Month: January 2018

Book Plunge: Evidence Considered Chapter 14

Can we learn anything from the Scopes Monkey Trial? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

We return again to the work of Glenton Jelbert in Evidence Considered. The next response is to Edward Sisson on the Scopes Monkey Trial. Like Jelbert, I consider the trial itself irrelevant. Evolution does not stand or fall on it. (And if that is the case, then in fairness, ID doesn’t stand or fall on the Dover trial.) However, there is a sort of Inherit The Wind mentality about the ignorance of the Christian side as opposed to the calm rationality of the agnostic side.

The trial arose because someone thought the teaching of evolution was undermining belief in the Bible and another person decided to take advantage of that politically to help his career. At the start, I consider this a mistake. If a teaching is problematic for the Bible and that teaching is true, then we dare not propose a double-theory of truth. We need to be consistent. There are a number of steps that could have been taken.

One could have taught evolution for instance and yet pointed out problems with the theory. How would it not explain scientific data well in its time? What were the best critiques of the theory? What were the best evidences proponents of the theory used?

You could also go back and look at your interpretation of Scripture. This was a mistake in the Middle Ages to think that some texts were meant to be read scientifically. Maybe the same is happening here. Maybe these texts aren’t really scientific texts but instead are teaching something else.

Or, you could say right now we just don’t know, but we do have other grounds for believing in Christianity. You could then go to the classical theistic arguments (Which I have yet to see Jelbert touch) and then to the historical arguments for the resurrection of Jesus. There is often this strange idea we have that we must be able to answer every question and know how every piece of data fits into our worldview to be coherent. This is simply false. We are not omniscient like that.

Jelbert points out that Sisson said the law the trial was over merely barred teaching Darwinian evolution.” I agree with Jelbert that saying merely barred is not a good idea if the youth were to be up on current science. What would be said of saying “The Dover trial merely barred the teaching of Intelligent Design.”? Of course, it could be now that Jelbert would have been saying in Scopes, “Teach the controversy”, but not so much here.

Jelbert goes on to say that the Intelligent Design movement is trying to put Christianity on a firmer scientific footing. I agree with Jelbert that this can be a bad move. In fact, it’s a bad move for atheists. If you hold to atheism for modern scientific reasons, I think that’s a bad idea. The science of today can often be the junk of tomorrow. Certainly much has stood the test of time, but much hasn’t.

This is one reason I don’t really do scientific apologetics. It’s too easy to base your worldview on the science of the day so much so that the Biblical accounts have to be read as scientific accounts. It’s the old mistake of Concordism. When it comes to Scripture and theism, science is not the final decider.

At the same time, I think in this day and age, Jelbert is too highly optimistic when he speaks about education getting a student to think and read for themselves. That is just not happening. Too many young people out there are believing stupid things because of what they read on the internet. They are uninformed in never learning anything and their hobbies dominate their lives. If they want an informed opinion, they use wikipedia or they google and believe the first thing they read.

I am a gameshow junkie. On New Year’s Eve, my wife and I were watching Who Wants To Be A Millionaire and it was a college week. A student came out and was asked as a question where the Middle East was. I think his choices were southwest Asia, southeast Asia, Southwest Europe, or Southeast Africa. The student had to ask the audience. The most popular answer was the right one, but over 60% got it wrong, and these are the same students who are going to be voting for leaders based on what goes on in the Middle East.

Later, this same student had to have someone come down and help him with a question, and it was his uncle. The question was stating that two presidents had resigned in office during their terms and the second took place in the 1970’s. Which president was this? Yes. This student needed help to know about Richard Nixon.

Excuse me then if I don’t share Jelbert’s optimism about students informing themselves and giving theories a fair hearing.

Jelbert also says that scientists love to tear down an existing paradigm and replace it with one of their own. That may be so, but other scientists aren’t so crazy about others doing it. This is what Kuhn said in his book on The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. New data is taken and put into the old paradigm as much as possible until it just can’t take it any more and then a new paradigm must be found, but that new paradigm is hard to come by. Other scientists are resistant to it, much as many Christians are resistant to doing new things in church. (But we’ve always done it that way!)

Sisson does say that since eugenics was taught, it shows that we should not let those teaching be slavishly bound to what is popular science today. I’m not sure that this is saying the government should handle it as Jelbert says, but I would have a problem here as well because while eugenics is evil, could it have helped if differing opinions on it had been taught? Why not confront the idea rather than hoping it will just go away? Of course, the movement was evil and wrong, but it was still there and it needed to be dealt with.

Something interesting about Jelbert’s response is a sort of postscript at the end. He says Sisson was questioning the moral character of Darwinists and Jelbert realized he was doing the same with Sisson. Sisson is just as interested in truth. Jelbert says he had reacted emotionally to a perceived attack on his children’s well-being. Sisson could very well say the same as could many Christians today concerned about evolution. I definitely agree with Jelbert that an idea stands or falls on the data and not the people who hold to it.

We’ll continue another time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Book Plunge: Evidence Considered Chapter 13

What do I think of Jelbert’s look at Phillip Johnson? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

We return to our look at the work of Glenton Jelbert now. Jelbert is still in a section about science and this time looking at the work of Phillip Johnson. Johnson is largely known for his writings on evolution and in support of intelligent design. He thinks the whole system of evolution is problematic and is due to fail. He could be right. It’s not mine to say.

There’s not much in this chapter that I think needs to be said. It starts with the fact that many ID proponents don’t get their work in peer-reviewed journals. It could be because it’s bad science. I don’t know. It could also be that there is a bias in the field. I don’t fault IDists though for thinking that there is something else afoot. Too many well-known atheists use science and seem to have a God allergy as it were.

There is one main point I do want to comment on. Jelbert says what would be the point in studying origins naturalistically if it were assembled by a great designer and did not come about naturalistically at all? He says that if we knew what ID purports to know, there would be no point at all.

I do not say any of this as a proponent of ID. If the ID movement fell tomorrow I simply would not care. Still, I do think the idea that there is a God behind it all does not mean that science has to end.

For one thing, saying that something came about through a designer does not mean that the designer did not use naturalistic means. My favorite example of this is the Psalms. We are fearfully and wonderfully made in our mothers’ wombs. I do not dispute this just because we know more about the gestation practice and what happens when a man and a woman have sex together.

Second, if we find there is a designer, that can lead us to asking questions of how He made things and why He made things. It’s my understanding that the ID movement was right on this when it came to junk DNA. The thought was that if a designer made this, it had to be made with a reason. If a designer even set up the evolutionary process, it had to be set up for a reason.

Unfortunately for Jelbert, saying that X is a science stopper does not mean that X is false. We could say by that that if we find any explanation for anything, then we have come across a science stopper. The point of science is to find the answers to the questions. More questions do come on the way, but we are on the quest of finding the answers.

Jelbert also says that even if accurate, this would only give us deism and not theism. Perhaps, though it is a stepping stone to theism. At any rate, giving us deism shows us that atheism is not true.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

How Much Is A Woman Worth?

What price can you put on yourself? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

While Allie and I were in Knoxville, we went to our old church. Two of our friends who have been married for 50+ years met us and started talking about a woman who left the church and after a divorce was now dating someone else. When this couple met the woman and her new boyfriend, one question that came up was asking how it is that a couple stayed married for fifty years. The wife immediately said, “I think one big help is that we didn’t have sex until we were married.”

It was an answer obviously not wanted.

This has been something on my mind lately because sometimes when you talk about how much a woman is worth, it’s often thought that if someone has sex before they are married, they are worth nothing. That is false. Their value doesn’t change. A fine automobile is still of great value even if you treat it commonly and use it for common purposes. A bottle of fine wine would still have the same value even if used as a common beverage to quench one’s thirst.

In all of this, we’re talking about marriage. I am mainly focusing on the women because for the most part, men are the most active ones on the market. Men are usually the go-getters. Men tend to see sex itself as a goal. Women, on the other hand, usually see sex as a way to something else, such as security.

Many times today in trying to win a guy, a woman will often want to play the sex card soon. After all, this is what the man really wants and if it’s given, then that gives him incentive to stay with you. The reality is that it’s just the opposite.

You see, if a woman says she’s not giving sex until she’s married, she is sending a message. She is saying that any man who wants her is really going to have to pursue her. He is going to have to say he wants her and only her. He will have to say that he will be with her till death do them part and he will give himself only to her. She will settle for nothing less than a lifetime commitment. This is a woman who has set the price for her at the highest that she can.

If the man really wants her, he will say yes. He will do all that he can because he can’t imagine going through life without this woman. He wants this woman and only this woman and he will demonstrate it to the fullest. He will treat her right, take her on dates, give her gifts, etc.

Now to be fair, sometimes after marriage this stops, and that’s a tragedy. A man should never cease to try to romance his wife. Likewise, a wife should never cease to want to romance her husband. She can now use the sex card when she wants to for that, but simple day to day things can also help with that process.

To get back to the woman dating, if she says yes beforehand, what she is telling the man is that he does not have to do much to get her. She might think she’s secured him, but he could also be wondering if he’s the first. If she gives out this easily, maybe he’s not anything really special. Maybe she’s not anything really special.

What women need to realize is that to we men, you are often the great mystery. After seven years of marriage, I’m still amazed with the beauty of my wife’s body and that is still a great incentive for me to be acting the way I should. When you give early, you are removing any mystery. You are telling a guy how far he has to go before he really needs to keep trying to impress you.

If you’re a woman dating someone now, tell him that you want to save sex for marriage. If you’ve already been having it, tell him you have a new commitment to wait until marriage. This is a way to find out if the guy really cares about you. If he does, he could be disappointed understandably, but if he really cares about you, he will do the work. If not, then he will just move on to the next girl he thinks is “easy” and try to get it from there. If the former happens, you will know that this is a man who loves and respects you. If not, you have just found out your guy was using you for the sex.

Also, if you’re a woman and you know another woman making this mistake, she is actually doing women a great disservice. She is giving herself away with very little effort which is in a way saying she’s worth very little effort. Every woman out there is worth the most effort. They might not see it, but they are. They deserve to be treated like a Princess.

Ladies. Please also remember that being with a man doesn’t determine your value. What a man does is show how much he’s willing to give to be with you and his actions towards you should show you how much you are worth. This is another reason for a man to be striving to be romantic in marriage. The woman is worth pursuing still. He is still chasing after her. One great mistake in a marriage is to start to take the other person for granted and say that because you have that person, then you can now relax and take it easy. May it never be. Never stop chasing. Never stop pursuing.

Women. Don’t let anyone lower your worth, especially yourself. If you want a man in your life, you are worth a lifelong commitment. Every woman deserves to be treated like a Princess. Don’t settle for a man who does less.

In Christ,
Nick Peters