2012

Just in case you're wondering about the world ending in 2012, here are some perspectives to consider.

Reasons To Believe's Response to the motion picture "2012"

Christianity Today also had a post today on its web site about this topic: "Doomsday at the Cineplex."

Crash the Super Bowl

My husband (who is still very much out of work) made this spec commercial for Doritos last weekend in our garage. I thought it turned out pretty good so I wanted to share, even though I know this has nothing to do with either science or apologetics.

He has entered it in the Doritos "Crash the Super Bowl" contest.



If anyone knows of a video production job, please let me know. We're open to relocating, if necessary.

Question: Old-Earth Dinosaur Books

Question from Karla:

I have recently started homeschooling my three 5 year olds. We will soon be covering a week's worth of dinosaurs. The curriculum (My Father's World) comes from the Young Earth perspective, therefore suggesting Answers in Genesis books, such as What Really Happened to the Dinosaurs?. Can you suggest any Old Earth books for 5-7 year olds that take on the topic of dinosaurs?

Sadly, there is really only about one option. Unfortunately, it's out of print. But if you can find it, it's about the only game in town.

Dinosaurs! by Michael Carroll

Our family has also enjoyed the Kingfisher Illustrated Dinosaur Encyclopedia. Even though it's written from a secular perspective and contains a few references to evolution, the science is correct. Personally, I've found that I prefer to use books with a few references to evolution than young-earth books. I feel like it's much easier to tell a kid to simply substitute "design" for evolution than trying to untangle young-earth errors. But maybe that's just me.

Warming Up to Darwin?

High profile article on the FoxNews.com web site today promoting theistic evolution. This movement definitely seems to be gaining momentum.

Will Science and Religion Reconcile Soon?

Exiting the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History in early October, I found myself caught in a crossfire.

Across Independence Avenue stood a handful of Christians carrying placards encouraging the museum’s visitors to forego the evolutionary leanings of Darwin. On the steps of the museum stood an increasingly vocal crowd chanting Darwin’s name over and over.

For several minutes, the two sides traded insults and it wasn’t long before the hoots and hollers reached a frightening crescendo. At one point, two gay men stood in the middle of the street, passionately kissing to a wave of applause.

The incident – also witnessed by my 11-year-old son – raised the following question in my mind for the umpteenth time: are Christianity and Darwinism mutually exclusive? Fortunately, as I’ve come to find out, there’s a growing movement between the two fronts that says one can have faith in both religion and science.

What's the Big Deal About Ardi?

Have you heard about Ardi? She is yet another new branch on the hominid tree. Since this particular species has received so much media attention, I thought it would be good to post some relevant links. It might make an interesting "science in the news"/current events study for some students who have interest in this sort of thing.

Here is the news article from the Associated Press - "Before Lucy came Ardi, new earliest hominid found." This is a fairly good synopsis of the data.

The AP has also posted a slide show of images of Ardi.

Ardi even has her own documentary on the Discovery Channel. Lots of interactive things to explore there.

And last but definitely not least, here is a link to the issue of Science in which a series of 11 papers were published about Ardi. This is a highly unusual situation, detailing 15 years of careful study by scientists from different disciplines. "Before 'Lucy,' there was 'Ardi': Oldest hominid skeleton provides new evidence for human evolution"

So, what's all the fuss about? Ardi is being touted as the "oldest human ancestor." This is largely because Ardi is a primate who walks on two legs (bipedalism) and this is viewed by scientists as a key feature of what defines a "human." Essentially, the bottom line here is that Ardi provides evidence that bipedalism developed about a million years earlier than Lucy.

Here is an artist's rendition of what Ardi may have looked like. Take a look at those hands. They're enormous (assuming they're drawn to scale).

Obviously, all of the above resources are written from an evolutionary point of view, where Ardi is viewed as being some kind of ancestor for modern humans. I can't emphasize strongly enough how important it is for Christians to take this kind of data seriously. We can't just engage in hand-waving, saying that scientists are in some kind of conspiracy to confuse us. This is a real skeleton of a real creature made by God long ago. The question is, how should Christians think about it?

Here is one perspective. Reasons To Believe has posted a podcast commenting on this discovery from an old-earth creation perspective. Fuz goes into many more details than what I've said here.

Mt. Sinai Yahweh Inscription - Debunked

If you don't read Todd Bolen's fine blog (Bible Places), then you're really missing out on some great, informed commentary on biblical archaeology.

Anyways, his blog post for today points out Gordon Franz's blog entry entitled “Yahweh Inscription Discovered at Mount Sinai.” This is a careful analysis of claims by Robert Cornuke (who is kind of rogue archaeologist) concerning an inscribed stone allegedly found near Mt. Sinai. (Drawing from Franz's blog.)


Apparently, Cornuke is making the rounds at prominent Christian events, such as Promise Keepers, making these claims. The segment about the inscription begins at around 5:17. (Frankly, he makes several other questionable claims in this clip as well, but I won't go into that here.)



I am bringing this up because I think it's another great example of "crackpot" apologetics. Christians always need to be sure that we are using sound arguments, not just arguments that sound good. I like how Todd puts it:

[T]here will always be a market for the sorts of things that Cornuke and others like him are selling. Why? Some people (rightly) believe the Bible is a trustworthy historical source. Some people (rightly) believe that scholarship and media are biased against their views. Some people (wrongly) conclude that anything that scholarship and the media dismiss is trustworthy. This leaves a wide open door for charlatans, hucksters, as well as well-meaning but ignorant individuals.

If Cornuke's claims are legitimate, then he has nothing to fear by having professional archaeologists examine his evidence.

Replicating the Shroud

Is it or isn't it?

Carbon dating tests by multiple laboratories in the late 80s caused a sensation. For skeptics, it was proof positive that the Shroud of Turin was a medieval hoax (fabricated somewhere between 1260 and 1390). This was the period when it was common for people to collect sacred artifacts, such as the supposed nails or pieces of wood from the cross. This may seem silly to us today, but back then, it was big business. And what could be better than a claim that you had the actual burial cloth of Jesus?

Others claimed that the carbon results were inconclusive because of a bad sample. Of course, scientists could run more carbon 14 tests, but that would mean taking a bigger sample. Taking a bigger sample would mean cutting off a larger piece of the so-called sacred object. Some people might not be too happy about that.

Scientists have struggled, however, to come up with some kind of explanation for how the image was left on the cloth. Now an Italian scientist says he has reproduced the full-sized shroud using materials and techniques that he believes would have been available in the middle ages. Garlaschelli reproduced the full-sized shroud using materials and techniques that were available in the middle ages.

He placed a linen sheet flat over a volunteer and then rubbed it with a pigment containing traces of acid. A mask was used for the face. The pigment was then artificially aged by heating the cloth in an oven and washing it, a process which removed it from the surface but left a fuzzy, half-tone image similar to that on the Shroud. He believes the pigment on the original Shroud faded naturally over the centuries. He then added blood stains, burn holes, scorches and water stains to achieve the final effect.

Here's the short version of what I think about the Shroud: Who cares? Appealing to the Shroud of Turin as a compelling "evidence" for Christianity is weak. It sounds really sensational to think that we have the actual burial cloth of Jesus, but in my opinion, Christians would be much better served to focus their attention on those evidences which rest on more solid ground.

UPDATE 9/20/2009 - Reasons To Believe has now posted a short podcast discussing the Shroud.

Genesis 1:1 Mistranslated?

This is the entry on today's Biblical Archaeology Review blog:

A New Creation Theory
October 13, 2009

Professor Ellen van Wolde of Radboud University in the Netherlands claims that new textual analysis suggests that the Bible’s opening sentence has been mistranslated. Van Wolde believes the Hebrew was translated incorrectly, and that the writers of the Bible never intended to suggest that God created the world from nothing.

She suggests that the verb bara in the first sentence of the book of Genesis translates as “to spatially separate” and not “to create.” It is a theory that is bound to inspire a robust debate: that the Bible does not suggest that God created the earth out of nothing, but that the earth already existed.

Here is the news report on this theory.

I'm not going to offer any comment on this issue. I'll leave that to the experts to debate. But I don't think this is a "new" theory. I've heard it before.

Here is one book that may be of some help: Creation out of Nothing: A Biblical, Philosophical, and Scientific Exploration, by William Lane Craig and Paul Copan

And, here are several articles on the topic available for free on the Reasons To Believe web site.

The Now and The Not Yet

Here's the headline: "Faith-healing parents charged in death of infant son"

There are an increasing number of these cases where parents are refusing medical treatment for their children based on religious reasons. Many times this involves some kind of appeal to believing God will heal the child without the help of modern medicine. Putting aside the legal questions for a minute of what we can and should do in cases like this, I'd like to offer some theological perspectives.

I think that there is a possibility that cases like this may be rooted in errant eschatology. Seriously. Here's why.

Eschatology is the study of "last things." But, to some degree, it also involves the study of how the end has already come. For example, when Jesus healed people, He was demonstrating what the Kingdom of God would be like - no more sickness. When He raised people from the dead, He was demonstrating that death would someday no longer have power over us. When Jesus Himself was raised from the dead, He gave us a glimpse into what it is going to be like to have a glorified body. When the Holy Spirit came on Pentecost to indwell God's people, it was a partial fulfillment of the "last days" described in Joel 2.

So while Christ is ruling and reigning in heaven right now, the Kingdom of God has not yet fully been inaugurated. We still die. We still struggle with evil. We still experience disease and sickness. Theologians call the current state we are living in, "the now and the not yet." Christians live “between the times” — meaning between the time of Christ’s resurrection victory and the time of its cosmic fulfillment in the coming of the promised Kingdom.

Ok, so how does this relate to the whole faith-healing parents issue? I think that people who adopt this approach are (either consciously or unconsciously) committing the error of thinking that the Kingdom of God has fully come. Because Jesus healed people during His earthly ministry that that is somehow a normative state. It WILL be normative in the New Creation (Rev. 20-21), but we're not there yet. Oh sure, we should expect God to break into this existence and heal people and there is nothing wrong with praying for healing. But to turn down medicine as somehow demonstrating a lack of faith is to not have a proper understanding of which era of redemptive history we are living.

Conversely, people who deny that healing happen today are, in my opinion, denying that in some sense the "end" has come and that we can expect healing and miracles.

One final note - I hear many people say, "I don't need to learn theology. I just believe in Jesus." The naivete behind such a statement deeply disturbs me. Because it's situations like this where what one believes about God and the nature of reality (that's theology) has a direct impact on our lives, and the lives of our children. And it's not enough to just hand-wave these situations away as being "nut-cases." These people have deeply held beliefs and reasons for what they believe. Do we? Sadly, I find that most Christians don't.

Glasses Shlasses

Ok, so I've been thinking more about Jason Lisle's presentation that I heard yesterday at the Multnomah chapel. Lisle, like almost every creation science textbook in print, makes the claim that "everyone wears mental glasses" and that "only if you wear the correct mental glasses can you interpret the data correctly." Lisle compared the glasses that secular (non-Christian) scientists wear to wearing glasses with red lenses. Everything they see is red or distorted. The implication is that non-Christians can’t do good science because they don't see nature through the right set of lenses. I call this view, "Biblicism."

Not only does biblicism not represent the historic Christian perspective, I have yet to see anyone point out the fact that biblicism seems to promote epistemological relativism. The net effect of the biblicist approach is that since all "facts" can be interpreted from a different point of view then no interpretations can be tested to see if they're truly valid. At that point, objective knowledge of the real world is at best inaccessible or unknowable and at worst, doesn't even exist.

Just some thoughts that maybe I'll develop into an article at some point. I'm not even sure this is a valid argument. Anyone have any thoughts?

Multnomah Chapel

I sat in on a chapel service at Multnomah Bible college today where Jason Lisle was a guest speaker. One of my friends from seminary days is on the theology faculty there. It just so happened that I was in town visiting.

The talk was nothing surprising - it was pretty much the usual message of "if you believe in anything other than young-earth creationism then you are undermining the authority of Scripture." The science was unsophisticated and lampooned scientists.

Not much else to say. Just sad and disappointing.

Co-Op? Or Something?

Thought I'd give this one more try...

Anyone in So Cal interested in joining me for some kind of homeschool co-op this year? Maybe once a week for a science, Bible or youth apologetics class?

I'd also consider facilitating my "Good Science, Good Faith" course.

I'll teach. I just need some students!

Any takers?

The "Real" Eve & Co.

We're doing ancient history again this year (round two with my older daughter, round one with the first grader). We started with a short discussion on archaeology and early humans. We also discussed the transition from nomadic lifestyles (paleolithic era) to farming (neolithic era).

So, while this subject is on my mind, I thought I'd share a few resources along these lines...

• Very cool interactive journey explaining human origins (Although the presentation is based on evolutionary assumptions, the scientific data is generally correct.)

• The Real Eve (PBS documentary explaining genetic anthropology; probably suitable for middle school students and older; you might need to break viewing up into two or three sessions since this is a 90-minute video)

• Free lesson plans on early humans (probably contains some evolutionary content, so you'll have to use some discretion)
  

• Changes in Daily Life: Paleolithic to Neolithic

Here are a few additional discussion ideas for biblical tie-ins:

1. How are Adam (Genesis 2:15) and his sons (Genesis 4:2b) described? Do these descriptions sound more consistent with what we know about the lifestyle practices of nomads or farmers? Do some research on the origins of farming (agriculture) and shepherding. When did these professions begin?


2. Challenge Question: If Adam and Eve were the first humans, but farming practices didn't begin until around 10,000 years ago, possibly a little earlier, what possible challenges does that create, given the fact that genetic and paleo-archeological data places the first humans between 60,000 to 150,000 years ago? What possible solutions could be proposed to this problem without compromising the historicity of Adam and Eve as real people?


3. According to Genesis 9:20, what did Noah do after the flood? When did vineyard planting and wine-making begin? How would knowing this information possibly help us date Noah's flood?


4. Many archaeologists believe the "tower of Babel" describes a Mesopotamian Ziggurat. Assuming this is the case, when might the events described in Genesis 11:1-9 have taken place?

Rewriting "Human" History?

The mainstream media came out with some sensationalistic headlines a couple weeks ago saying that this skull is threatening to "overturn" our understanding of human origins (evolution). Here is one version of the story:

"Ancient skeletons discovered in Georgia threaten to overturn the theory of human evolution"

The issue at stake here is that the best evidence says humans originated in east Africa. But this human skull shows up very early (1.8 million years ago) in Georgia (former member of the Soviet Union, not the Georgia in the U.S.). This is why the media saying that this group of skulls threatens to "overturn" our understanding of the entire evolutionary paradigm for human origins.

Well, not so fast.

At most, these skulls muddy the evolutionary scenario a bit. But I'm getting ahead of myself...

First, one important point of clarification - these specimens from Georgia are NOT Homo sapiens sapiens (anatomically modern human or what Christians may call descendants of Adam and Eve). They are hominids. More specifically, they are thought to be a Homo habilis (who, in evolutionary terms, would have been the ancestor of Homo ergaster [African ancestor] and Homo erectus [Asian ancestor], who supposedly migrated out of Africa and eventually give rise to Neanderthals and modern humans).

Let's assume for a minute that this Georgian specimen has been correctly identified as Homo habilis and correctly dated at 1.8 million years old, so what? What does this mean? Well, basically, it means that apparently, hominids migrated out of Africa earlier than previously thought and then migrated back to Africa prior to the appearance of modern humans. Here is a depiction of one possible scenario.


So, what are we to make of all this? Well, first of all, this is NOT a new discovery. Reasons To Believe commented on these same remains in their book, Who Was Adam? several years ago. Basically, this is a case of the media picking up on something that isn't new news and making something sensationalistic out of it.

Secondly, while this discovery may muddy the evolutionary "family tree" a bit, it doesn't really affect the picture from a creation model perspective. How is that? Well, from an old-earth creation perspective, we would understand hominids as interesting creatures that God made, but not as ancestors of modern humans. They are behaviorally and biologically distinct. In other words, from our perspective the Georgian fossils have no evolutionary connection to modern humans. They are distinct and separation creations of God.

Fuz Rana from Reasons To Believe, and author of Who Was Adam?, has posted a good podcast explaining his perspective on this specimen.

Clarifications

A while back I posted some thoughts re: the interview between Reasons To Believe scholars, Hugh Ross and Jeff Zweerink and young-earth physicist John Hartnett. I have received a couple emails from people who were offended by my "sarcastic" tone.

For whatever it's worth, I actually tried made a deliberate effort in the original post to be accurate. I took a great amount of time to write out exact transcripts rather than summarizing my own impressions of what was said. But apparently I still managed to offend a couple people, including Mr. Hartnett. If you were one of those people, I sincerely apologize. I have reworked the post a bit to try and cut out the parts that may have been offensive.