1/29/21

Expelled--Again by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

 

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=3655

Expelled--Again

by  Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

Two years after Ben Stein and Kevin Miller released the controversial movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Stein and Miller, 2008), which grossed nearly $7,700,000, the heated debate over discrimination towards those holding creationist beliefs continues. The Washington Post described astrophysicist Dr. Martin Gaskell as “uniquely qualified” for the position as director of the new, prestigious MacAdam Student Observatory at the University of Kentucky (UK). “He oversaw the design and construction of an observatory at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. He also advised UK during the building of the MacAdam facility” (Lovan, 2010). However, although his credentials placed him “breathtakingly above the other applicants,” it seems that his Christian faith caused him to be rejected for the position. He, therefore, sued the university, “claiming lost income and emotional distress.” U.S. District Judge Karl S. Forester, who rejected a motion from the university concerning going to trial, said, “There is no dispute that based on his application, Gaskell was a leading candidate for the position” (Lovan).

Ironically, Gaskell does not even consider himself a creationist and does not believe the Earth to be “a few thousand years old.” However, apparently threatened by a lecture he gave in 1997 in which he stated that evolution has “significant scientific problems” and contains “unwarranted atheistic assumptions and extrapolations,” science professors believed “his Christian faith could conflict with his duties as a scientist” (Lovan). How unfortunate that many scientists are so quick to jump to conclusions about others before gathering all of the evidence. It is hardly unexpected, considering that they have done the same thing by jumping to wild, outlandish, unscientific conclusions in holding to evolutionary theory despite all scientific evidence that stands against it. The evolutionists are so stressed about the creationists’ arguments that they are now expelling people who even appear to be creationists. Contrary to open-minded, academically free expression of scientific thought, this sort of censorship provides a real barrier to scientific progress. Creationists must be making an impact with many in the debate if the evolutionary community is becoming so hyperactive in its decisions.

REFERENCES

Lovan, Dylan (2010), “Scientist Alleges Religious Discrimination in KY,” The Washington Post, December 10, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/17/AR2010121701178.html.

Stein, Ben and Kevin Miller (2008), Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Premise Media).

Exceptional Spider Silk by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

 

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2150

Exceptional Spider Silk

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

To the average person, a spider’s web looks rather weak and flimsy. With the greatest of ease, a person can destroy a web. In only a second, the spider’s house is razed with the wave of a hand. Even Job’s uninspired friend, Bildad, testified of the fragileness of webs when he likened the unrighteous to those “whose trust is a spider’s web” (Job 8:14), who are leaning upon a house that easily perishes. So why are scientists increasingly mesmerized by the spider’s silk webbing?

Scientists are so enamored with spider silk because it has an “exceptional capacity to absorb kinetic energy” (Cunningham, 2007). Although it may not seem strong and tough from the vantage point of a human who easily can tear down a spider’s web, pound-for-pound, the silk from certain kinds of spiders is five times stronger than steel. What’s more, it can stretch 30 percent farther than the stretchiest known nylon, and is twice as flexible. Scientists have discovered that spider silk can even stretch 40 percent beyond its original length without breaking. In fact, due to its amazing strength and flexibility, it has been said that you could stop a jumbo jet in mid-flight with a spider web made of silk only one centimeter thick.

Since harvesting silk from spiders is impractical, scientists are attempting to make synthetic “spider silk” that could be used for countless things, including bulletproof vests, bridge suspension cables, and artificial tendons. Scientists especially covet the silk’s “exceptional capacity to absorb kinetic energy” and are hoping to copy what they call its “winning formula.” How have scientists fared thus far? In truth, even “[t]he best industrial fibers don’t absorb as much kinetic energy as spider silk does.... Despite years of research, scientists still can’t make a material as tough as the silk found within a spider web” (Cunningham, emp. added). Zoologist Chris Holland admitted that synthetic fibers “can’t even come close to” equaling the amazing qualities of spider-produced silk (as quoted in Cunningham).

What explanation do scientists give for the origin of spiders and their exceptional silk? To what do we owe this “winning formula” that intelligent scientists have been attempting to copy for years? According to Holland, “[s]piders...evolved the capacity to spin silk” (as quoted in Cunningham, emp. added). The mastermind behind the unequalled, “energy-efficient, high-performance” fibers in spider silk is, allegedly, mindless evolution. Truly, “the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men” (1 Corinthians 1:25). “For every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God” (Hebrews 3:4).

REFERENCE

Cunningham, Aimee (2007), “Taken for a Spin,” Science News, April 14, [On-line], URL: http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20070414/bob8.asp.

Evolutionists Want It Both Ways by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

 

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=728

Evolutionists Want It Both Ways

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Astronomers from more than 30 research institutions in 15 countries are working together to select a site for a giant telescope that they hope will read TV or radio signals from alien civilizations. Slated to cost one billion dollars, the Square Kilometer Array, or SKA, would be the world’s most powerful radio telescope. Speaking at a conference of the International Society for Optical Engineering in Orlando, Florida, project astronomers said they hope to find “immediate and direct evidence of life elsewhere in the Universe” (“Sites Under...,” 2006).

Despite this bold venture, the scientists admit that “such a search would have distinct limitations, to be sure.” “Distinct limitations”? Like what? For one, the scientists “aren’t sure how to recognize such signals, if they do turn up. The hope is that the signals would consist of organized patterns suggestive of intelligence, and not attributable to any known celestial sources” (“Sites Under...,” 2006, emp. added). Wait a minute. Evolutionary scientists are renowned for their condescending ridicule of creationists because those who believe in God assert that evidence of intelligent design in the Universe is proof of an Intelligent Designer. No, the evolutionists counter, the Universe got here by accident through random chance, mindless trial and error, and the blind, mechanistic forces of nature. They maintain that life on Earth owes its ultimate origin to dead, non-purposive, unconscious, non-intelligent matter. Yet they are perfectly willing to squander one billion dollars on a telescope with the speculative idea that solid proof—hard evidence—for the existence of alien life would reside in otherwise undecipherable radio or TV signals that convey “organized patterns suggestive of intelligence.” [NOTE: One is reminded of NASA’s Viking mission to Mars in the mid-seventies in which scientists eagerly declared evidence for life on Mars based on initial photos that appeared to show a “B” or even a face on a rock (cf. “‘Life’ on Mars,” 2006; Warren and Flew, 1976, pp. 112,156). Such judgments soon were deemed premature and incorrect.] Atheistic evolutionists want it both ways: organized patterns prove the existence of life and organized patterns do not prove the existence of God. Philosophers and logicians refer to such duplicitous posturing as irrational and “logical contradiction.” Apparently, evolutionists call it “science.”

REFERENCES

“‘Life’ on Mars” (2006), [On-line], URL: http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/stu/mars_life.html.

“Sites Under Review for Telescope that Could Detect Alien TV” (2006), World Science, July 10, [On-line], URL: http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/060711_ska.htm.

Warren, Thomas B. and Antony Flew (1976), The Warren-Flew Debate (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press).

"THE GOSPEL OF MARK" He Has Done All Things Well (7:31-37) by Mark Copeland

 

                          "THE GOSPEL OF MARK"

                 He Has Done All Things Well (7:31-37)

INTRODUCTION

1. I would like for you to ask yourself:  What has Jesus done for you...?
   a. Anything?
   b. Something?

2. If Jesus has done anything for you, how would you describe it...?
   a. More than you expected?
   b. Less than you expected?

[If less than expected, keep it mind as we begin reading in Mk 7:31
about Jesus healing a deaf mute...]

I. THE NARRATIVE

   A. THE JOURNEY TO THE SEA OF GALILEE...
      1. Jesus left the region of Tyre and Sidon - Mk 7:31
         a. Where he had healed the daughter of the Syro-Phoenician woman
         b. A woman blessed for her faith - Mk 7:24-30
      2. He traveled through the region of Decapolis - Mk 7:31
         a. So called after ten cities in the area, mostly SE of the Sea of Galilee
         b. Damascus, Raphana, Hippos, Abila [or Canatha], Gadara,
            Scythopolis, Pella, Dion, Gerasa, and Philadelphia [Amman]
         c. Predominately Gentile and Hellenistic in their culture
         d. Where the man healed of legions of demons proclaimed Christ - Mk 5:20
      3. Matthew's gospel adds a few details - Mt 15:29-31
         a. Jesus went to a mountain and sat down
         b. Many lame, blind, mute and maimed were brought and healed
         c. The multitude marveled and glorified the God of Israel(these are likely Gentiles)

   B. JESUS HEALS A DEAF MUTE...
      1. People bring a deaf mute to Jesus and beg Him to heal him - Mk 7:32
      2. Aside from the multitude, Jesus begins the healing - Mk 7:33-34
         a. Putting His fingers in the deaf mute's ears, spitting, and touching his tongue
         b. Looking to heaven, sighing, and saying "Ephphatha" (Aramaic for "Be opened")
      3. The healing is instantaneous - Mk 7:35
         a. His ears are opened
         b. He begins to speak plainly

   C. JESUS' REQUEST AND THE CROWD'S RESPONSE...
      1. He commanded them to tell no one, but they widely proclaim it
         - Mk 7:36; cf. Mk 1:44-45
      2. They are astonished, saying "He has done all things well" - Mk 7:37

[This is a detailed and rather unusual account of one of Jesus' miracles
of healing.  The response of the crowd is also worthy of note.  Allow me
therefore to offer...]

II. SOME OBSERVATIONS

   A. REGARDING THE HEALING...
      1. Jesus may have been using sign language to explain what He was doing
      2. The fingers in the ears - "Something will be done for your ears...and I will do it."
      3. The touch of the tongue - "Something will be done for your tongue...and I will do it."
      4. The spit - His intention was to heal, as saliva was thought to have medicinal properties
      5. The look to heaven - indicating His help came from above
      6. The sigh - the sympathizing Jesus, taking the man's condition to heart - cf. Isa 53:4
      -- William Hendriksen (Baker's New Testament Commentary)

   B. REGARDING THE DECLARATION...
      1. "He has done all things well"
         a. He astonished those who saw His miracles - Mk 7:37
         b. He astonished those who heard His teachings - Mk 1:22; 6:2
         c. This is before His amazing death, resurrection, and ascension to heaven!
      2. Has Jesus done all things well for you?
         a. Given you rest for your soul? - Mt 11:28-30
         b. Saved you from you sins? - Mk 16:15-16
         c. Given you the peace the world cannot give? - Jn 14:27
      3. If not, why not?
         a. Could it be for lack of faith? - cf. Mk 6:5-6
         b. Could it be your heart is restricted? - cf. 2Co 6:11-13
            1) The Corinthians restricted themselves from receiving Paul's love
            2) Might we be guilty of doing the same in receiving Jesus' love and power?
      4. As God has often asked His people:
         a. "Is anything too hard for the Lord?" - Gen 18:14
         a. "Has the Lord's arm been shortened?" - Num 11:23
         b. "Is My hand shortened at all that it cannot redeem?" - Isa 50:2
         c. "Or have I no power to deliver?" - Isa 50:2
         d. "Is the Spirit of the LORD restricted?" - Mic 2:7
      -- Think about these things, if your spiritual life is vapid!

CONCLUSION

1. Jesus has certainly done all things well...
   a. "He changed sunset into sunrise." - Clement of Alexandria
   b. "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation..." - 2Co 5:17

2. But has He done all things well for you...?
   a. If your spiritual life is insipid, remember His words to the Laodiceans - Re 3:14-22
   b. It is most likely you have not been following Jesus as fervently as you should

   "What good is having someone who can walk on water if you don't
   follow in his footsteps?" - Author Unknown

Jesus, who has done all things well, stands ready to open your eyes to
see the beauty of His salvation, to open your mouth to proclaim the glory of His redemption...! 
 
Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

Celebrating a Sinful Lifestyle by Ken Weliever, The Preacherman

 

https://thepreachersword.com/2019/05/02/celebrating-a-sinful-lifestyle/

Celebrating a Sinful Lifestyle

“I stand before my family, friends and graduating class today to say that I am proud to be a gay son of God,” announced Matthew Easton in his valedictorian speech at Brigham Young University last Friday night.

The “coming out” announcement which came as a surprise to the majority of the 10,000 in attendance, including some family members, was received with cheers and applause that echoed through the Marriott Center.

Easton smiled, paused, and waited for the applause to subside. Later he said. “Four years ago, it would have been impossible for me to imagine that I would come out to my entire college. It is a phenomenal feeling. And it is a victory for me in and of itself.”

Ironically the church of which he is a member, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and BYU consider same-sex marriage to be a “serious transgression.” Until recently Mormons involved in homosexual unions were treated as apostates and subject to excommunication from the church.

Easton, however, considers himself a Christian. “I am not broken,” he declared. “I am loved and important to the plan of our great creator. Each of us are.”

In an interview with The Washington Post, Easton said he had been inspired by Pete Buttigieg, the Democratic mayor of South Bend, Ind., who announced his candidacy for president. The mayor, an openly practicing homosexual and married to a man, has repeatedly spoken of his faith and believes there is nothing contradictory about being a Christian and engaging in homosexual relationships.

Buttigieg recently spoke to the LGBTQ Victory Fund, in which he condemned Vice President, Mike Pence on his views regarding morality.

“That’s the thing I wish the Mike Pences of the world would understand: That if you have a problem with who I am, your quarrel is not with me,” Buttigieg said. “Your quarrel, sir, is with my creator.”

A reporter’s observation on Easton’s speech wrote, “A private conquest, the speech also marked a notable chapter in a searching public debate about faith, sexuality and generational change.”

“My generation, and even more so the generation after me, we’re changing the way we talk about our identity and who we are,” Easton said. “But the more that I’ve understood my relationship with God, the more authentic I’ve been able to be and the more true to myself I’ve felt.”

Stories like Matthew Easton’s are becoming more frequent. And, as is always the case, the liberal new media celebrates and applauds the “courage” of those admitting their homosexuality.

Yes, times are changing. 50 years ago everyone knew homosexuality was a sin. Society and the media regarded it as the perversion that it is. For 5,000 years the Judeo-Christian ethic of marriage between one man and one woman was largely accepted.

Now, we come to the point where homosexuality and same-sex marriage is not only accepted but celebrated. It reminds me of the culture in the prophet Jeremiah’s day. “Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? No! They were not at all ashamed; Nor did they know how to blush” (Jer 6:15).

What has changed in our world?

Surely not the Bible, nor God’s description of sin. While Easton, Buttigieg, and others in the LGBTQ community presume to know God’s view of homosexuality. They are mistaken.

In an era when our public schools, universities, the mass media and the cultural elite are celebrating sinful lifestyles, we need to be reminded of what God has revealed to us about morality and marriage.

The New Testament not only condemns homosexuality but speaks of it as being a perversion. When Paul recounted the Gentiles’ rejection of God, he described it in these words:

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator — who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (Romans 1:24-27)

Sexual impurity. Degrading. Shameful. Unnatural. Indecent. Perversion. I think these words pretty much describes God’s view of homosexual relations. Instead of trying to be true to ourselves and whatever confused and perverted feelings we possess, this generation needs to be true to God. To His Word. And His commands.

To say, “I’m proud to be a gay son of god” is a gross misrepresentation. One might as well say, “I’m proud to be a fornicating son of god” Or an “idolatrous son of god.” Or a “stealing son of god.” Or a “cheating son of god.” What’s the difference? All of these sins and more are listed along with homosexuality in 1 Cor. 6:9-11. Unrepented sins will exclude the sinner from the Kingdom of God.

Friends and brethren, let us not applaud what God disapproves. Nor celebrate what the Bible condemns.

–Ken Weliever, The Preacherman

A TRANSLITERATION THAT LEADS TO CONFUSION by steve finnell

 

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

A TRANSLITERATION THAT LEADS TO CONFUSION by steve finnell


Transliterate Defined: To change (letters, words, etc.) into corresponding characters of another alphabet or language. 

To transliterate is not translating.

Mark 16:16 He who has believed and been baptized shall be saved...(NASB) The word baptized is a transliterations used here. Baptize is not a translated word.

Examples of Mark 16:16 that have been translated as opposed to having been transliterated.

1. Mark 16:16 He who has believed and has been immersed, will be saved....(The Better Version of The New Testament by Chester Estes)

2. Mark 16:16 Whoever trusts and is immersed will be saved...( CJB Complete Jewish Bible )

3. Mark 16:16 He who believes and is immersed shall be saved...(TLV Tree of Life)

4. Mark 16:16 He who believes and is immersed will be saved..(WMB World Messianic Bible)

5. Mark 16:16 He who believes and is immersed shall be saved... (TEG The Everlasting Gospel)

There are no translations of Mark 16:16 that read, He who believes and is sprinkled or poured shall be saved..

The fact that a trained professional says sprinkling and pouring are modes of baptism does make it true. 

There are not modes of baptism, there is just immersion in water.

Handling Our Anger by Richard Mansel

 

https://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Mansel/Richard/Dale/1964/anger.html

Handling Our Anger

Imagine that you have spent all day cleaning your house for an important dinner party and you have everything spotless just minutes before your guests are to arrive. Then you hear in the kitchen the sound of tiny feet and see that your three-year-old has tracked mud all over the kitchen tile. You explode. What happens next is anger. It can become, as someone has written, a wild dog that can be tamed for a while but then we can unleash it and no one is immune to its fury.

Few things can tear apart the fabric of a family like anger. It has led many to divorce court, permanent alienation and even incarceration. How many relatives have not spoken to one another for years because of anger? The pain is pervasive throughout our society. We must deal with anger or its ravages will consume us.

There are four ways that we can deal with anger.

First, we can repress it. Denial, however, is a dangerous practice because we do not always know when the kettle will blow. A basketball held under water will suddenly pop to the surface and splash water on everyone around. Repressed anger can have similar results.

Second, we can ignore our anger and pretend it does not exist. Unresolved anger, however, just sits in our hearts and eats away at us and often gives us a cruel, bitter nature.

Third, we can unleash it on whoever happens to be there at the time. Graveyards are filled with the victims of this approach.

Finally, we can learn the message of Scripture on how to resolve anger. "A fool uttereth all his mind: but a wise man keepeth it in till afterwards" (Proverbs 29:11). "Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath ... Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you" (Ephesians 4:26,31,32).

This is the way to deal with anger. Is not life too short to lose a loved one because of anger? We must control anger or it will control us.

Richard Mansel

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


1/27/21

Evolutionists Have a Blind Faith by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

 

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=5485

Evolutionists Have a Blind Faith

by  Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

Everyone believes in something. Blind faith, however, is believing in something without evidence. Every person on the planet has faith, but having blind faith, by definition, is irrational: drawing conclusions without enough proof.1 The faith/trust I have in the laws of science is not blind; it is based on a mound of evidence that has been formed over many years of faith-building behavior on their part. Christianity is not built on blind faith, but on faith that has been substantiated by evidence, and God demands that Christian faith be such.2 Naturalists, however, have a blind faith in several events that would be necessary if evolution is true.

As just one example, consider: if one is a naturalist, he must believe that at some point(s) in the past, life arose from non-living substances (that is, the spontaneous generation of life occurred). Many scientific experiments have been conducted over the centuries testing the hypothesis that spontaneous generation could occur, and every one of them has resulted in the same conclusion: in nature, life only comes from life. No matter what scientists have tried to do in a laboratory to make non-living material come to life, it still remains non-living.3 If one is rational and follows the evidence to its logical conclusion, he will conclude that in the Universe (in nature), life cannot come about from non-life. If, however, he cannot stomach the evidence, and chooses instead to irrationally believe that life can come from non-life in spite of the evidence, he is holding to a blind faith in so doing. There is not one example from nature in which life has been shown to come from non-life.

If life only comes from previously existing life in the Universe, then whence came the original life? It must have originated from a supernatural Source—Someone outside of the Universe. Indeed, it is God Who “gives to all life, breath, and all things” (Acts 17:25).4

Endnotes

1 Lionel Ruby (1960), Logic: An Introduction (Chicago, IL: J.B. Lippincott), pp. 130-131.

2 Cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 John 4:1; Acts 17:11; John 8:32; John 10:37; Dave Miller (2003),  “Blind Faith,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=444.

3 Jeff Miller (2012), “The Law of Biogenesis [Part 1],” Reason & Revelation, 32[1]:2-5,9-11.

4 For more information, see Jeff Miller (2013), “Unlike Naturalists, You Creationists Have a Blind Faith,” Reason & Revelation, 33[7]:76-83.

Suggested Resources

Evolution Can’t Explain “Smart” Plants by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

 

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=3762

Evolution Can’t Explain “Smart” Plants

by  Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Lisa Krieger recently wrote an article titled, “How Do Flowers Know to Bloom in Spring? Now Humans Know, Too.” She reported about research on flower blooming that is being done by plant molecular geneticist Jose Luis Riechmann from the California Institute of Technology, published in Science magazine. Riechmann’s research centers on the ability of flowers to know when to bloom to take advantage of the proper weather conditions to reproduce. It turns out that for plants to survive, timing is everything. As plant biologist Jorge Dubcovsky of UC Davis stated: “Flowering time is one of the most important traits in breeding because it affects the yield of crops. Too early and you are killed by frost; too late and you are killed by heat” (as quoted in Krieger, 2010).

Reichmann believes he has identified the tiny protein that is responsible for setting blooming in motion. The protein is named APETALA1, or AP1. This tiny wonder “regulates more than 1,000 genes” and “serves as the door that opens the way to flowering” (2010). Without this amazing protein, the plant world as we know it would not exist. The importance of this single protein becomes clear, when we realize that “almost everything we eat is a plant, or something that just ate a plant” (2010).

This petite protein poses a powerful problem for the theory of evolution. According to the theory, all plants and animals evolved over billions of years by chance, random processes that were not directed by any intelligence. Although evolution has been repeatedly shown to be false (see Butt and Lyons, 2009), research like Reichmann’s continues to add more weight to the fact that evolution is scientifically impossible.

First, it should be noted that no research ever done has shown us how random processes can produce a protein like AP1. Second, even if random processes produced AP1, which they cannot, how many times of trial and error would we need to grant the evolutionary process to allow it to finally strike upon the perfectly timed sequence to bloom? If the plants that were supposedly evolving bloomed at the wrong time, they would die or fail to reproduce. While that would be bad for those individual plants, it would also be devastating for the alleged evolutionary process, since evolution would have to start over trying to randomly assemble protein AP1 after every failure. Since all evolutionary scenarios are imaginary, and not backed by real scientific evidence, it is easy to propound a scenario by which natural selection somehow “chose” the plants that happened to bloom at the right time and have the proper protein sequence. But in reality, the first wrong turn would have sent plant evolution (although there really is no such thing) back to the drawing board, as would each additional wrongly timed blooming.

In truth, there never have been millions of years of gradual, chance mutations and natural selections that produced the “intelligent” flowering plants that we see today. The intricate design of plants, as manifested by tiny proteins like AP1, testifies to the fact that an intelligent Designer created flowering plants. Plants “know” exactly when to bloom simply because, when God created them, He endowed them with the ability to perpetuate their kind. As Genesis 1:11 states: “Then God said, ‘Let all the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth’; and it was so” (emp. added).

REFERENCES

Butt, Kyle and Eric Lyons (2009), “Darwin in Light of 150 Years of Error,” Reason & Revelation, 29[2]:9-15, February, [On-line], URL: http://apologeticspress.org/articles/240057.

Krieger, Lisa (2010), “How Do Flowers Know to Bloom in Spring? Now Humans Know, Too,” [On-line], URL: http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_14803818?source=rss.

Evolution and the Laws of Science: The Laws of Thermodynamics by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

 

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2786

Evolution and the Laws of Science: The Laws of Thermodynamics

by  Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

“[T]he principles of thermodynamics have been in existence since the creation of the universe” (Cengel and Boles, 2002, p. 2, emp. added). So states a prominent textbook used in schools of engineering across America. Indeed, these principles prove themselves to be absolutely critical in today’s science world. Much of the engineering technology available today is based on the foundational truths embodied in the Laws of Thermodynamics. As the writers of one engineering thermodynamics textbook stated: “Energy is a fundamental concept of thermodynamics and one of the most significant aspects of engineering analysis” (Moran and Shapiro, 2000, p. 35). Do these laws have application to the creation/evolution debate as creationists suggest? What do they actually say and mean?

The word “thermodynamics” originally was used in a publication by Lord Kelvin (formerly William Thomson), the man often called the Father of Thermodynamics because of his articulation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics in 1849 (Cengel and Boles, p. 2). The term comes from two Greek words: therme, meaning “heat,” and dunamis, meaning “force” or “power” (American Heritage..., 2000, pp. 558,1795). Thermodynamics can be summarized essentially as the science of energy—including heat, work (defined as the energy required to move a force a certain distance), potential energy, internal energy, and kinetic energy. The basic principles and laws of thermodynamics are understood thoroughly today by the scientific community. Thus, the majority of the work with the principles of thermodynamics is done by engineers who simply utilize the already understood principles in their designs. A thorough understanding of the principles of thermodynamics which govern our Universe can help an engineer to learn effectively to control the impact of heat in his/her designs.

THE FIRST AND SECOND LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS

Though there are many important thermodynamic principles that govern the behavior of energy, perhaps the most critical principles of significance in the creation/evolution controversy are the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. What are these laws that, not only are vital to the work of an engineer, but central to this debate?

The First Law

The First Law of Thermodynamics was formulated originally by Robert Mayer (1814-1878). He stated: “I therefore hope that I may reckon on the reader’s assent when I lay down as an axiomatic truth that, just as in the case of matter, so also in the case of force [the term used at that time for energy—JM], only a transformation but never a creation takes place” (as quoted in King, 1962, p. 5). That is, given a certain amount of energy in a closed system, that energy will remain constant, though it will change form (see Figure 1). As evolutionist Willard Young says in defining the First Law, “Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but can only be converted from one form to another” (1985, p. 8).

Figure 1

This principle, also known as the “conservation of energy principle” (Cengel and Boles, p. 2), can be demonstrated by the burning of a piece of wood. When the wood is burned, it is transformed into a different state. The original amount of energy present before the burning is still present. However, much of that energy was transformed into a different state, namely, heat. No energy disappeared from the Universe, and no energy was brought into the Universe through burning the wood. Concerning the First Law, Young further explains that

the principle of the conservation of energy is considered to be the single most important and fundamental ‘law of nature’ presently known to science, and is one of the most firmly established. Endless studies and experiments have confirmed its validity over and over again under a multitude of different conditions (p. 165, emp. added).

This principle is known to be a fact about nature—without exception. One thermodynamics textbook, Fundamentals of Thermodynamics, says:

The basis of every law of nature is experimental evidence, and this is true also of the first law of thermodynamics. Many different experiments have been conducted on the first law, and every one thus far has verified it either directly or indirectly. The first law has never been disproved (Borgnakke and Sonntag, 2009, p. 116, emp. added).

That is why the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms defines a scientific law as “a regularity which applies to all members of a broad class of phenomena” (2003, p. 1182, emp. added). Famous atheist, theoretical physicist, and cosmologist of Cambridge University, Stephen Hawking, concurred:

But what’s really important is that these physical laws, as well as being unchangeable, are universal. They apply not just to the flight of the ball, but to the motion of a planet and everything else in the Universe. Unlike laws made by humans, the laws of nature cannot ever be broken. That’s why they are so powerful…. [T]he laws of nature are fixed (“Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe?” 2011, emp. added).

The Second Law

In the nineteenth century, Lord Kelvin and Rudolph Clausius (1822-1888) separately made findings that became known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Suplee, 2000, p. 156). The Second Law builds on the First, stating that though there is a constant amount of energy in a given system that is merely transforming into different states, that energy is becoming less usable. Extending our wood burning illustration above, after the wood is burned, the total amount of energy is still the same, but transformed into other energy states. Those energy states (e.g., ash and dissipated heat to the environment) are less retrievable and less accessible (see Figure 2).

Figure 2

Well-known atheist, physicist, cosmologist, and astrobiologist of Arizona State University, Paul Davies, explained it this way:

[T]he celebrated second law of thermodynamics…says, roughly speaking, that in any change the Universe becomes a slightly more disorderly place; the entropy goes up, the information content goes down. This natural tendency towards disintegration and chaos is evident all around us (1978, 80[1129]:506).

This process is irreversible. Lord Kelvin stated that energy is “irrecoverably lost to man and therefore ‘wasted,’ although not annihilated” (Thomson, 1882, p. 189, ital. in orig.). This principle is known as entropy. Simply put, entropy states that nature is tending towards disorder and chaos. Will the paint job on your house maintain its fresh appearance over time? Will your son’s room actually become cleaner on its own, or will it tend toward disorder? Even without your son’s assistance, dust and decay take their toll. Although work can slow the entropy, it cannot stop it. Renowned evolutionary science writer Isaac Asimov explained:

Another way of stating the Second Law then is “The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!” Viewed that way we can see the Second Law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself—and that is what the Second Law is all about (1970, p. 6).

Entropy is simply a fact of nature. Entropy can be minimized in this Universe, but it cannot be eradicated. That is where engineers come in. Engineers work to discover ways of minimizing energy loss and maximizing useful energy before it is forever lost. Thousands of engineering jobs are dedicated to addressing this fundamental fact of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Your energy bill is affected directly by it. If the Second Law was not fixed—unchanging—engineers could not develop the technology necessary to maximize usable energy, thereby lowering your energy costs.

Some engineers devote their entire careers to minimizing entropy in the generation of power from energy. All this effort is based on the principles established by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. These principles are established as fact in the scientific community. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines “law” as “a statement describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met” (2000, p. 993, emp. added). Since laws are invariable, i.e., unchanging and constant, they have no exceptions. Otherwise, they would not be classified as laws. Tracy Walters, a mechanical engineer working in thermal engineering, observed:

It has been my experience that many people do not appreciate how uncompromising the Laws of Thermodynamics actually are. It is felt, perhaps, that the Laws are merely general tendencies or possibly only theoretical considerations. In reality, though, the Laws of Thermodynamics are hard as nails, and...the more one works with these Laws, the deeper respect one gains for them (1986, 9[2]:8, emp. added).

Evolutionist Jeremy Rifkin stated that “the Entropy Law will preside as the ruling paradigm over the next period of history. Albert Einstein said that it is the premier law of all science; Sir Arthur Eddington referred to it as the ‘supreme metaphysical law of the entire universe’” (1980, p. 6). Borgnakke and Sonntag, in Fundamentals of Thermodynamics, explain:

[W]e can say that the second law of thermodynamics (like every other law of nature) rests on experimental evidence. Every relevant experiment that has been conducted, either directly or indirectly, verifies the second law, and no experiment has ever been conducted that contradicts the second law. The basis of the second law is therefore experimental evidence (2009, p. 220, emp. added, parenthetical item in orig.).

Another thermal science textbook says, concerning the Second Law of Thermodynamics, “To date, no experiment has been conducted that contradicts the second law, and this should be taken as sufficient proof of its validity” (Cengel, Turner, and Cimbala, 2008, p. 266, emp. added).

IMPLICATIONS OF THE LAWS

When understood properly, the Laws of Thermodynamics apply directly to the creation/evolution controversy in precisely the same way they apply in the engineering world today (cf. Miller, 2007). In fact, these foundational truths, utilized daily by the engineering world, have eternally significant, spiritual implications in that they prove that God exists. How so?

If there is no God, the existence of the Universe must be explained without Him. The Big Bang theory claims that all matter in the Universe initially was condensed in a sphere smaller than the size of a period at the end of this sentence. That sphere exploded and helps to explain why the Universe, according to many cosmologists, appears to be expanding or inflating (see Thompson, et al., 2003, 23[5]:32-34,36-47). Even if the Big Bang were true (and it is not, cf. Thompson, et al.), this theory offers no explanation for the origin of that sphere. Evolutionist Alan Guth, a cosmologist and physics professor at M.I.T., admitted that “[i]nflation itself takes a very small universe and produces from it a very big universe. But inflation by itself does not explain where that very small universe came from” (as quoted in Heeren, 1995, p. 148). He further stated, “[A] proposal that the universe was created from empty space is no more fundamental than a proposal that the universe was spawned by a piece of rubber. It might be true, but one would still want to ask where the piece of rubber came from” (Guth, 1997, p. 273). So where could the “rubber” have come from?

The only logical possibilities for the origin of the matter and energy comprising the Universe are that they are responsible for their own existence (i.e., they popped into existence out of nothing—spontaneous generation or they always existed—eternality) or Someone is responsible for their existence (i.e., they were placed here by something outside of the Universe—Creation) (see Figure 3).

Figure 3

As the well-known philosopher and evolutionist from the 19th century, Herbert Spencer said, “Respecting the origin of the Universe three verbally intelligible suppositions may be made. We may assert that it is self-existent [i.e., eternal—JM]; or that it is self-created [i.e., spontaneously generated—JM]; or that it is created by an external agency” (1882, p. 30).

Possibility 1: Spontaneous Generation of the Universe

Consider the entire physical Universe as a system consisting of all mass, matter, and energy that exists in the Universe. If one believes in the Big Bang model, the system’s boundary would be outside of the blast radius of the Big Bang, or outside of the original cosmic dot that exploded. Without God (i.e., something outside of the bounds of the Universe—something supernatural), this Universe would have to be a closed system. Since our system encompasses the entire Universe, there is no more mass that can cross into our system from the outside, which necessitates our system being closed. If mass, matter, and energy could enter and/or exit the system, the system would be an open system[NOTE: The creationist contends that the Universe is an open system, since there is Someone outside of the natural Universe Who can cross the boundary and put matter and energy into the system. However, without God, the entire physical Universe as a system logically would have to be a closed system. Atheists must so believe in order to explain the Universe without God.].

Evolutionary physicist Victor Stenger, in his book, God: The Failed Hypothesis, said:

Conservation of energy [i.e., the First Law—JM] and other basic laws hold true in the most distant observed galaxy and in the cosmic microwave background, implying that these laws have been valid for over thirteen billion years. Surely any observation of their violation during the puny human life span would be reasonably termed a miracle…. In principle, the creation hypothesis could be confirmed by the direct observation or theoretical requirement that conservation of energy was violated 13.7 billion years ago at the start of the big bang (2007, pp. 115-116, emp. added).

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that in a closed system, the amount of energy present in that system is constant, though it transforms into other forms of energy. So, if the Universe as a whole initially contained no mass, matter, or energy, and then all of the mass, matter, and energy in the Universe spontaneously generated, the First Law would be violated. Without intervention from an outside force, the amount of mass, matter, and energy in the Universe would have remained constant (unchanged) at nothing. According to the scientific evidence, matter/energy could not have originally spontaneously generated. Thus, according to Stenger, the creation hypothesis is confirmed based on the scientific evidence. The initial creation of energy from nothing amounted to a miracle.

As was mentioned earlier, there are no exceptions to laws, or else they would not be laws. The First Law of Thermodynamics has no known exceptions. The Law is accepted as fact by all scientists in general and utilized by engineers in particular. Therefore, the Universe, composed of all mass, matter, and energy, could not have spontaneously generated (popped into existence on its own) without violating the exceptionless and highly respected First Law of Thermodynamics. The energy level of the Universe would not have been constant. Spontaneous generation would amount to the creation of energy from nothing (see Figure 4). The Universe could not have come into existence without the presence and intervention of a Force outside of the closed system of the entire physical Universe. The Universe therefore must be an open system that was created by a non-physical Force (i.e., a Force not composed of mass, matter, and energy) outside of the physical boundary of this Universe (above nature, or supernatural) with the capability of bringing it into existence out of nothing. That Force can be none other than a supernatural God. To develop a theory that requires the violation of that principle would be against the scientific evidence. It would be unscientific. The evidence from science indicates that matter could not and cannot spontaneously generate.

Figure 4

Unfortunately, though this truth is so glaringly obvious to many, there has been a recent surge of sentiment in the impossible notion that this Universe could have created itself—that something could come from nothing. British evolutionist Anthony Kenny (1980), physics professor from City University in New York, Edward Tryon (1984), and physicists Alan Guth from M.I.T. and Paul Steinhardt of Princeton (1984) are just a few who are open proponents of this notion. Stephen Hawking said, “Bodies such as stars or black holes cannot just appear out of nothing. But a whole universe can…. Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing” (2010, p. 180). However, the truth still stands. Until the First Law of Thermodynamics ceases to be a fundamental law explaining this Universe, the spontaneous generation of this Universe from nothing is impossible.

No wonder Victor Stenger, a proponent of the idea of spontaneous generation, said, “I must admit that there are yet no empirical or observational tests that can be used to test the idea of an accidental origin” (1987, 7[3]:30). According to Stenger, the idea is “speculative” (p. 30). No solid evidence. Just speculation. Famous evolutionary astronomer, Robert Jastrow, the founder and former director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA, said:

But the creation of matter out of nothing would violate a cherished concept in science—the principle of the conservation of matter and energy—which states that matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Matter can be converted into energy, and vice versa, but the total amount of all matter and energy in the Universe must remain unchanged forever. It is difficult to accept a theory that violates such a firmly established scientific fact (1977, p. 32).

Science studies what occurs in nature, not super-nature. In nature, matter and energy can be neither created or destroyed, but “must remain unchanged forever.” This is a “firmly established fact.” Nothing comes from nothing. If a molecule will not pop into existence from nothing, a sphere containing all of the matter and energy of the entire Universe will certainly not pop into existence.

Possibility 2: Eternal Existence of the Universe

Again, considering the entire Universe as a system necessitates that it be a closed system. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that though energy in a closed system is constant (First Law of Thermodynamics), that energy is transforming into less usable forms of energy (i.e., the Universe is “running down”). This process is irreversible. There is a finite amount of usable energy in the Universe (which explains the widespread interest in conserving energy). In the Big Bang model, that energy was originally in the cosmic egg that exploded, and now would be found within the blast radius of the original explosion. That usable energy is depleting according to the Second Law. Engineers strive to slow this inevitable depletion of energy, but it cannot be stopped.

If the Universe has always existed (i.e., it is eternal), but there is a finite amount of usable energy, then all usable energy already should be expended (see Figure 5). Yet, usable energy still exists. So, the Universe cannot have existed forever. It had to have a beginning. The eternality of matter would be the equivalent of a system with an energy input and 100% usable energy output (see Figure 6). It would be the equivalent of describing the Universe as a perpetual motion machine—a design that attempts to violate either the First or Second Law of Thermodynamics by, for instance, running forever without an energy input. No such machine has ever been designed, since such a machine would violate the laws of thermodynamics. Philip Yam, writing in Scientific American said, “Claims for perpetual-motion machines and other free-energy devices still persist, of course, even though they inevitably turn out to violate at least one law of thermodynamics” (1997, 277[6]:82).

Figure 5

 

Figure 6

No wonder evolutionists, themselves, have long conceded this truth. In his book, Until the Sun Dies, renowned evolutionary astronomer Robert Jastrow stated:

The lingering decline predicted by astronomers for the end of the world differs from the explosive conditions they have calculated for its birth, but the impact is the same: modern science denies an eternal existence of the Universe, either in the past or in the future (1977, p. 30, emp. added).

In his book, God and the Astronomers, Jastrow reiterated this truth:

And concurrently there was a great deal of discussion about the fact that the second law of thermodynamics, applied to the Cosmos, indicates the Universe is running down like a clock. If it is running down, there must have been a time when it was fully wound up…. Now three lines of evidence—the motions of the galaxies, the laws of thermodynamics, the life story of the stars—pointed to one conclusion; all indicated that the Universe had a beginning (1978, pp. 48-49, 111).

Evolutionist Kitty Ferguson, award-winning science writer, agreed. She said, “It’s also common knowledge that the universe isn’t eternal but had a beginning” (1994, p. 89). Any person who develops a theory that claims that the Universe could be a perpetual motion machine, is guilty of contradicting the solid evidence from science. They are being unscientific, and their unscientific mindset has resulted in an unscientific theory.

Possibility 3: The Inevitable Implication

What does the scientific evidence actually say about the matter of origins? Forget speculation, conjecture, hypothesis, and theory—wishful, hopeful thinking that there might be some way to avoid a supernatural explanation and the restrictions that Being might have on our desires. What does the evidence say?

To repeat, logically, there are only three possible explanations for the existence of matter in the Universe. Either it spontaneously generated, it is eternal, or it was created by a non-physical Being outside of the boundaries of the Universe. Atheists use the theory of evolution in an attempt to explain the existence and state of the Universe today. In order for the theory of evolution to be true, thereby accounting for the existence of mankind, either all of the mass, matter, and energy of the Universe spontaneously generated (i.e., it popped into existence out of nothing), or it has always existed (i.e., it is eternal.). Without an outside force (a transcendent, omnipotent, eternal, superior Being), no other options for the existence of the Universe are available. However, as the Laws of Thermodynamics prove, the spontaneous generation and the eternality of matter are logically and scientifically impossible. One and only one possible option remains: the Universe was created by the Creator. The scientific evidence points to the existence of God. Bottom line: God designed the laws of thermodynamics. Creationists believe them. Engineers use them. Atheists cannot harmonize them with their beloved theory.

CONCLUSION

Evolutionists claim that science and the idea of God are irreconcilable. “Only one of them can be true,” they say, “and you cannot prove there is a God.” Not all theistic models for the origin of the Universe are in keeping with science. For instance, according to Enuma Elish, the Babylonian creation account, the polytheistic Babylonians believed that matter is eternal (Pfeiffer, 1972, p. 226). This has been shown to be false. However, although not all Creation models are in harmony with the scientific evidence, one would expect the true Creation model to be in keeping with the evidence. The Laws of Thermodynamics, which science itself recognizes in its explanations of the phenomena in the Universe, were written by the Chief Engineer (cf. Miller, 2012). As expected, they prove to be in complete harmony with His existence, contrary to the claims of evolutionists. God, Himself, articulated these laws centuries ago in the Bible.

At the very beginning of the Bible, the First Law of Thermodynamics was expressed when Moses penned, “Thus the heavens and the Earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the seventh day, God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done” (Genesis 2:1-2, emp. added). In Exodus 20:11, Moses wrote, “For in six days, the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested (i.e., ceased) the seventh day.” Everything in the Universe was made in six days, and then the Lord stopped creating. Nothing else is coming into existence naturally. After the six days of Creation, the mass, matter, and energy creation process was terminated. As evolutionist Willard Young said regarding the First Law: “Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but can only be converted from one form to another.” The thrust of the First Law of Thermodynamics was expressed in the Bible thousands of years ago, although it was not discovered and formally articulated by scientists until the 19th century.

Through the hand of the psalmist, God also stated centuries ago what scientists call the Second Law of Thermodynamics: “Of old You laid the foundation of the Earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but You will endure; yes, they will all grow old like a garment; like a cloak You will change them, and they will be changed. But You are the same, and Your years will have no end” (102:25-27, emp. added). The Universe is wearing out—decaying, like an old shirt: the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Once again, the Creation model is in perfect harmony with science. The evolutionary model fails its thermodynamics test.

The inspired writer wrote in Hebrews 11:3, “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.” Paul declared in Acts 14:17, “Nevertheless He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good, gave us rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.” The psalmist affirmed, “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork” (19:1). Paul assured the Romans, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse” (1:20, emp. added). The scientific evidence points to God. There will be no excuse in the end for those who deny it.

In closing, we return to Lord Kelvin, the Father of Thermodynamics, for fitting final thoughts. In a short public speech in 1903, reported by The Times and followed up by an amending letter to the paper by Kelvin, Kelvin said:

I do not say that, with regard to the origin of life, science neither affirms nor denies Creative Power. Science positively affirms Creative Power…. It is not in dead matter that we live and move and have our being [Acts 17:28—JM], but in the creating and directive Power which science compels us to accept as an article of belief.... There is nothing between absolute scientific belief in a Creative Power, and the acceptance of the theory of a fortuitous concourse of atoms.... Forty years ago I asked Liebig, walking somewhere in the country if he believed that the grass and flowers that we saw around us grew by mere chemical forces. He answered, “No, no more than I could believe that a book of botany describing them grew by mere chemical forces”.... Do not be afraid of being free thinkers! If you think strongly enough you will be forced by science to the belief in God, which is the foundation of all Religion. You will find science not antagonistic but helpful to Religion (as quoted in Thompson, 1910, pp. 1097-1100, emp. added).

According to the Father of Thermodynamics, evolutionists are failing to “think strongly enough.” No wonder the psalmist asserted: “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (14:1).

REFERENCES

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2000), (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin), fourth edition.

Asimov, Isaac (1970), “In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can’t Even Break Even,” Smithsonian Institute Journal, pp. 4-10, June.

Borgnakke, Claus and Richard E. Sonntag (2009), Fundamentals of Thermodynamics (Asia: John Wiley and Sons), seventh edition.

Cengel, Yunus A. and Michael A. Boles (2002), Thermodynamics: An Engineering Approach (New York: McGraw-Hill), fourth edition.

Cengel, Yunus A., Robert H. Turner, and John M. Cimbala (2008), Thermal-Fluid Sciences (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill).

“Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe?” (2011), Discovery Channel, August 7.

Davies, Paul (1978), “Chance or Choice: Is the Universe an Accident?” New Scientist, 80[1129]:506-508, November.

Ferguson, Kitty (1994), The Fire in the Equations: Science, Religion, and the Search for God (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Guth, Alan (1997), The Inflationary Universe (New York: Perseus Books).

Guth, Alan and Paul Steinhardt (1984), “The Inflationary Universe,” Scientific American, 250:116-128, May.

Hawking, Stephen (2010), The Grand Design (New York, NY: Bantam Books).

Heeren, Fred (1995), Show Me God (Wheeling, IL: Searchlight Publications).

Jastrow, Robert (1977), Until the Sun Dies (New York: W.W. Norton).

Jastrow, Robert (1978), God and the Astro­nomers (New York: W.W. Norton).

Kenny, Anthony (1980), The Five Ways: St. Thomas Aquinas’ Proofs of God’s Existence (South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press).

King, A.L. (1962), Thermophysics (San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman).

McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (2003), pub. M.D. Licker (New York: McGraw-Hill), sixth edition.

Miller, Jeff (2007), “God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective,” Reason & Revelation, 27[4]:25-31, April, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3293.

Miller, Jeff (2012), “‘The Laws of Science’-by God,” Reason & Revelation, 32[12]:137-140, December, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1103&article=2072.

Moran, Michael J. and Howard N. Shapiro (2000), Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics (New York: John Wiley & Sons), fourth edition.

Pfeiffer, Charles F. (1972), The Biblical World (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House).

Rifkin, Jeremy (1980), Entropy: A New World View (New York: Viking).

Spencer, Herbert (1882), First Principles: A System of Synthetic Philosophy (New York: D. Appleton and Company), fourth edition.

Stenger, Victor J. (1987), “Was the Universe Created?,” Free Inquiry, 7[3]:26-30, Summer.

Stenger, Victor J. (2007), God: The Failed Hypothesis (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books).

Suplee, Curt (2000), Milestones of Science (Washington, D.C.: National Geographic Society).

Thompson, Bert, Brad Harrub, and Branyon May (2003), “The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique [Part 1],” Reason & Revelation, 23[5]:32-34,36-47.

Thompson, Silvanus P. (1910), The Life of William Thomson Baron Kelvin of Largs, Vol. 2, (London: MacMillan and Co.).

Thomson, William (1882), Mathematical and Physical Papers (Cambridge University Press).

Tryon, Edward P. (1984), “What Made the World?,” New Scientist, 101:14-16, March 8.

Walters, Tracy (1986), “A Reply to John Patterson’s Arguments,” Origins Research, 9[2]:8-9, Fall/Winter.

Yam, Philip (1997), “Exploiting Zero-Point Energy,” Scientific American, 277[6]82-85.

Young, Willard (1985), Fallacies of Creationism (Calgary, Alberta, Canada: Detselig Enterprises).


"THE GOSPEL OF MARK" A Gentile Blessed For Her Faith (7:24-30) by Mark Copeland

 







"THE GOSPEL OF MARK"

A Gentile Blessed For Her Faith (7:24-30)

INTRODUCTION

1. Many Christians today take their faith and its privileges for granted...
   a. Perhaps it is the old adage, "familiarity breeds contempt"
   b. But Gentile Christians in particular should never lose sight of the grace shown them

2. I refer to privileges that were long bestowed on the Israelites...
   a. Such as a covenant relationship with God
   b. With all the blessings that accompany such a relationship
   c. Which are now available to all who come to God with faith in Christ

[An incident in the life of Christ reminds me of "the way we were".  It
involves a Gentile woman who was blessed for her faith.  In Mk 7:24, we
begin as we pick up with...]

I. THE NARRATIVE

   A. THE SEARCH FOR PRIVACY...
      1. Jesus had travelled about 40 miles from Capernaum
      2. He came to the region of Tyre and Sidon, also known as Syro-Phoenecia - Mk 7:24
      3. He sought privacy, probably needing rest - cf. Mk 6:31-32

   B. THE REQUEST FOR A MIRACLE..
      1. A woman with a daughter possessed by an unclean spirit came to Him - Mk 7:25
      2. She was a Greek (Gentile), a Syro-Phoenician by birth - Mk 7:26
      3. She "kept asking" Jesus to cast out the demon - Mk 7:26
      4. She even acknowledged Jesus as "O Lord, Son of David!" - cf. Mt 15:22
      5. Matthew reveals that initially Jesus did not speak to her - cf. Mt 15:23
      6. That she began pestering His disciples - cf. Mt 15:23

   C. THE REFUSAL TO HEAL...
      1. Matthew's account explains Jesus' thinking - cf. Mt 15:24
         a. "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
         b. Compare His charge regarding the "Limited Commission" - cf. Mt 10:5-6
         c. His mission was to fulfill prophecy concerning Israel's Messiah
         d. He would later expand His ministry to the world - cf. Mt 28:19; Mk 16:15
      2. Jesus' response to her suggested as much - Mk 7:27
         a. "Let the children be filled first..."
         b. There were promises to Israel that needed to be filled before those to the Gentiles

   D. THE RESPONSE TO FAITH...
      1. The woman's response to Jesus shows her faith - Mk 7:28
         a. "Yes, Lord..." - she acknowledge the right for Him to refuse her request
         b. "...yet even the little dogs under the table eat from the
            children's crumbs.." - she would be happy with "crumbs" left
            over from His ministry to the Jews
      2. Jesus admired her faith and healed her daughter - Mk 7:29-30
         a. Matthew adds that Jesus said, "O woman, great is your faith!" - cf. Mt 15:28
         b. And that her daughter "was healed instantly" - cf. Mt 15:28

[Thus this Gentile woman was blessed for her faith.  With this incident fresh on our mind...]

II. SOME OBSERVATIONS

   A. OTHER GENTILES BLESSED BY FAITH...
      1. The centurion at Capernaum - Mt 8:5-13
      2. Cornelius, the first Gentile convert to the gospel - Ac 10:1-6
      -- The first centurion ate "crumbs", the latter the first to "sit at the table"

   B. GENTILES ARE NOW BLESSED BY FAITH...
      1. We are no longer:
         a. Without Christ
         b. Aliens from the commonwealth of Israel
         c. Strangers from the covenants of promise
         d. Having no hope and without God in the world  - Ep 2:11-12
      2. We are now:
         a. Brought near by the blood of Christ - Ep 2:13
         b. Reconciled as one body in Christ - Ep 2:14-17
         c. With access by one Spirit to the Father - Ep 2:18
         d. Fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God - Ep 2:19-22
      -- True to Jesus' promise (Mt 8:11-12), Gentiles can now sit at the table!

   C. ARE WE MAKING GOOD USE OF OUR BLESSINGS...?
      1. Not if we refuse to come to the table
         a. By not obeying the gospel
         b. Jesus now invites everyone - Mk 16:15-16
      2. Not if we refuse to eat at the table
         a. Through disobedience and neglect
         b. This was the mistake of many of the Jews - cf. Mt 8:11-12; 21:43
      3. Not if we eat only the crumbs
         a. Through apathy and neglect
         b. This was the problem with Sardis and Laodicea - cf. Re 3:1-2,14-19
      -- If the "sons" will be cast out, how much more ungrateful "dogs"? - cf. Ro 11:21-22

CONCLUSION

1. This incident, "A Gentile Blessed For Her Faith", should remind us of...
   a. The way we were before Christ
   b. The blessings we now enjoy in Christ

2. Do we have her kind of faith...?
   a. Persisting even when first rebuffed?
   b. Willing to accept even the smallest of blessings?

For those who do, a spiritual feast awaits...! - cf. Ep 1:3  
 
Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

Bachelorette on show’s sexual relations: ‘I can do whatever, I sin daily and Jesus still loves me’ by Ken Weliever, The Preacherman

 

https://thepreachersword.com/2019/06/21/bachelorette-on-shows-sexual-relations-i-can-do-whatever-i-sin-daily-and-jesus-still-loves-me/

Bachelorette on show’s sexual relations: ‘I can do whatever, I sin daily and Jesus still loves me’

In a new promotional video for the so-called reality show “The Bachelorette” Hannah Brown is talking with contestant Luke Parker, who is telling her what he thinks about sex.

“Let’s talk about sex and how the marriage bed should be kept pure,” Luke told Hannah.

“Let’s say you have had sex with one or multiple of these guys, I would be wanting to go home,” Luke admitted.

Apparently, Hannah, who professes to be a Christian and was shown praying before meeting the bachelors, was offended by Luke’s comments and confessed she had “physical relations” with some of the other contestants but said “Jesus stills loves her.”

“Regardless of anything that I’ve done, I can do whatever, I sin daily and Jesus still loves me. It’s all washed and if the Lord doesn’t judge me and it’s all forgiven, then no other man, woman … anything can judge me,” Hannah told Entertainment Weekly after the promo aired.

“Nobody’s gonna judge me, I won’t stand for it,” she continued.

According to the promotional clip, however, Hannah seemingly sends Luke home after their “sex” chat and even flips him off as he is leaving.

“My faith that is a big, huge part of me and a lot of times people get Christianity and religion messed up,” Hannah told ET. “Your faith should be something personal and a relationship and it’s not to judge others.”

Now for the record, The Preacherman does not watch “The Bachelorette.” In fact, I never saw the promotional video. My source is from an article in The Christian Post by Charity Gibson.

Hannah’s attitude is characteristic of many people who harbor misconceptions, about sin, grace, religion, and judging.

(1) God’s grace is not a blank check to sin.

Hannah’s retort minds me of the apostle Paul’s anticipated response from his readers when he wrote, “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?”

The answer. “By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it.”

While all have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory (Rom. 3:23), the frailty of the flesh is not an excuse to willfully and wantonly engage in sinful practices. Planned, persistent, and deliberate sins puts us at odds with the plea of the Bible to “abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul” (1 Pet. 2:11).

(2) The Bible teaches that fornication is a sin.

Our culture accepts sexual relationships apart from marriage as being normal, expected and even healthy. But the majority opinion is wrong.

Furthermore, God’s love, grace, and mercy do not excuse sexual relationships outside of marriage. Hebrews 13:4 affirms that “Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.”

Paul admonished us to “flee sexual immorality” and says that it is a sin that can keep one from “the Kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9-11,18).

(3) God’s love does not ignore our transgressions.

Yes, God loves us. He sent Christ to die for sins. And He is longsuffering. (John 3:16; Rom. 5:8; 2 Pet. 3:9). But this not does mean that God turns a blind eye to our sins. He earnestly desires for us to repent. To change. To be transformed from the deeds, desires, and deceitfulness of this world (Rom. 12:1-2).

(4) Religion and Christianity are not mutually exclusive.

Hannah’s pejorative comment about religion is one that we often hear. Many folks labor under the false notion that they can hold to some personal faith apart from Biblical instruction and be pleasing to God.

God’s Word, however, says something about religion that applies to this issue. “Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world” (Jas 1:27).

The religion of Christ involves both principles and practices that one professing faith ought to believe and embrace.

(5) Not all judging is a sin.

Accusing others of judging is a frequent dodge to deflect the condemnation of our sins. Jesus commanded, “Judge righteous judgment”(Jn. 7:24). Discerning good from evil requires judgment (Heb 5:14). And to obey the exhortation “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them” (Eph 5:11) demands judging based on God’s Word.

Let us not excuse our sins or become slaves of sin. Rather may we be servants of Christ. Forgiven and free from the bondage of sin.

–Ken Weliever, The Preacherman