Missing the Obvious Implication by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

 

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=1568

Missing the Obvious Implication

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

The November 2004 National Geographic article titled “Was Darwin Wrong?” was a rather feeble attempt to bolster a decaying belief in the theory of evolution. A major refutation of the various pieces of “evidence” presented in the article was posted on our Web site soon after the article was published (see Thompson and Harrub, 2004). Yet, just one page before the article defending Darwin, National Geographic dealt an unintentional blow to the theory of evolution, although it seems the editors completely missed the logical implication of the research presented.

In an article titled “Who’s Driving?,” Joel Achenbach, a Washington Post staff writer, reported on a race that took place in March of 2004. The winner of this unusual race was to receive one million dollars in prize money. The race course consisted of a 142-mile trek through the Mojave Desert that had to be completed in ten hours.

Reporting the results of the vehicles’ performances would at first appear catastrophic. “One had its brake lock up in the starting area. Another began by slamming into a wall.... One flipped.... One went a little more than a mile and plunged through a fence” (Achen­bach, 2004, p. 1). Yet, when it is understood that there were no drivers in these robotic vehicles, the race results appear almost humorous. In fact, the vehicle that successfully maneuvered the farthest went a whopping 7.4 miles “before it ran into a berm, and the front wheels caught on fire.” Obviously, the ability to send an unmanned device across the desert proved much more difficult than at first anticipated.

One of the men who helped build two of the vehicles commented: “You get a lot of respect for natural biological systems.... Even ants do all these functions effortlessly. It’s very hard for us to imitate that and put it into our machines.” The author of the article then contrasted the vehicles to a two-year-old toddler, explaining that the “autonomous vehicles, despite being loaded with lasers, radar, stereoscopic cameras, gyroscopes, advanced computers, and GPS guidance, had trouble figuring out fast enough the significance of obstacles that a two-year-old human recognizes immediately.” Achenbauch then concluded that the toddler “is more advanced, even in diapers, than any machine humans have devised.”

Let’s put this into perspective. Several extremely intelligent individuals put their heads together to design thirteen vehicles equipped with state-of-the-art gadgets and gismos that cost thousands of dollars, and which are feats of intellectual genius in and of themselves. These intelligently designed vehicles were given the challenge of traversing the Mojave Desert, and the best-performing vehicle made it a mere 7.4 miles. The author of the article then concluded that a two-year-old toddler is more advanced than any “machine humans have devised.” And yet the article on the next page purports to explain that this toddler arose via no intelligence, by a series of random mutations and chance processes over millions of years.

Is not the implication of Achenbach’s statement about the toddler obvious? If intelligent humans cannot design a machine that even begins to approach the abilities of a toddler, what does that imply? It implies that whoever designed the toddler maintains an intellect that is far superior to the combined total of all human intellect.

The psalmist wrote, “I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works, and that my soul knows very well. My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth” (139:14-15). In a poetic description of God’s creation of the psalmist in the womb, the phrase “skillfully wrought” brings to light the ingenuity and design of God’s creative process in the formation of every individual human ever born. It is no wonder that humans outstrip every humanly designed machine that will ever be produced. What else would one expect from the Master Builder whose thoughts are higher than human thought as the heavens are higher than the Earth (Isaiah 55:9)? Yes, Darwin was woefully wrong, as was the article attempting to defend his position. And, ironically, one of the major pieces of evidence disproving Darwin’s theory was presented just one page before the lengthy article that attempted to prove it.

REFERENCES

Achenbach, Joel (2004), “Who’s Driving?” National Geographic, 206[5]:1, November.

Thompson, Bert and Brad Harrub (2004), “National Geographic Shoots Itself in the Foot—Again!”, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2644.

Militant Atheism by Eric Lyons, M.Min. Kyle Butt, M.Div.

 

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2051

Militant Atheism

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min. Kyle Butt, M.Div.

The stereotypical scientist in a white lab coat who follows the facts wherever they may lead, and reports those data without prejudice, often does not correspond to reality these days. In fact, a large majority of scientists now believe that God does not exist. These scientists feel that they should militantly spread their ideas of atheism and evolution as far and wide as possible. They abhor the idea of a supernatural Creator and believe it should be eradicated from human consciousness. Just how determined are some of the leading atheistic evolutionists to expunge theism from the world? A recent issue of the journal New Scientist, which just celebrated its 50th anniversary, sheds some light on the subject. In an article titled, “In Place of God: Can Secular Science Ever Oust Religious Belief—and Should It Even Try?,” Michael Brooks recounted a recent meeting of “some of the leading practitioners of modern science” in La Jolla, California (2006, 192[2578]:8). They had gathered to discuss, among other questions, “Should science do away with religion?” Their answers are alarming. [NOTE: The following quotations are extracted from Brooks’ report.]

Cosmologist Steven Weinberg was first to address the question, “Should science do away with religion?” He responded with an unequivocal “yes,” saying: “The world needs to wake up from the long nightmare of religion.... Anything we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done, and may in fact be our greatest contribution to civilization” (p. 9, emp. added). Since scientists at the symposium used the terms “religion” and “God” interchangeably, Weinberg in essence was saying that ridding God from the world would be one of science’s greatest achievements. He seemed so certain that scientists could achieve this goal that he actually admitted he would “miss it once it was gone” (p. 9). How were Weinberg’s comments received, you might ask? According to attendee Michael Brooks, he received “a rapturous response” (p. 9), before being heavily criticized by some, such as Richard Dawkins, surprisingly enough, “for not being tough enough on religion” (p. 9).

Dawkins, who is perhaps the most celebrated evolutionist alive today, was one of the most militant atheists at the conference. He stated: “I am utterly fed up with the respect we have been brainwashed into bestowing upon religion,” i.e., God (p. 9; cf. Ecclesiastes 12:12-13). Passive atheism apparently should not be tolerated. Dawkins is “ready to mobilize” his “big...enthusiastic choir” of evolutionary colleagues (p. 11). He said: “There’s a certain sort of negativity you get from people who say ‘I don’t like religion but you can’t do anything about it.’ That’s a real counsel of defeatism. We should roll our sleeves up and get on with it” (p. 11, emp. added). Dawkins even compared evolutionary scientists’ position in the 21st century to that of homosexuals in the late 1960s: everyone needs to be “willing to stand up and be counted,” so that “they could change things” (p. 11).

Dawkins likely called for such drastic action because he has seen atheism lose some of its battles. In his book, The Blind Watchmaker, he admitted that modern creationists have been “disturbingly successful” in their attempts to combat evolution in “American education and textbook publishing” (1996, p. 241). He also wrote: “There are still those who seek to deny the truth of evolution, and there are disturbing signs that their influence is even growing, at least in local areas of the United States” (p. x). The influence of anti-evolutionists disturbs Dawkins greatly—so much so that he and his colleagues feel compelled to advance evolution, while doing “away with religion” (Brooks, 192[2578]:9).

Evolutionist Neil deGrasse Tyson of the Hayden Planetarium in New York “spoke with an evangelist’s zeal” (p. 10, emp. added). He referred to a recent poll taken of members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences which revealed that 15 percent did not indicate they were atheists, and asked: “How come the number isn’t zero?... That should be the subject of everybody’s investigation. That’s something that we can’t just sweep under the rug” (p. 10). To Tyson, theistic members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences represent “a problem that needs to be addressed” (p. 10). One wonders what Tyson would suggest if Louis Pasteur, Isaac Newton, Carolus Linnaeus, and other brilliant theistic scientists from the past were members of this group? Kick them out for not being atheists, even though their contributions to science likely far exceed any efforts put forth by most current members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences? Even the staunch evolutionist Niles Eldredge admitted that “all the great biologists and geologists prior to Darwin were, in some sense at least, creationists” (2001, p. 49).

Dr. Harry Kroto of Florida State University also stepped forward at the conference declaring himself “ready to fight the good fight” (Brooks, 192[2578]:11). He proposed the launching of “a coordinated global effort at education, media outreach and campaigning on behalf of science,” using especially the Internet to take evolutionary science into every home (p. 11). If you think students in private religious schools will be untouched and invulnerable to the efforts of modern-day evolutionists, consider that Kroto has these schools in his sights as well. He declared: “We must try to work against faith schooling” (p. 11).

Michael Brooks summarized the overall attitude at the La Jolla, California symposium in the following words: “science can take on religion and win” (p. 11, emp. added). So, in the words of Richard Dawkins, “We [evolutionists—EL/KB] should roll our sleeves up and get on with it” (p. 11).

The irony of this militant attitude toward religion is that evolutionists sometimes downplay such aggressive tactics in an attempt to lull the religious populace into thinking that no battle is taking place. Niles Eldredge, the Curator in the Department of Invertebrate Paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History, wrote a book titled The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism. In that book, he said: “Creationists have spuriously convinced many citizens that huge hunks of science are antithetical to their religious beliefs” (2001, p. 174). One would not have to read past the first page of Brook’s New Scientist article to understand that the evolutionists themselves openly admit that their atheistic, evolutionary beliefs are antithetical to religion. To add further irony to Eldredge’s statement, the back of his book quotes Booklist as saying that Eldredge’s book is “a clarion call rallying evolutionist [sic] to battle.”

It Starts Early and Stays Late

In the mid-1990s, philosopher Daniel Dennett wrote a book titled Darwin’s Dangerous Idea. Leading evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker, Philip Kitcher, and Edward O. Wilson highly recommended the book, calling it “surpassingly brilliant” and “essential,” as it persuades readers that “evolution by natural selection is vital to the future of philosophy.” One of the most disturbing comments in Dennett’s book concerned parents who teach their children (among other things) “that ‘Man’ is not a product of evolution” (1995, p. 519, emp. added). Dennett wrote: “[T]hose of us who have freedom of speech will feel free to describe your teachings as the spreading of falsehoods, and will attempt to demonstrate this to your children at our earliest opportunity” (p. 519). Notice the jab at religious parents—accusing them of lying and not “freely” telling the truth about man’s origins. More important, observe how he then proceeded to testify that evolutionists like himself will endeavor to convince the children of theists that evolution is not fiction, but a fact that will be communicated “at our earliest opportunity.” How early? Consider one example.

The toddler pop-up “history” book titled Life on Earth was published in 2002 by Barron’s Educational Series. It is 21 pages of colorful illustrations, captivating pop-ups, and evolutionary dogma. It tells the story of evolution with less than 10 words per page. Beginning with “the first living things” in the seas, it proceeds with fish crawling out onto land and becoming amphibians. It then tells of the reptiles’ appearance, followed by the mammals, and eventually the first “hairy” humans. In case a child misses the point of the book, placed strategically just above a baby in diapers sliding down the tail of a large dinosaur, the text on the back cover reinforces the main point: “Millions of years ago life on Earth started in the oceans. Then it moved onto the land and eventually led to YOU!”

Those who teach evolution target children. Niles Eldredge wrote: “I maintain my conviction that the real battleground is in the classroom” (2001, p. 157, emp. added). In the same book, he asserted: “The real battle is still being fought at school board meetings and in public school classrooms” (p. 149, emp. added). Notice the military terminology used. Mark it down. Many within the evolutionary community recognize that the ideas of a supernatural God and organic evolution are at war. Eldredge and others offer a glimpse into their battle strategy: start early in the school system.

Near the end of his book, Eldredge included a list from Eugenie Scott, Director of the National Center for Science Education, of 25 things “parents, teachers, and even scientists” can do to help evolution win its battle over creation. The number one item listed: “Donate books and videos about evolution to school and public libraries” (p. 178, emp. added). Number eight: “Share your views with school board members, legislators, textbook commissioners, and other educational policy makers” (p. 179, emp. added). Number 16: “PARENTS: Make sure your child’s teacher knows s/he has your support for teaching about evolution” (p. 179). Number 22: “K-12 TEACHERS: Work with your colleagues to create a supportive atmosphere in your school and community” (p. 180). Number 23: “K-12 TEACHERS: Work with colleagues to develop or publicize workshops and in-service units about evolution; take advantage of them yourself” (p. 180). A cursory reading of the list shows exactly the primary target of evolutionists: children and educational systems.

Dr. Dennett and his band of evolutionary guerrillas are serious about teaching evolution at the “earliest opportunity.” It can start with what parents perceive as “innocent” pop-up books, and continue into elementary school, middle school, and high school. Then, generally with more fervor than ever before, many evolutionary college professors make it their mission to verbally beat God out of their students. Sometime ago a gentleman visited one of our creation/evolution seminars. He had attended a well-known university in the southeastern United States. He recounted how he entered one of his science classes at the beginning of the semester, and heard his professor ask the class to stand up if they believed in God. Seven individuals stood up. The professor then went on to say that by the end of the semester not one of them would stand up when he asked that question. Sure enough, toward the end of the semester the professor posed the question again, “How many of you believe in God?” Only one student stood up.

Where Will It Lead?

If militant evolutionists have their way, what ultimately will become of nonconformists and disbelievers of evolutionary theory? Let us allow the evolutionists themselves to tell us. Richard Dickerson, a molecular biologist, wrote an article titled “The Game of Science.” In that article, he insisted that science cannot tolerate a supernatural Creator Who would perform miracles or create the Universe in six, 24-hour days. He also proposed that real science never can resort to invoking miracles as a legitimate explanation for anything that happens in the real world. Dickerson said: “[I]nvoking miracles and special creation violates the rules of the game of science and inhibits progress” (as quoted in Scott, 2004, p. 254). According to Dickerson, then, what should be done with any person who does believe in a supernatural Creator and a straightforward reading of Genesis 1? He is quick to offer his opinion. He says: “People who do not understand that concept (evolution—EL/KB) can never be real scientists, and should not be allowed to misrepresent science to young people from whom the ranks of the next generation of scientists will be drawn” (as quoted in Scott, p. 254, emp. added). Richard Dawkins quipped: “No serious biologist doubts the fact that evolution has happened, nor that all living creatures are cousins of one another” (1996, p. 287, emp.).

Consider one example of intolerance toward creationism in 2002 at Texas Tech University. When undergraduate student Micah Spradling requested a letter of recommendation from a biology instructor in order to enroll in a pre-medical program, Professor Michael Dini informed him that he needed to “‘truthfully and forthrightly’ believe in human evolution to receive a letter of recommendation” (see Kitchen, 2002). At the time, Dr. Dini’s Web site contained the following defense of why he asked students if they believed in the factuality of evolution:

Why do I ask this question? Let’s consider the situation of one wishing to enter medical school. Whereas medicine is historically rooted first in the practice of magic and later in religion, modern medicine is an endeavor that springs from the sciences, biology first among these. The central, unifying principle of biology is the theory of evolution, which includes both micro- and macro-evolution, and which extends to all species. How can someone who does not accept the most important theory in biology expect to properly practice in a field that is so heavily based on biology? It is hard to imagine how this can be so, but it is easy to imagine how physicians who ignore or neglect the Darwinian aspects of medicine or the evolutionary origin of humans can make bad clinical decisions....

Good medicine, like good biology, is based on the collection and evaluation of physical evidence. So much physical evidence supports the evolution of humans from non-human ancestors that one can validly refer to the “fact” of human evolution, even if all of the details are not yet known. One can deny this evidence only at the risk of calling into question one’s understanding of science and of the method of science. Such an individual has committed malpractice regarding the method of science, for good scientists would never throw out data that do not conform to their expectations or beliefs. This is the situation of those who deny the evolution of humans; such a one is throwing out information because it seems to contradict his/her cherished beliefs (as quoted in Thompson and Harrub, 2002).

In the eyes of some, such as Dr. Dini, it is no longer acceptable simply to know about the theory of evolution and be able to discuss it intelligently. Now, if you do not profess it, even though, admittedly, it is still simply a “theory” and “all of the details are not yet known,” you may risk the opportunity to further your education—a risk that Christians must be willing to take.

In 2003, following an investigation by the U.S. Justice Department, Dr. Dini supposedly “eliminated the evolution belief requirement from his recommendation policy and replaced it with a requirement that students be able to explain the theory of evolution” (Taylor, 2003, 27[4]:6). The wording in Dr. Dini’s policy changed to the following: “How do you account for the scientific origin of the human species? If you will not give a scientific answer to this question, then you should not seek my recommendation” (as quoted in Taylor, 27[4]:6, emp. added).

Notice that Dr. Dini simply changed his criteria to demand a “scientific” answer. Yet, when one explores the writings of these militant evolutionists, it becomes apparent that the word “scientific” is simply a synonym for “evolutionary.” For instance, Eugenie Scott wrote: “To scientists, using God to explain natural phenomena of any kind violates the practice of methodological naturalism, in which scientific explanations are limited only to natural causes” (2004, p. 119, emp. added). In other words, any idea that contains a hint of a supernatural, non-material Creator is, according to their definition, “unscientific.” In the National Academy of Science’s book Science and Creationism, the “steering committee” members, such as Stephen J. Gould, Eugenie Scott, Francisco Ayala, and others, put it like this: “[T]he teaching of evolution should be an integral part of science instruction, and creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such in science classes” (1999, p. 2). How convenient. Simply demand that all answers must be “scientific,” then define scientific as excluding any reference to a supernatural Creator. Needless to say, the great scientists of the past like Newton, Farraday, and Carver never would have accepted such a biased definition of science. Nor should thinking people today allow these sneaky, semantic tactics to go unchallenged and unanswered.

Ultimately, evolutionists would like to marginalize completely those who believe in a supernatural Creator. They would like to relegate all non-evolutionists to a tiny a band of “know-nothings,” or as Dawkins puts it, “backwoodsmen” who do not deserve the name “scientist” (1996, p. x). If these militant evolutionists have their way, no creationist will be allowed to enroll in the prestigious institutes of higher learning to earn advanced accredited degrees, much less have the opportunity to teach on college campuses. In the introduction to his 1996 edition of The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins said as much: “I was reminded of the creationist student who, through some accident of the selection procedure, was admitted to the Zoology Department at Oxford University” (p. xi). To Dawkins, and others like him, a “properly” working selection procedure would have disallowed a creationist to enroll in an institute like Oxford, regardless of his or her intellectual accomplishments or abilities. Dawkins’ sentiments are clear from his statement in 1989: “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that)” (7:34, parenthetical item in orig.). In contradistinction, the Bible says: “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1; 53:1).

The fact that these militant evolutionists want to silence the idea of creation is ironic in light of beliefs held by Darwin himself. In his book, Origin of the Species, Darwin wrote:

I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question... (1956, p. 18, emp. added).

Judging from the comments by Dawkins and others, Darwin’s suggestion that both sides should be heard was far too tolerant and soft on the “unscientific” idea of creation.

Acknowledge the War! Join the Fight!

Highly acclaimed evolutionary scientists recognize that a war is going on—a war between atheistic evolutionary science and anti-evolutionary science. Evolutionists are ready to “get on with it” (Brooks, 192[2578]:11). They are speaking “with an evangelist’s zeal” and are “ready to fight the good fight” (pp. 10,11). Even now, they are attempting to position themselves to set evolution “in place of God” (p. 8).

Creationists must not shy away from this battle. We, too, must roll up our sleeves and heed the apostle Paul’s admonition to “fight the good fight of faith” (1 Timothy 6:12). We must strive to “speak the words of truth and reason” (Acts 26:25), and “be ready to give a defense to everyone” (1 Peter 3:15). Indeed, “the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God” (2 Corinthians 10:4-5).

What can creationists do? How can we fight against atheistic evolutionary science? If evolutionists have benefited from Eugenie Scott’s to-do list for the advancement of evolution, perhaps it is fitting to close this article with a list of suggestions for creationists in their fight against atheistic evolution.

• Recognize that there is a battle over the most fundamental pillar of Christianity (the existence of God), and resolve to do something.
• Begin teaching your children, grandchildren, nephews, nieces, etc. the case for creation and the case against evolution before they ever enter school. Then continue this instruction as they get older.
• Encourage your children to ask questions about God, creation, and evolution. If you don’t answer their questions, someone will—and that someone probably will be an evolutionist.
• Give your children (and yourself!) the tools needed to build a strong faith—one that is based on both reason and revelation.
• Familiarize yourself with Web sites such as ApologeticsPress.org and ChristianCourier.com, which provide immediate answers to many of your questions. They also aid students with term papers, reports, speeches, etc.

[The final five suggestions are adapted from Eugenie Scott’s list (see Eldredge, 2001, pp. 178-180).]

• Donate books and videos about creation to school and public libraries.
• Make it a point to share your views about creation with school board members, legislators, textbook commissioners, and other educational policy makers.
• Let your children’s teachers know that they have your support if they choose to teach about the errors and weaknesses of evolutionary theory.
• Attempt to create an open-minded atmosphere in your school and community, so that creation and evolution can both be discussed.
• Work with parents, teachers, churches, etc. to develop or publicize workshops or seminars about the errors of evolution and the evidence for God’s existence.

REFERENCES

Brooks, Michael (2006), “In Place of God,” New Scientist, 192[2578]:8-11.

Darwin, Charles (1956 edition), The Origin of Species (New York: J.M. Dent & Sons).

Dawkins, Richard (1989), “Book Review,” The New York Times, section 7, April 9.

Dawkins, Richard (1996), The Blind Watchmaker (New York, NY: W.W. Norton).

Dennett, Daniel (1995), Darwin’s Dangerous Idea (New York, NY: Simon and Schuster).

Eldredge, Niles (2001), The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism (New York, NY: W.H. Freeman).

Kitchen, Sebastian (2002), “Professor Rigid on Evolution,” Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, A-1,9, October 6.

Life on Earth (2002), (Hauppauge, NY: Barron’s Education Series).

Science and Creationism (1999), (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press), second edition.

Scott, Eugenie (2004), Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction (Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press).

Taylor, Larry (2003), “Biology Professor Alters Evolution Statement for Recommendations,” Skeptical Inquirer, 27[4]:6, July/August.

Thompson, Bert and Brad Harrub (2002), “Quick, Let’s Discriminate Against the Creationists!” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2504.

Microcomputers in the Brain Tabulate Design by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

 

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=4790

Microcomputers in the Brain Tabulate Design

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

I’m typing this article on a personal computer. You are most likely reading it on some form of one, whether a desktop, laptop, smartphone or tablet (which are really just small computers). These amazing devices are all around us. Brilliant researchers have spent billions of dollars designing the most functional computers to help people all over the world achieve their goals. You may well know, however, that one computer is more powerful than any that humans have been able to design—the human brain. As LiveScience writer Charles Choi stated, “The most powerful computer known is the brain” (2013).

But a fresh look into the brain has revealed something amazing. This supercomputer is even more “super” than we thought. Inside the brain are short branches of cells called dendrites. These dendrites have long been thought to be simple transporters of nerve signals to brain neurons. Recent discoveries by neuroscientist Spencer Smith and his team of researchers suggest, however, that dendrites do more than passively transfer information (Choi, 2013). It appears that dendrites are actually minicomputers that process information instead of simply transferring it. Because of this discovery, Smith stated: “Suddenly, it's as if the processing power of the brain is much greater than we had originally thought” (as quoted in Choi, 2013).

To what did Smith compare this remarkable discovery? He illustrated the results in this way: “Imagine you’re reverse engineering a piece of alien technology, and what you thought was simple wiring turns out to be transistors that compute information” (as quoted in Choi, 2013).

The implication of Smith’s statement about alien technology could not be clearer—the brain is comparable to (but surpasses) any technology humans have designed. Therefore, if we were to realistically compare it to something, it would have to be technology produced by brilliant aliens whose mental capabilities must be far superior to that of humans. But wait, the technology that we at first recognized to be superior, we discover to be even more advanced than we originally thought. What does that say about the brain? It must have been designed by a Being with incomprehensible intelligence. The idea of mindless evolution simply cannot account for the computer, no, the supercomputer filled with minicomputers, we call the brain. It really is a no-brainer, there must be a God.

References

Choi, Charles (2013), “‘Minicomputers’ Live Inside the Brain,” LiveScience, http://news.yahoo.com/minicomputers-live-inside-human-brain-113240564.html.

"THE GOSPEL OF MARK" Cursing And Cleansing (11:12-19) by Mark Copeland

"THE GOSPEL OF MARK"

Cursing And Cleansing (11:12-19)

INTRODUCTION

1. In our previous study, we saw where Jesus and His disciples arrived in Jerusalem...
   a. Together with a large crowd coming to observe the Passover week
   b. With the first day of their visit (Sunday) beginning with the
      triumphal entry and ending with a quick visit to the temple - Mk 11:1-11

2. On the next day (Monday), two things occur which may seem out of character for Jesus...
   a. The cursing of the fig tree - Mk 11:12-14
   b. The cleansing of the temple - Mk 11:15-19

[The two may be related, so let’s consider them together beginning with...]

I. THE CURSING OF THE FIG TREE

   A. THE NARRATIVE...
      1. Having spent the night in Bethany, Jesus and His disciples make
         their way back toward Jerusalem - Mk 11:11-12
      2. Hungry, Jesus sees a fig tree with leaves from a distance and
         approaches to see if there is anything on it - Mk 11:12-13
      3. There is nothing but leaves, Mark noting that it was not the
         season for figs - Mark 11:13
      4. In response, Jesus says to the tree, "Let no one eat fruit from
         you ever again" - Mk 11:14
      5. Mark commented that it was heard by His disciples - Mk 11:14

   B. SOME OBSERVATIONS...
      1. In Palestine fig trees produced crops of small edible buds in
         March followed by the appearance of large green leaves in early
         April. - Bible Knowledge Commentary
         a. This early green "fruit" (buds) was common food for local peasants - ibid.
         b. An absence of these buds despite the tree’s green foliage
            promising their presence indicated it would bear no fruit that year - ibid.
         c. Thus this fig tree gave the appearance of offering edible food, but did not
      2. The way in which Mark organizes his material in these verses
         (fig tree/cleansing of temple/fig tree) suggests a connection
         between the cleansing of the temple and the cursing of the fig tree - ESV Study Bible
      4. The incident of the fig tree both interprets the cleansing of
         the temple and is interpreted by the latter incident - 

          New International Biblical Commentary (NIBC)
         a. Jesus’ disappointment with the fig tree is like his
            disappointment with Israel and the temple, her chief shrine - ibid.
         b. His judgment pronounced upon the tree is like the threat of
            God’s judgment soon to fall upon the city of Jerusalem,
            which Jesus’ words and actions in Mk 11:15-19 prefigure - ibid.
      5. The cursing of the tree (v. 14) is known as a prophetic
         sign-act, familiar to readers of the OT, an action in which a
         prophet demonstrates symbolically his message

        (e.g., Isa 20:1-6; Jer 13:1-11; 19:1-13; Ezek 4:1-15) - NIBC
      6. The act is not to be taken simply as a rash act of anger, but
         as a solemn prophetic word pronounced for the benefit of the
         disciples (and for the readers) - ibid.

[Seeing that the two events (the cursing of the fig tree and the
cleansing of the temple) appear related, let’s now look more closely at...]

II. THE CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE

   A. THE NARRATIVE...
      1. Jesus returns to Jerusalem and enters the temple - Mk 11:15-16
         a. Driving out those who bought and sold in the temple
         b. Overturning the tables of the money changers, the seats of those who sold doves
         c. Not allowing any to carry wares through the temple
      2. He teaches in the temple - Mk 11:17-18
         a. "Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of
            prayer for all nations’ ? But you have made it a ‘den of
            thieves.’" - cf. 1Ki 8:41-43; Isa 56:7
         b. The scribes and chief priests heard this and wanted to kill Him
         c. They feared Him, for all the people were astonished at His teaching
      3. At evening, He left the city, spending the night on Mt. Olivet  cf. Lk 21:37

   B. SOME OBSERVATIONS...
      1. The "temple" was the court of the Gentiles, an outer court
         where non-Jews were permitted
         a. Tables were set up to enable pilgrims to change their
            respective currencies into coins for the annual temple tax,
            as well as to purchase pigeons, lambs, oil, salt, etc., for
            various sin and thanksgiving sacrifices - ESV Study Bible
         b. The business activity turns the house of prayer into a den
            of robbers (Jer 7:11); Gentiles in particular were hindered
            by the temple commerce in the outer court - ibid.
      2. This may have been the second time Jesus cleansed the temple
         a. John records a similar incident at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry - Jn 2:13-17
         b. Many commentators think it happened only once; but with
            Jesus’ zeal for His Father’s house, there is good reason to
            believe He did it twice
         c. The cleansing of the temple may have been to fulfill prophecy - Mal 3:1-3
      3. Was the act of cleansing the temple "out of character" for Jesus?  No!
         a. Jesus had been angry before, and would be again soon - cf. Mk 3:5; Mt 23:13-36
         b. Jesus was filled with righteous indignation, consistent with
            the qualities of deity - cf. Ro 2:4-6; 2Th 1:7-9
      4. It may helpful to remember...
         a. When it came to personal affront, Jesus bore it meekly - cf. Isa 53:7; 1Pe 2:23
         b. But when God or His temple were maligned, especially by
            hardhearted and self-righteous religious leaders, then
            Jesus acted with righteous indignation in defense of God’s honor
         c. We tend to defend selves rather than God, displaying self-righteous indignation

CONCLUSION

1. The moral and religious depravity of the religious leaders prompted Jesus’ actions

2. Both the cursing of the fig tree and the cleansing of the temple were
   prophetic sign acts that foretold the impending judgment upon the
   nation of Israel that would occur with the destruction of Jerusalem
   (fulfilled in 70 AD) - cf. Mk 13:1-2 

 Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

Faith, Forgiveness and Pope Francis by Ken Weliever, The Preacherman

 

https://thepreachersword.com/2015/09/22/faith-forgiveness-and-pope-francis/#more-7808

Faith, Forgiveness and Pope Francis

Pope Francis is coming to America. He will arrive this afternoon at Joint Base Andrews. Wednesday there will be a welcoming ceremony at the White House where he will meet with President Obama. Thursday he will speak to a joint session of Congress. And Friday he will address the United Nations general assembly in New York.

There is much speculation on what issues the Pope will address. Stephen Moore, a Catholic Consultant to the Conservative Freedom Works Organization offers these suggestions.

“The moral crisis of our time is not global warning, it is the Holocaust of millions of abortions in America each year. Free markets create wealth and it is the moral responsibility of all Christians to use our wealth in ways that help those in need. A benevolent government should enhance individual liberty, religious freedom and wealth. Christians must worship the Creator, not the created.”

Aside from our theological differences with Catholicism and the institution of the Papacy in the first place, it would be refreshing to hear a “religious leader” focus on issues of faith, instead of politics. The problem of our time continues to be sin. Our greatest need is forgiveness. And the answer is found in Jesus Christ.

Unfortunately churches, preachers and pastors often become side-tracked with social ills, environment concerns and secular problems. Christ commissioned the apostles to “go into all the world and preach the gospel” (Mk 16:15). Paul instructed the young evangelist Timothy to “preach the Word.” The saving message of Jesus possesses the power to transform lives, provide peace, soothe the soul and eliminate guilt.

Interestingly, Pope Francis shocked some people a few weeks ago when he authorized Priests to forgive women who had abortions but expressed contrition and seek forgiveness. Francis wrote, “The forgiveness of God cannot be denied one who has repented.”

Three issues caught my attention regarding that edict.

(1) Sin is ultimately against God. (Ps 51:4). Man does not possess the power to absolve our sins. Only God offers pardon (Isa 55:7) through the one Mediator, His Son, Jesus Christ (1Tim 2:5).

(2) Jesus taught forgiveness far before there ever was a Pope. The constant theme of the Bible is God’s willingness to pardon people who genuinely repent of their sins. Regardless of the sin. (Heb 10:17; Eph 1:7). Jesus’ blood cleanses us of ALL unrighteousness. Lying. Fornication. Adultery. And even abortion (I John 1:7-10).

(3) Reaction to the Pope’s edict was met with disdain, disagreement, and even ridicule. Why? From many of the on-line posts and comments, it’s apparent that the notion of sin is scoffed at by many people, especially sexual sin. A “woman’s right,” personal freedom, and the philosophy of relativism, which says “there are no absolutes,” gives carte blanche to any kind of moral behavior one desires.

Disagreement with the Pope notwithstanding, Francis could do the world a favor by focusing on what’s really important–sin, grace, forgiveness and the spiritual Kingdom.

Regardless of the Pope’s message, those of us who preach and teach on “lesser platforms” can proclaim the Truth, let our light shine in our communities and accomplish God’s will.

–Ken Weliever, The Preacherman

CAN YOU BE A CHRISTIAN WITHOUT KNOWING THE TERMS FOR PARDON? by steve finnell

 

https://steve-finnell.blogspot.com/2016/11/

CAN YOU BE A CHRISTIAN WITHOUT KNOWING THE TERMS FOR PARDON? by steve finnell

If you know everything about Jesus, however, you fail to understand God's terms for salvation or reject them, will you still be saved?

1. Galatians 3:26-27 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.(NASB) Galatians 3:26 So in Christ Jesus you are children of God through faith.(NIV)

Will a person be saved if they believe all men are God's children at birth? Can men be saved if they deny that men are baptized into Christ at water baptism? Is it possible to be saved without being clothed with Christ?

2. Ephesians 5:25-27....just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26 so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.(NASB)

Can believers in Christ be saved if they believe that they were sanctified, cleansed, holy and blameless before Jesus washed them in water? Can men deny the purpose of immersion in water and still be saved?

3. Acts 4:10-12...by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead.......12 And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved."(NASB)

Is possible to deny that Jesus is the only Savior and still be saved?

4. Romans 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;(NASB)

If a person denies the bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead will they still be saved?

God's terms for pardon: Faith-John 3:16, Repentance-Acts 3:19, Acts 2:38, Confession-Romans 10:9-10, Water Immersion- Mark 16:16, Colossians 2:11-13.

CAN YOU BE A CHRISTIAN AND NOT KNOW OR REJECT GOD'S TERMS FOR PARDON?

Galatians 1:6-9.....if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!(NASB)

What do we need? by Roy Davidson

 

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Davison/Roy/Allen/1940/needs.html

What do we need?

In the Bible much is said about our needs.

Because our wants are much greater than our needs, it is easy to confuse the two. We deceive ourselves into thinking that we really need something when actually we just want it. Have you ever heard a young child say with sad eyes, “But I need a piece of candy!” The Scriptures can help us distinguish our wishes from our needs. Then we can be much happier with the blessings God has given us. Scripture also teaches us that our spiritual needs are much more important than our physical needs.

“Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. And having food and clothing, with these we shall be content” (1 Timothy 6:6-8).

We have physical needs.

The basic needs of man are air, water, food, clothing and shelter.

The Scriptures teach that one must provide for himself and for the needs of his family: “If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat” (2 Thessalonians 3:10).

Yet there are always people who are needy because of age, sickness or other circumstances. Believers help each other: “And let our people also learn to maintain good works, to meet urgent needs, that they may not be unfruitful” (Titus 3:14). “Let him who stole steal no longer, but rather let him labor, working with his hands what is good, that he may have something to give him who has need” (Ephesians 4:28).

Love is our motivation for helping each other: “Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another; not lagging in diligence, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord; rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly in prayer; distributing to the needs of the saints, given to hospitality” (Romans 12:10-13).

Empty words are not love: “If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,’ but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?” (James 2:15, 16). “But whoever has this world’s goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him?” (1 John 3:17).

The church at Jerusalem set the tone in this: “Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need” (Acts 2:44, 45). “Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles’ feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need” (Acts 4:34, 35).

The churches of Achaia glorified God by helping people in another country: “For the administration of this service not only supplies the needs of the saints, but also is abounding through many thanksgivings to God, while, through the proof of this ministry, they glorify God for the obedience of your confession to the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal sharing with them and all men” (2 Corinthians 9:12, 13). Notice that this sharing is described as obeying the gospel. And notice also that they as a church shared, not only with fellow saints, but with all men.

As we help others, we can rely on God’s help. He knows what we need: “But when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words. Therefore do not be like them. For your Father knows the things you have need of before you ask Him” (Matthew 6:7, 8).

God will care for us if we care for others. After Paul thanked the Philippians for their financial support, he continued: “And my God shall supply all your need according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus” (Philippians 4:19).

We have spiritual needs.

Jesus said, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God” (Luke 4:4).

Meeting our basic needs ought not to be the highest goal of our lives: “Therefore do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For after all these things the Gentiles seek. For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you” (Matthew 6:31-33).

Many people ignore their spiritual needs, especially if they are well off. To the wealthy, lukewarm church at Laodicea Jesus said: “You say, ‘I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing’ and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked” (Revelation 3:17).

Spiritual needs are more important than physical needs. Martha had to learn this: “Now it happened as they went that He entered a certain village; and a certain woman named Martha welcomed Him into her house. And she had a sister called Mary, who also sat at Jesus’ feet and heard His word. But Martha was distracted with much serving, and she approached Him and said, ‘Lord, do You not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Therefore tell her to help me.’ And Jesus answered and said to her, ‘Martha, Martha, you are worried and troubled about many things. But one thing is needed, and Mary has chosen that good part, which will not be taken away from her’” (Luke 10:38-42).

Members of the body of Christ need each other: “And the eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I have no need of you’; nor again the head to the feet, ‘I have no need of you.’ No, much rather, those members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary” (1 Corinthians 12:21, 22).

For edification, Jesus has given shepherds, evangelists and teachers to the church (Ephesians 4:1-18). Especially those who have recently become Christians need much help from others. Those to whom the Hebrew letter was written, had remained spiritually immature. “For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food” (Hebrews 5:12).

Above all, we need Jesus, who is the bread of life. “I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world” (John 6:48-51).

We need forgiveness of sins, which is only possible through Christ: “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). We can receive forgiveness if we believe in Jesus, repent and are baptized: “Then Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit’“ (Acts 2:38).

Many people think they do not need baptism. They are extremely arrogant because John the Baptist and Jesus thought otherwise. “Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him. And John tried to prevent Him, saying, ‘I have need to be baptized by You, and are You coming to me?’ But Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.’ Then he allowed Him” (Matthew 3:13-15).

We arise from baptism to walk in newness of life (Romans 6:3, 4). Then we must continue to follow Christ: “For you have need of endurance, so that after you have done the will of God, you may receive the promise” (Hebrews 10:36).

What have we learned?
- The Bible helps us distinguish between needs and desires.
- Christians are to be content with basic needs.
- Christians must work to provide for their needs.
- Motivated by love, Christians help others who are needy.
- God has promised to take care of us when we help others.
- Man does not live by bread alone.
- Spiritual needs are more important than physical needs.
- Christians need spiritual help from one another.
- Above all we need help from Jesus, the bread of life.
- We need forgiveness of sins, available only through Him.
- We need to be baptized to be saved.

Trusting in God, let us work to meet our basic needs and to help others. Above all, let us care for our spiritual needs. Jesus is the only source of spiritual food.
Amen.

Roy Davison

The Scripture quotations in this article are from The New King James Version. ©1979,1980,1982, Thomas Nelson Inc., Publishers unless indicated otherwise.

Published in The Old Paths Archive
(http://www.oldpaths.com)

A perfect match by Gary Rose

 

I know, I post a lot of dog pictures. Please be patient with me, for over the years I have become a lover of dogs. Lately, dogs ( specifically, my dog Pal ) has been on my mind a lot because it appears that his heart condition is worsening and we may lose him soon.

Anyway, this unusual bed for a Dachshund caught my eye. I have never seen one like it, anywhere. Suits him, doesn’t it? A long bed for a long body; great idea. Whoever gave this dog a bed like this must really love him.

Then, I thought of creation and how God designed everything and said in Genesis 1 : ³¹ God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. But the man and woman that he made sinned and what did God do?

The Bible says...

Philippians 2 ( World English Bible )

⁵ Have this in your mind, which was also in Christ Jesus,

⁶ who, existing in the form of God, didn’t consider equality with God a thing to be grasped,

⁷ but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men.

⁸ And being found in human form, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, yes, the death of the cross.

⁹ Therefore God also highly exalted him, and gave to him the name which is above every name;

¹⁰ that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, those on earth, and those under the earth,

¹¹ and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

God made a remedy for sin. It wasn’t easy, nor pleasant; the death of God’s one and only son was horrible, but necessary. If you think about it, this was the perfect match; The One and Only God who became the One and Only means of defeating sin. Jesus is the perfect match for our problem of sin. Not everyone will acknowledge Jesus now, but someday they will, for truly, Jesus is King of Kings and LORD of Lords. A perfect match if ever there was one; better than the match of a Dachshund and a long bed, for with Jesus we will be blessed forever.