This blog is now on bloglovin'. Use the button on the right to follow me on bloglovin'
<a href="http://www.bloglovin.com/blog/10317033/?claim=fnuzn5nkkgn">Follow my blog with Bloglovin</a>
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Thursday, May 16, 2013
A Little About Me and Why I Am Unable to Post
My name is Jessica and I am an undergraduate pursuing a degree in Forensic Science with a minor in Forensic Anthropology. I am currently home for the summer and do not have the academic books that I had available for me at my university. Therefore, I am going to postpone the blog posts until I am able to do adequate research. I will begin posting again at the beginning of September.
Jessica
Friday, May 3, 2013
Science, the Bible, and Its Critics
The scientific concepts that are present in the
Bible that were not conceived yet by scientists of the time is usually
interpreted by Christians to show that the authors of the Bible had divine
inspiration for their writings. This is
due to the fact that the authors of the Bible knew scientific related concepts
before other people of the time knew these concepts. Non-Christians usually do not follow this
interpretation and instead offer a common rebuttal: If the Bible was written by
divine inspiration and is the Word of God, then why are their scientific
inaccuracies and contradictions in other parts of the Bible? Some of the parts in the Bible that
non-Christians say are inaccuracies are when the Bible uses the term “ends of
the earth” and that the Bible talks about a world that does not move (according
to “Holes in the Holy Bible”). Some of
the common contradictions that non-Christians present are: Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 contradicting each
other about how many days it took God to create the earth and the universe, and
the contradictions in the genealogy of Jesus presented in Matthew and Luke(according
to “Some Reasons Why humanists Reject the Bible”).
Ends of the Earth
“Have you
commanded the morning since your days began,
And caused the dawn to know its place,
And caused the dawn to know its place,
That it
might take hold of the ends of the earth,
And the wicked be shaken out of it?” (Job 38: 12-13 NKJV)
And the wicked be shaken out of it?” (Job 38: 12-13 NKJV)
Have you ever tried to hold a ball in your
hands? Do you hold the sides or the
extremities of the ball? The word “Kanaph”
is the original Hebrew for the word that has been translated as “ends” (Brown,
Briggs, Driver, Gesenius, Robinson & Rödiger, 1906). This word can also be translated as
“extremity” (Brown, Briggs, Driver, Gesenius, Robinson & Rödiger, 1906). When the Bible says the ends of the earth, I
believe that it means the extremities, not the edges like a flat rectangle
would have. Many critics of the Bible
state that this points to the earth being flat instead of being a sphere, but this
does not line up with other scripture. In
Isaiah 40:22, it says, “It is He who sits above the circle of the earth…”
(NKJV). If the world was flat, God could
not sit above the circle of the earth (or the curve of the earth if the
original Hebrew is translated differently, as discussed in a past post). Therefore, I believe that it means the parts
of a sphere that God could hold and does not contradict science.
World does not move
“The Lord
reigns, He is clothed with majesty;
The Lord is
clothed, He has girded Himself with strength.
Surely the
world is established, so that it cannot be moved.” (Psalm 93:1 NKJV)
Many critics of the Bible believe this verse means
that the earth does not orbit the sun and does not move in space, but this is
not what I believe that this verse is saying.
In the original Hebrew, the word for move is “Mowt” (Brown, Briggs,
Driver, Gesenius, Robinson & Rödiger, 1906). This word can also be translated as shake (Brown,
Briggs, Driver, Gesenius, Robinson & Rödiger, 1906). I believe that this verse means that the earth
is established in the solar system and that the laws of the earth (such as
gravity, thermodynamics, and etc.) cannot be changed.
Genesis 1 and 2
in the day
that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens” (Genesis 2:4 NKJV)
Many Bible critics believe that this verse
contradicts the creation story that is told in the first chapter of
Genesis. As I have said before, the word
that is typically translated as day (from Hebrew into English) is the word “Yowm”. Yomn is the word that is used in this verse
as day. Yomn can also be translated as
time. I believe that this verse talks
about the time period in which God made earth, the universe and everything in
it.
Genealogy of Jesus
Below is the differing genealogies that are
present in Matthew and in Luke:
As you can see, from David down to Jesus is very
inconsistent. Many critics of the Bible
use this to show that the Bible contradicts itself. I believe that there are several explanations
to the differing genealogies.
One possible explanation is due to the Levirate
marriage tradition. In this tradition,
if the husband dies and did not have any sons, the husband’s brother could
marry his brother’s widow to carry on the deceased husband’s name. This would mean that Joseph, Jesus’s earthly
father, may have had both a biological and legal father. This would mean that one genealogy could be
of Joseph’s biological father while the other genealogy could be of Joseph’s
legal father.
Another explanation is that the genealogy of Jesus
presented in Matthew follows the genealogy of Joseph and the genealogy of Jesus
presented in Luke is the genealogy of Mary.
This would mean that Heli could be Mary’s biological Father and Joseph’s
surrogate father. If Heli did not have
any sons, it would be normal custom to make Joseph his heir.
I believe that the Bible is the infallible Word of
God and that there are no contradictions to itself or to science. I believe that the Bible is the truth and
that it will stand through the test of time.
References:
Brown, F., Briggs, C. A., Driver, S. R., Gesenius, W.,
Robinson, E., & Rödiger, E. (1906). The brown-driver-briggs hebrew
and english lexicon with an appendix containing the biblical aramaic.
“Some Reasons Why
Humanists Reject the Bible”. Assoc., A.
H. (n.d.). Retrieved May 3, 2013 from
http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/Some_Reasons_Why_Humanists_Reject_the_Bible
“The Geneology of
Jesus”. Fairchild, M. (n.d.). Retrieved
May, 3, 2012 from http://christianity.about.com/od/biblefactsandlists/a/jesusgenealogy.htm
“The Holes in the Holy Bible”. n.d.. Retrieved May 3, 2013 from
http://biblebabble.curbjaw.com/bible.htm
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
Updated Posts
I have now updated the previous posts on creationism based on more research. Enjoy the updated posts!
Monday, April 29, 2013
Scientific Knowledge in the Bible
The Bible mentions many scientific concepts, many of which
had not yet been theorized by scientists at the time that the scriptures were
written. In this blog, I will discuss a
few of the scientific concepts that I am referring to. In the next blog entry I will discuss the
implications of the Bible showing scientific knowledge before the ideas were
theorized by scientists and the common rebuttals to these implications.
The first of these scientific concepts are is that the earth
is not flat. In Isaiah 40:22, it says, “It
is He who sits above the circle of the earth…” (NKJV). Chung, the Hebrew word that is translated in
Isaiah 40:22 as circle, can be also be translated as circuit and compass (Brown,
Briggs, Driver, Gesenius, Robinson & Rödiger, 1906). According to dictionary.com, the
word compass, in English, means “forming a curve or an arc”. This indicates that the earth is not flat,
but is indeed round. The Book of Isaiah
was written by Isaiah, a prophet who was born somewhere between 770 B.C. and
760 B.C. (Gilbert, 2009, p.100). The
first person outside of the Bible known to have stated that the Earth is not
flat, but spherical is Pythagorean (Garwood, 2007, p. 19). Pythagorean was born in approximately 569
B.C. and died between 500 and 475 B.C. (Douglass, 2005). He was born almost 200 years after Isaiah was
born. Therefore, Isaiah knew that the earth
was not flat many years before the first Greek scientists knew that the earth
was a sphere. This knowledge was most
likely of divine origin.
Job 8 compares a plant’s dependence on environmental factors
to a man’s dependence on God. It states
that I plant cannot grow without sunlight.
This is a scientific concept way before the times of scientists. It is hypothesized that Job was written
between 1000 and 800 B.C. (Gilbert, 2009, p. 126). According to the Science
Encyclopedia, Jan Ingenhousz (who lived from 1730-1799 A.D.) was the first
to hypothesize that plant growth was dependent on light. This could be evidence of divine origin of
the Bible.
The Bible also correctly estimates the number of pi. This cannot be seen in the English versions
of the Bible, but rather it can be seen in the Hebrew version of the
Bible. In 1 King 7:23 (NKJV), the Bible
says, “And he made the Sea of cast bronze, ten cubits from one brim to the
other; it was completely round. Its height was five cubits, and a line of
thirty cubits measured its circumference”, but the numbers are not accurate to
the original text as there is a problem within the translation. In Hebrew, the alphabet has numerical
values. When translated properly into English
numbers, the value of pi is 15 times better than the estimated value of pi
commonly used in schools (22/7). For
more information about the value of pi in the Bible, please visit this website, where I got
my information on this topic.
As you can see, the Bible is accurate on many scientific
concepts known today. Next time I will
discuss the implications related to this knowledge.
References:
Brown, F., Briggs, C. A., Driver, S. R.,
Gesenius, W., Robinson, E., & Rödiger, E. (1906). The brown-driver-briggs hebrew and english lexicon with an
appendix containing the biblical aramaic.
Douglass, C. (2005). Retrieved from
http://www.mathopenref.com/pythagoras.html
Garwood, C. (2007). Flat earth: The history of an infamous idea. New York, New
York: St. Martin's Press.
Gilbert, C. (2009). A complete introduction to the bible. New York, New
York: Paulist Press.
Friday, April 26, 2013
Jesus and Archaeology
Although
there is no archaeological evidence directly pointing to the existence of
Jesus, there is an abundance of archaeological evidence that relates to the
time period that Jesus lived, to people that Jesus encountered while here on
earth and also to the early Christian church.
These include the Galilee boat and the ossuary of James (Jesus’s brother).
"Jesus boat" |
In 1986,
the waters of the Sea of Galilee were at low levels (Currie & Hyslop, 2010,
p. 274). This is when what has been
called the Galilee boat (and also known as the “Jesus boat”) was found. The boat measures 30 feet long and 8 feet
wide (Currie & Hyslop, 2010, p. 274).
It is dated back between the last of the 1st century B.C.E.
and the middle of 1st century C.E. (Currie & Hyslop, 2010, p.
274).
The ossuary
possibly belonging to James, Jesus’s half-brother has also been found (Vergano,
2010). The limestone box containing
human remains has an inscription on the outside that states, “James, son
of
Joseph, brother of Jesus” (Vergano, 2010).
Bone boxes of this sort were used between the years 20 B.C. and 70
A.D. James died in A.D. 62 (Vergano,
2010). The inscription seems to be
authentic, but it cannot be verified.
There are claims that the “brother of Jesus” part of the inscription
could have been forged, but nonetheless it could have belonged to James.
The Possible Ossuary of James, half-brother of Jesus |
Although
these two finds do not point to anything concrete, they are appealing. If the ossuary and its inscription are indeed
authentic, this could point to the existence of Jesus. Although the boat found in the Sea of Galilee
was named the “Jesus boat”, this shows that boats existed during that time
period that could carry thirteen people, Jesus and his 12 disciples, as occurred
several times in the Gospels (Currie & Hyslop, 2010, p. 274). This both are very interesting finds,
although the meaning of these finds are a matter of opinion.
Note: I will be changing the posting schedule to
only twice a week (Mondays and Fridays) in order to allow time for more
thorough research. Also, I will be
editing past posts in order to be more thorough on those posts. Thanks for your understanding.
References:
Currie, R., & Hyslop, S. G.
(2010). The letter and the scroll, what archaeology tells us about the
bible. Natl Geographic Society.
[Untitled photograph of the possible ossuary of
James]. (n.d.). Retrieved April 26, 2013, from http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/story/2012-03-17/james-ossuary-jesus/53578490/1
[Untitled photograph of the Jesus Boat]. (n.d.). Retrieved April
26, 2013, from
Vergano, D. (2012, March 18). 'james
ossuary’ verdict adds to burial box furor. Retrieved from
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/story/2012-03-17/james-ossuary-jesus/53578490/1
Monday, April 22, 2013
Capital Punishment: A Biblical Prospective
The Bible mentions capital punishment for several different
crimes a few of which are homicide (Exod. 21:12, Lev. 24:17, and Num.
35:16-34), kidnapping (Exod. 21:16, Deut. 24:7), and human sacrifice (Lev.
20:2-5)1, but do these rules still apply to today’s times? Should the United States continue allowing
capital punishment in certain states?
It has been debated both among Christians and among
non-Christians upon whether capital punishment is good or bad. Upon reading the Bible, this could be interpreted
for both sides. There were a lot of
rules for capital punishment in the Old Testament and there are a lot of scripture
in the New Testament that could also be seen as promoting capital punishment. There is also scripture in the New Testament
that could be used to say that capital punishment is immoral. I am going to discuss several of these
scripture and tell what I believe each of these scriptures entail. Since this is a more opinionated discuss on
the interpretation of scripture, I will use a variety of sources.
Here
is a Christian who supports the death penalty.
These are a lot of the most popular reasons that Christians believe in
capital punishment.
The most popular reason for Christians to believe in the
death penalty is Exodus 20:13 which, in the KJV, says, “Thou shalt not kill.” Most biblical scholars believe that this
should instead be interpreted as “thou shall not murder” which is what most
modern Bibles state. Christians that
support the death penalty say that it is not murder, but rather is just
killing. According to www.thefreedictionary.com,
the definition of murder is “the unlawful killing of one human by another, especially
with premeditated malice”. Whether the
act is unlawful depends on whether the act is legal at the time, i.e. whether
the death penalty is legal in that state or not. The phrase “premeditated malice” leads to my
conclusion that the death penalty is murder and therefore is spoke against in
Exodus 20:13. The death penalty is
premeditated and I also believe that it shows malice because the death penalty
is intended for revenge. It is intended
to harm someone because of an act that they committed to someone else. Therefore, I believe that this scripture does
not promote the death penalty, but rather speaks against the death penalty.
Furthermore, Jesus’s nature is forgiving. Jesus not only supports, but demands
forgiveness. In Matthew 18:21-22 (KJV), the Bible says, “Then Peter came to
Him and said, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive
him? Up to seven times?” Jesus said to him, “I do
not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven.” This states that we should forgive each other
when someone sins against us. In Mark
11:25, Jesus says, ““And whenever you stand praying, if you have anything
against anyone, forgive him, that your Father in heaven may also forgive you
your trespasses.” Jesus says that if we
do not forgive those that sin against us, God will not forgive us of our
sins. If we kill someone because they
have sinned by murdering someone else, how is this showing forgiveness towards
that person? This testimony
about why the song “Forgiveness”
by Matthew West was written shows how powerful forgiveness can be. (Here is the full story about this testimony.)
There are many other scriptures that may point to capital
punishment as being holy, but for the verses that I have shared above, I have
decided that the death penalty is immoral.
I think that forgiveness is better than revenge and this is something
that I live by. I believe that there are
better ways to protect our society than the death penalty.
Notes:
A
comprehensive list of mentions of capital punishment in the Bible can be seen
in “Capital Punishment and the Bible” by G.C. Hanks (2002).
Friday, April 19, 2013
Capital Punishment: Does it do what it is intended to?
I have been researching capital punishment this week. I did
not post on Wednesday; this is because I have found that this topic is more
difficult to research than I thought that it would be. I am still
researching the Biblical aspect of the topic, but I have come to several
reasons not regarding the Bible that have influenced how I have thought about
capital punishment.
There are many reasons that people are for capital
punishment. Several of these reasons are cost, deterrence, special
deterrence, and respect for human life.
The cost argument for the death penalty is that it costs more to
keep someone in prison than it does to execute them. In all actuality,
capital cases can be quiet expensive. In 1982 in a report by the New York
State Defenders (as quoted by Nathanson, 2001, p. 37), it was estimated that it
would cost more than $1.4 million dollars to conduct all the legal process
surrounding an execution for a single person. Imagine how high these
prices would be today.
Another common argument for the death penalty is that it deters
other people from committing murder because they know that they might be
executed. The problem with such a claim is a lack of true evidence,
because the topic is so difficult to study scientifically. In “The Death
Penalty: No Evidence for Deterrence”, Donohue and Wolfers state that there is
no current evidence (as of 2006 when the article was written) that the death
penalty actually deters crime. It states the flaws that are in past
studies. Flaws of past studies are also outlined by Nathanson (2001) in
“An Eye for an Eye”. Upon comparing murder rates in death penalty states
and murder rates in non-death penalty states (according to these statistics), the rate seems to
actually be lower in states without the death penalty (see picture below from
website with the statistics). Whether this is due to the death penalty
being in place or whether it is due to other reasons needs further studies.
Special deterrence is another argument for the death penalty that
states that if you execute a murderer it prevents that person from committing
future murders. Does it prevent offenders from offending again more
than a lifetime sentence and is there an actual problem? As long as the
murder does not escape, I believe that a life sentence would serve
just as well. Also, I do not believe that there is a real problem with
reoffenders. Hugo Bedau compiled a study in which he examined 2,646
people convicted of murder who were released between 1900 and 1976 (Nathanson,
2001, p. 30). He found that only 16 were convicted of another homicide.
Overall, I do not believe that the death penalty actually
accomplishes any of the benefits that advocates of capital punishment raise and
this is one of the main reasons that I believe that the death penalty should
not be in place in current times.
References:
Nathanson, S. (2001). An eye for an eye, the immorality of
punishing by death. (2 ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Pub Inc.
Donohue, J. & Wolfers, J. (2006, April).
Donohue, j., & wolfers, j. (2006, april). the death penalty: No evidence
for deterrence. retrieved from
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/donohuedeter.pdf.Economist, Retrieved
from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/DonohueDeter.pdf
Monday, April 15, 2013
Comparison of Evolution and Creationism
There are many topics that I want to talk about today. First, I will discuss how evolution contradicts the basic laws of science. Secondly, I will show that there are some things that evolutionary scientists cannot account for that creation scientists can account for. Then, I will discuss natural selection and mutations. Finally, I will have a synopsis of all the ideas that I have talked about at present.
Cause and Effect and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
Although cause and effect is a fundamental idea in science, evolution contradicts the idea of cause and effect. In creation, the cause is that the universe was created by God, but in the evolution, the universe created itself. According to Morris (1974), “the universe cannot be its own cause” (p. 25).
The second law of thermodynamics is also fundamental to science. It states that if every system is left to its own devices then it will go from order to disorder (Morris, 1974, p. 25). Evolution seems to contradict this as it states that everything in our universe goes from disorder to order, from less complex, to more complex (Morris, p. 25).
DNA and the Simplest Organism.
DNA holds information needed to make proteins that are essential for the cells (and organisms) survival and it also contains the information for its own replication (Morris, 1974, p. 47). The interesting thing is that proteins assist in the reproduction of DNA and the synthesis of proteins (Morris, 1974, p. 47). Where then did the original proteins come from? The model of creationism has a simple answer to this question: God made the original organisms with the proteins needed to replicate DNA and to make proteins. The model of evolution does not have a simple answer for this. As discussed before, evolutionary scientists have been trying to discover for years whether DNA, RNA, or PNA was the first nucleic acid (Scott, 2009, p.27). Scientists have been able to create amino acids from simple compounds, but they have not yet been able to show how these amino acids could have formed together to make the very complex proteins that are found in organisms today (Meyer, 2009). They have also, to my knowledge, not been able to figure out where DNA came from without using a DNA template (Morris, 1974, p. 50). Even in a laboratory, DNA has to be replicated using preexisting DNA as a template; therefore, why is it so easy to believe that DNA could have come together by chance at a previous time (Teerikorpi, 2009., p. 415)? In Genetics and the Logic of Evolution, the author proposes that DNA came from a world made of RNA. Where did the RNA come from?
How much genetic information is needed in order for an organism to survive? In the 1990’s scientist were seeking to answer this question (Meyer, 2009). In “minimal complexity” experiments, scientists were seeking to find out what the minimal requirements for cellular function were (Meyer, 2009). They found out that the simplest cell, Mysoplasma genitalium, requires 484 proteins and 562,000 bases of DNA in order to survive and perform its daily tasks (Meyer, 2009). According to Meyer (2009), some scientists speculate that 250-400 genes are needed for minimal functionality. Along with genes and proteins though, a membrane, phosphates, lipids, sugars, vitamins, metals, sugars, and countless other molecules would need to come together in order to form the simplest cell (Meyer, 2009). Morris (1974) predicts the chance of all the molecules that a cell needs coming together randomly would be 1 in 1053(p. 61). Furthermore, scientists, with all of these molecules, cannot make life. They must first start out with life, with a cell, in order to synthesize life in a lab; therefore, how could this have happened by chance in some time in the past. J. P. Danielli reported to have synthesized life in 1970, but he did so by first starting with a living cell (Morris, 1974, p. 50).
Natural Selection and Mutation
Natural selection does exist. This can be shown by the peppered moth of England (Morris, 1974, p. 51). From an evolutionary scientist point of view, variation and natural selection bring rise to new species, but from a creationist’s point of view, this is not true. Creationists believe that God had a purpose and that organisms have the ability to change to better suit their environment in order to allow the organism to survive in nature (Morris, 1974, p. 52). Natural selection does not make anything new, as evolutionists suggest, but rather natural selection sieves through organisms that do not have the qualities that suit the environment that they are currently in (Morris, 1974, p. 52). Genetic mutations, according to neo-Darwinism, are one of the sources that bring about new species of higher order (Morris, 1974, pg. 54). Yet, beneficial mutations are very rare and the overall effects of all mutations are negative, suggesting a decrease in order, not an increase in order (Morris, 1974, pg. 55).
Synopsis
Although most people do not consider creation science as a science, I argue that it as much of a science as evolution is a science. Evolution is taught in schools today as truth, but there is little evidence that evolution actually occurred in the past or that it is still occurring today.There is no evidence to where the essential molecule of life, protein, came from or where the template for making proteins, RNA, originated. Although there is evidence that a possible scenario for the environment in the past (although now an outdated scenario) could have caused amino acids to form, how these amino acids come together to form proteins is still unknown. One of the most important parts of the cell is the cell membrane and the origin of this is still unknown (Teerikorpi, 2009, p. 422). Both of these are models of what could have happened, and as a model, creationism seems to be the more reasonable explanation for how the universe and life as we know it came to exist.
References:
Meyer, S. (2009). The Evolution of a Mystery and Why It Matters. Signature in the cell [Kindle version]. HarperCollins Publishers.
Morris, H. M. (1974). Scientific creationism. Master Books.
Weiss, K. M., & Buchanan, A. V. (2004). Genetics and the logic of evolution. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Teerikorpi, P., Valtonen, M., Lehto, K., Byrd, G., & Chernin, A. (2009). The evolving universe and the origin of life. New York, New York: Springer Science Business Media.
Scott, E. C. (2009). Evolution vs. creationism, an introduction. (2nd ed.). Westport, Conneticut: Greenwood Pub Group.
Friday, April 12, 2013
What is Creationism?
In order to be able to compare evolution and creationism,
the definition of the creationism that I will be discussing must first be
established. A simple definition of creationism
is that a supernatural force created the universe and everything in it, but
there are many types of creationism (Scott, 2009, p. 57-75). According to Scott
(2009), day-age, theistic, and intelligent design are a few types of
creationism (p. 63- 75). I will first
establish the theological flaws in certain types of creationism and in my next post
I will compare the view of creationism that I find most accurate to the model
of evolution.
Day-age creationists believe that the days that are mentioned
in Genesis are not 24-hour periods of time and therefore could have been long
periods of time (Scott, 2009, p. 68).
The reason that some people believe that the days mentioned in the Bible
may not be 24-hour periods is because of the way the original Hebrew can be
interpreted. “Yom” and “yamin” can be
translated as day and days respectively or they can also be translated as “a
long period of time” (Morris, 1974, p. 224).
When yom is mentioned in the Bible, it has to be considered in
context. In Genesis 1:4-5, it states, “And
God called the light Day and the darkness he called Night and the evening and
the morning were the first day.” This
defines the term “yom” to a more narrow time frame. It includes a morning and an evening and it
also is the first day. The word “first”
seems to point to a defined period of time instead of just a very long time, as
yom can also be interpreted (Morris, 1974, p. 224).
According to Morris (1974) and according to my own personal
opinion, this theory also does not follow concepts that most Christians, I
included, believe about God (p. 219).
God is omnipotent. Therefore, he has the power to create the world in an
instant. Why would he need or want to
stretch out the creation of the universe or of life for eons of time when it
could have been done in an instant? When
God speaks something, it happens immediately (Ezekiel 12:25 KJV); therefore,
when God said that certain things were being made in Genesis 1, those things
happened immediately, not over thousands of years.
Theistic creationists believe that God works through the
laws of nature. They believe that after
God created the world, He no longer intervenes and only lets the natural laws
govern Earth (Scott, 2009, p. 70). This
theory also had theological flaws. This
theory (like day-age creationism) is contradictory to His omnipotence because
God did not create humans through change over time, as this theory states, but
created them in an instant. Also, the
Big Bang Theory, which is believed to be true by theistic creationists, does
not fit with the story of creation that is illustrated in Genesis. God created the earth on the first day
(Genesis 1:1-5) and he created the solar system and everything in it on the
fourth day (Genesis 1:14-19). This is
opposite of what the Big Bang Theory states.
The last type of creationism that I am going to discuss is
intelligent design. Intelligent design
creationists believe that God’s existence can be proved by examining God’s
works, an idea that was originally coined by William Paley in 1802 (Scott,
2009, p. 70). Intelligent design
creationists believe in natural selection and some of the basic principles of
microevolution, but deny that mutations gave rise to new species (Scott, 2009,
p. 70). The idea that mutations and
other properties of natural law lead to new species is much too complicated to
have happened on its own.
I believe in intelligent design. The information above is my own theological
way of deciphering through the theories based on my beliefs. On Monday I will assess the validity of the
theory of intelligent design in a scientific point of view and I will also
compare intelligent design to evolution.
References:
Morris,
H. M. (1974). Scientific creationism. Master Books.
Scott,
E. C. (2009). Evolution vs. creationism, an introduction. (2nd
ed.). Westport, Conneticut: Greenwood Pub Group.
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
What is evolution?
We have been discussing the past discoveries and ideas that
try to explain how life came into existence.
It is now important to discuss what exactly the model of evolution says
today with all the current knowledge that we have in science.
According to Eugene C. Scott (2009), “The broad
definition of evolution is a cumulative change through time” (p. 26). Evolution claims that galaxies, planets, and
forms of life are different now than they were in the past (Scott, 2009, p. 24). Scott (2009) says that “cosmologists conclude
that the universe as we know it today originated from a dense mass, known as the
Big Bang Theory” (p. 24). The Earth that
we know today formed from matter that was rotating around the sun coming together
and that comets and meteors smashed into the Earth until around 3.8 billion
years ago (Scott, 2009, p. 24).
Cosmologists believe that the organic sources that served as
the origin of life on earth came from the compounds that were in space (Scott,
2009, p. 24). Scientists, in the past and
recently, have been trying to recreate scenarios of what may have first formed
the first life. As stated before, Miller
and Urey in 1952 made amino acids out of gases that were speculated to have been in the environment at the time that life originated (Meyer,
2009). More recently, scientists have tried
to create amino acids by exposure to ultrasonic waves in an aqueous, reductive environment
(Soheila, Jean-Marc, & Micheline, 2010).
Peptide Nucleic Acid (gold) entering DNA's major groove |
Even if life was created from organic chemicals in the environment,
the cell that was created would need to be able to replicate. In order for this process, and many other
processes, in the cell to occur, DNA would need to exist in the cell. DNA is a molecule that is used to create RNA
which in turn is used to create proteins (Scott, 2009, p. 26). DNA is also important because it controls
heredity, the passing of genetic information from one generation to another
(Scott, 2009, p. 26). Evolutionists are
challenged with the question, “Which came first: DNA, RNA or PNA?” (Scott,
2009, p. 27).
Many believe that the answer to that question may be RNA
(Sankaran, 2012, p. 741). Others believe
that DNA may have originated before RNA and PNA (Swadling, Coveney, & Christopher
Greenwell, 2012). Scientists also
believe that PNA, peptide nucleic acid, and less complex nucleic acid, may have
been the first to originate (Scott, 2009, p. 26). The answer to the question of which nucleic acid came first (and many other topics revolving around how life came about from inorganic molecules) has not been answered by evolutionary scientists and yet they still claim that that life came from inorganic molecules.
There is another branch of evolution, known as biological evolution
that became popular with Charles Darwin’s proposals on the origin of life. According to Scott (2009), “Evolutionary
biologists are concerned both with the history of life-the tracing of life’s genealogy-
and with the processes and mechanisms that produced the tree of life” (Scott,
2009, p. 28). One of the main ideas of
biological evolution is the idea of natural selection (Scott, 2009, p. 35). This is a term that Darwin coined (Scott,
2009, p. 35). Natural selection is the basically
the idea that organisms with the better qualities for the environment that they
live in will live longer and therefore produce more offspring and organisms (Scott, 2009, p. 35). The organisms that do not have these qualities that suit the environment
that it lives in will die and will most likely not reproduce and create
offspring (Scott, 2009, p. 35). Reproduction is important to genetics as this is the only way that DNA is passed on to future generations.
There is also another branch of evolution that discusses
geology. How old is Earth? This is one of the central controversial
issues in the topic of evolution and creation (Morris, 1974, p. 131). James Ussher believed that the universe was
created in 4004 B.C. due to the biblical chronology and this has led to many advocates
of creationism to believe that this is the true age of the Earth (Abell, 1983,
p.33). According to Newell (1982),
creationists think that the world is around 10,000 years old and geologists
believe the world to be around 460,000 years old (pg. 109). No matter what years we use, creationists generally think that the world is younger than geologists believe it to be. Is the dating of rocks reliable?
According to Morris (1974), the dating of rocks is not very accurate. The way that rocks are dated is through the use of fossils within the rocks through their record of evolution (Morris, 1974, p. 134-135). Besides the fact that the dating is based on evolution, there are other flaws in this method of dating the rock of the earth. These methods of dating are based on assumptions (as outlined in Morris, 1974, p. 137-170) that are not necessarily true. One assumption is that the earth is a closed system, which it is not (Morris, 1974, p. 138-139). Since this method of measure is based on so many assumptions, how then can we believe that it is accurate?
According to Morris (1974), the dating of rocks is not very accurate. The way that rocks are dated is through the use of fossils within the rocks through their record of evolution (Morris, 1974, p. 134-135). Besides the fact that the dating is based on evolution, there are other flaws in this method of dating the rock of the earth. These methods of dating are based on assumptions (as outlined in Morris, 1974, p. 137-170) that are not necessarily true. One assumption is that the earth is a closed system, which it is not (Morris, 1974, p. 138-139). Since this method of measure is based on so many assumptions, how then can we believe that it is accurate?
Now that a synopsis of the ideas of evolution has been presented,
a synopsis of creationist beliefs can be presented in my next post. In following posts, details about each type
of science and why the creation scientists and the evolutionary scientist
believe what they believe can be discussed and this can bring us to the
conclusion of which science is more believable and why this is.
References:
Abell,
G.O. (1983). The Ages of the Earth and the Universe. In L.R. Godfrey (Eds.), Scientists
confront creationism (33-47). New York, New York: W.W. Norton 7
Company.
Meyer,
S. (2009). The Evolution of a Mystery and Why It Matters. Signature in the cell
[Kindle version]. HarperCollins Publishers.
Morris,
H. M. (1974). Scientific creationism. Master Books.
Sankaran,
N. (2012). How the discovery of ribozymes cast rna in the roles of both chicken
and egg in origin-of-life theories. Causality
in the Biomedical and Social Sciences, 43(4), 741-830. doi: http://0-dx.doi.org.wncln.wncln.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2012.06.002
Scott,
E. C. (2009). Evolution vs. creationism, an introduction. (2nd
ed.). Westport, Conneticut: Greenwood Pub Group.
Soheila,
S., Jean-Marc, L., & Micheline, D. (2010). Amino-acid synthesis in aqueous
media under ultrasonic irradiation. Chemistry Of Natural Compounds,46(1),
75-78. doi:10.1007/s10600-010-9529-1
Swadling,
J. B., Coveney, P. V., & Christopher Greenwell, H. H. (2012). Stability of
free and mineral-protected nucleic acids: Implications for the RNA world. Geochimica
Et Cosmochimica Acta, 83360-378. doi:10.1016/j.gca.2011.12.023
[Untitled photograph of the Earth]. (n.d.). Retrieved April 10, 2013, from
http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view.php?id=57723
[Untitled photograph of PNP]. (n.d.). Retrieved April 10, 2013, from
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=triple-helix-designing-a-new-molecule
Monday, April 8, 2013
Brief History and Science and Theories of Evolution
There are many scientific discoveries and ideas that shape the models that are
presented today that attempt to explain the origin of life.
In recent times, the applicability of the Miller-Urey experiment
to modern theories of the origin of life has been questioned3.
There is a lack of oxygen (a common element in the environment in
this experiment3. This was because the scientists realized
that oxygen would destroy the organic compounds made, if any were made4.
Evolutionary scientists claim that there would have been a
"reducing environment" (in which oxygen would not be present) at
the time that life originated, but recent experiments have shown that there was
most likely oxygen in the environment at that time3.
This reducing environment would not be stable. Also, very
few amino acids were actually produced in these experiments (less than 2%). Furthermore, the amino acids that were
produced in this experiment were racemic, a mixture of both right-handed and
left-handed amino acids (as illustrated in the S, left-handed, and R, right-handed, alanine enantiomers in the picture on the left)4. In
proteins, mostly left-handed amino acids are present4. Therefore, there were even fewer amino acids
in this mixture that would have actually produced proteins.
In 1859, Darwin published On the Origin of Species
where he first introduced his theory about natural selection1.
Since one of the theories of the origin of life involves the concept of
evolution and natural selection, this is a topic that is relevant to our
discussion. According to Meyer (2009), Darwin gave a "plausible
means by which organisms could gradually produce new structures and greater
complexity by a purely undirected material process".
The word undirected is important in this concept because it shows that
Darwin's theory does not line up with the creation science model for the origin
of life. This topic will be discussed in greater detail at a later time.
The first theories about the origin of life came before scientists
fully understood the cell, the smallest unit of life. Many scientists
during the 19th century believed that life came from non-living
sources. Thomas Henry Huxely and Ernst Haeckel were the first to create a
theory of how life came from chemicals1.
Although Huxely and Haeckel were the first to create a theory,
there was not yet data to support such a claim. In 1952, the Miller-Urey
experiment showed that amino acids could be made from a chamber with a gas
mixture (methane, ammonia, water and hydrogen) and lightening(as outlined in the picture on the left)1.
Amino acids are the monomers, or the “building blocks”, in proteins. Proteins are a molecule that is essential to
life.
enantiomers of alanine |
When discussing possible origins of life, a discussion of DNA is
also pertinent2. As this is a very detailed and lengthy topic, this
will be left for another blog entry.
References:
1. Meyer, S. (2009). The Evolution of a Mystery and Why It
Matters. Signature in the cell [Kindle version]. HarperCollins Publishers.
2. Scott, E. C. (2009). Evolution
vs. creationism, an introduction. (2nd ed.). Westport, Conneticut:
Greenwood Pub Group.
3. Miller/Urey
Experiment. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html
4. Peet, J. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2/index.php/component/content/article/51.html
Reference of Pictures:
[Untitled photograph of Miller-Urey experiment]. (n.d.). Retrieved April 1, 2013, from
http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html
[Untitled photograph of enantiomers]. (n.d.). Retrieved April 1, 2013, from
http://opiophilia.blogspot.com/2012/12/chirality-primer.html
Reference of Pictures:
[Untitled photograph of Miller-Urey experiment]. (n.d.). Retrieved April 1, 2013, from
http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html
[Untitled photograph of enantiomers]. (n.d.). Retrieved April 1, 2013, from
http://opiophilia.blogspot.com/2012/12/chirality-primer.html
Friday, April 5, 2013
An Argument that Goes Back to Ancient Times
Now that we have looked at why the topic of the origin of life and
the universe matters today, we will fly back in time (figuratively, of course,
because we have yet to invent that lovely time machine) in order to discover
where the current ideas for the origin of the universe and life
originated.
Two basic ideas about how the world came into existence have been
circulating for centuries (since the time of the ancient Greeks)1.
These two ideas are materialism and idealism.
Materialism says that the source of everything that is seen today
is matter and/or energy1. Simply
put, elementary particles form molecules which then form
simple life which then goes on to form complex life that we see today.
The other idea, idealism, states that a preexisting mind created
matter1. Theism is a version of this idea which states that
God is the mind that created this matter.
Both of these ideas are very similar to the models that I are presented in today's times. Materialism is most like the evolution model and Theism
is most like the creation model that we have today.
Although these ideas have been around since the time of the
ancient Greeks, science was not presented to support either of these ideas
until the 1860’s1. This decade is where we will begin our discussion
on Monday.
References:
1.
Meyer,
S. (2009). The Evolution of a Mystery and Why It Matters. Signature in the cell [Kindle version]. HarperCollins
Publishers.
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Origin of Life and the Universe: How does it apply today?
How does the topic of the origin of life and the universe
apply to today?
Why does it matter what happened that long ago?
The controversy of the origin of life and the origin of the
universe are topics that have been debated frequently in recent years. Recently, these topics have become popular
because of the debate of whether or not creation science should be taught in public
schools. The Supreme Court case Edwards
v. Aguillard (1987) declared that requiring creation science to be taught
alongside evolution was unconstitutional because it promoted a particular
religion1.
Through my research of the two models of the origin of life
and the universe, I have realized two flaws in the public school systems. Firstly, the traditional wording of evolution
as a theory is quite misleading. A
theory, using scientific terms, is a hypothesis or group of hypothesizes that
have been tested repeatedly and have not
been disproved2. Therefore,
both evolution and intelligent design (also known as creation science) are not
theories, but rather models that attempt to explain the origins of life and of
the universe2.
The second flaw in public school systems is the assumption
that the evolution model is scientific, whereas the creation model is merely
religious2. Neither models
can be tested as the events that occurred happened at one event in time and
this event cannot be repeated.
Therefore, science can only propose models that may fit the event that
occurred, but conclusions of what had to of occurred cannot be proven by science.
In order to compare the two models and determine which one
is more probable, only the scientific aspects of each model should be considered. In this discussion of the two models, all
scriptural references will not be included in order to keep this a purely
scientific discussion.
References
1.
Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987)
2.
Morris,
H. M. (1974). Scientific creationism. Master Books.
Monday, April 1, 2013
Creationist and Scientist: What?
"He has made the earth by His power, He has established the world by His wisdom, And has stretched out the heavens at His discretion."
Jeremiah 10:12 NKJV
I am a creationist. That is right, a creationist, but I am also a scientist. You may be wondering how in the world this is possible, but trust me it is.
I believe that God created the fabulous world around us in six days. I believe that Jesus Christ lived as both 100% man and 100% God and that he died on the cross and rose on the third day. I am extremely thankful that Jesus Christ is my Savior. I believe that the Bible is 100% accurate and 100% relevant to Today’s times. I believe in the truth of the Bible not only because of my faith, but also because of science.
I love learning about the world around me through science because I believe that I learn more about my God as I study science.
It amazes me at how much He enacted in those six days that He created the world. He created DNA that encodes for all the proteins that make an organism unique from every other organism. He created all the atoms and their properties. He created plants that would serve as medicine and animals that would be used for food. He created so many magnificent things in those six days.
I love learning about archaeological discoveries around the world. I love archaeology because it gives us clues about the past. I love forensic anthropology and forensic science for the same reason. It gives us clues about someone’s past. These clues can be used to determine what may or may not have happened to that person before, during, and after the events that led to his or her death.
This blog, therefore, is about my journey through science and the world around me. I will be discussing archaeological finds, both recent and not so recent, that deal with the Bible. I will also be discussing the validity of Creationism versus other theories. I will also discuss current “hot” topics, such as abortion, and what I believe the Bible says about these topics.
My discussions will not solely be based upon my opinions on the matter, but will be based on scholarly research of both the Biblical and extra-biblical nature. I plan on posting on this blog on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, so let us continue this conversation on Wednesday with the most logical beginning for our discussion: Creationism.
References:
[Untitled photograph of the
Bible and DNA]. (n.d.). Retrieved April 1, 2013, from
http://www.bible-reflections.net/articles/should-the-church-embrace-or-fight-science/3050/
http://www.bible-reflections.net/articles/should-the-church-embrace-or-fight-science/3050/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)