problem of the origin of life should read Robert Shapiro's article in Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere (1988) or Klaus Dose's article in Interdisciplinary Science Reviews (1988) entitled "Origin of Life: More Questions than Answers."
Summary
It is abundantly clear evidence abounds for the existence of an intelligent creator. I have only provided information from three narrow areas, but similar arguments could easily be formulated from many different scientific disciplines. One need never be ashamed of the intellectually respectability of belief in an intelligent creator; modern science has come down decisively on the side of the person who would posit such a belief. While Hume and Kant may have been right in their arguments that scientific proof for the existence of God cannot be made, they would surely be as impressed as I am with the compelling evidence that makes such a belief perfectly reasonable.
Waif called my son a girl. I do not see how he could have confused my writing. No Vivian, I have been deluding myself into thinking that we at MF and swamp are something more than just casual acquaintances. We have opened up and shared parts of our lives that we do not with others. Many of us have talked to each other on the phone and sent real mail. We have dropped everything when one of us is in crisis. We have invited each other on hunting trips and to our homes. Waif put it succinctly, he has not met me in real life so I matter not. I know my place.
Last night was not a tangent. I write with passion and emotion and get accused of foaming at the mouth.It is only when I write cold and callous do I get treated normal? People are even intrigued at what I have to say. No I do not think the problem is with me, I believe it with all the people afraid to expose the real self their with the interactions with others. I feel it is an awful shame to have to conceal whom you are to be accepted. Again I thought the click at Swamp was above this superficial behavior.
I’ve never been accused of being the smartest apple in the barrel but I can see when something isn’t right with someone. Yesterday Judd displayed some unusual characteristics. For the last two days I have been concerned about Judd and have repeatedly asked you about it. This concern is genuine. Once again I see it is unwanted concern and I should mind my own business.
I am sorry about your headache. This whole situation has been one great big one. I still wonder who is lying to who when they say that these threads do not have an effect on or in any way influence persons outside the computer world, when clearly there are hundreds of example to the contrary.
Emoticon signing off.
'WillyWizard.com' .. I belong to the Holiday Park Church of God off of 21st and Broadway. We were literally dieing off but since last years Promise Keepers convention we have rebuilt the youth programs and started attracting young people again.
You should see the congregation. The most 'colorful' group of people I think you would ever imagine attending church.
Is there something you would like to see daily on this thread?If so let me know and I'll try to oblige.
Paule
Them is parking lot words...eom lol Paule
The funny thing is all through it I continually stated that I liked Judd was concerned about him and wanted him to come here with us.
I don't know guess that’s wrong. The usual words diatribe and rant were used to describe me. Judd needs a 2x4 over the head and Paule gave it to him. I don't think the board Was big enough.
He still throwing a tizzy about NYC wanting to suppress and censor. Viv call him will ya.I miss the tag team antic of W and J
Paule
NYC I got into it with Juddles last night his panties are stuck in his ass.Habs being a bitchboy and HW decided to insult my boy.
Hey Colt Sheed steps onto the floor they give him a t just for good measures.
The refs hate Portland they hate the fans and they have publicly stated that they hate working here because we have the loudest fans and they can't here themselves make calls. They solve that by silencing the fans with terrible calls. I like the fouled out on Kemp he didn't touch anybody Schremp did.
Oh well Spurs earned it yesterday. I say that cause if the Blazers really wanted it no tem no matter what refs assistance they received could have stopped them.
How ya doing Colt
Paule
Don't mean to pry just curious about your denomination that’s all. We all have wondrous stories to tell praising the Lords never-ending Grace.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. John 1:1-4
“Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves have received from God. For just as the sufferings of Christ flow over into our lives, so also through Christ our comfort overflows. If we are distressed, it is for your comfort and salvation; if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which produces in you patient endurance of the same sufferings we suffer. And our hope for you is firm, because we know that just as you share in our sufferings, so also you share in our comfort” 2Corinthians 1:3-72
Paule
Welcome Dolly...
Hit "live chat" and wait for it to download.I think the swamp is the only chat 24/7 room.
Have fun!
Paule
After a weekend trip home to Arkansas, Bill Clinton stepped from the
helicopter and onto the White House lawn. He was carrying two
Arkansas-bred >hawgs, one under each arm. At the bottom of the steps, a
young Marine
snapped to attention, saluted sharply and said, "Fine looking pigs,
sir!"
Clinton turned and glared at the boy. "Son, don't you know I'm from
Arkansas? These ain't pigs. They're hawgs."
The Marine shot back, "Marine begs the COMMANDER IN CHIEF'S pardon, sir!
Fine looking hawgs, sir!"
Clinton smiled with pride and the young man relaxed.
The President went on, "Thank you, son. You see this one here?" He
lifted up the pig under his right arm. "I got this one for Chelsea." Then
he
nodded to the hawg on his left. "And this one here, I got for Hillary."
At that the Marine snapped back to attention and said, "Outstanding
trade, >sir!"
Military courtesy change
I picked up on something very funny this morning. CNN showed George W.
leaving Marine-1. The Marine at the front step saluted, GW returned it, and
as he walked away, the Marine executed a right face to stand facing GW's
back...something that was missing in eight years of the Clinton presidency.
The traditional Marine Corps mark of respect was rendered to the new
president. That one goes back to the days in the rigging, when the Marine
orderly to the ship's captain always faced him, no matter his direction of
movement, to be ready to receive an order.
Who says that enlisted men can't hold back when they don't respect someone?
...And for eight years, they did.
Today's selection is James 1:26
American Standard Version
If any man thinketh himself to be religious, while he bridleth not his tongue but deceiveth his heart, this man's religion is vain.
King James Version
If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain.
New American Standard
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man's religion is worthless.
New International Version
If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless.
New King James Version
If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one's religion is useless.
"Hello, is this the police?"
"Yes. What do you want?"
"I'm calling to report about my neighbor Billy Bob
Smith! He is hiding marijuana inside his firewood."
"Thank you very much for the call, sir."
The next day, the police descend on Billy Bob's
house. They search the
shed where the firewood is kept. Using axes, they
bust open every piece of wood, but find no
marijuana. They swear at Billy Bob and leave.
The phone rings at Billy Bob's house.
"Hey, Billy Bob, did the cops come?"
"Yeah!"
"Did they chop your firewood?"
"Yep."
"Happy Birthday Buddy"
« Previous / Next »
Get Mail Write Mail Address Book Reply Reply All Forward Delete
Move Message To...Inbox Sent Draft Trash
"Hello, is this the police?"
"Yes. What do you want?"
"I'm calling to report about my neighbor Billy Bob
Smith! He is hiding marijuana inside his firewood."
"Thank you very much for the call, sir."
The next day, the police descend on Billy Bob's
house. They search the
shed where the firewood is kept. Using axes, they
bust open every piece of wood, but find no
marijuana. They swear at Billy Bob and leave.
The phone rings at Billy Bob's house.
"Hey, Billy Bob, did the cops come?"
"Yeah!"
"Did they chop your firewood?"
"Yep."
"Happy Birthday Buddy"
« Previous / Next »
Get Mail Write Mail Address Book Reply Reply All Forward Delete
Move Message To...Inbox Sent Draft Trash
Is anybody out there just smile if you can here me there will be no more AHHHHHaaa can you feel a little prick...there is no pain you are receiving no distant look on your horizon
IIIIIII have become comfortably numb
Paule
Yukon Anyone???
Where did everybody go?
It’s always nice to meet another person living in the Great Northwest. Don’t we just have some of themost beautiful land of all the United States ;O)
I plan on seeing Alaska for the first time this year. That should be nice.
I did a search, all be it a quick one, for the 'Day Believer'. I'm not finding too much out there. Are you sure you’re not willing to tell us a little about it???
Inquiring minds and all that
Paule
Antiochus Epiphanes about a few hundred B.C. - visciously evil and antigod. (He is considered a type of the Antichrist - accused of having no conscience) The story is hard and this particular atrocity is typical of the things he did to the Jews. Literally hundreds of thousands suffered at his hand. If anyone reading has a queasy stomach or is uneasy at GRAPHIC BRUTALITY, please don't read on JUST CLICK AWAY - This is sad, but true.
The Martyrdom of Seven Brothers
(4 Macc 8—18)
7 It happened also that seven brothers and their mother were arrested and were being compelled by the king, under torture with whips and thongs, to partake of unlawful swine’s flesh. 2 One of them, acting as their spokesman, said, “What do you intend to ask and learn from us? For we are ready to die rather than transgress the laws of our ancestors.”
3 The king fell into a rage, and gave orders to have pans and caldrons heated. 4 These were heated immediately, and he commanded that the tongue of their spokesman be cut out and that they scalp him and cut off his hands and feet, while the rest of the brothers and the mother looked on. 5 When he was utterly helpless, the kinga [a Gk he] ordered them to take him to the fire, still breathing, and to fry him in a pan. The smoke from the pan spread widely, but the brothersb [b Gk they] and their mother encouraged one another to die nobly, saying, 6 “The Lord God is watching over us and in truth has compassion on us, as Moses declared in his song that bore witness against the people to their faces, when he said, ‘And he will have compassion on his servants.’ ”c [c Gk slaves]
7 After the first brother had died in this way, they brought forward the second for their sport. They tore off the skin of his head with the hair, and asked him, “Will you eat rather than have your body punished limb by limb?” 8 He replied in the language of his ancestors and said to them, “No.” Therefore he in turn underwent tortures as the first brother had done. 9 And when he was at his last breath, he said, “You accursed wretch, you dismiss us from this present life, but the King of the universe will raise us up to an everlasting renewal of life, because we have died for his laws.”
10 After him, the third was the victim of their sport. When it was demanded, he quickly put out his tongue and courageously stretched forth his hands, 11 and said nobly, “I got these from Heaven, and because of his laws I disdain them, and from him I hope to get them back again.” 12 As a result the king himself and those with him were astonished at the young man’s spirit, for he regarded his sufferings as nothing.
13 After he too had died, they maltreated and tortured the fourth in the same way. 14 When he was near death, he said, “One cannot but choose to die at the hands of mortals and to cherish the hope God gives of being raised again by him. But for you there will be no resurrection to life!”
15 Next they brought forward the fifth and maltreated him. 16 But he looked at the king,d [d Gk at him] and said, “Because you have authority among mortals, though you also are mortal, you do what you please. But do not think that God has forsaken our people. 17 Keep on, and see how his mighty power will torture you and your descendants!”
18 After him they brought forward the sixth. And when he was about to die, he said, “Do not deceive yourself in vain. For we are suffering these things on our own account, because of our sins against our own God. Thereforee [e Lat: Other ancient authorities lack Therefore] astounding things have happened. 19 But do not think that you will go unpunished for having tried to fight against God!”
20 The mother was especially admirable and worthy of honorable memory. Although she saw her seven sons perish within a single day, she bore it with good courage because of her hope in the Lord. 21 She encouraged each of them in the language of their ancestors. Filled with a noble spirit, she reinforced her woman’s reasoning with a man’s courage, and said to them, 22 “I do not know how you came into being in my womb. It was not I who gave you life and breath, nor I who set in order the elements within each of you. 23 Therefore the Creator of the world, who shaped the beginning of humankind and devised the origin of all things, will in his mercy give life and breath back to you again, since you now forget yourselves for the sake of his laws.”
24 Antiochus felt that he was being treated with contempt, and he was suspicious of her reproachful tone. The youngest brother being still alive, Antiochusf [f Gk he] not only appealed to him in words, but promised with oaths that he would make him rich and enviable if he would turn from the ways of his ancestors, and that he would take him for his Friend and entrust him with public affairs. 25 Since the young man would not listen to him at all, the king called the mother to him and urged her to advise the youth to save himself. 26 After much urging on his part, she undertook to persuade her son. 27 But, leaning close to him, she spoke in their native language as follows, deriding the cruel tyrant: “My son, have pity on me. I carried you nine months in my womb, and nursed you for three years, and have reared you and brought you up to this point in your life, and have taken care of you.g [g Or have borne the burden of your education] 28 I beg you, my child, to look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed.h [h Or God made them out of things that did not exist] And in the same way the human race came into being. 29 Do not fear this butcher, but prove worthy of your brothers. Accept death, so that in God’s mercy I may get you back again along with your brothers.”
30 While she was still speaking, the young man said, “What are youi [i The Gk here for you is plural] waiting for? I will not obey the king’s command, but I obey the command of the law that was given to our ancestors through Moses. 31 But you,j [j The Gk here for you is singular] who have contrived all sorts of evil against the Hebrews, will certainly not escape the hands of God. 32 For we are suffering because of our own sins. 33 And if our living Lord is angry for a little while, to rebuke and discipline us, he will again be reconciled with his own servants.k [k Gk slaves] 34 But you, unholy wretch, you most defiled of all mortals, do not be elated in vain and puffed up by uncertain hopes, when you raise your hand against the children of heaven. 35 You have not yet escaped the judgment of the almighty, all-seeing God. 36 For our brothers after enduring a brief suffering have drunkl [l Cn: Gk fallen] of ever-flowing life, under God’s covenant; but you, by the judgment of God, will receive just punishment for your arrogance. 37 I, like my brothers, give up body and life for the laws of our ancestors, appealing to God to show mercy soon to our nation and by trials and plagues to make you confess that he alone is God, 38 and through me and my brothers to bring to an end the wrath of the Almighty that has justly fallen on our whole nation.”
39 The king fell into a rage, and handled him worse than the others, being exasperated at his scorn. 40 So he died in his integrity, putting his whole trust in the Lord.
41 Last of all, the mother died, after her sons.
42 Let this be enough, then, about the eating of sacrifices and the extreme tortures.
The Last Campaign of Antiochus Epiphanes
(1 Macc 6.1—7; 2 Macc 1.11—17)
9 About that time, as it happened, Antiochus had retreated in disorder from the region of Persia. 2 He had entered the city called Persepolis and attempted to rob the temples and control the city. Therefore the people rushed to the rescue with arms, and Antiochus and his army were defeated,a [a Gk they were defeated] with the result that Antiochus was put to flight by the inhabitants and beat a shameful retreat. 3 While he was in Ecbatana, news came to him of what had happened to Nicanor and the forces of Timothy. 4 Transported with rage, he conceived the idea of turning upon the Jews the injury done by those who had put him to flight; so he ordered his charioteer to drive without stopping until he completed the journey. But the judgment of heaven rode with him! For in his arrogance he said, “When I get there I will make Jerusalem a cemetery of Jews.”
5 But the all-seeing Lord, the God of Israel, struck him with an incurable and invisible blow. As soon as he stopped speaking he was seized with a pain in his bowels, for which there was no relief, and with sharp internal tortures— 6 and that very justly, for he had tortured the bowels of others with many and strange inflictions. 7 Yet he did not in any way stop his insolence, but was even more filled with arrogance, breathing fire in his rage against the Jews, and giving orders to drive even faster. And so it came about that he fell out of his chariot as it was rushing along, and the fall was so hard as to torture every limb of his body. 8 Thus he who only a little while before had thought in his superhuman arrogance that he could command the waves of the sea, and had imagined that he could weigh the high mountains in a balance, was brought down to earth and carried in a litter, making the power of God manifest to all. 9 And so the ungodly man’s body swarmed with worms, and while he was still living in anguish and pain, his flesh rotted away, and because of the stench the whole army felt revulsion at his decay. 10 Because of his intolerable stench no one was able to carry the man who a little while before had thought that he could touch the stars of heaven. 11 Then it was that, broken in spirit, he began to lose much of his arrogance and to come to his senses under the scourge of God, for he was tortured with pain every moment. 12 And when he could not endure his own stench, he uttered these words, “It is right to be subject to God; mortals should not think that they are equal to God.”b [b Or not think thoughts proper only to God]
Antiochus Makes a Promise to God
(1 Macc 6.8—17)
13 Then the abominable fellow made a vow to the Lord, who would no longer have mercy on him, stating 14 that the holy city, which he was hurrying to level to the ground and to make a cemetery, he was now declaring to be free; 15 and the Jews, whom he had not considered worth burying but had planned to throw out with their children for the wild animals and for the birds to eat, he would make, all of them, equal to citizens of Athens; 16 and the holy sanctuary, which he had formerly plundered, he would adorn with the finest offerings; and all the holy vessels he would give back, many times over; and the expenses incurred for the sacrifices he would provide from his own revenues; 17 and in addition to all this he also would become a Jew and would visit every inhabited place to proclaim the power of God. 18 But when his sufferings did not in any way abate, for the judgment of God had justly come upon him, he gave up all hope for himself and wrote to the Jews the following letter, in the form of a supplication. This was its content:
Antiochus’s Letter and Death
19 “To his worthy Jewish citizens, Antiochus their king and general sends hearty greetings and good wishes for their health and prosperity. 20 If you and your children are well and your affairs are as you wish, I am glad. As my hope is in heaven, 21 I remember with affection your esteem and goodwill. On my way back from the region of Persia I suffered an annoying illness, and I have deemed it necessary to take thought for the general security of all. 22 I do not despair of my condition, for I have good hope of recovering from my illness, 23 but I observed that my father, on the occasions when he made expeditions into the upper country, appointed his successor, 24 so that, if anything unexpected happened or any unwelcome news came, the people throughout the realm would not be troubled, for they would know to whom the government was left. 25 Moreover, I understand how the princes along the borders and the neighbors of my kingdom keep watching for opportunities and waiting to see what will happen. So I have appointed my son Antiochus to be king, whom I have often entrusted and commended to most of you when I hurried off to the upper provinces; and I have written to him what is written here. 26 I therefore urge and beg you to remember the public and private services rendered to you and to maintain your present goodwill, each of you, toward me and my son. 27 For I am sure that he will follow my policy and will treat you with moderation and kindness.”
28 So the murderer and blasphemer, having endured the more intense suffering, such as he had inflicted on others, came to the end of his life by a most pitiable fate, among the mountains in a strange land. 29 And Philip, one of his courtiers, took his body home; then, fearing the son of Antiochus, he withdrew to Ptolemy Philometor in Egypt.
sent to the wild beasts.
"Now Christ was greatly glorified in those who formerly denied; for, contrary to every expectation of the heathen, they confessed. For these were examined separately, under the belief that they were to be set free; but confessing, they were added to the number of the Witnesses. But there were also some who remained without; namely, those who had no trace of faith, and no perception of the marriage garment,31 nor notion of the fear of God, but through their conduct caused evil reports of our way of life, that is, sons of perdition. But all the rest were added to the Church.
"Present at the examination of these was one Alexander, a native of Phrygia, a physician by profession. He had lived for many years in Gaul, and had become well known to all for his love to God and his boldness in proclaiming the truth, for he was not without a share of apostolic grace. He stood near the judgment-seat, and, urging by signs those who had denied to confess, he looked to those who stood round the judgment-seat like one in travail. But the mobs, enraged that those who had formerly denied should now confess, cried out against Alexander as if he were the cause of this change. Then the governor summoned him before him, and inquired of him who he was; and when Alexander said he was a Christian, the governor burst into a passion, and condemned him to the wild beasts. And on the next day he entered the amphitheatre along with Attalus; for the governor, wishing to gratify the mob, again exposed Attalus to the wild beasts. These two, after being tortured in the amphitheatre with all the instruments devised for that purpose, and having undergone an exceedingly severe contest, at last were themselves sacrificed. Alexander uttered no groan or murmur of any kind, but conversed in his heart with God; but Attalus, when he was placed on the iron chair, and all the pans of his body were burning, and when the fumes from his body were borne aloft, said to the multitude in Latin, `Lo! this which ye do is eating men. But as for us, we neither eat men nor practise any other wickedness. `And being asked what name God has, he answered, `God has not a name as men have.'
"After all these, on the last day of the gladiatorial shows, Blandina was again brought in along with Ponticus, a boy of about fifteen years of age. These two had been taken daily to the amphitheatre to see the tortures which the rest endured, and force was used to compel them to swear by the idols of the heathen; but on account of their remaining stedfast, and setting all their devices at nought, the multitude were furious against them, so as neither to pity the tender years of the boy nor to respect the sex of the woman. Accordingly they exposed them to every terror, and inflicted on them every torture, repeatedly trying to compel them to swear. But they failed in effecting this; for Ponticus, encouraged by his sister,32 so plainly indeed that even the heathens saw that it was she that encouraged and confirmed him, after enduring nobly every kind of torture, gave up the ghost; while the blessed Blandina, last of all, after having like a noble mother encouraged her children, and sent them on before her victorious to the King, trod the same path of conflict which her children had trod, hastening on to them with joy and exultation at her departure, not as one thrown to the wild beasts, but as one invited to a marriage supper. And after she had been scourged and exposed to the wild beasts, and roasted in the iron chair, she was at last enclosed in a net and cast before a bull. And after having been well tossed by the bull, though without having any feeling of what was happening to her, through her hope and firm hold of what had been entrusted to her and her converse with Christ, she also was sacrificed, the heathens themselves acknowledging that never among them did woman endure so many and such fearful tortures.
"Yet not even thus was their madness and their savage hatred to the saints satiated. For wild and barbarous tribes, when excited by the Wild Beast, with difficulty ceased from their rage, and their insulting conduct found another and peculiar subject in the bodies of the Witnesses. For they felt no shame that they had been overcome, for they were not possessed of human reason; but their defeat only the more inflamed their rage, and governor and people, like a wild beast, showed a like unjust hatred of us, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, `He that is unjust, let him be unjust still; and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still.'33 For they threw to the dogs those who had been suffocated in prison, carefully watching them day and night, lest any one should receive burial from us. They then laid out the mangled remains left by the wild beasts, and the scorched remains left by the fire, and the heads of the rest along with their trunks, and in like manner for many days watched them lying unburied with a military guard. There were some who raged and gnashed their teeth at them, seeking to get from them further vengeance. Others derided and insulted them, at the same time magnifying their own idols, and ascribing to them the punishment inflicted on the Christians. There were persons also of a milder disposition, who to some extent seemed to sympathize; yet they also frequently upbraided, saying, `Where now is their God, and what good have they got from that religion which they chose in preference to their life? 'Such was the diversity which characterized the conduct of the heathens. But our state was one of deep sorrow that we could not bury the bodies. For night aided us not in this matter; money failed to persuade, and entreaty did not shame them into compliance; but they kept up the watch in every way, as if they were to gum some great advantage from the bodies of the Christians not obtaining burial.
Something is omitted. The letter then goes on:-
"The bodies of the Witnesses, after having been maltreated in every way, and exposed in the open air for six days, were burned, reduced to ashes, and swept by the wicked into the river Rhone, which flows past, in order that not even a vestige of them might be visible on earth. And these things they did, as if they had been able to overcome God, and deprive them of their second birth,34 in order, as they said, that `they may not have hope in a resurrection, trusting to which they introduce some strange and new mode of worship, and despise dangers, and go readily and with joy to death. Now let us see if they will rise again, and if their God can help them, and rescue them out of our hands.'"
Eusebius here breaks off his series of continuous extracts, but he makes a few more for special purposes. The first is the account which the churches gave of the character of the Witnesses:-
"Who also were to such an extent zealous followers and imitators of Christ, who, being in the shape of God, thought it not an object of desire to be treated like God;35 that though they were in such glory, and had bone their testimony not once, nor twice, but often, and had been again taken back to prison after exposure to the wild beasts, and bore about with them the marks of the burnings and bruises and wounds all over their bodies, yet did they neither proclaim themselves Witnesses, nor indeed did they permit us to address them by this name; but if any one of us on any occasion, either by letter or in conversation, called them Witnesses, they rebuked him sharply. For they willingly gave the title of Witness to Christ, `the faithful and true Witness, '36 and first-born from the dead, and the leader to the divine life. And they reminded us of those Witnesses who had already departed, and said: `These indeed are now Witnesses, whom Christ has vouchsafed to take up to Himself in the very act of confession, thus putting His seal upon their testimony through their departure. But we are mean and humble confessors.' And with tears they besought the brethren that earnest prayers might be made for their being perfected. They in reality did all that is implied in the term `testimony, 'acting with great boldness towards all the heathen; and their nobleness they made manifest through their patience, and fearlessness, and intrepidity. But the title of Witness, as implying some superiority to their brethren,37 they refused, being filled with the fear of God."
After a little they say:-
"They humbled themselves38 under the powerful hand by which they are now highly exalted. Then they pleaded for all,39 but accused none; they absolved all, they bound none; and they prayed for those who inflicted the tortures, even as Stephen the perfect Witness, `Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.'40 But if he prayed for those who stoned him, how much more for the brethren!"
After other things, again they say:-
"For they had this very great conflict with him, the devil, on account of their genuine love, in order that the Beast being choked, might vomit forth those whom he thought he had already swallowed. For they assumed no airs of superiority over the fallen, but with those things in which they themselves abounded they aided the needy, displaying towards them the compassion of a mother. And pouring out many tears for them to the Father, they begged life;41 and He gave it to them, and they shared it with their neighbours. And departing victorious over all to God, having always loved peace, and having recommended peace to us, in peace they went to God, leaving no sorrow to their Mother, nor division and dissension to their brethren, but joy and peace, and concord and love."
"The same writing of the fore-mentioned martyrs," says Eusebius, "contains a story worth remembrance.
"For there was one of them of the name of Alcibiades, who lived an exceedingly austere life, confining his diet to bread and water, and partaking of nothing else whatsoever. He tried to continue this mode of life in prison; but it was revealed to Attalus after the first conflict which he underwent in the amphitheatre that Alcibiades was not pursuing the right course in refusing to use the creatures of God, and in leaving an example which might be a stumbling-block to others. And Alcibiades was persuaded, and partook freely of all kinds of food, and thanked God. For they were not without the oversight of the grace of God, but the Holy Spirit was their counsellor."
The Letter of the Churches of Vienna and Lugdunum to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia1
------------
It began thus:-"The servants of Christ who sojourn in Vienna and Lugdunum of Gaul to the brethren throughout Asia and Phrygia, who have the same faith and hope of redemption as ourselves, peace, grace, and glory from God the Father, and from Christ Jesus our Lord."
After some further preliminary remarks the letter proceeds:-"The greatness of the tribulation in this region, and the exceeding anger of the heathen nations against the saints, and the sufferings which the blessed Witnesses2 endured, neither are we competent to describe accurately, nor indeed is it possible to detail them in writing. For with all his strength did the adversary assail us, even then giving a foretaste of his activity among us which is to be without restraint; and he had recourse to every means, accustoming his own subjects and exercising them beforehand against the servants of God, so that not only were we excluded from houses,3 baths, and the forum, but a universal prohibition was laid against any one of us appearing in any place whatsoever. But the grace of God acted as our general against him. It rescued the weak; it arrayed against him men like firm pillars, who could through patience bear up against the whole force of the assaults of the wicked one. These came to close quarters with him, enduring every form of reproach and torture; and, making light of grievous trials, they hastened on to Christ, showing in reality that the `sufferings of the present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed in us.'4 And first they nobly endured the evils which were heaped on them by the populace,-namely, hootings and blows, draggings, plunderings, stonings, and confinements,5 and everything that an infuriated mob is wont to perpetrate against those whom they deem bitter enemies. And at length, being brought to the forum by the tribune of the soldiers, and the magistrates that had charge of the city, they were examined in presence of the whole multitude; and having confessed, they were shut up in prison until the arrival of the governor.
"After this, when they were brought before the governor, and when he displayed a spirit of savage hostility to us, Vettius Epagathus, one of the brethren, interposed. For he was a man who had contained the full measure of love towards God and his neighbours. His mode of life had been so strict, that though he was a young man, he deserved to be described in the words used in regard to the elderly Zacharias: `He had walked therefore in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.'6 He was also eager to serve his neighbour in any way, he was very zealous for God, and he was fervent in spirit. Such being the character of the man, he could not bear that judgment should be thus unreasonably passed against us, but was moved with indignation, and requested that he himself should be heard in defence of his brethren, undertaking to prove that there is nothing ungodly or impious amongst us. On this, those who were round the judgment-seat cried out against him, for he was a man of distinction; and the governor, not for a moment listening to the just request thus made to him, merely asked him if he himself were a Christian. And on his confessing in the clearest voice that he was, he also was taken up into the number of the Witnesses, receiving the appellation of the Advocate of the Christians,7 and having himself the Advocate, the Spirit,8 more abundantly than Zacharias; which he showed in the fulness9 of his love, in that he had of his own good-will offered to lay down his own life in defence of the brethren. For he was and is a genuine disciple of Christ, `following the Lamb whithersoever He goeth.'10
"After this the rest began to be distinguished,11 for the proto-martyrs were decided and ready, and accomplished the confession of their testimony with all alacrity. But there appeared also. those who were unprepared and unpractised, and who were still feeble, and unable to bear the tension of a gear contest. Of these about ten in number proved abortions; causing great grief and immeasurable sorrow amongst us, and dumping the ardour of the rest who had not yet been apprehended. For these, although they suffered every kind of cruelty, remained nevertheless in the company of the Witnesses, and did not forsake them. But then the whole of us were greatly alarmed on account of our uncertainty as to confession, not because we feared the tortures inflicted, but because we looked to the end, and dreaded lest any one should fall away. Those who were worthy, however, were daily apprehended, filling up the number of the others: so that out of the two churches all the excellent, and those to whom the churches owed most of all their establishment and prosperity, were collected together in prison. Some heathen household slaves belonging to our people were also apprehended, since the governor had given orders publicly that all of us should be sought out. These, through the instigation of Satan, and through fear of the tortures which they saw the saints enduring, urged on also by the soldiers, falsely accused us of Thyestean banquets and Oedipodean connections, and other crimes which it is lawful for us neither to mention nor think of; and, indeed, we shrink from believing that any such crimes have ever taken place among men. When the rumour of these accusations was spread abroad, all raged against us like wild beasts; so that if any formerly were temperate in their conduct to us on account of relationship, they then became exceedingly indignant and exasperated against us. And thus was fulfilled that which was spoken by our Lord: `The time shall come when every one who slayeth you shall think that he offereth service to God.'12
"Then at last the holy Witnesses suffered tortures beyond all description, Satan striving eagerly that some of the evil reports might be acknowledged by them.13 But in an exceeding degree did the whole wrath of mob, general, and soldiers fall on Sanctus, a deacon from Vienna, and on Maturus, a newly-enlightened but noble combatant, and on Attalus, a native of Pergamus, who had always been the Pillar14 and foundation of the church there, and on Blandina, through whom Christ showed that the things that to men appear mean and deformed and contemptible, are with God deemed worthy of great glory, on account of love to Him,-a love which is not a mere boastful appearance, but shows itself in the power which it exercises over the life. For while we were all afraid, and especially her mistress in the flesh, who was herself one of the combatants among the Witnesses, that she would not be able to make a bold confession on account of the weakness of her body, Blandina was filled with such power, that those who tortured her one after the other in every way from morning till evening were wearied and tired, confessing that they had been baffled, for they had no other torture they could apply to her; and they were astonished that she remained in life, when her whole body was torn and opened up, and they gave their testimony15 that one only of the modes of torture employed was sufficient to have deprived her of life, not to speak of so many excruciating inflictions. But the blessed woman, like a noble athlete, recovered her strength in the midst of the confession; and her declaration, `I am a Christian, and there is no evil done amongst us, 'brought her refreshment, and rest, and insensibility to all the sufferings inflicted on her.
"Sanctus also nobly endured all the excessive and superhuman16 tortures which man could possibly devise against him; for the wicked hoped, on account of the continuance and greatness of the tortures, to hear him confess some of the unlawful practices. But he opposed them with such firmness that he did not tell them even his own name, nor that of his nation or city, nor if he were slave or free; but in answer to all these questions, he said in Latin, `I am a Christian.' This was the confession he made repeatedly, instead of giving his name, his city, his race, and indeed in reply to every question that was put to him; and other language the heathens heard not from him. Hence arose in the minds of the governor and the torturers a determined resolution to subdue him; so that, when every other means failed, they at last fixed red-hot plates of brass to the most delicate parts of his body. And these indeed were burned, but he himself remained inflexible and unyielding, firm in his confession, being bedewed and strengthened by the heavenly fountain of the water of life which issues from the belly of Christ.17 But his body bore witness to what had happened: for it was all wounds and weals, shrunk and torn up, and had lost externally the human shape. In him Christ suffering wrought great wonders, destroying the adversary, and showing for an example to the rest that there is nothing fearful where there is the Father's love, and nothing painful where there is Christ's glory. For the wicked after some days again tortured the Witness, thinking that, since his body was swollen and inflamed, if they were to apply the same tortures they would gain the victory over him, especially since the parts of his body could not bear to be touched by the hand, or that he would die in consequence of the tortures, and thus inspire the rest with fear. Yet not only did no such occurrence take place in regard to him, but even, contrary to every expectation of man, his body unbent itself and became erect in the midst of the subsequent tortures, and resumed its former appearance and the use of its limbs, so that the second torture turned out through the grace of Christ a cure, not an affliction.
"Among those who had denied was a woman of the name of Biblias. The devil, thinking that he had already swallowed her, and wishing to damn her still more by making her accuse falsely, brought her forth to punishment, and employed force to constrain her, already feeble and spiritless, to utter accusations of atheism against us. But she, in the midst of the tortures, came again to a sound state of mind, and awoke as it were out of a deep sleep; for the temporary suffering reminded her of the eternal punishment in Gehenna, and she contradicted the accusers of Christians, saying, `How can children be eaten by those who do not think it lawful to partake of the blood of even brute beasts? 'And after this she confessed herself a Christian, and was added to the number of Witnesses.
"But when the tyrannical tortures were rendered by Christ of no avail through the patience of the blessed, the devil devised other contrivances-confinement in the darkest and most noisome cells of the prison, the stretching of the feet on the stocks,18 even up to the fifth hole, and the other indignities which attendants stirred up by wrath and full of the devil are wont to inflict on the imprisoned. The consequence was, that very many were suffocated in prison, as many at least as the Lord, showing His glory, wished to depart in this way. For there were others who were tortured so bitterly, that it seemed impossible for them to survive even though they were to obtain every kind of attention; and yet they remained alive in prison, destitute indeed of care from man, but strengthened by the Lord, and invigorated both in body and soul, and they animated and consoled the rest. But the new converts who had been recently apprehended, and whose bodies had not previously been tortured, could not indure the confinement, but died in the prison.
"Now the blessed Pothinus, who had been entrusted with the service of the bishopric in Lugdunum, was also dragged before the judgment-seat. He was now upwards of ninety years of age, and exceedingly weak in body. Though he breathed with difficulty on account of the feebleness of the body, yet he was strengthened by the eagerness of his spirit, on account of his earnest desire to bear his testimony. His body, indeed, was already dissolved through old age and disease, yet the life was preserved in him, that Christ might triumph through him. When he was brought by the soldiers to the judgment-seat, under a convoy of the magistrates of the city, and amid exclamations of every kind from the whole population, as if he himself were the Christ, he gave the good testimony. Being asked by the governor who was the God of the Christians, he said, `If thou art worthy, thou shalt know.' Thereupon he was unmercifully dragged about, and endured many blows; for those who were near maltreated him in every way with their hands and feet, showing no respect for his age, while those at a distance hurled against him each one whatever came to hand, all of them believing that they would sin greatly and act impiously if they in any respect fell short in their insulting treatment of him. For they thought that in this way they would avenge their gods. And Pothinus, breathing with difficulty, was cast into prison, and two days after he expired.
"Upon this a grand dispensation19 of God's providence took place, and the immeasurable mercy of Jesus was made manifest,-such an occurrence as but rarely happens among the brotherhood, yet one that does not fall short of the art of Christ. For those who in the first apprehension had denied, were imprisoned along with the others, and shared their hardships. Their denial, in fact, turned out at this time to be of no advantage to them. For while those who confessed what they really were, were imprisoned simply as Christians, no other accusation being brought against them, those who denied were detained as murderers and profligates. They, moreover, were doubly punished. For the confessors were lightened by the joy of their testimony and their hope in the promises, and by their love to Christ, and by the Father's Spirit. But the deniers were tormented greatly by their own consciences, so that when they were led forth their countenances could be distinguished among all the rest. For the confessors went forth joyous, with a mingling of glory and abundant grace in their looks, so that their chains lay like becoming ornaments around them, as around a bride adorned with golden fringes wrought with divers colours.20 And they breathed at the same time the fragrance of Christ,21 so that some even thought that they were anointed with this world's perfume. But the deniers were downcast, humbled, sad-looking, and weighed down with every kind of disgrace. They were, moreover, reproached even by the heathens with being base and cowardly, and charged with the crime of murder; they had lost the altogether honourable, glorious, and life-giving appellation.22 When the rest saw this, they were strengthened, and those who were apprehended confessed unhesitatingly, not allowing the reasoning of the devil to have even a place in their thoughts."
Eusebius omits something, saying that after a little the; letter proceeded as follows:-
"After these things, then, their testimonies took every shape through the different ways in which they departed.23 For, plaiting a crown from different colours and flowers of every kind, they presented it to the Father. It was right therefore that the noble athletes, after having endured divers contests and gained grand victories, should receive the great crown of incorruption.
"Maturus, therefore, and Sanctus, and Blandina, and Attalus were publicly24 exposed to the wild beasts-that common spectacle of heathen barbarity; for a day was expressly assigned to fights with wild beasts on account of our people. And Maturus and Sanctus again endured every form of torture in the amphitheatre, as if they had had no suffering at all before. Or rather, like athletes who had overthrown their adversary several times,25 and were now contending for the crown itself, again they endured the lashes26 which were usual there; and they were dragged about by the wild beasts, and suffered every indignity which the maddened populace demanded in cries and exhortations proceeding from various parts of the amphitheatre. And last of all they were placed in the iron chair, on which their bodies were roasted, and they themselves were filled with the fumes of their own flesh. But the heathens did not stop even here, but became still more frantic in their desire to overcome the endurance of the Christians. But not even thus did they hear anything else from Sanctus than the utterance of the confession which he had been accustomed to make from the beginning. These, then, after life had lasted a long time throughout the great contest, were at last sacrificed,27 after they alone had formed a spectacle to the world, throughout that day, instead of all the diversity which usually takes place in gladiatorial shows.
"Blandina28 was hung up fastened to a stake, and exposed, as food to the wild beasts that were let loose against her; and through her presenting the spectacle of one suspended on something like a cross, and through her earnest prayers, she inspired the combatants with great eagerness: for in the combat they saw, by means of their sister, with their bodily eyes, Him who was crucified for them, that He might persuade those who trust in Him that every one that has suffered for the glory of Christ has eternal communion with the living God. When none of the wild beasts at that time touched her, she was taken down from the stake and conveyed back to prison. She was thus reserved for another contest, in order that, gaining the victory in many preparative conflicts, she might make the condemnation of the Crooked Serpent29 unquestionable, and that she might encourage the brethren. For though she was an insignificant, weak, and despised woman, yet she was clothed with the great and invincible athlete Christ. On many occasions she had overpowered the adversary, and in the course of the contest had woven for herself the crown of incorruption.
"Attalus also was vehemently demanded by the mob; for he was a man of mark, He entered the lists a ready combatant on account of his good conscience, since he had been truly practised in the Christian discipline, and had always been a Witness of the truth among us. He was led round the amphitheatre, a tablet going before him, on which was written in Latin, `This is Attalus the Christian; 'and the people swelled with indignation against him. But the governor, learning that he was a Roman, ordered him to be taken back to prison and kept with the rest who were there, with regard to whom he had written to the Caesar, and was now awaiting his determination.
"The intervening time did not prove barren or unfruitful to the Witnesses, but through their patient endurance the immeasurable love of Christ was made manifest. For through the living the dead were made alive; and the Witnesses conferred favours on those who were not Witnesses, and the Virgin Mother had much joy in, receiving back alive those whom she had given up as dead abortions. For through the Witnesses the greater number of those who had denied returned, as it were, into their mother's womb, and were conceived again and re-quickened; and they learned to confess. And being now restored to life, and having their spirits braced, they went up to the judgment-seat to be again questioned by the governor, while that God who wishes not the death of the sinner,30 but mercifully calls to repentance, put sweetness: into their souls. This new examination took place because the Caesar had given orders that the Witnesses should be punished, but that if any denied they should be set free. And as now was commencing here the fair, which is attendee by vast numbers of men assembling from all nations, he brought the. blessed up to the judgment-seat, exhibiting them as a theatrical show and spectacle to the mobs. Wherefore also he again questioned them, and whoever appeared to have had the rights of Roman: citizenship he beheaded, and the rest he
Before believing The Bible Code - hook, line and sinker, be sure to read these refutations of the conclusions. (Other very good insight here)
http://www.direct.ca/trinity/
Josephus:
http://wesley.nnc.edu/josephus/
Early writings
http://home.sol.no/~noetic/oac.htm
(Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha - careful, not all of these are TRUTH - there are some non truth items mixed in)
Tough Questions
http://www.webcom.com/ctt/
click on Hallway of questions
http://www.takeitbyforce.com/writings.htm
GIANTS CONTINUED....
It was the purpose of Satan and his fallen angels to corrupt the human race and thereby do away with pure Adamite stock through whom the seed of the woman should come. This would advert their own doom and make it possible for Satan and his kingdom to keep control of the planet earth indefinitely. It was said to Adam and Eve that the seed of the woman should defeat Satan and restore man's dominion (Gen. 3:15). The only way then, for Satan to avoid this predicted defeat was to corrupt the pure Adamite line so that the coming of the seed of the woman into the world would be made impossible. This, he tried to accomplish by sending some of his fallen angels to marry the daughters of men as in Gen. 6:1-4, and producing the giant nations through them.
There are two such eruptions of fallen angels taught in Gen. 6:4; There were giants in the earth in those days (before the flood); and also after that (after the flood), when the sons of God (fallen angels) came in unto the daughters of men (any daughters of men - Cain, Seth and others), and they bare children to them (to the angels).
Satan almost succeeded in his plan during the first eruption, "for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth." and of all the multitudes Noah and his sons were the only pure Adamites left to be preserved by the ark (Gen. 6:8-13; 1Pet. 3:19-20). The main object of the flood was to do away with all this satanic corruption, destroy the giants, and preserve the pure Adamite stock so as to make good the guarantee of the coming of the seed of the woman, as in the plan of God.
Being defeated before the flood did not stop Satan from making a futher attempt to prevent the coming of the Redeemer who should be his final downfall. It was now to his advantage that God had promised never to send another universal flood upon the earth. Satan therefore reasoned that he should make a second attempt to do away with Adamite stock. If he came within "eight souls" of doing it before the flood, his opportunities were now even greater, with the promise that there would be no such flood. This is the reason for the second group of his fallen angels being sent to marry the daughters of men. Once again, the unions produced giants, and races of them occupied the land of promise, where the seed should be born, in advance of Abraham. Limited by His promise of no flood, God was then faced with the problem of destroying the giant races another way.
This explains why He commanded Israel to kill them everyone, even to the last man, woman and child. This again explains why He destroyed all the men, women and children besides Noah and his family, at the time of the flood. It also answers the skeptics question regarding why the children were taken away with the adults in the flood. God had to do away with this corruption entirely in order to fulfill His eternal plan and give the world its promised Redeemer. The Redeemer has come now, and so Satan is reserving his forces for a last stand at the 2nd coming of Christ.
Thus it is clear from Scripture that there were giants in the earth both before and after the flood and that they came from a union of fallen angels and the daughters of men.
-----------------------------------------------------------
About The Author -ref: Pioneers Of Faith by Dr. Lester Sumrall
Born in 1902, Finis Jennings Dake was born again and baptized in water at seventeen. Until then, he had rejected Christianity because of what he thought were the hypocritical attitudes of the Christians he knew. However, he finally met some Christians who lived what they preached. Then he chose to surrender his life to the Lord.
He continued to cry out for a closer walk with God after being born again. Three months later, in May, 1920, Dake received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. He described this as a "cool and rushing wind" flowing over his body and said it seemed that he could hear the fluttering of the wings of a dove.
Immediately, Dake said that he became aware of an ability he did not previously possess. He could quote Scripture verses by the hundreds, although he had read little of the Bible up to that time. This was a definite gift from God, as his wife testified to his poor memory in other matters!
In college, Dake made a vow to God that he would never teach one thing in private or in public that he could not prove by the Bible. He also vowed never to change what the Scripture says.
One night at a church in South Bend, to everyones amazement, he began to quote verbatim the entire book of Revelation from memory. With the congregation following line by line, they were amazed as he went straight through the entire book. At one point he smiled at the people and said, "Would you also like the punctuation?"
Dake authored several books, tracts, and pamphlets, although he is best known for his Dakes Annotated Reference Bible, first published in 1960. Together with his wife Dorothy, the notes for this Bible were compiled and edited over a seventeen year period.
***FOR MORE STUDIES SIMILAR TO THIS CLICK HERE...
http://members.xoom.com/tekie_/links.htm
Giants and the sons of God
a study from:
Dakes Annotated Reference Bible
by: Dr. Finis Jennings Dake (1902-1987)
There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
Gen. 6:4 (KJV)
Proofs giants were sons of angels
1. The fact that giants or beings of abnormal size in body, have lived on earth is one of the most clearly stated truths in Scripture. The Heb. nephilim from nephil means giant, bully, or tyrant (Gen. 6:4; Num. 13:33). That they were abnormal in bodily size is clear from the fact that men of Israel were as grasshoppers in size compared to them (Num. 13:33). The Heb. gibbor is also trans. giant, meaning powerful, giant, mighty, or strong man (Num. 13:33; Job 16:14). To say that these original words refer to degree of wickedness instead of size in body, is a mistake.
The Anakims were a people great and tall in body (Dt. 1:28; 2:10-11,21; 9:2; Josh. 11:21-22; 14:12-14). Anak himself was of the giants; and if he and all Anakims were so big, we can be assured the other giants were also (Num. 13:22,33). The land of Ammon was a land of giants, for giants dwelled there in old time (Dt. 2:19-20). The Emims were also great, many, and tall as the Anakims (Dt. 2:10-11). Zamzummims were called giants, a people great, many, and tall as the Anakims. They dwelled in the land of Ammon from of old (Dt. 2:19-21). Og, king of Bashan, is described as a giant whose bedstead was of iron and about 18 ft. 6 in. long and 8 ft. 4 in. wide. This is not a measurement of wickedness, but of a material bed for a giant body measuring not too far from 18 ft. tall (Dt. 3:11; Josh. 12:4; 13:12). Bashan is called the land of the giants (Dt. 3:13).
A valley of the giants is mentioned in Josh. 15:8; 18:16. This is the same as the valley of Rephaim, the name of another branch of the giant races so often mentioned in Scripture (Gen. 14:5; 15:20; 2Sam. 5:18, 22; 23:13; 1Chr. 11:15; 14:9; Isa. 17:5). The Rephaims were well known giants, but unfortunately, instead of retaining their proper name in Scripture, the translators translated it dead (Job 26:5; Ps. 88:10; Pr. 2:18; 9:18; 21:16; Isa. 14:8; 26:19); and deceased (Isa. 26:14). The word should have been retained as a proper name in all these places, as it is 10 times otherwise.
Rephaim is trans. giant (2Sam. 21:16; 18, 20, 22; 1Chr. 20:4, 6, 8) and giants (Dt. 2:11, 20; 3:11, 13; Josh. 12:4; 13:12; 15:8; 18:16). The phrase remnant of the giants in Dt. 3:11; Josh. 12:4; 13:12 should be remnant of the Rephaims, for there were many nations of giants other than the Rephaims who filled the whole country trying to contest God's claim on the promised land. They are listed as: Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaims, Amorites, Canaanites, Girga****es, Jebusites, Hivites, Anakims, Emims, Horims, Avims, Zamzummims, Caphtorims, and Nephilim (Gen. 6:4; 14:5-6; 15:19-21; Ex. 3:8, 17; 23:23; Dt. 2:10-12, 20-23; 3:11-13; 7:1; 20:17; Josh. 12:4-8; 13:3; 15:8; 17:15; 18:16). Og was of the remnant of Rephaims, not the remnant of all other giant nations (Dt. 3:11; Josh. 12:4; 13:12).
All these giant nations came from a union of the sons of God (fallen angels) and daughters of men after the flood. Beings of great stature, some of them even had 6 fingers on each hand and 6 toes on each foot and carried spears weighing from 10 to 25 lbs. (2Sam. 21:16-22; 1Chr. 20:4-8). Goliath whom David slew, wore a coat of armour weighing 196 lbs. and was about 13 ft. tall (1Sam. 17:4-6).
The Revelation we have of giants, in Scripture, gives us a true picture of what Greek mythology tries in vain to give. Ours is an accurate account because divinely inspired. Mythology is the outgrowth of traditions, memories, and legends telling of the acts of the supernatural fathers and their giant offspring - the perversion and corruption in transmission of actual facts concerning these mighty beings. The fact that giants were partly of supernatural origin made it easy to regard them as gods.
2. The fact that the Rephaim have no resurrection (Isa. 26:14) proves the reality of giants and that they were not ordinary men. All ordinary men are to be resurrected (Jn. 5:28-29); therefore, giants must be a different class from pure Adamites. Isaiah makes it clear that the dead (Heb. Rephaim) are now in hell (Isa. 14:9). Solomon confirms the same in Pr. 2:18; 9:18; 21:16 where the word dead is Rephaim in the Hebrew Bible.
3. The fact that giants came only from a union of sons of God and daughters of men proves that their fathers were not ordinary men of the Adamite stock. No such monstrosities have been nor can be produced from a union of any ordinary men and women, regardless of how righteous the father is or how wicked the mother is. Many converted men who are sons of God in the sense of adoption and righteousness through Christ, have been married to unconverted women, and no such offspring the size of Bible giants has ever resulted from these unions. If, as some teach, giants were born of such unions both before and after the flood, then why do not such marriages produce that kind of offspring today? Why did this happen in every case then and in no case today?
4. God's law of reproduction from the beginning has been everything after his own kind. It was not possible then, that giants could be produced by men and women (Gen. 1:11-12, 21, 24-25; 8:19) of ordinary size. It took the supernatural element, the purpose and power of Satan and his angels to make offspring of such extra size within the human species. After the variation of the species, which had to do with size only, and when giants had come into being, they then produced others of like size instead of ordinary sized men (Num. 13:33; 2Sam. 21:16, 18, 20, 22; 1Chr. 20:4-8).
5. Not only is it unscriptual but unhistorical to teach that giants came from the union of ordinary men and women. The great question has been: Where did giants get their start? Gen. 6:4 makes it clear - from a union of the sons of God and daughters of men. If the sons of God were ordinary men in the same sense that the daughters of men were ordinary women, then we must conclude 4 things:
(1) That ungodly women have the power to produce such monsters if married to godly men. Or,
(2) That godly men have the power to produce giants when married to ungodly women.
(3) That a mixture of godliness and wickedness produces giants.
(4) That extreme wickedness on the part of either parent will produce giant offspring.
All 4 conclusions are wrong however, as proved every day by the marriages of unconverted persons with the converted and the producing of offspring through the union of a wicked parent and a godly one. Thus, the theory that giants came from the marriage of Seth's sons with Cain's daughters is disproved.
6. The sons of God could not have been the sons of Seth or other godly men for the following 7 reasons:
(1) There were no men godly enough to be saved during the Antediluvian Age except Abel (Gen. 4:4; Heb. 11:4), Enoch (Gen. 5:21-24; Heb. 11:5), and Noah (Gen. 6:8; 7:1; Heb. 11:7), as far as Scripture records are concerned. Shall we conclude that these 3 men were the sons of God who married the daughters of Cain and produced races of giants in the earth in those days before the flood (Gen. 6:4)? We have no record of any such marriage or offspring of Abel before he was murdered. Regarding Enoch , are we to believe that Methuselah and his other children were the giants? Are we to believe that Noah's 3 sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth were giants? If so, where is our authority for this? Had this been true, there would had been nothing on earth after the flood but giants born of Noah's giant sons, for by his children the whole earth was then replenished (Gen. 10:1-32). That would cause another unsolved mystery - how giants became ordinary sized men again.
(2) The time of the marriages of the sons of God disproves the theory that they were the sons of Seth. Marriage of Seth's sons could not have taken place during the first 325 years, for he had only one son of marriageable age up to that time (Gen. 5:1-8) and he (Enos) was not godly. To say that there were no such marriages before Enos would contradict Gen. 6:1-2 which shows that sons of God married daughters of men which such daughters began to be born. Shall we conclude that daughters were not born in the first 325 years? If so, then where did Cain, Seth and others get their wives?
Futhermore, such marriages between godly sons and ungodly daughters could not have been during the last 600 years before the flood, because Noah was the only son of God by righteousness during this time (Gen. 6:8-9; 7:1; 2Pet. 2:4-5). His sons were preserved in the ark because of being pure Adamite stock and not because of personal righteousness. The foregoing facts then, would limit these marriages to the 731 years between the first 325 years and the last 600 of the Antediluvian Age; whereas, sons of God actually married daughters of men throughout the entire 1,656 years of that age. Gen. 6:1-2 makes it clear that this happened "when men began to multiply on the face of the earth".
(3) Gen. 6:4 teaches that there were giants on the earth in those days (before the flood), and also after that (after those days which were after the flood) as a result of the sons of God marrying the daughters of men. If, as is taught, the sons of God were the sons of Seth, we can account for them after that (after the flood), for the line of Seth was continued through Noah. But, with the daughters of Cain (suppose to be the daughters of men), the story is different. Cain's line perished in the flood, both men and women, which means there were no daughters of Cain after the flood, for sons of God to marry.
(4) The Bible gives us no reason to believe that the statement "the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair" should be limited to Cain's daughters. Other families had daughters too, thousands of families which made up the many branches of the race both before and after the flood. These were daughters of men, too. In the 1,656 years before the flood (which is the period in which Seth and Cain lived), there must have been from 150,000,000 to 500,000,000 people. It is unbelievable that so many as half of these were godly and half ungodly; and we know that they were not limited to two lines - the line of Seth and the line of Cain. Regarding Seth's daughters we have reason to believe that they were as fair as the daughters of Cain - beautiful enough to attract men as husbands for themselves. The line of Seth alone survived the flood, so we know this is true. Gen. 6:1-2 therefore, cannot be said to refer only to the daughters of Cain; and the term daughters of men cannot be limited to mean only the daughters of Cain.
(5) The very expressions, sons of God and daughters of men, indicate two different kinds - one the product of God, the other the product of man. Seth was not God, so why call the sons of God the sons of Seth?
(6) It is a matter of record that Seth's children were as ungodly as Cain's.
(7) With the exception of Noah and his family all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth, before the flood (Gen. 6:12), which means the entire race (besides Noah's family) had become a mixture of fallen angels and men, or giants. Only Noah and his family had preserved their pedigree pure from Adam; and this is really why they were saved in the ark. They were the only ones capable of giving the race a new clean start after the flood. It is said of Noah that he was just a man and perfect in his generations (Gen. 6:9). The word for perfect in the Heb. is tamim, which means without blemish. It is the technical word for bodily perfection, and not moral perfection. Hence, it is used of the sacrificial animals of the O.T. which had to be of pure stock and without blemish (Ex. 12:5; 29:1; Lev.1:3; 3:1-6; 4:3, 23-32; 5:15-18; 6:6; 9:2-3; Ezek. 43:22-25; 45:18-23); without spot (Num. 19:2; 28:3-11; 29:17, 26); and undefiled (Ps. 119:1). The use of this word in connection with Noah means that he and his sons were the only pure Adamites left, and for such purity they (regardless of the sons' position in personal holiness) were all preserved in the ark.
Proofs the sons of God were angels
Since it cannot possibly be that the sons of God who married the daughters of men and produced giants by them, were the sons of Seth or godly men marrying ungodly women, then it must be that the sons of Gen. 6, were fallen angels. That this is true is clear from many scriptures, as follows:
(1) The expression sons of God is found only 5 times in the O.T. and every time it is used of angels (Gen. 6:1-4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). It is indisputable that the passages in Job refer to angels. Dan. 3:25, 28 calls an angel the son of God. Is it not possible then, that the sons of God of Gen. 6 could be angels?
(2) Some translations, as the Septuagint, Moffat, and others read, angels of God in Gen. 6:1-4, which is the only idea that will harmonize with facts in the passage itself, as well as many other passages.
(3) Josephus says,
"many angels of God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of their own strength... these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians called giants" (Ant. Book I, ch. 3).
Again, he says,
"There was till then left the race of giants, who had bodies so large, and countenances so entirely different from other men, that they were surprising to the sight, and terrible to the hearing. The bones of these men are still shown to this very day" (Ant. Book V, ch. 2).
(4) The Ante-Nicene Fathers also refer to angels as falling
"into impure love of virgins, and were subjugated by the flesh.... Of these lovers of virgins, therefore, were begotten those who are called giants"
(Vol. 2, p. 142; Vol. 8, p. 85, 273).
Justyn Martyr, 110-165 A.D., says,
"But the angels transgressed... were captivated by love of women, and begat children" (Vol. 2, p. 190).
Methodius, 260-312 A.D., says,
"the devil was insolent .... as also those (angels) who were enamoured of fleshly charms, and had illicit intercourse with the daughters of men"
(Vol. 6, p. 370).
(5) Both testaments of the Bible teach that some angels committed sex sins and lived contrary to nature. Gen. 6:1-4 gives the history of such sinning. In 2Pet. 2:4-5 we have the statement that angels did sin before the flood and for their sin were cast down to hell to be reserved until judgement. This passage does not reveal that the sin was fornication, but Jude 1:6-7 does, saying:
"And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner (as did the angels) , giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." Jude 1:6-7 (KJV)
If Sodom, Gomorrha and other cities lived contrary to nature and committed fornication, as the angels did, then it is clear that the sin of angels was that of fornication. According to Gen. 6 this sex sin was committed with "daughters of men."
(6) The one scripture used to teach that angels are sexless, which is Mt. 22:30, does not say that they are. It states that:
"For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." Mt. 22:30 (KJV)
The purpose of this verse is to show that men and women who have part in the resurrection do not marry, nor do they need to, in order to keep their kind in existence. In the resurrected state they live forever, but not as sexless beings. The Bible teaches that every person will continue bodily as he was born, in all eternity. Paul said that everyone will have his own body in the resurrection (1Cor. 15:35-38). If one is a male he will continue as such with all his bodily parts. If one is a female in this life she will be resurrected as such even though her body is changed from mortality to immortality, and is called a spiritual body (1Cor. 15:35-54). There is nothing in the resurrection to uncreate men and women. Christ remained a man after His resurrection and so will all other males.
Throughout Scripture, angels are spoken of as men. No female angels are on record. It is logical to say then, that the female was created specifically for the human race in order that it could be kept in existence; and that all angels were created males, inasmuch as their kind is kept in existence without the reproduction process. Angels were created innumerable to start with (Heb. 12:22) whereas, the human multitudes began with one pair, Adam and Eve who were commanded to reproduce and thereby make the multitudes. That angels have tangible spirit bodies with bodily parts, appear as men, and have performed acts equal to and surpassing those of the human male, is clear from many passages.
The fact that some angels "kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation," as stated in Jude 1:6 to commit sin makes it somewhat understandable how a sex sin could be accomplished by them. The Gr. for habitation is oiketerion. It is used only twice in the Scripture, and then concerning the bodies of men being changed to spiritual bodies (2Cor. 5:2), and the angels having a bodily change, or at least a lowering of themselves in some way (Jude 1:6-7). This, in the N.T. helps explain the history of the O.T. concerning the angels living contrary to their nature and producing giants "when the sons of God (angels) came in unto (had relationship with) the daughters of men" as Gen. 6:4 says and other passages confirm.
(7) There are 2 classes of fallen angels - those loose with Satan who will be cast down to earth during the future tribulation (Rev. 12:7-12), and those who are now bound in hell for committing what the Bible calls fornication (2Pet. 2:4; Jude 1:6-7). Had the ones in hell not committed the additional sin of fornication, they would still be loose, with the others, to help Satan in the future. Their present confinement proves they committed a sin besides that of original rebellion with Satan. That it was sex sin is clear from 2Pet. 2:4 and Jude 1:6-7, which fact identifies this class of fallen angels as the sons of God of Gen. 6:1-4.
(8) In 1Pet. 3:19-20 we see that Christ "went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing" . Who are these spirits in prison, if not the confined angels who once lived contrary to their nature - in sin with the daughters of men (Gen. 6:1-4)? We read "Who maketh his angels spirits"(Ps. 104:4; Heb. 1:13-14). If angels are spirits, we can then conclude that the imprisoned ones Christ preached to were angels and the sons of God referred to in Gen. 6, especially since they "were disobedient ... in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing." The very purpose of Noah's flood was to destroy the giant offspring of these angels known as the sons of God who "came in unto the daughters of men."
The purpose of Satan in producing giants
It was the purpose of Satan and his fallen angels to corrupt the human race and thereby do away with pure Adamite stock through whom the seed of the woman should come. This would advert their own doom and make it possible for Satan and his kingdom to keep control of the planet earth indefinitely. It was said to Adam and Eve that the seed of the woman should defeat Satan and restore man's dominion (Gen. 3:15). The only way then, for Satan to avoid this predicted defeat was to corrupt the pure Adamite line so that the coming of the seed of the woman into the world would be made impossible
"On June 28th, 1787, the Constitutional Convention was on the verge of complete rupture For over a month the delegates wrestled with the issue of representation with no breakthroughs, and now patience was wearing thin and emotions were on edge. A somber George Washington, presiding over the assembly, began to despair of seeing success in the Convention. But the OLDEST DELEGATE IN attendance, Dr, Benjamin Franklin, asked for permission to speak.
This was unusual. the 81 year old Pennsylvanian up to this point wrote out his remarks and had someone else read them due to his infirmity. but this time he was stirred to rise and address the delegates himself:
"THE SMALL PROGRESS we have made after four or five weeks...with each other....IS A MELANCHOLY PROOF OF THE IMPERFECTION OF THE HUMAN UNDERSTANDING....In this situation of this Assembly, GROPING AS IT WERE IN THE DARK TO FIND POLITICAL TRUTH, AND SCARCE ABLE TO DISTINGUISH IT WHEN PRESENTED TO US, HOW HAS IT HAPPENED, SIR, WE HAVE NOT HITHERTO ONCE THOUGHT OF HUMBLY APPLYING TO THE FATHER OF LIGHTS TO ILLUMINATE OUR UNDERSTANDINGS?
In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, WE HAD DAILY PRAYERS IN THIS ROOM FOR DIVINE PROTECTION. OUR PRAYERS, SIR, WERE HEARD AND GRACIOUSLY ANSWERED. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances OF A SUPERINTENDING PROVIDENCE IN OUR FAVOR....HAVE WE NOW FORGOTTEN THIS POWERFUL FRIEND? OR DO WE IMAGINE WE NO LONGER NEED HIS ASSISTANCE?
I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: THAT GOD GOVERNS IN THE AFFAIRS OF MAN. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire rise without HIS aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings that "except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I FIRMLY BELIVE THIS, and I also believe that without HIS concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel. We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages.
I therefore beg leave to move that, henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven and it's blessing on our deliberation be held in this assembly every morning.....and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officate in the office of that duty."
Within a day the impasse broke.
God is edified when we show His grandeur through the Creation He made and attempt to prove that He actually did it.
There are 1000 roads to Rome but not everyone takes the same path.
When the Apostle Paul was on Mars Hill - he disputed daily with the Greek Philosophers of His day. I can assure you that he was not talking about floods and such. Paul was one of the brighest minds the Hebrew schools had ever produced. Also, he was the greatest advocate of Grace who ever lived (Save the Lord)
So, in Paul the Apostle, we have the unique soul which was capable of both contending for ideas which were logical and also spiritual.
Logic itself is the foundation of the Judeo-Christian history. Had the Jewish Synogogues not been so open to teaching and learning through the discussion of scripture, Jesus would not have had the opportunity to walk into any of them and begin teaching the truth. (and disputing inaccuracies through logic) Jesus took the world around Him and used it to explain complicated Spiritual subjects.
Today, we live in an age of science and that science is exploding. (Daniel told us that this would happen in the last days) The modern mind simply can't say that I believe it because the Bible says so. We, as this generations' Christians, have little to offer the world if we must apologize for the state of our 19th century thinking in this 21st millenium. Though we are fools for Christ - we need not be foolish in our thoughts and arguments in favor of why we believe.
By showing the unbeliever that he has not thoroughly considered the ramifications - of what he thinks is solid ground - we lead him to question the foundation of his mental house - and at the very hopeful least, consider Christ as an alternative.
Western science since ST Augustine was inseparably linked to the Christian world. ALL thinking in our academies and churches and cities - Had as it's foundation Judeo-Christian thought.
Only in the Days of Darwin did we give up the reins - because Scientific discoveries (And hypothecies)got ahead of our understanding of the scripture. We have at our disposal, in these very interesting times, the ability to recover the high ground, by showing how recent discoveries are continually pointing what we have always known, and that is - Christ spoke and the World began.
IN THE BEGINNING is what we have been discussing. And if the argument for the Beginning is won - then the middle and the end must by fate follow. That middle is Salvation and that end is Eternal Glory.
Additionally, many Christians are not taught these things nor have rarely considered them. But the arguments are persuasive - and the knowledge of them deepens our faith, because we know that in this age of science - God still can be shown to exist - logically. He is not dead. He is alive and well and He has signed everything He has ever done. Including my heart.
"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
Just Wearing The Shirt
(John 6:40 )
I have two adult friends who own Princeton University sweatshirts. Al has one because he put in four challenging years and graduated from Princeton. I ran into another friend, Dave, at the store one day and he was wearing his Princeton sweatshirt. I said, "I didn't know you went to Princeton, Dave." He informed me that he didn't attend that Ivy League school. He bought the sweatshirt at a discount store for twelve dollars! He said, "Oh, I didn't go there - I just wear the shirt!"
Jesus has a lot of folks like my friend who got his shirt at a discount store - they're just wearing His shirt. In fact, our word for today from the Word of God describes people like that - and, frankly, it's pretty unsettling.
In Matthew 7:21-23 Jesus says, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. Many of you will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
This is a disturbing description because the people Jesus says He never knew are not people who are only wearing a Jesus-shirt - they have like a total Christian wardrobe. They have been Christian leaders . . . they're experts on Jesus . . . they have spoken for Jesus and done some impressive things in His name. Jesus says those who are truly His, who will end up in heaven will not be "everyone who says" the right things - but those who do His Father's will. Which is spelled out in John 6:40 - "My Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him shall have eternal life." See, it's your total trust in God's Son to rescue you from your sin that gets you into heaven, and nothing else. It takes more than the Christian uniform.
There's someone listening today who says all the right words - maybe even publicly - but you've never surrendered your heart, your will to Jesus Christ. The fact that you have Christianity but you don't have Christ can be concealed - until you see the Lord. Could it be that you're just wearing the shirt, but your heart is still lost?
In Luke 6:46, Jesus addresses people who apparently really do belong to Him - but He asks, "Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord', and do not do what I say?" Maybe your commitment to Jesus has deteriorated to being pretty much words - like "Lord, Lord". My friend, Dave, had not really paid the price that goes with identification with Princeton. When my friend, Al, wears his shirt, it is backed up with years of sacrifice and work. Could it be that you're proud to wear a Jesus-shirt - but you're not paying the price of really living consistently with Jesus first?
But by far the most important question you have to answer and answer correctly is this:
"Do I really belong to Jesus? Have I really begun a relationship with Jesus by grabbing Him in total trust to be my Rescuer from my sin?" You see if it's only a Christian uniform, it won't make it past the throne of God on Judgment Day. You need to be sure, to make sure, that Jesus Christ rules in your heart.
It may be hard for you to admit - but if you don't really belong to Jesus - and you want to- would you tell Him that right now? And if you want to begin this relationship for real, I'd love to send you the booklet I wrote about it called Yours For Life. Just let me know you want it.
The most chilling words Jesus will ever speak are "I never knew you" - spoken to people who knew all about Him but didn't know Him. I don't ever want you to hear those words. He doesn't ever want you to hear those words. He's come to you one more time. Please - let Him in.
God is A Mathematician
By Keith Newman.
The authenticity of the Holy Bible has been attacked at regular intervals by atheists and theologians alike but none have explained away the mathematical seal beneath its surface.
It would seem the divine hand has moved to prevent counterfeiting in the pages of the Bible in a similar manner to the line that runs through paper money. Bible numerics appears to be God's watermark of authenticity.
Vital research on this numeric seal was completed by a native of the world's most reknowned atheistic nation, Russia. Ivan Panin was born in Russia on December 12, 1855. As a young man he was an active nihilist and participated in plots against the Czar and his government. He was a mathematical genius who died a Harvard scholar and a citizen of the United States in 1942.
Panin was exiled from Russia. And after spending a number of years studying in Germany, he went to the United States where he became an outstanding lecturer on literary criticism.
Panin was known as a firm agnostic - so well known that when he discarded his agnosticism and accepted the Christian faith, the newspapers carried headlines telling of his conversion.
It was in 1890 that Panin made the discovery of the mathematical structure underlining the vocabulary of the Greek New Testament. He was casually reading the first verse of the gospel of John in the Greek: "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with the God and the Word was God...".
Panin was curious as to why the Greek word for "the"' preceded the word "God"' in one case and not the other. In examining the text he became aware of a number relationship. This was the first of the discoveries that led to his conversion and uncovered the extensive numeric code.
Panin found his proof in the oldest and most accurate manuscripts - the Received Hebrew Text and the Westcott and Hort Text.
In the original languages of the Bible, mostly Hebrew and Greek, there are no separate symbols for numbers, letters of the alphabet are also used to indicate numbers.
The numeric value of a word is the sum total of all its letters. It was curiosity that first caused Panin to begin toying with the numbers behind the texts. Sequences and patterns began to emerge. These created such a stirring in the heart of the Russian that he dedicated 50 years of his life to painstakingly comb the pages of the Bible.
This complex system of numbering visibly and invisibly saturates every book of the scriptures emphasizing certain passages and illustrating deeper or further meaning in types and shadows. The 66 books of the Bible 39 in the Old and 27 in the New were written by 33 different people.
Those authors were scattered throughout various countries of the world and from widely different backgrounds. Many of them had little or no schooling. The whole Bible was written over a period of 1500 years with a 400 year silence apart from the Apocrypha between the two testaments. Despite the handicaps the biblical books are found to be a harmonious record, each in accord with the other.
Panin says the laws of probability are exceeded into the billions when we try and rationalize the authorship of the Bible as the work of man. He once said: "If human logic is worth anything at all we are simply driven to the conclusion that if my facts I have presented are true, man could never have done this.
"We must assume that a Power higher than man guided the writers in such a way, whether they knew it or not, they did it and the Great God inspired them to do it''.
The Bible itself states clearly that it is the literal God-breathed'' living word of the Creator. The words "Thus saith the Lord"' and "God said"' occur more than 2500 times throughout scripture.
In 2 Timothy 3:16 it states "All scripture is given by inspiration of God". Then in 2 Peter 9:20-21 it plainly states: "No prophecy of the scriptures is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost".
Let's take the number seven as an illustration of the way the patterns work. Seven is the most prolific of the mathematical series which binds scripture together. The very first verse of the Bible "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen 1:1), contains over 30 different combinations of seven.
This verse has seven Hebrew words having a total of 28 letters 4 x 7. The numeric value of the three nouns "God", "heaven" and "earth" totals 777. Any number in triplicate expresses complete, ultimate or total meaning.
Also tightly sealed up with sevens are the genealogy of Jesus, the account of the virgin birth and the resurrection. Seven occurs as a number 187 times in the Bible (41 x 7), the phrase "seven-fold" occurs seven times and "seventy" occurs 56 times (7 x 8).
In the Book of Revelation seven positively shines out: there are seven golden candlesticks, seven letters to seven churches, a book sealed with seven seals, seven angels standing before the Lord with seven trumpets, seven thunders and seven last plagues. In fact there are over 50 occurrences of the number seven in Revelation alone.
There are 21 Old Testament writers whose names appear in the Bible (3 x 7). The numeric value of their names is divisible by seven. Of these 21, seven are named in the New Testament: Moses, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Hosea and Joel. The numeric values of these names is 1554 (222 x 7). David's name is found 1134 times (162 x 7).
God's seal also pervades creation as though it were woven into the very fabric of nature.
The Bible has declared man's years to be three score and ten (70). The development of the human embryo is in exact periods of sevens or 28 days (4 x 7). Medical science tells us the human body is renewed cell for cell every seven years.
We're told the pulse beats slower every seven days as if it were in accord with the seventh day of rest proclaimed in the Genesis creation week. And God formed man of the dust of the ground (Gen 2:7); science confirms the human body is made of the same 14 elements (2 x 7) found in your average handful of dust.
The light of the sun is made up of seven distinct colours as shown in the rainbow. In music there are seven distinct notes which climax in a chord or octave at the beginning of a new seven.
In almost all animals the incubation or pregnancy period is divisible by seven. Seven is often referred to as "God's seal" or the number of spiritual perfection.
Eight is the number of new life or "resurrection". It is the personal number of Jesus. When we add together the letter values of the name Jesus in the Greek we get 888. Jesus was called The Christ, the numeric value of this title is 1480 (185 x 8). He was Savior which has the value 1408 (2 x 8 x 88).
Jesus is also Lord which again is a multiple of eight being 800 (100 x 8). Messiah has the numeric value 656 (82 x8). Jesus also called himself the Son of man. The term occurs 88 times and is valued at 2960 (370 x 8).
Jesus said "I am the truth": the numeric value of "the truth" is 64 (8 x 8). The last book in the Bible is the Revelation of Jesus Christ which has exactly 888 Greek words. Eight persons were saved in the Ark at the great Noahic flood. God made a covenant with Abraham that every male Jewish child was to be circumcised on the eighth day of his life.
There are eight individual cases of resurrection spoken of in the Bible apart from Jesus. Three occur in the Old Testament, three in the gospels and two in Acts. It was on the eighth day or the first day of the new week that Jesus rose from the dead. The Holy Spirit also came down from heaven on the eighth day.
Nine is finality or completion. The first example of its use is that infinitely sealed first verse of the Bible: "In the beginning God'' which in Hebrew is: Bray****h Elohim which has the numeric value of 999. The very next statement "created the heaven" is also sealed with 999.
The number nine is endowed with a peculiar quality, it is finality in itself. Not only is it the final single number, but if you multiply it by any other number, the addition of the resulting figures will always revert back to nine (2 x 9 = 18 / 1 + 8 = 9 etc).
There are nine basic gifts available to the Christian believer through the power of God's Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:8-10). There are nine basic fruits which should be evident in the life of the believer (Gal 5:22-23). The words "my wrath" have the numeric value 999. The word Amen or verily is valued at 99 and occurs 99 times.
The work on the cross was completed at the ninth hour when Jesus said "It is finished". The shedding of his blood was final. It saw an end to the old system of animal sacrifice to atone for sin. The word "blood" in this sense occurs 99 times.
Great superstition has always surrounded the number 13 as being unlucky or dark. Perhaps there is good reason. One of the most convincing proofs of the origins of this number can be found by unravelling all the names by which Satan is known. Drakon or dragon has a value of 975 (13 x 75) and it occurs 13 times. Peirazon or tempter has a value of 1053 (13 x 81). Belial which is personification of evil has a value of 78 (13 x 6).
Anthropoktonos or "murderer" has a value of 1820 (13 x 40). Ophis or "serpent" is 780 (13 x 60). The phrase used by the Holy Spirit Ho kaloumenos diablos kai ho Satanas or "called the Devil and Satan" is valued 2197 (13 x 13 x 13).
This article is in truth an oversimplification of the work of Panin and others who followed in his footsteps. Panin's work initially involved some 40,000 pages of material on which he had written millions of small neat calculations. It involved volumes.
He often laboured up to 18 hours a day exploring the vast numeric structure. By and large it was a thankless task. Panin said "When I first made the discovery I was of course, taken off my feet - I was in the same condition as our friend Archimedes who when he solved a great mathematical problem while in the bath, rushed in to the street naked, crying 'I have found it'. I thought people would be delighted to embrace the new discovery, but I found human nature is always the same. So I quietly withdrew and did my work all by myself".
Although it would appear that his work has been largely lost from popular reading today Panin did accomplish several outstanding works. He published Structure in the Bible the Numeric Greek New Testament and the Numeric English New Testament.
The works of Ivan Panin have been put before the experts many times. Panin once challenged nine noted rationalists and Bible critics through the medium of the New York Sun newspaper November 9, 1899. He dared them to publicly refute or give explanation for a few of his presented facts. Four made lame excuses. The rest were silent.
Panin issued a challenge throughout leading newspapers of the world asking for a natural explanation or rebuttal of the facts. Not a single person accepted. He died at Aldershot, Ontario Canada on October 30th, 1942, aged 87. panin2.htm
INNER PEACE
My therapist told me the way to true inner peace
is to finish what I start.
So far today I have finished two bags of chips
and a chocolate cake.
I feel better already!
Windows 95:
32-bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16-bit patch to an 8-bit operating system originally coded for a 4-bit
microprocessor, written by a 2-bit company that can't stand
1-bit of competition.
Cananda - Jobless Drink Beer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CANADIAN PM ATTACKED FOR SAYING JOBLESS DRINK BEER
OTTAWA (Reuter) - Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien came under fire
Thursday for suggesting that unemployed Canadians were sitting at home
swilling beer on the dole.
Quebec separatist leader Lucien Bouchard accused Chretien of crusading
against the jobless after promising them work and dignity to win the
elections last October.
``There is no dignity in this country in being unemployed and being
accused by the prime minister of sitting at home drinking beer," right-wing
Reform Party representative Deborah Grey said in parliament.
The new Liberal government has been hard pressed to reconcile its
campaign pledges to reduce unemployment and Canada's strapping public debt at
the same time.
Most of the debt has been run up by a generous social welfare system
built up over 50 years and economists say the government has no choice but to
chop services.
The Liberals are looking for ways to encourage people to get off the dole
and onto training and job-sharing schemes.
``In my judgment, it's better to have them at 50 percent of productivity
than to be sitting home drinking beer at zero percent of productivity,"
Chretien said Wednesday at an annual press dinner in Toronto. Chretien
said Canada had to ``break the mentality" of people who work for short stints
only to claim unemployment insurance.
Canada's rate of unemployment fell from 11.1 to 10.6 last month, but it
is still one of the highest among leading industrial nations.
REUTER
Transmitted: 94-04-21 17:44:00 EDT
How many RCMPs does it take to arrest a Canadian?
Two, one to search him and one to hold his beer.
A Swiss guy, looking for directions, pulls up at a bus stop where two
Americans are waiting.
"Entschuldigung, koennen Sie Deutsch sprechen?" he says. The two
Americans just stare at him.
"Excusez-moi, parlez vous francais?" The two continue to stare.
"Parlare italiano?" No response.
"Hablan ustedes espanol?" Still nothing.
The Swiss guy drives off, extremely disgusted.
The first American turns to the second and says, "Y'know, maybe we
should learn a foreign language...."
"Why?" says the other, "That guy knew four languages, and it didn't
do him any good."