How Can God be in Control and Humanity Still be Free?

alone boy lake male

The question of whether mankind is truly free in any meaningful sense is one that is faced by atheists, theists, and people who don’t identify as any “ist”, but who just think deeply about life.

Since there are so many angles from which to approach the subject, I’ll approach it here from a theological and specifically Christian perspective (you can go here for an excellent video by my friend Tim Stratton on how Atheism must struggle with this issue). Among Christians, the question is most frequently debated between people of various views encompassed by shades of Calvinism and Arminianism. Calvinists largely hold to a strong view of God’s control over the Creation (divine sovereignty) but also unfortunately forfeit meaningful human freedom. Arminians most frequently hold to a strong view of human freedom of volition but unfortunately sometimes compromise a sound view of God’s sovereignty.

Can divine sovereignty and human free be reconciled? I think so. I proposed that it can be done via the concept of God having “middle knowledge“. In this post, I’ll put it in layman’s terms and in a specifically biblical context. 

In order to be true to the biblical text itself regarding this issue, we must make the best possible sense of the straight forward reading of those texts which refer to a “both/and” scenario in which both divine sovereignty AND human freedom exist without contradiction. The Bible affirms both God’s complete sovereignty and man’s volitional freedom and so must we. Below, we will seek to reconcile the two with special attention to God’s omniscience; specifically, His foreknowledge. The following discussion addresses:

  • Both God’s sovereignty and foreknowledge as well as man’s responsibility (e.g. Acts 2:23),
  • Passage speaking of “predestination and foreknowledge” (e.g. Romans 8:28,29)
      • Specifically “election according to foreknowledge” (e.g. 1Peter 1:2)

This is where “Middle Knowledge” is very helpful. It looks like this:

A. In His omniscience, God knows everything that COULD happen in any possible world He could sovereignly choose to bring into being, including the free choices of human beings in that world.

(In technical terms this is called God’s “Natural Knowledge” since it is part of His essence as God)

B. In His omniscience, God also knows everything that WOULD happen should He sovereignly choose to actualize a particular world.

(This is called God’s “Middle Knowledge” since it comes logically “in the middle” between His Natural and Free Knowledge [see #3 below])

C. In sovereignly choosing (according to the counsel of His own will and foreknowledge) to actualize a particular world out of all feasible possibilities, God knows everything that WILL happen in that world since He has ordained and decreed it to be so.

(This is called God’s “Free Knowledge” since it flows from His free choice to actualize a world completely of His own choosing)

Since A,B,& C are known prior to creation, they are part of God’s foreknowledge.


Thus, the concept o Middle Knowledge allows for both divine sovereignty and human freedom to be preserved in this way:

 

1. God desires to create human beings in His image for a relationship with Himself.

2. Prior to creating the world, God knew all potential decisions by free creatures in every possible world. (see “would have” and “if /then” scenarios in the Bible statements like in 1 Samuel 13:13-14)

3. God is loving and desires to reconcile sinful humanity to Himself. (John 3:16, Romans 5:8)

4. It is likely that in every feasible possible world that some creatures would always reject God.

a. This is evident since the world was created by the omnibenevolent (all-loving) and omnipotent (all-powerful) God who does not delight in the punishment of the wicked and desires that none should perish; (Ezekiel 18:23; 33:11, 1Timothy 2:4 ,2 Peter 3:9)

b. Yet, universalism is NOT true. Not all people actually are saved. Some (perhaps most) do indeed perish precisely because they reject God.

5. Being all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving God can and did sovereignly choose to create a world in which every individual who would choose Him, will choose Him (Acts 17:22-31, John 6:39)

6. By choosing to actualize a world by the counsel of His own will in which He would create and draw certain persons to Himself, God then, is the sovereign over the world He chooses including the elect from within that world.

7. Since this is also done in accordance with God’s omniscience (the foreknowledge of what any free creature WOULD do in any given circumstance) the election is done through the God ordained circumstance without violation of human freedom and responsibility. (see A,B,& C)

 

So what are your thoughts on human freedom and Middle Knowledge?
Let’s talk about it!

Church Leaders, A Massive Shift Has Taken Place and We are Missing It.

A young man watching a tablet
Church leaders:
The more I observe and converse with the Millennial generation and those coming after them (there’s not a settled name for them yet), the more I see that we are really missing it with them “hugely”.
 
Here’s why I say that:
These demographics are very thoughtful, inquisitive, and critically-minded. They spend hours consuming through-provoking and deep content by people like Jordan Petersen and books/articles/videos/debates by theoretical physicists and social movement leaders. Although they are products of postmodernism, something within them (the ‘imago dei’) is pushing back against it. Yet, we think that “attention spans are too short” or “we must dumb things down, they are just kids” or “we must reach their hearts, not their heads”. When we follow our prescription, we lose in the arena of ideas by default. And when we lose the battle of ideas, we lose the impact on souls that we are intended to have. We are abandoning their minds and leaving them left with only false ideas contending for their belief. Realistically, we don’t even deserve a participation trophy!
 
We absolutely must flush our fundamentally flawed and clearly ineffective paradigm with which we have been operating. Creatively, honestly, articulately, compassionately, and skillfully engaging in the arena of ideas with the highest degree of integrity and in an informed, christocentric way is the only path forward.
Let’s discuss!

Judging Jesus

Jesus Christ is perhaps the most controversial figure in all of history. No name divides a room quite like the mention of Jesus. In this message I gave recently at Reach Life Church in Asheville, NC, I discussed the various ways people judge Jesus and how Jesus Himself says we can be sure to see Him for who He really is. This is going to require some honest asessment.

Synthetic Humans and the Scientific Dictatorship

We are gaining new technologies with amazing speed. The scientific heights to which we are climbing are truly dizzying to consider. To be sure, ascending to uncharted heights at unprecedented speeds is thrilling… but is it at least reasonable to consider that there are dangers involved as well. In terms of technologies, we see a small and perhaps innocuous example in mundane things like the explosion of a mobile phone that tries to revolutionize the batteries used in such devices. The burning face from a mobile phone is bad enough and, as long as it didn’t happen to you, one might even find it the punchline to a good joke.

But not all technologies are so limited in their effects. There are some areas that really should give us pause to consider their implications. That is, prior to asking how we could do something, we should stop and first ask whether we should do it. Such is the case when it comes to the human genome in general (which involves the ethically controversial use of embryonic stem cells) and particularly when it comes to creating a synthetic version of the human genome… and especially when thinking about creating synthetic humans. You read that right; as the article linked to there states, “artificial human embryos are coming”. This is the definition of “playing God”. Not only are scientists looking to create artificial intelligence, which luminaries such as Elon Musk says is “summoning the demon“, we are also seeking to create human beings.

As this article in EvolutionNews.org points out, all of this is being done without regulation by elected officials or even by the public at large. In our present era of “scientism” (where science is seen as the only means of knowledge and the arbitor of all things including ethics) if the elite scientific community says we “can”, the assumption that we “should” seems to be automatic. What has happened under our noses, without our noticing but nonetheless with our pious acquiescence, is that there has been a scientific ascendancy to power. In other words, what is emerging is a “democracy of experts” as H.G. Wells called it in his first book which predicted this long ago. It is no more and no less than an oligarchy in which the few properly credentialed and philosophically homogeneous elites in white lab coats determine what is best for the world as a whole. They are the ultimate authority; and this is evident in that the public and its elected officials are all too willing to cede the keys to the kingdom as noted in the Evolution News article. I used the word “pious” to describe this response by we the people to this scientific autocracy intentionally. Unquestioning and unwaivering devotion and aquiessence is given to that which we worship. Naturalism (masquerading as science) has become our religion and the scientists are the high priests.

The fact that transhumanism is primarily a religious and not a scientific movement has been recognized since at least 2008 when tech writer John Horgan. But the scientific community isn’t satisfied with being the high priests of the unwashed masses. But don’t worry, they don’t want to be “God”… they want to create a god for you to worship and they’ll worship it too. This is the real goal of Anthony Levandowski, who formerly headed AI projects for Google and now Uber. It will be a self creation, a god made in our image and we will bow down to worship that which we have created. That’s the ultimate expression of the “Singularity” hoped for by Google and many of its contemporaries.

______________________________________________________________

For more, if you dare, you can read The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship: An Examination of Epistemic Autocracy, From the 19th to the 21st Century’ by Phillip Darrell Collins and Paul David Collins.

Why Do You Believe That… About Origins

The next several blog posts will feature video talks I’ve given on topics relevant to this What & Why blog. Anyone who thinks about life and living much at all has pondered the question of where we come from. In this talk, we’ll look into the two major views on origins: Evolution and Creation. It doesn’t get more controversial than that. But, very few things have more bearing on life and living thatn the topic of origins, so let’s dive in together! The video contains visual aids and notes to suppliment what is said. Although I wasn’t filmed, the provided material in the video will help you digest the information.

Click here: https://youtu.be/5TbGrZDq7Pg

This is from a message I gave at Paradigm Church back in 2014 when I first tried to return to work after my brain injury. I’m amazed that God gave me the strength to speak with this type of clarity knowing how much trouble I was still having and even that I would soon have to stop pastoring once again due to the very negative effects working was having on my recovery. I’m deeply grateful to share this upcoming series of posts with you and that I have been given the grace to once again be speaking on these topics live.

Aliens and the Evolution of Spirituality

Why are we talk about aliens with my first blog in several years?

Well, because everyone else is!!! Just this week, NASA has announced that it is hiring for a position called “Planetary Protection Officer” to protect Earth from biological alien invasion. This even though there is zero empirical evidence for aliens at all.

 

[WARNING: My future posts will be MUCH shorter than this, but it’s been quite awhile, so please indulge a longer post today… plus. this is FASCINATING stuff!! You’ll be glad you stuck around!!]

 

Let me share with you some statistics on aliens in popular media:

Movies Featuring Aliens:

It almost seems that if a movie is going to be a blockbuster, it has to have aliens in it.

6 of the top 12 movies of all time are about aliens. Including the #1 grossing movie of all time Avatar which brought in $760,000,000!!

In fact, aliens are only increasing in popularity (these stats are only as of 2011 and have only increased further since then):

  • Only 4 movies with aliens before 1950
  • Between 1950 and 2011 there were 311
    • 5 theatrically released movies a year for 61 years straight involve aliens.
    • 160 (half) since I graduated high school (1992)
    • So since 1992- Hollywood has averaged 13 movies A YEAR with aliens in them!!!

 

A recent article from Popular Mechanics magazine sums it up well:

Purists will claim that the UFO craze officially started sometime around 500 B.C., when reports surfaced that a guy named Ezekiel had seen a flaming wheel descend from the sky. But the modern era of UFO culture began in the late 1940s, when a pilot’s account of a midair encounter with mysterious aircraft triggered a rash of similar reports across the United States. By the late 1950s, the occupation of pop culture was complete, and the old clichés have been warmed over and reinvented ever since. The flying saucers evolved into light-studded triangular mother ships, piloted first by interstellar conquerors, then kidnappers, and finally government collaborators. And just as mob movies have shaped the identity of the real-life Mafia, the fictional saucers and bug-eyed visitors in books, movies and TV shows have impacted real-life sightings. The veritable menagerie of aliens described through the decades, from furry dwarves to naked, luminous blonde humans, were replaced by the tiny-bodied, swollen-headed “Greys.” The bumbling government, making excuses to preserve our delicate sensibilities, has become a sinister cabal, either working with the Greys or cannibalizing technology from their crashed spacecraft. Today, interest in UFOs appears to be surging again, thanks in part to last year’s widely reported sightings in Stephensville, Texas, as well as a new wave of shows on cable following the exploits of UFOlogists. But the culture of UFOs is no longer a work-in-progress. The mythology is fully-formed. Here are the books, TV shows and movies that helped create it. These aren’t the best, or the worst, but the ones that made the most impact on the prevailing American superstition of our time. [Emphasis added]

Indeed, a culture of UFOs and aliens that was once the refuge of scientifically curious fiction lovers, is now an engrained part of the American psyche.

A 1997 CNN/Time Magazine poll found, among other things that;

  • 80% believe that the government is hiding the existence of extraterrestrial life forms
  • 64% believe aliens have contacted humans
  • 50% believe that aliens have abducted humans
  • 93% have never been abducted
  • 75% believe that a UFO crashed near Roswell

 

As time has gone on, nearly universal message has developed in the media barrage of aliens:

  • Aliens are more highly evolved than humans.
  • Have technology humans need to survive.
  • Are morally superior to humans.
  • And increasingly, there has been a further adherence to the idea that aliens were the “gods” of supposed primitive people.
    • Including up to biblical times as evidenced by the popular mechanics article.
  • And that aliens are even the cause for life on earth
    • A hypothesis put forth by no less than Stephen Hawking (the most renown astrophysicist of our time, and considered by many to be the smartest man alive.)

In fact, the scientific mainstream has now looked to science fiction for its explanations of our origins, salvation, and destiny.

It has become quite evident that a new mythology has developed.

  • Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, Francis Crick (one of the discoverers of the structure of DN) all promote the idea of “panspermia” which says that earth was seeded by aliens.

Here’s an excerpt from an article in the U.K. Guardian:

Prof Chandra Wickramasinghe, of Cardiff University, said new research “overwhelmingly” supported the view that human life started from outside our Earth.

The Astrobiologist said the first “seeds of life” were deposited on our plant from space 3,800m years ago. He claimed microbes from outer space arrived on earth from comets, which then “multiplied and seeded” to form human life. His said his evidence, published in Cambridge University’s International Journal of Astrobiology, showed humans, and all life on Earth, came from aliens brought to the earth by comets hitting the planet.

“Yes, we are all aliens – we share a cosmic ancestry,” Prof Wickramasinghe said.

 

We’ll get more into the new alien mythology in just a bit…But let’s first see where this has come from… How did we get to this point?

How is it that science fiction has become science, and this science/science fiction hybrid has formed a new mythology; a new spirituality?

 

A good place to start is with how we are wired as human beings.

See, mankind was made to be a spiritual being. We we’re created by God (as we discovered in our last session) for a relationship with Himself.

God has placed within the soul of each of us, a sense that there is something “out there”, something bigger than ourselves; something grand, mysterious, and transcendent, yet something that is somehow knowable. It’s as if the ultimate was personal… in fact, a person. He put inside us a longing to connect with this transcendent person. This is person we MUST KNOW! That person… is God Himself! Then, He placed us in a world that contains clues about Him all over the place to show us the answer to that innate desire. That we would search for Him, and find Him!

But this new scientific mythology has nothing to do with the God who is actually there, WHAT HAPPENED?

The Bible’s book of Romans, chapter 1 tells us what happened.

 [18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. [19] For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. [20] For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. [21] For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. [22] Claiming to be wise, they became fools, [23] and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

So basically, mankind turned away from God and to nature. We began to look for naturalistic ways to be spiritual, for naturalistic ways to explain our origins… and naturalistic ways to satisfy the inner longer to connect with something transcendent. Once we turned away from the Creator, only some form of evolution is the only solution.

Enter Evolution

Note, by “evolution”, I mean the idea that life arose from nonliving brute matter, and the unguided common decent of all living things from a single organism. Evolution is NOT a new idea! Darwin was not the inventor of the idea of evolution. It did not begin with Origin of Species in 1859. It is a matter of history that Darwin was greatly influenced by Charles Lyell’s book on evolution, Principles of Geology published in 1830, and Charles Lyell was greatly influenced by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck who wrote on evolution in 1801. In fact, a bit of history recorded in the Bible’s NT book of Acts tells us that the Apostle Paul held a discussion on the origin of life with two groups of philosophers known as Epicureans and stoics… both of these schools of thought held to types of evolution.

Epicureans and Stoics were both “monists” (All is One)

Stoics– All is one, the one is spirit, you are part of the one, and the one is divine; you are god. These were one of the many progenitors of our modern New Age movement.

Epicureans– All is one, there is only matter, no spirit, no soul, only matter in motion. These we some of the progenitors of modern-day materialist philosophy… which is the presuppositional foundation of evolutionary theory.

Not only does this show us that evolution is an idea that is AT LEAST 2000 years old… But MORE IMPORTANTLY, it shows us that evolutionary theory is not the outworking of scientific evidence, rather, it’s a philosophical presupposition that interprets the world around us based on that presupposition.

Just as it did thousands of years ago, the philosophy of evolution has, in our minds at least, replaced the fact God indeed exists and is the Creator of all else. Thus it has replaced our ideas about our origins. It has removed our ideas about the hope of redemption. Evolution shouts in dogmatic terms that there IS NO higher meaning to life. It tells us that we are NOT special, in the words of the Father of secular Humanism, Paul Kurtz: “No deity will save us, we must save ourselves”

  • Yet remember, we ARE creatures who are made in the image of God, and have been embedded with a sense of spirituality.
  • With the idea that THERE IS something more.
    • Something greater than us,
    • something that can FIX us,
    • something that will “save” us!

 

Initially, atheism turns to technology to save us.
We develop new technologies for communication, for medicine, for emissions control, for life enhancement… to in some sense bring us happiness, and perhaps allows to not have to deteriorate and face death.

But, we know these are fleeting, AND more pressingly, we ARE spiritual creatures, created to seek after God…  So, having rejected the God Who is actually there, we create our own…

 

Enter Science Fiction

Here’s where the lines of science and science fiction become blurred. See, true science is unable to even address the issues of “why”; of meaning and purpose. So standing on the shoulders of naturalistic/materialist philosophy (like the Epicureans 2000 years ago) our modern day scientists grasp onto the alien mythologies created by science fiction.

For example, The Atlantic Monthly  wrote a memorial article on the life of Francis Crick and said:

And thus the Nobel Prize winner embraced the theory that space aliens sent rocket ships to seed the earth.”

They observed that Crick gives a new theology of human origins:

“The man of science who confidently dismissed God… appears not to have noticed that he’d merely substituted for his culturally inherited monotheism a weary variant on Greco-Roman-Norse pantheism—  the gods in the skies who fertilize the earth and then retreat to the heavens beyond our reach.”

 

In his scholarly history on the subject called Scientific Mythologies, James A. Herrick writes the following about perhaps the best known physicist of all time Carl Sagan:

“A similar blurring of the lines is detected in the early works of the popular physicist Carl Sagan. Sagan argued that “advanced” aliens who were ‘motivated by benevolence” would help humanity. And why should they do this? Because the recognized that they themselves had once been “helped along’ by even more advanced civilizations on other planets, and they knew that “this tradition of worthy of continuance.” Indeed, Sagan hoped that the entire galaxy might be united by an interconnected organization of civilizations, resulting in “the cultural homogenization of the galaxy” that would ultimately “unify… the cosmos.” Later in his career, Sagan was a driving force behind the massive SETI project; this Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence is a network of radio telescopes waiting for messages from other planets. In Sagan’s extraordinarily influential work over three decades, we find another source of the broad public expectation of extraterrestrial contact. Sagan announced themes that would become staples of much science fiction, some popular scientific writing and several religious organizations. He urged that knowledge gained from contact with alien civilizations would mark “the most profound single event in our history,’ and that information from aliens might be “the agency of our survival” and perhaps even “vital for the continuance of our civilization.” Highly advanced species on distant planets might have already achieved the status of “supercivilization gods.”

 

These ideas are becoming more and more the mainstream thought from the scientific community.

The “History” Channel, and Discovery Channel have specials and even entire recurring shows all based on the premise. And these channels are where the majority of people in the culture get their “science” from.

As I stated earlier, these shows and the scientists (and pseudo scientists) on them believe what is being taught to them by science fiction! This includes movies like Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, the Transformers series, the Alien series, etc.; video games like Halo and Assasin’s Creed, etc.; TV shows like The X Files, Stargate, Star Trek, Futurama, etc.

These narratives all promote the “ancient aliens” idea that the “gods” of all the ancient religions were aliens.  It says that we have made religions out of these “Ancient Aliens” and now they would have us look at them “scientifically”…yet the shows seem to want to implement new rules of worship to these aliens; and suggest that if we could just connect with these ancient “gods” we could gain the technology to save us!

 

So what about all the alien sightings? Aren’t we dealing with something real? How do we explain them?

 First of all let’s look at the plausibility of the existence of aliens at all. Is it scientific and reasonable to believe that aliens exist? It is imperative to note that the idea of aliens is directly tied to the theory (the philosophy, as we have learned) of evolution!

The line of reasoning inevitably goes something like this:

  • Look how VAST the universe is.
  • There are literally billions and billions of planets.
  • Since we are the type of planet on which life evolves, it only stands to reason that out of those billions and billions of planets and billions of years of evolution, that there MUST be another planet like ours.
  • Therefore, we can’t POSSIBLY be the only intelligent life in the universe.
  • Therefore, aliens MUST exist.

 

But what if life DIDN’T evolve here?  What if we are NOT the product of evolution? What if evolution is ISN”T TRUE?   …Then the idea of aliens has no basis! Because there is an ASSUMPTION of evolution here, we search for life on other planets out there!

In fact, do you know how much evidence has been discovered for life on other planets? ZERO. But we continue to GRASP for evidence. We continue to ASSUME evolution, see evidence of ice in space, and think “Oooh aliens”

The solarsystem.nasa.gov website says as much about one of Jupiter’s moons, Europa:

“Europa’s surface is mostly water ice, and there is evidence that it may be covering an ocean of water or slushy ice beneath. Europa is thought to have twice as much water as does Earth. This moon intrigues astrobiologists because of its potential for having a “habitable zone.” Life forms have been found thriving near subterranean volcanoes on Earth and in other extreme locations that may be analogues to what may exist on Europa.”

 

Wait… we have “astrobilogists” ?

Yep. On NASA’s Origins website, they say astrobiology is:

“The study of life in the universe. It’s a new field of research that covers the origin, evolution, distribution, and destiny of life- wherever it may exist.”

I want their job, because they are studying something that doesn’t exist!! There is NO evidence whatsoever for life on other planets!!!

What about all the accounts of UFOs and alien encounters, then?

It is quite evident that people ARE SEEING something. And people are even EXPERIENCING something; especially when we consider Abduction cases. The vast majority of sightings and abductions are easily explained as physical or psychological happenings that there are best explained by ordinary means; and can thus be dismissed.

Respected researcher John Weldon notes the following:

  1. Despite millions of sightings, there has never been a single radar detection of a UFO entering our atmosphere from outer space.
  2. “Aliens’ seem able to live and breathe in Earth conditions without aid of respiratory devices.
  3. UFOs have been fired upon numerous times by American, Russian, and Canadian pilots, yet not one has ever been brought down.
  4. And startlingly, no UFO sighted on differing occasions ever appear exactly alike.

 

In his book Alien Intrusion, Gary Bates summarizes UFO sightings this way: “From the data we can draw the following conclusions about UFOs:

  • They are already here. Some way and somehow they appear to be emanating from our own planet.
  • They are visible yet do not seem to be real physical entities. In other words, they do not seem to be bound by the same physical laws as the rest of our material/natural world.
  • They and their occupants are sometimes willing to be seen, but not appear to want to make open and friendly contact on a large scale.

 

Because of the lack of evidence of life on other planets and the impossibility of them getting here, and the NATURE of these otherwise unexplainable events,  many of the leading UFOlogists are now turning from the ETH (explain “terrestrial”) to Inter-Dimensional Hypothesis

Dr. Jaques Valee is a computer scientist (developed ARPNET- precursor to the Internet), and an astrophysicist. He has spoken before the UN on UFOs and is widely recognized as the premiere expert in the world on the subject. He has done computer analysis on 10s of thousands of UFO reports looking for patterns to form an explanation. He has authored 8 books on UFOs and was the real life basis for the French scientist “Claude LaCombe” in the UFO movie “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”

He himself saw a UFO flying over his home in 1955. Like many other UFO researchers, he attempted to validate the ETH. But by 1969 he had changed his conclusion and said that the ETH ignored too much data:

Jaques Vallee and J. Allen Hynek, describe in their book The Edge of Reality:

“If UFOs are indeed ‘someone else’s nuts and bolts hardware’, then we must still explain how such tangible hardware can change shape before our eyes, vanish like in a Chesire cat manner (not even leaving a grin), seemingly met away in front of us, or apparently ‘materialize’ mysteriously before us without apparent detection by persons nearby or in neighboring towns. We must wonder too, where UFOs are ‘hiding’ when not manifesting themselves to human eyes.”

 

Valee’s conclusion was that these beings are not “terrestrial” at all. They are real, but they are from another dimension of our own world. They are spiritual beings. That is his scientific stance.

In agreement, the world’s leading UFO publication, Flying Saucer Review, did objective and thorough research utilizing over 50 experts and the official statement of the editor of the magazine, was:

“There seems to be no evidence that any of these crafts or beings originate from outer space. The whole phenomenon involves a mass of features that conflict with modern science, and many researchers now believe that these beings… are possibly from some unknown aspect of our world.”

That editor also said in the London Times:

“I do believe that the great bulk of these phenomena are what is called satanic.’

 

In light of that, to take it up a notch here, some people (as we are well aware of) claim to have been abducted by these beings, taken aboard these ships, and to have talked to aliens, and even had strange “procedures” conducted upon them by the aliens. By all psychological accounts, these events are very real in the minds of those making the claims. Occasionally these events even leave physical traces that are otherwise unexplainable.

It is important to note here that the details of these abduction events are very similar to events throughout history. The language of cultural interpretation has changed, but the events (whatever they are) seem to be one and the same. Jaques Valee also saw a correlation to numerous religious traditions, folk stories, and occult texts and found many similarities including: Missing time, the abductees perception of reality being profoundly altered,  and stories of places where “changelings” (offspring that are half human /half goblin, etc.) are born, midwife by the abductee.

In his 1990 book Confrontations, Valee observed:

“The structure of abduction stories was identical to that of occult rituals…. Contact with ufonauts [is] only a modern extension of contact with non-human consciousness in the form of angels, demons, elves, and sylphs. Such contact includes abduction, ordeal (including surgical operations), and sexual intercourse with aliens. It often leaves marks and scars on the body and the mind, as do UFO abductions.”

 

Associate Professor of psychology at Wheaton College Elizabeth L. Hillstrom points out that a growing number of academics support the conclusion that UFOnauts are synonymous with historical demons.  In her book, Testing the Spirits, she writes:

‘From a Christian perspective, Vallee’s explanation of UFOs is the most striking because of its parallels with demonic activity.  UFO investigators have noticed these similarities.  Vallee himself, drawing from extrabiblical literature on demonic activities, establishes a number of parallels between UFOnauts and demons….Pierre Guerin, a UFO researcher and a scientist associated with the French National Council for Scientific Research, is not so cautious: “The modern UFOnauts and the demons of past days are probably identical.”  Veteran researcher John Keel, who wrote UFOs: Operation Trojan Horse and other books on the subject, comes to the same conclusion: “The UFO manifestations seem to be, by and large, merely minor variations of the age-old demonological phenomenon.’

In fact, surveys taken of abductees overwhelmingly show that they subsequently develop an interest in and openly participate in New Age/occult or Eastern-type mystical religions.

So the rabbit hole goes much deeper…
But suffice it to say that This idea of aliens as gods that our culture is flirting with is an even much more dangerous idea than it seems on the surface!

The evidence points to the fact that in our cultural desire to get rid of God. To create beliefs systems of our own using the fantastical world of science fiction and aliens… there are real, spiritual entities that all just fine playing to our presuppositions and leading us astray.

Oxford Experts Say Killing Newborns is Ethical

How does that headline grab you? I wish it were merely for shock value. It is not. That is an actual summary of the ideas put forth by a group of medical ethicists at Oxford University in a recent article in the UK Telegraph. You can follow that link to read the details of the semantic wiggling and philosophical buffoonery that leads to their conclusion, but lets consider the actual title of Telegrapharticle, which is:

“Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say”

Now, I actually agree with that premise. After all, abortion and what the Oxford ethicists call “post birth abortion” clearly kills something… a living, growing something. Further, a living growing something that is human… we would all agree with that. So the obvious question is, “WHAT?” What is it that is being killed? Just using the obvious, what is being killed is a living growing human.  Both in “traditional abortion” and in the newly proposed “post birth abortion” the same type of thing is being killed; a living growing human. So I would agree with the Oxford ethics group in the title of the Telegraph article; killing babies is no different from abortion. That’s the point isn’t it!? That’s what pro-life argumentation has said all along!

Of course in the article the folks at Oxford agree that the newborns are living growing humans… but they say they are not “persons”. My question would be, “What’s the difference?” What is the difference between a human being and a person? I pose that question to you the reader. As food for thought, consider this line of reasoning from the great minds at Stand to Reason (str.org) in their article: Are Humans Persons?

Update – May 1st 2012:

Check out the philosophical and ethical road that led here in this jarring briefing in STR’s Solid Ground publication.

 

‘The Signature in the Cell’ Book Review

Regis Nicoll recently posted this incredible article in the All Things Examined column at BreakPoint.org.  The article is a book review of Dr. Stephen Meyer’s new book The Signature in the Cell.  This looks to be a landmark publication in its contribution to the design/evolution conversation. I encourage you to read this insightful review and then exercise the intellectual rigor to examine Dr. Meyer’s evidence for yourself:

The Signature in the Cell

 

All Things Examined

By: Regis Nicoll|Published: June 3, 2011 5:04 PM

One of the most vexing and long-standing mysteries of science is the origin of life: that is, how did the building blocks of matter (atoms and molecules) lead to the building block of life: the biological cell? As recently as 2008, Richard Dawkins (who believes that everything is the product of evolutionary processes) confessed, “No one knows.”

Up until the nineteenth century, leading scientists generally assumed that an organizing Intelligence was involved. But after the popularization of Darwinian theory, origin-of-life researchers began narrowing their investigative scope to unintelligent causes.

For a time, explaining life as the unplanned effect of natural forces went rather swimmingly. Then, in 1953, James Watson and Francis Crick unraveled the architecture of DNA, the now famous double helix “molecule of life.” Although their discovery solved one thorny mystery of science—how biological information is stored—it led to another, even deeper, mystery: its source.

Fittingly, Dr. Stephen Meyer calls the information in life’s macromolecule “The Signature in the Cell,” the title of his recent bookSignature contains the most compelling evidence, to date, for intelligent design (ID). In the origin-of-life debate, ID is the proposition that certain features in nature are best explained, scientifically, as products of intelligence.

An important contribution to the debate is Meyer’s clarification on what it is that scientists do.

The work of science

It is regularly charged that ID is not “science” because its proponents don’t conduct experiments, have laboratories, or publish in peer-reviewed journals. None of that is true, but even if it were, Meyer writes, “it doesn’t follow that we [aren’t] ‘doing science.’”

Meyer, whose doctorate is in the philosophy of science, notes that many of science’s greatest breakthroughs were made not by experimental researchers but by theoreticians “who taught us how to think differently about what we already knew.”

For example, Albert Einstein developed General Relativity, one of the twin pillars of modern science (the other being quantum mechanics), not by conducting a battery of experiments on a laboratory test bench, but by looking at the world anew, asking unasked questions, and thinking beyond the current paradigm.

Watson and Crick didn’t crack the DNA mystery by their own experimental research but, as Meyer points out, “by explaining an array of preexisting evidence in a new and more coherent way.”

Even Darwin’s theory of evolution, as presented in his On the Origin of Species, “contains neither a single mathematical equation nor any report of original experimental research.” Like Watson and Crick, Darwin sought to explain “disparate lines of observational evidence” with a “novel interpretation of that evidence.” And the same goes for many of the groundbreaking discoveries of Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, and other pioneers of the Scientific Revolution.

All about information

Making the case for ID, Meyer builds upon the seminal work of other ID researchers, particularly mathematician William Dembski. In The Design Inference, Dembski presented a way to distinguish the effects of intelligent agents from those of chance and law.

In a nutshell, products of law (planetary orbits, salt crystals, etc.) exhibit order, regularity, and predictability; products of chance, like the debris field of a tornado, exhibit complexity without order. But products of intelligence exhibit “specified complexity”: that is, arrangements that do not follow any predictable or ordered pattern and yet have information content, whether in the carvings at Mount Rushmore or the letters on this page.

Consider the digital information stored in living cells.

The nucleotide sequences in DNA make up genes that “spell out” instructions for the manufacturing of proteins. The sequences are highly complex and not compressible to a simple expression or algorithm. Furthermore, since, chemically, the bases can attach anywhere along the DNA “backbone,” their precise arrangement is not determined by chemical laws.

In “Did the Universe Create Itself?” I showed (using some very generous assumptions) that the universe is neither old enough nor large enough for the chance production of even the smallest gene. In the parlance of Meyer, the complexity of DNA exceeds the “probabilistic resources” of the universe. And yet the instructional content in DNA is just one tier of biological information in a hierarchal structure.

Meyer points out, “In the same way that words are ordered into sentences and sentences into paragraphs, nucleotide bases are ordered into genes and genes are ordered into specifically arranged gene clusters.” Gene clusters are further arranged into gene “folders” that are “themselves nonrandomly grouped along chromosomes to form higher-order folders.”

And if that weren’t enough, those “superfolders” are arranged by cell type according to specific organs and body plans. The multi-layered architecture of biological information, Meyer explains, “would seem to require considerable forethought, precisely what natural selection by definition cannot provide.”Would seem? A considerable understatement.

The best explanation

Nested levels of instructions and information are characteristic of computer programs. Even Richard Dawkins recognizes this: “The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like.” And yet the unaccommodating reality for Dawkins is that the only thing known capable of producing a computer program is an intelligent being.

True, neo-Darwinian processes can lead to small, limited changes in the genome. But those changes are overwhelmingly detrimental, and in the few instances where a benefit is conferred (e.g., antibiotic immunity, pesticide resistance) they are the result of information loss or suppression (i.e., of the genes controlling the digestion of the drug or pesticide), not information gain.

From probabilistic considerations and empirical evidence, the best explanation for the code-of-life is intelligent causation. Of course the Darwinist fold is ever ready with a machination that gives chanceand necessity a “helping hand.” Currently, the favored narrative turns on the “RNA World.”

The RNA World was devised, specifically, to solve the conundrum of which came first, DNA or proteins. Proteins are built from DNA, but DNA needs proteins to process its information. Once it was recognized that certain RNA molecules had protein-like properties, an origin-of-life theory was cooked up, whereby a fortuitous cocktail of primordial chemicals formed RNA molecules that self-replicated and synthesized proteins that produced DNA that, through the omnipotent wonders of natural selection, eventually led to the first biological cell.

Setting aside the probabilistic obstacles against the undirected creation of essential cellular systems, the production of biological information from RNA shares many of the same problems as the production from DNA—difficulty of synthesization, chemical fragility in a hostile pre-biotic environment—not to speak of the extreme rarity of RNA molecules that can self-replicate. Consequently, evolutionary biologist Eugene Koonin admits that “neither the RNA world nor any other materialistic chemical evolutionary hypothesis can account for the origin of life, given the probabilistic resources of the entire universe.”

Answering the critics

Shopworn criticisms of ID include: It invokes an unobservable entity, it is not falsifiable, and it makes no predictions. And Meyer handily rebuts them all.

Reigning scientific theories are rife with entities and processes that are not observable. In physics, researchers infer unseen gluons, gravitons, inflatons, and a host of fundamental particles from observational data. Meyer makes specific mention of the Higgs boson, an imaginary particle thought to produce the material properties of matter. On top of that, there is a whole category of “virtual” (as opposed to “actual”) particles that theorists have concocted to explain otherwise inexplicable phenomena.

The same goes for Darwin’s theory of evolution. Not only does Darwinism depend on mutational events and transitional forms that have never been observed, but the evolutionary process itself “occur[s] at rates too slow to observe in the present and too fast to have been recorded in the fossil record.”

The disciplines of cryptography, archaeology, and criminal forensics also infer unseen (and intelligent!) causes from their material effects: A detective knows that a body with six bullet holes in the back is evidence of murder, not an accidental shooting; an archaeologist who finds “All Cretans are liars” etched in stone can attribute it to another human being, without a moment’s reflection about animal scratchings or weathering and erosion; similarly, a computer program, whether written in a series of “1s” and “0s” on a sheet of paper, or in a functional chemical sequence along the DNA spine, is evidence of a programmer.

Falsifying ID is simply a matter of successfully demonstrating that “large amounts of functionally specified information,” corresponding to that of the most complex computer codes produced by man, “do arise from purely chemical and physical” causes. If that were done, Meyer cedes, ID would be reduced from the “best explanation” to a possible explanation for the origin of life.

Meyer goes on to predict twelve research results should ID theory be true, including these: No unintelligent process will demonstrate the ability to create complex specified information; so-called “bad designs,” “broken” genes, and “junk” DNA will be shown to have a hidden function or to have been corrupted from their original state; research will further demonstrate the RNA World scenario as implausible; the fossil record will give evidence of large, episodic infusions of information; and “successful” computer simulations of evolution will be shown to be the result of information supplied by programmers.

The Signature in the Cell is a tour de force in origin-of-life research that advances the scientific theory of intelligent design, front and center. It is a “must have” volume for anyone, layman and expert alike, interested in understanding the theory, its development, its considerable scientific bases, and the creative limitations of unintelligent processes.

Regis Nicoll is a freelance writer and a BreakPoint Centurion. His “All Things Examined” column appears on BreakPoint every other Friday. Serving as a men’s ministry leader and worldview teacher in his community, Regis publishes a free weekly commentary to stimulate thought on current issues from a Christian perspective. To be placed on this free e-mail distribution list, e-mail him atcenturion51@aol.com.


Articles on the BreakPoint website are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Chuck Colson or BreakPoint. Outside links are for informational purposes and do not necessarily imply endorsement of their content.

Copyright © 2011 Prison Fellowship. All Rights Reserved

Special thanks to Regis for continued scholarship and work for Christ, and for his allowing the posting of the article on the What&Why blog.

For further reading, browse the brilliant and edgy offerings at one of the resources Regis contributes to- Salvomag.com.

A quick note on the fairy tale of evolution…

A brief little segment from a harmless article on the impending cicada invasion provides a great opportunity to illustrate something that a lot of people miss about the theory of evolution.
First, here’s the quote from the article:

Scientists believe this long dormant stage evolved as a means to outlive predators, such as the circada killer wasp and praying mantis, whose own life cycle if a far shorter two years. (You can find the whole article here.)

Notice, this just-so story is not based on any evidence whatsoever.  It is merely an assumption.  In fact, there is not even a way to scientifically test the hypothesis that this is why cicadas have long life spans, much less a mechanism by which a blind random process could plan and develop such a thing. After all, the language “evolved as a means to” indicates intentionality toward an end. But this is by definition contrary to evolutionary theory, yet such language is inescapable when describing the clear design of things.  A cursory reading of so-called evidences of evolution are rife with such depictions.  I am constantly amazed at how such yarn-spinning is passed off as scientific.

Even more troubling, this is the kind of assumptive story that is also often used as evidence of evolution.  Now walk through that with me:

  • Exhibit A is explained by assuming evolution.
  • Exhibit A is therefore also evidence for evolution.

This is, by definition, circular reasoning! Evolution cannot be assumed in order to prove evolution!

Even Wikipedia, which is nearly universally accepting to evolutionary theory let this little blurb sneak through (although not without an “unbalanced” flag) when dealing with the subject of evolutionary psychology and its “just-so” stories:

Critics assert that many hypotheses put forward to explain the adaptive nature of human behavioural traits are “Just-so stories“; neat adaptive explanations for the evolution of given traits that do not rest on any evidence beyond their own internal logic. They allege that evolutionary psychology can predict many, or even all, behaviours for a given situation, including contradictory ones. Therefore many human behaviours will always fit some hypotheses. Noam Chomsky noted:

“You find that people cooperate, you say, ‘Yeah, that contributes to their genes’ perpetuating.’ You find that they fight, you say, ‘Sure, that’s obvious, because it means that their genes perpetuate and not somebody else’s. In fact, just about anything you find, you can make up some story for it.

Anyhow… thanks for letting me vent.

Here a few link to a few articles that flesh this out in a little more detail:

Killing in the name of…

In a recent post at bioedge.org a frightening portent of the American future was brought to light.  If our legislation continues its current trajectory, killing the elderly, disabled, terminally ill, unwanted, and even unproductive of our society is coming.  This will all be done in the name of “quality of life”, expediency, and cost-effective health care.  Here’s the short post:

Elderly people in the Netherlands are so afraid of being killed by doctors that they carry cards saying they do not want euthanasia. Kevin Fitzpatrick, a researcher with the activist group Not Dead Yet,claimed that relaxing the law in Britain would pose a threat to old and disabled people as it would allow for “moral judgments” that their lives were not worth living. He said it is “nonsensical” to say that we all have a right to die, when what is really being sought is the right to a premature death that not all people in society seek.

A court victory in Britain last year forced the Director of Public Prosecutions to admit that individuals would not be prosecuted for assisting the suicide of terminally ill loved ones in most cases. Supporters of the disabled and the elderly worry that this will make them feel pressured to end their lives. Mr Fitzpatrick wrote on BMJ.com last week: “Disabled people, like others, and often with more reason, need to feel safe. Thus eroding what may already be a shaky sense of safety in medical care poses a further threat to disabled people’s wellbeing, continuing care, and life itself.”~ London Telegraph, Apr 21

Um… Wow!

Take the time to inform and protect you and your loved ones today: