The Burning Bush

Design vs Randomness


Adobe computer software is virtually essential for modern computer users. Is there anyone who has not yet installed the Adobe Reader? We are now up to seven point something, and there is almost nothing more we need it to do (famous last words, I know).

Web files are often saved in the Adobe PDF format. It requires the free Adobe Reader to view the file, but the Reader will not let you modify the file. So I feel safe putting materials online for my students and others to read. They can read the material but not change it. This solves what would be a huge issue for academic types, like me. If I put up a syllabus, an essay, or a book report on the web, and somebody could download it, change some information, edit parts of it, and then reload it to its original position or some other place on the web, then, of course, I would not be uploading very many important essays or materials. With Adobe, I feel safe about my intellectual property. Anyone can see what I have posted, but they can’t change it. The Adobe Reader is a free download for any Internet user.

So why write that paragraph?

It is only background for those few who might not recognize the significance of this company. Actually I did not even mention the many other essential products for computer users that Adobe makes. Many are web related and are involved with digital photography and web design. These guys are giants in the software business. They don’t make many mistakes.

So was it a mistake?

My annual Almanac Issue (2006—2007) of the Chronicle of Higher Education came today (August 21, 2006). It was upside down in my box, so what I first saw was the back cover. It was an Adobe advertisement.

There was what looked like a chambered nautilus shell all merged with a spiral staircase (with people walking on it), a carved circular wall near the stairs, and a series of small numbers filling the edges of the three circular levels of the photo, from the chambered shell out to the spiral stairway.

It is hard to describe, but the blending possible with Adobe digital photo software is really fantastic. What grabbed me was the headline:

     What if design
          brought clarity to a mathematical
                         phenomenon?

What was that again? Certain mathematical phenomena are better explained in terms of a pattern, a design? Mathematics, fundamental to all science, best explained in terms of design? On the back cover of the prestigious Chronicle?

The advertising text explains further: “Express complex ideas simply and beautifully. Make sophisticated multimedia creations that can turn even the Fibonacci sequence into something that’s understandable at a glance.”

So does this mean that we understand design when we see it? Are some confusing mathematical ideas explained better by the concept of design rather than by randomness? Right there on the cover of the Chronicle?

All the alphabetic characters in the ad seem to be in the right place (thus rendering the advertising message understandable and meaningful). In random order, there would be no meaning, nothing would be understood. Intelligent design was essential to this Adobe ad. So what if design were to bring clarity to more than just the Fibonacci sequence?


L. Russ Bush, Director
Center for Faith and Culture


Box 1889
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
Wake Forest, NC 27588

www.sebts.edu
www.sebts.edu/ap

Bush Saves the Cross by Eminent Domain


That was the headline in the August 21, 2006, National Weekly Edition of the Washington Times p.10. Recently I have expressed concern about the ACLU’s effort to force San Diego to remove the Mount Soledad cross, a well known monument in the city since 1954. I said that I had heard nothing about it lately, so I did not know the outcome of the lawsuit.

Today I was informed that on August 14, 2006, President Bush signed a bill transferring ownership of the property from the city to the federal government. This was based on a bill voted in the House by a 349—74 majority on July 19, and unanimously approved by the Senate on August 1, 2006. This action invalidated the law suits. This was not a hostile take over. The city had voted last year by a 76% majority to allow the city to donate the cross and the property on which it sits to the Federal Government in order to preserve it as a Korean War memorial. Superior Court Justice Patricia Yim Cowett right away ruled the election invalid (can’t let a vote of the people tell the Court what to do) and her ruling was under appeal.

U.S. District Court Judge Gordon Thompson, in 1991, had ordered the city to remove the cross.  The suit apparently had been filed by atheist Philip Paulson. He was claiming that the cross discriminated against non-Christian veterans.

President Bush clearly was not only within his rights to do this, but it was right to do this. Fred Edwards of the American Humanist Association called it an “end run” on the Constitution. That wasn’t surprising, but I really did not expect to see Barry Lynn (of Americans United for Separation of Church and State) jumping in here (maybe I should not be so naive). He was reported as saying that the President’s action was “an unwarranted, heavy-handed maneuver that undercuts the separation of church and state and the integrity of the judicial system.”  May I paraphrase Lynn: I don’t like it that both House and Senate, with only token opposition, voted to authorize this action, and I really don’t like it that Bush signed the bill, and I think that Courts should be allowed to rule anyway they wish, even against the vast majority of informed citizens on an issue such as this, because the Courts ruled according to my peculiar way of understanding Church—State issues, and I wanted the ruling to stand so that we could show everyone who it is that is in charge around here and disabuse all the religious people of our nation of any notion that this is a government of the people and for the people that guarantees free religious expression.

It’s like Israel and Hezbolla. There does not seem to be much common ground on these Church—State issues.

For background, see my previous blog “American Christianity under Attack.”

L. Russ Bush
Wake Forest, NC

American Christianity under Attack

Dennis Prager, in the May 8-14, 2006, weekly edition of the Washington Times (p. 33) reminded me that the American Civil Liberties Union succeeded in getting Los Angeles County to remove a small cross from the county seal. A similar effort has been aimed at a memorial cross in San Diego, and the clock is ticking. If the cross is not torn down, the city will be fined by the Federal Court at the rate of $5000 per day. Unfortunately the story has dropped out of sight, and I do not know the outcome (August 21, 2006).

Catholics founded the city of “the Angels.” To remove the cross is to deny the history of the city. History seems not to be as important to the ACLU as is their theory of civil liberty. They say we must be free of any religious ideas in the public square. Prager wonders if the name of the city itself will not eventually be challenged (as well as Corpus Christi, St. Louis, and how many others). My college is being told they can no longer be known as Choctaws [Mississippi College] even though the Choctaw Tribal Council in the area has supported the school’s petition to keep the name.

Prager reports that in 1999 the U.S. Postal Service released a stamp depicting Jackson Pollack. The Postal Service used a famous photo from Life Magazine but there was a deliberate edit to the photo. Pollack’s famous cigarette! I don’t smoke, but Pollack did. Apparently the Postal Service cares more about political correctness with regard to smoking than it does about truth. [By truth I mean that which represents reality, the actual facts of the matter.]

The push is on (as most of us now realize) to claim that orthodox Christianity is a hoax. Judas was supposedly a hero. Jesus was married and had at least one child. Supposedly the church has known this but covered it up in order to consolidate its power.

I do not defend the Catholic or the Protestant Church as having always acted correctly or as having always been right in their doctrinal expressions or biblical interpretations. Galileo was not completely correct, but he was more correct than the Church leadership believed in that day, and many mistakes were made. But both thought they were defending truth. Neither side was knowingly defending a hoax or a lie.

Prager is right. America is slipping toward totalitarianism. Christianity is a target, but so is tobacco, and so is creationism. According to the Dover case, teachers are not even allowed to refer students to supplementary readings on intelligent design, for to do so would somehow be a violation of the constitution (minus the first amendment, of course).

Do our civil liberties really have so much to fear from the open exchange of ideas in the public forum? Will the ACLU ever stop until every cross in the country is removed from sight and hidden? Even crosses on a church steeple can be seen from the road (or horror of horrors, from the courthouse). Will they have to go in order to protect the US Constitution?

Somewhere we have to say enough is enough. Christians Faith hardly dominates our culture any more (if it ever did), but Baptists say let every view express itself appropriately (non-coercively) and allow God to lead as He wills. Of course, that makes no sense to an atheist, but since a universal negative cannot be proven, the universal negative should not rule.

L Russ Bush, Director
Center for Faith and Culture
Box 1889
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
Wake Forest, NC 27588

When Evolutionists Die


Death is the judgment of God upon sin. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. The wages of sin is death. The gift of God is eternal life. Even the thief on the cross can be saved though he is at the end of his life.

Whether they are all true or not, God knows, but there are thousands of stories of “deathbed” confessions. I am confident that many of these stories are true. People begin to think more seriously about life after death when they get close to their own death.

One of the persistent rumors that continues to circulate is that Darwin himself returned to his Christian faith at the end of his life. The story is of mysterious origin. Supposedly a “Lady Hope” said she visited Darwin just before he died. She claims he spoke to her and revealed his faith. Supposedly he renounced evolution and returned to Christ.

As you might expect, evolutionists strongly deny this, and I hear that Darwin’s family also denied the story. There is nothing in his autobiography to indicate doubts about his theory.

Darwin’s wife was a Christian. She witnessed to him over and over. There was a real Lady Hope, also a Christian and a friend of Mrs. Darwin, but the story of his return to faith is unlikely to be true. (Maybe Lady Hope was trying to comfort Mrs. Darwin by this story, or there may have been something he said; we simply don’t have any verification.) In any case, upon his death, Darwin met his Maker face to face and discovered the truth about God’s creation of all things. He had heard the truth many times. Now it was explained to him more fully.

John D. Morris, President of the Institute for Creation Research, in his August 2006 “Back to Genesis” article in Acts and Facts, the free newsletter from ICR, draws a comparison between this Darwin story and the efforts made to reach Carl Sagan, the famous atheist who authored the book and video series, Cosmos. Sagan was a committed evolutionist, of course.

Morris says that Sagan also had a clear witness from many. In particular, Morris says that Larry Vardiman, ICR’s physics chairman, corresponded with Sagan over several years. Sagan was fully aware of the gospel and of Vardiman’s views on creation, but Sagan refused to believe. According to Vardiman, Sagan said he wished he could believe, but since he was convinced that evolution was true, there was therefore no God, and thus Christianity could not be true. Ten years ago (1996), after a battle with cancer, Sagan joined Darwin in eternity and was introduced to the truth in a new and compelling way.

I was fascinated to read Morris’ final comments in his article. The article is available at www.icr.org.

Morris contrasts Darwin’s wife, a faithful Christian, and Sagan’s wife, Dr. Lynn Margulis, who he says is a determined anti-Christian. Morris says she organized a vigil at Sagan’s deathbed to be sure that no Christians could come near and initiate a new “urban myth” of some final prayer or change of heart.

If that is true, and I have no reason to doubt Morris’ credibility on this point, it might show that she was afraid that he might have been open to a last minute witness. Perhaps he was nearer to the kingdom than we knew. On the other hand, for sure it is an example of the biblical principle of a heart being hardened. Sagan heard and understood the gospel. There is, as Morris also notes, no joy in reporting the death of an opponent of the cross.

There are two points I want to emphasize. First, even people as prominent as Carl Sagan can be given a witness if someone can gain their respect and be faithful to give that witness. Their response is between them and God; our task is to give a faithful witness.

Second, Carl Sagan understood that even simple organizational patterns of radio signals from outer space would lead to the logical conclusion that intelligent life was out there (cf. the movie, Contact). But the discovery of the highly complex “messages” encoded in our DNA molecules somehow does not lead him to that conclusion.

To me, this is a perfect example of what it means to suppress the truth. It is an example of what the Bible calls spiritual blindness. The light came into the world, but the world did not comprehend it. But we have known the light of the world. He became flesh and dwelt among us, and his glory was beheld by his human followers. Thank God, He gave me eyes to see and ears to hear the message of truth and grace.


L. Russ Bush, Director
Center for Faith and Culture
Box 1889
Wake Forest, NC 27588

www.sebts.edu
www.sebts.edu/ap

Consistency Is Apparently Not Essential


     I enjoy reading Science & Theology News. Some of it I can agree with, some not, but I learn a lot.

     The July/August edition 2006 presented some interesting comments about recent books and scientific studies. Unfortunately the lack of consistency reveals exactly what creationists face when we try to contribute to the dialog between science and theology.




Monkey Business

     George Webb reviews the recent B&H book by Marvin Olasky and John Perry, Monkey Business: The True Story of the Scopes Trial. The reviewer can’t get past the title without “cringing” over the words “true story.” The book in Webb’s opinion is muddled. The book seeks to advance a specific scientific agenda, leaving the reader with an inaccurate or, at best, an incomplete picture of the subject. Horrors of all horrors, it seems, Olasky and Perry advocate “intelligent design.”

     The book, according to Webb, rehearses the “supposed” shortcomings of evolutionary theory with what he considers to be tired old arguments. The book presents the Scopes trial [the so-called “monkey trial” of 1925] as something of a fraud publicized by hostile media. Webb describes a few of the book’s claims, but as far as I could see he simply dismissed their arguments. He provided no counter arguments. Webb is concerned that the authors claim that the courts are removing God from society just as Darwin removed God from nature.

     I guess one either accepts that reasoning or one does not. Webb does not. He is critical of the book’s bibliography and use of sources. He also finds the book’s greatest weakness to be “rejection of expertise.” Watch this closely!

     Webb is concerned that the evolutionary scientists are dismissed as a group of people whose views should not be imposed on others. Olasky and Perry praise Phillip Johnson. Webb, on the other hand, points out that Johnson has no academic training in scientific studies.

     Here is the line to remember: Webb says of Johnson that despite his degrees and  his keen legal mind “he lacks an adequate understanding of science.” Webb, I notice, is a professor of history at Tennessee Tech. No chance he might not fully understand science, I suppose. He seems content to defer to “expertise” without critical analysis.

     What is obvious to me is that Webb does not quite grasp the philosophical issues here. Clear species-defining boundaries that characterize the world-wide fossil record is a meaningless scientific notation for the philosophical naturalist. Under a traditional correspondence view of truth, however, the factual evidence has to be there in order to claim the truthfulness of the explanation. Explanations that go beyond the facts are called speculations. Evolution simply speculates that natural variations can provide a natural explanation that is coherent and that needs no non-natural elements. This can never be shown by correspondence. One of the things that makes this method of reasoning weak in this case is that virtually all evolutionary explanations are “after the fact,” and there is not much hope of testing the theory’s ability to make a valid prediction. It is “conveniently” too slow and unpredictable. To argue that creationism also has certain philosophical assumptions is simply to make the point that creation and evolution are philosophical interpretations of the same “facts.” My position would be that both interpretations should be studied and evaluated by the hard facts. The two views both offer interpretations of the data that are more or less coherent, but it can be argued that evolution is more speculative because it lacks any significant number of transitional forms in the fossil record. Creation and intelligent design (and I do not equate the two) both predict the gaps as they are actually found in the fossil record. Evolution does not predict this fact, and any new discovery that might possibly appear to be a transitional form gets much publicity. If gradual evolution were true, the evolutionist should be able to show literally thousands of these transitional forms.

     Webb would disagree. He would say, I suppose, that “real science” must be by definition methodologically naturalistic. This is what I take him to mean when he says Phillip Johnson simply does not “understand” science. Johnson certainly knows many scientific facts, but Johnson does not “understand” the imperative of naturalistic philosophy. That’s because, in the real universe in which we live, naturalistic philosophy is not an imperative. There are other alternatives, theories, and methods that should be considered by a truth seeker.




Steady State Cosmology vs. Big Bang Cosmology

     The reason my essay has the title it does is because in another article in the same issue of Science & Theology News the author argues that where two or more theories can account for the same data, that we should keep an open mind and remember that all truth has not yet been discovered.  William Orem has an essay on Big Bang cosmology in which he reviews the work of Geoffery Burbidge at the University of California, San Diego. Burbidge does not find the Big Bang to be a necessity and in fact argues that the evidence observationally (as opposed to evidence interpreted according to a philosophical model) shows that the universe appears to be without a beginning. He discusses the redshift and the cosmic background microwave radiation (the two key elements of big bang cosmology), but he says that observationally the universe seems to be stable and eternal.

     The article is fascinating, but my goal here is not to rehearse all of his arguments as such. I am calling attention to another facet of the article. As Orem is quick to point out, the standard model today is the Big Bang model. He compares its acceptance to that of evolution by natural selection. He notes that “outside of intelligent design circles, no modern biologist doubts the theory of evolution by natural selection.” The evidence comes from many overlapping fields of study. Evolution is like the germ theory of disease. No credible doctor questions that theory today.

     Then Orem notes that one might think that the same would be true about Big Bang cosmology. Thirteen billion years ago all time, space, and matter burst upon the scene out of nowhere. The math never worked, however, until in the 1980s Alan Guth proposed an unexplainable superluminal inflationary period early in the expansion of the matter and energy coming from the Bang. Inflation seems to be an essential fudge factor that makes the physics work to produce the universe we actually have, but seemingly not many have a problem with fudge factors if it gives them the results they seek. The inflation has no known cause, but it is essential to get the universe we actually have out of a random explosion 13-14 billion years ago.

     Though Orem does not seem to notice, there are many more scientists who advocate intelligent design theories over naturalistic evolution than there are who advocate steady-state cosmology (or some variation thereof) over Big Bang cosmology. As I noted, Orem dismisses intelligent design but finds the less theistically inclined steady-state cosmology to be worth considering.

     Orem writes: “As long as the data fit multiple theories, as long as no critical prediction is disconfirmed, there can be no definitive judgment on alternative cosmologies.”

     Why can intelligent design not be given the same courtesy? At the very least, why can’t we say of intelligent design theory the same thing Orem says of these Big Bang alternatives:  “Indeed, like the timeless cosmos some posit, anti-bang theories may continue indefinitely, hovering in the background of mainstream cosmology and serving, it nothing else, as a reminder of the provisional nature of discovery.”

     Orem could only get away with this profound truth by applying it to cosmology. Apply it to natural evolution by natural, unguided processes and claim that intelligent design can stand as “a reminder of the provisional nature of discovery,” and you will be dismissed as someone, no matter what one’s degrees or intellectual level, who simply does not understand science. You see, the steady-state cosmology is as naturalistically non-theistic and non-designed as is the Big Bang theory. Therein lies the rub. Our theories must reasonably produce the world that exists today. Intelligent design theories do account for the overwhelming impression of design found in biology, physics, chemistry, astronomy, and the other sciences. Our ability to understand what we are seeing is itself an evidence of coordination and design. For the naturalist, non-rational matter precedes reason; for the theist, reason precedes organized matter.





Conclusion

     Two articles, two authors! I guess consistency between the approach to naturalistic evolution and the standard cosmological model is not required. In any case, I would argue that what applies to Big Bang cosmology should be equally applicable to the theory of the natural evolution of all things. As long as the observational data fit into the proposed alternative theories, and no valid predictions are disconfirmed, one should not refuse to consider non-Darwinian explanations of biology, and one should not suggest that those proposing alternative views are just “not understanding” science.



L. Russ Bush, Director
Center for Faith and Culture
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
Box 1889
Wake Forest, NC   27588
August 2, 2006