Bloglovin'

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>

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

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,

That it might take hold of the ends of the earth,
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

“This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created,

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

Updated Posts

I have now updated the previous posts on creationism based on more research.  Enjoy the updated posts!

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.

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 1^st century B.C.E. and the middle of 1^st 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                      

                http://www.sacred-destinations.com/israel/jesus-boat

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

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).

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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 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 19^th 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. 

Left-handed and Right-handed
enantiomers of alanine

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.

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

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.

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.

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/