Tuesday, February 22, 2005

Quid Diceo?

Wow, it's been almost two weeks since I last posted...and I still don't really have anything to write about! I have been rather busy lately--it seems like I have basically been studying, sleeping, and eating. Staying inside all day isn't really difficult though, considering the temperature outside.

One thing I have continued to be irked at recently is the double standard of evolutionists--they yak (sp?) on and on about how the scientific method is the only way to prove things scientifically (true), then go on to say that the theory of intelligent design cannot be proved by the scientific method (also true), then conclude by saying that the theory of evolution is basically scientifically proven (not true). This is absurd! Natural selection can be demonstrated by the scientific method--if you place a fish that eats large guppies but not small guppies in a pond of guppies, then it will eat the large guppies, the small guppies will survive, and will pass their genes on to their offspring. Pretty soon you will have a pond full of only small guppies. So natural selection--or microevolution--has taken place. But, notice: there was no new mutation, in fact, if anything, the guppies lost genetic information. Now, there can never again be large guppies. If a new fish that only eats small guppies comes along, the guppies will die out. Natural selection has not improved the guppy species, it has only prolonged its survival. The guppies have not become better and stronger over time, they have actually lost genetic information and become weaker as a group. I think that I can safely say that every observed case of natural selection has resulted in the degradation of the species.

My question is, how can evolutionists take cases of natural selection (the loss of information by preserving a select few) and assume that it is capable of first assembling irreducibly complex single-celled organisms from goo, then transforming those into each irreducibly complex species that exists today? The theory of evolution is an insult to science, and the biggest farce of the past two centuries.

So can evolution be true? I would say no. Just look at the world, or pick up a biology textbook. Some intelligent (but misguided) people would say it could be true. Anyone who says it definitely happened and has been proven is either ignorant or blind.

It also irks me when people treat the theory of intelligent design like bigfoot. Just look at any website dealing with evolution. I have yet to find a site that reasonably discusses the evidence of evolution. I have only seen sites filled with scornful, vitriolic hatred of creation; never do the authors of these sites try to prove their own position or disprove creation. Many leading creationists are extremely well-educated, even by secular standards, but to read these sites, one would think that creationists are a bunch of drooling bumpkins in overalls with the collective intellect of a party of drunken chimpanzees. So if creation is so stupid and obviously wrong, why do these evolutionists spend so much effort trying to deride it? Ever hear the quote about protesting too much?

Thursday, February 10, 2005

Vita Est Plena Rerum Difficilium

The question “why do bad things happen to good people?” is a very common question over which there is a lot of a confusion for both Christians and non-Christians. There are stories of people even becoming atheists simply because they could not comprehend how a loving God could let bad things happen. I will give a summarized view of my opinion on the matter—I will provide several scripture references which are meant to be read when they are given—I will not type out some of the verses here in the interest of space.

First of all, I believe that the question itself is flawed. In Matt. 19:17, Jesus says, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.” All people are sinners and deserve to be wiped off the face of the earth and sent to hell for all eternity. Instead of asking how a loving God can let bad things happen to “good” people, the better question is “How can a holy, righteous, just, almighty God be so loving and merciful that he allows degenerate sinners like us not only to live in comfort, but also to have sent His Son to give His own life that we might live with Him for eternity?” Every breath we breathe is an incomprehensible mercy from God, how can we complain about petty sufferings?

But, putting that aside for a moment, if God loves us so much that He would give us eternal life, why does He allow bad things to happen to us on earth? I believe there can be several reasons. Is it to punish us for sins? This can be a reason that God might allow a bad thing to happen to us. When David committed adultery with Bathsheba, and murdered her husband, God caused his son to become sick and die in order to punish David (II Sam. 12:15-23). Heb. 12:6 says, “For whom the Lord loves He chastens.”

However, we must be very careful not to assume that everything we perceive as “bad” is punishment. John 9:1-3 relates a conversation of Jesus and his disciples:
“Now as Jesus passed by, He saw a man who was blind from birth. And His disciples asked Him, saying, ‘Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?’ Jesus answered, ‘Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him.’” Jesus then healed the man—in verses 35-41, we see that the man put his trust in Jesus—this means that God used the man’s blindness not as a punishment, but rather to bring him to salvation, as well as to be a testimony to others.

Perhaps the most extensive example of bad things happening to a good man is found in the book of Job. Job was described as a man who was blameless and upright, who feared God and shunned evil. The devil told God that if Job’s possessions and health were taken away, he would curse God. God gave the devil the authority to bring affliction on Job—when his children were killed, and his riches were destroyed, he said: “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return there. The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.” When he was afflicted with painful boils, his wife urged him to curse God and die. He replied, “you speak as one of the foolish women speaks. Shall we indeed accept good from God, and shall we not accept adversity?”

Four of Job’s friends came to visit him, supposedly to comfort him. Three of them told him that he must have committed a terrible sin, because God would not do this to a righteous man. They gave him long and well thought-out (but wrong) arguments, but he maintained that he, though a sinner, had committed nothing worth this affliction. At times he came very close to accusing God of being unjust, and called God his adversary. Even in his periods of doubt, though, he trusted in God. In Job 13:15, he said: “Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him.”

Elihu, the youngest but wisest of the friends, rebuked the other friends for falsely accusing Job, and rebuked Job for his self-righteous behavior. God then spoke to Job, asking him: (read Job 38:1-11) He reminds Job in an awesome way that He is holy and just. Job can only respond, “Behold, I am vile; what shall I answer You? I lay my hand over my mouth. Once I have spoken, but I will not answer; Yes, twice, but I will proceed no further.” God continues (read Job 40:6-9). Interestingly, God rebukes Job for doubting his justness, but never explains to Job why what happened to him happened. It was not important for Job to know—all he needed to know was that God is in control, is just, and acts justly. Job repented of his self-righteousness, and God forgave him.

Romans 8:28 says, “And for we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him, and are called according to His purpose.” Everything that happens to us is for our good—even things we first think are bad.

So, why do bad things happen to "good" people? It may be to increase one’s faith, it may be to draw one closer to God, it may be as punishment. It does not really matter, we will not necessarily know the answer—the important thing is that we trust that God is in control, and is acting for our good. May we always say, “The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away. Blessed be the Name of the Lord.”

Wednesday, February 02, 2005

Tempus Fugit

Well, it has been a while since I have had time to write. I had exams over the last several days, so virtually all my time was taken up with studying. Fortunately, they are over for a few more weeks.

Today during lunch a physician came to speak about abortion—he was a Christian, and made some very good points to which I will not be able to do justice, but I will try to relate some of them. He was asked by one student how a physician could refuse to perform abortions or refuse to refer for abortions without imposing his own moral system on the patient. The doctor’s reply was that essentially some moral system is going to be imposed on the patient—it will either be yours or that of someone else. If a patient comes to you wanting an abortion, you can either tell her that you believe abortion is wrong, or you can let her believe it is all right. If you let her believe it is all right, then you are allowing the moral system of the liberal secular humanist to be imposed on her. He mentioned that since most Americans believe abortion is wrong, by not stating your beliefs you are allowing the moral system of the minority of Americans dictate the patient’s values. He further stated that for a medical ethics education to reflect the values of the patients, 90% of the time would have to be spent teaching the Judeo-Christian moral system, and only 10% of the time should be spent teaching the secular liberal moral system. This would make sense since the health of the patient from a social, psychological, and biological standpoint is theoretically the most important thing in healthcare.

Another thing that he mentioned was in regards to Roe v. Wade. One of the arguments of the proponents of abortion was that women were dying in “back-alley” abortions. It is now known that the statistics they used were completely made-up to support their case. Ironically, now that abortion is legal thousands and thousands more women have abortions than they did before Roe v. Wade. Because of this, more women die now every year from botched abortions than they did when abortion was still illegal.

An interesting fact that he mentioned was that when a married couple has a child within the first two years of their marriage, the likelihood that they will eventually divorce goes from 50% to 10%. When they have two children in the first four years of marriage, it goes down to 5%.

I should mention that this doctor was pro-choice for the first twenty years of his practice. Once he started thinking about what defines a person, he realized that one cannot consider fetuses to not be people--this would by necessity mean that infants, the mentally retarded, and elderly with Alzheimer's or dementia would also not be people. He compared abortionists to Nazis. Both state that certain people's lives are worthless. The Nazis judged by race, the abortionists judge by mental abilities.