One day recently I and Professor Barger went to the faculty dining room for lunch. Being pretty crowded, we were invited to join some other faculty members at a table already occupied. We all were acquainted, but Dr. Salenas and Dr. Wright taught in another department, we were all science faculty with our respective areas of expertise.
The usual conversation at lunch tends to cover subjects such as administration-faculty conflicts, the hassles of student advising and registration, and most importantly the performance of our famous Butler Bulldogs basketball team. For some reason that day, the conversation changed to things more serious and philosophical. I don’t remember how it started, but soon we were discussing intelligent design and expressing our doubts about a purely material universe. We have never had a similar conversation before or since.
Dr. Barger, a neuropharmacologist, and a Methodist, stated that he found the mechanisms of cell receptors, modulators and neurotransmitters unexplainable by random evolutionary processes. Dr. Salenas., a medicinal chemist and Roman Catholic marveled at the molecular structures and bonds and how perfectly they work to provide the intricate interactions between elements and how slight changes of charges can completely change the three-dimensional shape of molecules and thus change completely the interactive characteristics of the molecule. A professor of human physiology and a fundamentalist Christian, I added that the duplication and transcription of DNA and RNA was irrefutable evidence of a Great Designer. There is not so much as a guess as to how these molecules and mechanisms came to be. Dr. Wright, a physical chemist and of no particular religious persuasion was thoughtful and considered each of our points. He quietly munched on his tuna salad sandwich and took it all in hardly acknowledging the conversation to that point. Finally, he spoke. With just a hint of condescension he agreed that cell receptors, chemical bonds and stereochemistry, and DNA were marvelous arguments for design, but he suggested something much simpler and it doesn’t require an advanced degree to comprehend.
Dr. Wright stated that, to his thinking, the most amazing fact in science was so simple and so obvious that we all have witnessed it first hand many times, but most never gave it a thought. After all, it is simply the way it has to be, even though it is contrary to other observations. Any other way and life could not exist on this planet.
Have you ever gone ice skating? How about those ice cubes floating in your ice tea? It is a scientific fact that water has its greatest density at 4° Centigrade and thus ice, at 0°, floats. Every other substance in nature reaches maximum density in solid form and becomes less dense in liquid form and therefore the solid form sinks in the liquid. For instance, frozen ammonia sinks in liquid ammonia, ice sinks in rubbing alcohol, oil floats on water because it is less dense than water.
In fluids molecules come closer together as they are cooled, becoming more dense, until they reach a maximum density (the molecules are as close together as they can get). In all other liquids this occurs at the freezing point. It the case of water maximum density is reached at 4° Centigrade, or just above freezing temperature, 0°. The practical result of this is that ice floats. So who cares if the ice cubes in you adult beverage float or sit on the bottom of the glass? Truth is, in that case it doesn’t matter much.
Well, what about ice in a river or lake? The ice forms on top of the slightly warmer water and helps prevent lower levels from freezing. Also, as the ice melts, the 4° water, being heavier, falls to the bottom and causes the lower, warmer water to rise to the top. This produces a convection current that mixes oxygen, carbon dioxide and nutrients, necessary for the many form of life living in that body of water.
If water behaved like every other fluid, our lakes and rivers, and even large parts of the ocean would be frozen from the bottom to the surface most of the year. The waters of the earth would not be able to support life as we know it. With most of the water of earth bound up in ice, there would be little rain so most of the land would also be barren.
Our world is so perfectly designed that something as simple as the density of ice reveals God’s power and glory. Wherever we look we see God’s handiwork. And this has been so since Adam. Even as we learn more of our world, new wonders are revealed more marvelous than what our predecessors knew. And it will always be so until the Lord reveals the full manifestation of His glory. Atheists say that belief in God stifles inquiry. They say that we are inclined to think “God did it that way” and be satisfied with that explanation of scientific questions. That is far from the truth. Since the earliest days of scientific discovery men such as Newton, Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo, etc., all believing Christians, endeavored to discover natural laws, seeing in them the majesty and glory of an omnipotent and loving God and giving thanks and glory to their Creator. Many scientists today pursue knowledge with the same humble sentiment, giving all praise and glory to God the Creator.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,--Romans 2: 18-20
22 comments:
That myth proffered by evolutionists that believing in creationism stifles curiosity has always been a farce. As you said, Theo, the great creationist scientists prove that wrong.
Besides, I've always believed in God, and the more my faith in Him is reinforced, the more curious I am about how He constructed the universe and made it work. I think God built us to be curious like that.
Bob Ellis said: "I think God built us to be curious like that."
Our close primate cousins, monkeys, are well-known for their innate curiosity - "monkey curiosity" is a catch-phrase. But saying "Goddidit" is a pseudoscientific "theory." There is another, even more elegant actual scientific theory, called evolution, that does not rely on the supernatural.
Earlier, Bob mentioned: "...the great creationist scientists..." Who exactly are these "great creationist scientists"? Are you referring to early Young Earth Creationists such as Morris or Gish, or are you referring to more recent creationists such as Dembski or Behe?
If you are referring to intelligent design creationists as "scientists," please take note that the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Astronomical Union, the American Geological Society, and essentially every other actual scientific organization have uniformly condemned intelligent design creationism as not science but religion.
In 2005, a Federal Judge ruled "We have concluded that intelligent design is not science, and moreover that intelligent design cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."
Please do not confuse supernaturalism for science.
Paul, those great creationist scientists were the ones Theo referred to: Newton, Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo, et al. Did you read the post?
And one (among many) critical differences between humans and monkeys is our God-given intelligence and our eternal soul.
Oh, and the theory of evolution does actually rely on the supernatural, since naturalism and materialism are impossible according to the laws of nature (something from nothing, life from lifelessness, order from chaos, etc.)
Please do not confuse materialism and naturalism with science.
How does science answer questions about prophecy? How can anyone born 5000 years ago tell us what to expect with any degree of accuracy? Ask you science friends that question, Bob.
Bruce -
This article is so mind-blowingly stupid that it is hard to believe that it was printed. Come on guys, we have known that evolution is real for 150 years and that religious explainations are wrong for centuries.
I tell you what, why doesn't the author actually publish his evidence in a peer-reviewed magazine and do some real science, rather than post a story on a website.
Wow, Rodjk #613, if we have proof that evolution is true, I wish someone would bother to print THAT.
So far, all I've seen are some theories and interpretations of how the scientific evidence MIGHT support an evolutionary hypothesis.
But you have to suspend the laws of nature to believe that something could come from nothing, that life could come from lifeless materials, and that disorganized matter could somehow organize on its own--because all of those things are contrary to the laws of nature.
Ironically, you need a supernatural force even to believe in evolution.
Bob, there is plenty of evidence that evolution is true. Have you ever bothered to look?
Try google.com. Type in "transitional fossils' or 'speciation'. You get plenty of hits. Go to youtube.com and type in 'walking fish'.
Truth is, the reason ID/creationism gets laughed at in court is because when push comes to shove they have nothing at all to offer. Heck, even Philip Johnson admits there is no science to ID.
Oh, saying 'we don't know' is not the same as saying 'goddidit'. Science continues to try to find questions and then tries to find answers. You ought to try it sometime.
Last, I would like to see the author actually write up his 'evidence' and have it published, not just talk about it.
Rodjk #613, I used to believe in evolution...until I found out how many holes there were in the theory, and how impossible it is according to it's own framework.
If you google, as you suggested, you'll get lots of conjecture and hypothesis masquerading as fact, but nothing that proves evolution.
The reason creationism/ID gets "laughed at" is because everything it has to offer doesn't fit the materialist/naturalist paradigm, so it's rejected. To turn it around (and be a little more candid), it would be like saying evolutionist have nothing to offer because their ideas don't fit the creationist paradigm.
The objective approach is to examine the evidence for viability according to both theories and see which it more closely matches, and which one it is more possible under. But most evolutionists are unwilling or unable to do that because of their innate bias that they can't admit or don't even recognize.
Does prophecy have DNA? Is is made of carbon?
How do you explain Bible prophecy?
At what point does any organism take credit for prophecy?
Bruce -
I'm afraid I don't know how to respond to that, Bruce.
Bob,
I'm not willing to enter the great evolutionary debate (this is Blogger, not talk.origins!)
I do have a question about the article, though: why am I unable to find Barger, Salenas, or Wright in Butler University's directory?
Thanks for your time.
I'll defer to the author of the post, J.D.
Theo, can you address Mr. Bartlett's question about the Butler University directory?
Bob, there are holes in the understanding of any topic. Have you tried to read up on our understanding of gravity? We know it is there, we are not certain how it works. Evolution is observed, it is in the fossil record and genetics confirms the other two observations. We don't have to know everything about a topic to know it happens.
For the third time, if there are real, serious issues with evolution they should be written up and submitted for peer review. Since no one is doing this ID is a side issue; of public interest but not at all in front of scientist.
I wonder why that is?
Rodjk #613, evolution is NOT observed in the fossil record or in genetics. It is ASSUMED by those with a predisposition to see what they want to see. They come up with a theory that in some ways fits the evidence, then they tell themselves it is proof. It isn't.
There are creation theories that fit the geological record just as well, and probably better. But they are rejected by evolutionists out of hand, not because the theories are unsound within their own framework, but because they don't fit the evolutionary framework.
Creation will not work within an evolutionary framework, because it relies on a whole different paradigm. It assumes a supernatural creator.
Ironically, many elements assumed by materialists and naturalists require a supernatural influence and might work with one...but materialists/naturalists reject a supernatural influence out of hand, so such theories cannot work within their own framework.
"I do have a question about the article, though: why am I unable to find Barger, Salenas, or Wright in Butler University's directory?"
Mr. Bartlett, I used pseudonyms (though they are close) because I did not get permission from these professors to use their names. Additionally, I don't think that their names are germane to the point.
This story is absolutely true and the opinions expressed by each individual are accurate to the best of my recollection. It is memorable to me because it was so spontaneous and up to that time I had never had any conversations with these men about the evolution/creation debate. I didn't ask, but I'll bet that none of the others would consider themselves creationists. But, they are very well-educated and informed in their fields and candidly expressed their doubts about evolutionary theory without any mention of God or creation. I thought that this was remarkable.
If you are interested, my name is Ralph E. Hatcher, M.D. I am an adjunct Assoc. Professor in the College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences at Butler University. I teach human anatomy, physiology, pathophysiology and clinical medicine. I have been at Butler since 1998. Prior to that I was on the faculty of Southern Illinois University School of Medicine, in Springfield.
Well Dr. Hatcher, I am looking forward to you and your colleagues writing up a paper with your scientific observations and presenting it to peer review.
Otherwise, it is just rambling about religion with no interest to science.
Thanks for your honest response, Mr. Hatcher.
Thanks for your comments rodjk. I have published in peer review articles and the fact that I don't believe in evolution has absolutely no bearing on my studies and teaching in my academic field. Contrary to what Dawkins and Dini (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=technology&res=9806E5DD1338F930A35751C0A9659C8B63) claim, that evolution is the "bedrock" upon which all biological science is built, I find it not a hindrance in any way with my academic activities or clinical practice that I don’t bow to Darwin. And, as this post illustrates, many learned academics have the integrity to admit that they see major problems with evolutionary theory relative to their respective field of study.
The insistence on publishing in peer reviewed journals is specious and I think you know it. The editors of Science, Nature, National Geographic, not to mention specialized journals, all come from a perspective that rejects a priori any suggestion of something other than a naturalistic explanation. This is so no matter how far-fetched a theory has to be to explain an observation. There is simply no way to explain DNA and RNA structure and function occurring at the earliest stages of presumed evolution. I could write an elegant and convincing argument to the effect that DNA could not have organized itself out of random processes and cite many experiments to support my contention. Another writer might come up with speculation about amino acids and proteins arising spontaneously in a primordial soup in a reducing atmosphere and the two of them combined and formed a sulfide bond with another protein forming a nucleotide, etc., etc. Which of the two articles would most likely get published? Which of them is more scientific?
Would you expect the American Spectator to publish the rants of Michael Moore, or would CNN hire Rush Limbaugh for nightly commentary? No, they have their own perspective on events and will not share their access to readers or viewers with those of opposing views. It is the same in the world biological science. Those in charge will not allow others to play in their sand box. But they are beginning to find that the sand has gotten pretty old and dirty and is way overdue for a change.
So, in short, you are not interested in doing science but instead are promoting your view of religion.
You are right, your views are not scientific and would not be published by any respectable scientific journal because they are not scientific.
Thank you for making that clear.
What is clear, rodjk, is that you will believe what you want against all evidence to the contrary.
I "do science" every day, but you are not interested in what others may say unless they agree with your myopic uninformed opinions.
Rodjk #613, one might say the same of evolutionists.
Evolution doesn't merely seek to explain the existence and operation of the universe, but seeks to explain the "why" of the universe, which is primarily a philosophical or religious question. In other words, it isn't so much interested in discovering the scientific principles of the universe as it is finding ways to interpret scientific principles to support a hypothesis. Therefore, it might easily be said that evolution is a religion.
One might also find reason to consider materialism/naturalism/evolution a religion because several critical elements of these ideas simply cannot occur without supernatural influence. Thus, they require a lot of faith to believe in.
Evolution also elevates the knowledge and reason of man to the highest position in the universe, thus looking to gnosis as the source of all meaning--which essentially equates to worship.
Remember: don't confuse materialism/naturalism with science. One examines the evidence, the other posits philosophical assumptions or conclusions.
I am asking you to print up your 'science' and publish it. At the very least, make the effort.
Instead of a bunch of guys gathered around a lunch table, make it official.
You say that I am not interested, and that my opinions are 'uninformed'. Well, put up your science, have it published. You say you have evidence to the contrary, lets see it. Make it official. Heck, next time there is a court case volunteer to be an expert witness.
You are the one making claims you seem unwilling to back up with evidence. I am the one asking to see it.
Post a Comment