Religion v. Science

and the Pitfalls of Literalism
in Both Camps

This past week I purchased a book on my Kindle Fire (thank you, God for the Kindle Fire) that I have been wanting to read for quite a long time: Proof of Heaven by Ebon Alexander. The book chronicles the alleged near-death experience of Dr. Alexander, a revered neurosurgeon who fell into a deep coma that completely rendered his neocortex (the part of the brain that allegedly controls human conscience) completely inactive.

Of course, there is nothing unique about Dr. Alexander's claims of his "spirit" journeying to the beyond.  Thousands of people from all cultures have made such claims.  But there are a few special circumstances surrounding Dr. Alexander's account.  First, it is a documented fact that the "thinking" parts of Dr. Alexander's brain were totally shut down for at least seven days.  Second, as an accredited neurosurgeon, who has lectured at schools like Harvard and Yale, Dr. Alexander was inherently a skeptic of things like near-death experiences.  As a result, Dr. Alexander attempts to analyze his experience through the lens of a scientist as opposed to the traditional approach that most survivors of NDE's take.

With all of this being said, I wish I could report that I found Dr. Alexander's book particularly enlightening.  Sadly, I was very disappointed.  The book, which seemed more like a bio of Dr. Alexander's life rather than an account of his experience, was, for me, a huge let down.  I also found little scientific analysis into his experience (for example, Dr. Alexander stated that "all of his questions" were answered by "god" but he never tells us what those questions were.  Not very "scientific.").  Long story short, the book was a lot of fluff with very little substance (in my opinion).

Anyway, the intent of this blog post is not to provide a review of Dr. Alexander's book.  I mention it here as a lead-in to a much larger and more difficult topic that never seems to go away: the topic of religion v. science and how both sides cooperate/clash with one another.  And whether you believe him or not, Dr. Alexander's story is the perfect illustration of just how messy this topic can be.  Even though most of us will never have the "privilege" of experiencing a NDE like Dr. Alexander, we all come to the same crossroad that he arrived at: where does human reason and scientific inquiry end and divine light and spiritual faith begin?

Of course, there is no possible way to answer this question and my simple little blog post will do little to address it today, but I do think we can clarify a few of the "rules of the game" that I find particularly troubling.  After all, it is impossible to even attempt an honest discussion on an issue like this if both sides cannot agree on a general code of conduct.  This is my goal today.

The first fact we must accept is that religion and science, though operating on fundamentally different playing fields, are essentially two different languages trying to tell the same general story: who are we? where did we come from? where are we going?  Religion, which is inherently dogmatic, resistant to change and often dictatorial in nature, provides a nuanced view on things like morality, kindness, charity and forgiveness, and the eternal value these intangible attributes have over what the palpable world offers.  Science, on the other hand, is self-reflective, always changing and based on verifiable realities, which places almost all value upon the provable, observable and rational.

And though these differences in approach to truth seem to regularly lead both parties into a head-on collision with one another, I believe that most of the wreckage comes as a result of both parties being either unwilling to concede any ground on even the most basic of principles and/or taking ridiculous cheap shots at the other side's weakest elements.

Take for example the works of scientists like Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan: two men whom I admire for their scientific expertise and prowess with the written and spoken word.  Few men in the scientific world have the ability to inspire and persuade as Dawkins and Sagan do.  But their powerful prose notwithstanding, I am regularly disappointed to see these (and other) accredited scientists resorting to childish attacks on the low-lying fruit of religion.  They treat religion with such blatant contempt that it becomes impossible for them to be truly "scientific."  In other words, they take the worst of religion, portray it as a rigid monolith, that when compared with the best of science (which is fluid and evolving) makes any and all believers look like ridiculous, uninformed buffoons.  Such an approach is both unscientific and immature, and certainly unworthy of "sophisticated" minds like those of Dawkins and Sagan.  It is cheap shot, bush league nonsense.  In short, men like Dawkins and Sagan may be/have been great scientists, but they are/were piss-poor theologians.

But as is the case with any dysfunctional debate, it takes two sides to tango.  When we look at religion's contempt for science, we often see reason and common sense being replaced with suspicion and paranoia masquerading as "faith."  Religious leaders, bent on preserving the "integrity" of their holy books, resort to some of the most ridiculous arguments in human history.  Men like Ken Ham, who cannot accept the FACT that the world is billions of year old, have twisted reality to such an appalling level all in the name of protecting the Bible.  Such a narrow-minded view of reality, all in the name of literal biblical Christianity, is an embarrassment to religious people everywhere.  For men like Ken Ham the bottom line is this: Religion has had to concede so much ground over the years because of the FACT that so much has been proven wrong.  To believe, in the modern era, that Adam and Eve were the first human beings, living in a perfect garden only 6,000 years ago, until a talking snake convinced Eve to eat a naughty apple, thereby causing death and sin to enter the picture, which eventually caused a man named Noah to build a magic ark to save all animals from a global flood, isn't an example of a person's faith; it's an illustration of a person's ignorance.

But there can be a balance between both science and religion.  As Galileo stated during his bogus trial:

The Bible tells you how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go...In my mind God wrote two books. The first book is the Bible, where humans can find the answers to their questions on values and morals.  The second book of God is the book of nature, which allows humans to use observations and experiment to answer our own questions about the universe.

Admittedly, there is a lot wrong with Galileo's summation, but I think that we all can see what he was getting at.  At the risk of sounding insensitive to scriptural literalists, taking the Bible, Qur'an, Book of Mormon or any other holy book as literal, factual undeniable truth is, at best, stupid.  But to discredit the moral lessons found in scripture for those same reasons is equally stupid, and the scientists who regularly slam scripture for such reasons would do well to watch their tongue.  After all, I wonder how scientists might react if theologians were to judge their mistakes by the same standard.  Whether taking the form of alchemy, the four humors, social Darwinism, or bloodletting (which killed our first president), science hasn't exactly batted 1.000 either and would be equally wrong to claim literalism.

Of course, Science doesn't judge itself by as strict a literalist standard and does a MUCH better job of learning from its mistakes than does religion.  After all, science doesn't claim to know the will of God.  But science does make it a regular practice to discredit that which requires faith, as if faith were a hindrance to an honest quest for truth.  But such an approach makes a mockery out of some of the basic elements of humanity...that being primarily our HUMANITY.  As Emily Dickinson wrote:

Faith -- is the Pierless Bridge
Supporting what We see
Unto the Scene that We do not --
Too slender for the eye

It bears the Soul as bold
As it were rocked in Steel
With Arms of Steel at either side --
It joins -- behind the Veil

To what, could We presume
The Bridge would cease to be
To Our far, vacillating Feet
A first Necessity.

So if taking too literal of a religious or scientific approach is a bad thing then what is the solution?  I'm not sure there is one.  Perhaps it would be a good starting point for both religion and science to take the best from one another.  Science would do well to recognize that there is much about the world that is not provable, verifiable or testable but is still a reality (dark matter, dark energy, quantum gravity, etc.) and that much of what religion esteems of worth (kindness, charity, etc.) cannot be tested in a laboratory.  There is real value to sincere prayer, meditation, positive thought, and devout devotion.  To simply say, "I don't need church" is far too simplistic.  Sure, I would agree that one can live a good life without a faith, but a faith doesn't hurt.  In fact, it helps...a helluva lot.  As a recent Gallup poll shows, those who go to church are, by and large, happier, more successful and more charitable.  Coincidence?  I think not.  Attending church, like attending school, helps us to grow our understanding of what faith really is.  Benamin Franklin once stated that, "Genius, without education, is like silver still trapped in the mine."  Might I be so bold as to say that faith/hope/charity, without religion, is like silver still trapped in the mine as well.

On the flip side, religion would do well to recognize that science has CONCLUSIVELY proven some of religion's most archaic ideas and teachings to be completely untrue.  As a result, religion is going to have to learn how to be flexible.  This is where science blows religion away.  Nobody (or at least very few) in the scientific community get as crazy as those of the religious community when their ideas/beliefs are challenged.  Science is about challenging EVERYTHING, and religion would do well to challenge at least a few things.  As Thomas Jefferson apty stated:

Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion.  Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there is one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.

Questioning things is not a sign of weakness or a lack of faith.  In fact, I believe that an argument can be made that any faith, without a healthy dose of honest skepticism, isn't really faith at all.  It is both right and good that we change how we think about the nature of God.  For example the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent god doesn't even exist in the oldest Hebrew texts of the Bible.  It may just be a mistake based on the Aristotelian thought of the Medieval era that God was nothing more than a mystical but simple unmoved mover.  Perhaps he isn't the celestial dictatorial magician we think He is but rather a teacher, motivator and persuader of good?

The bottom line is this: anyone who insists upon taking an absolute, literalist approach to either religion or science could probably benefit from learning a little more about religion and/or science.  After all, there is little REAL merit in the atheist argument that tries to explain away religious belief through reason and psychology.  To the believer know this: you don't have to listen to their ilk.  In the end, all they are saying is something like this:

"I'm an atheist because I am strong, rational and thoughtful; you're a believer because you are all about wish fulfillment and emotional response.  Therefore religious people are weaker, less sophisticated and more prone to deception that us atheists." 

Again, the Carl Sagan's and Richard Dawkins's of the world are far more eloquent in how they say it, but make no mistake; this is EXACTLY what they are saying...and it's bullshit.

And for the religious zealot who rebukes any and all verifiable claims of science by simply regurgitating the line, "because the Bible says so," all I can say is...GOD HELP YOU!  Your INTENTIONAL stupidity does your cause no good, but instead weakens the hand you have been dealt. Instead of taking such a hard-lined stance on what your holy book says, try to simply accept truth wherever it can be found.  I've often wondered as to whether or not biblical literalists believe in Jesus or in the Bible?  Or if Muslim literalists believe in Allah or the Qur'an?  In other words, has your holy book become such an idol for worship that you cannot look past it any longer?  Are you seriously that diluted in your thinking?

I don't mean to be harsh but sometimes harsh speech can shake people from apathy.  I think I have said enough.  Instead, let me leave you with the words of astrophysicist Neil Degrasse Tyson, from his excellent book, Death by Black Hole.  He writes:

Let there be no doubt that as they are currently practiced, there is no common ground between science and religion...history reveals a long and combative relationship between religion and science, depending on who was in control of society at the time.  The claims of science rely on experimental verification, while those of religion rely on faith.  These are fundamentally irreconcilable approaches to knowing, which ensures an eternity of debate wherever and whenever the two camps meet.  Although just as in hostage negotiations, it's probably best to keep both sides talking to each other.

I couldn't agree more.  What is most important is that we keep talking...a lot...and often.  Both sides stand to lose too much by backing into their respective caves and relying exclusively on their own "truths."  Or as Albert Einstein put it, "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind."  In conclusion, I leave you with the words of the good Doctor Ebon Alexander.  Perhaps his near-death experience illustrates the strange but important dichotomy that exists between religion and science better than I originally thought:

Today many believe that the living spiritual truths of religion have lost their power, and that science, not faith, is the road to truth. Before my experience I strongly suspected that this was the case myself. 

But I now understand that such a view is far too simple. The plain fact is that the materialist picture of the body and brain as the producers, rather than the vehicles, of human consciousness is doomed. In its place a new view of mind and body will emerge, and in fact is emerging already. This view is scientific and spiritual in equal measure and will value what the greatest scientists of history themselves always valued above all: truth.

Only time will tell I suppose.

Getting a Dull Shave With Occam's Razor

“The aim of science is to seek the simplest explanation of complex facts. We are apt to fall into the error of thinking that the facts are simple because simplicity is the goal of our quest. The guiding motto in the life of every natural philosopher should be “Seek simplicity and distrust it.” – Alfred North Whitehead

Most people are familiar with the philosophical principle known as Occam's Razor, which suggests that whenever faced with competing hypotheses to a particular problem, the one with the fewest and simplest assumptions is probably best.  Occam's Razor implies that there is an inherant virtue to simplicity, even from a scientific or philosophical perspective, and that by taking a minimalist stance to a given problem the truth can become more clear. Occam's Razor has become a staple for theological skeptics and nominalists who prefer a more deliberate and palpable view of the metaphysical world.  In many respects, Occam's Razor has been wielded as the ultimate dagger against those who put their faith in the intangible.  As actress Jodi Foster demonstrates:



The portrayal of Occam's Razor in the movie Contact is probably the best known allusion to this philosophical principle in modern culture.  In fact, when most people refer to Occam's Razor they usually end up quoting the very lines that Jodi Foster used in the film: "All things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the right one."  And though the idea behind Occam's Razor seems simple enough, the reality of Occam's Razor is that it is far from being the Holy Grail to all logical pursuits, and in many respects is an outdated relic of a time gone by.  Of course, by no means am I suggesting that Occam's Razor is completely worthless.  I personally find much to be desired by appealing to simplicity.  However, Occam's Razor, like any blade, has two sides to it.   

**********

The origins of Occam's Razor date all the way back to the early 14th century, when a brilliant man named William of Ockham began to challenge some of the standard orthodoxy of his day.  William was, without question, one of the greatest and most important thinkers of the Middle Ages.  Next only to perhaps Thomas Aquinas, there are few who can claim to have shaped Western philosophy and Christian epistomology more in that era than William of Ockham.  His ideas gave birth to a more deliberate, logical and nominalistic interpretation of philosophy and religion, many of which continue to this day. 

As a member of the Franciscan Order, William had become well-aquainted with the strict orthodoxy that persisted in much of Christianity.  Pious priests and monks had faithfully maintained the status quo with little resistance to the chuch's central teachings.  Most of the faithful had grown accustomed to the ritualized lifestyle of Medeival Catholicism, complete with its emphasis on faithful discipleship through humble acquiesance to heavenly guidance and passive acceptance of Vatican supremacy.  And while William of Ockham had no apparent problem with church authority (he was, after all, a devout Franciscan monk), he did have one basic character flaw: he was a genius.

It didn't take long for William of Ockham to begin questioning and revising some of his personal beliefs. As a man who prided himself upon logic and reason, William took issue with some of the doctrinal aspects of his faith, particularly surrounding the Trinity and the church's growth and dependence upon wealth.  As William himself stated in his now infamous Summa Logicae:

Plurality ought never be posited without necessity.

And:

It is futile to do with more things that which can be done with fewer.

William was never a fan of the convoluted doctrine of the Trinity.  On many occasions, he argued that the Bible nor logic and reason would support such a view.  In addition, it troubled William deeply when he saw the massive expanse of wealth that was being enjoyed by the chief officers of the church in his day.  As a result, William embraced a minimalist view of theology in where logic and reason were seen as tools to purify one's personal faith.  As a result, William of Ockham is often hailed as being the father of Medieval Nominalism.  Needless to say, many of William's ideas landed him in trouble with the church, and eventually led to his excommunication.  But these developments did not change the fact that William's ideas were here to stay...for the long haul.

And even though William of  Ockham's contributions are praised for their reliance upon logic, reason and the pursuit of basic simplicity, it would be wrong to say that he had no room for accepting matters of faith.  As William himself stated:

Only faith gives us access to theological truths. The ways of God are not open to reason, for God has freely chosen to create a world and establish a way of salvation within it apart from any necessary laws that human logic or rationality can uncover.

These don't sound like the words of a man who supposedly believed that the simplest ideas are always the best.  In fact, William of Ockam seemed to be less interested in the ideas of Occam's Razor (the philosophical idea that was named after him) than most people want to believe.  While it is true that he maintained many nominalist ideas, I disagree that William of Ockham was truly a nominalist at heart.  It is presumptuous for us to say that William's dependance upon logic and reason somehow negated his belief in faith and the intangible.  It did not.  Occam's Razor may be based in principle upon many of the teaching of William, but the end substance of this philosophical concept is far from being in harmony with the man whose name it now immortalizes.

William of Ockham would never have foreseen the day when the pursuit of objective reason and logic would somehow be put in conflict with a life of faith.  As a result, I wonder if it is even right for us to call Occam's Razor after William of Ockham.  After all, the phrase didn't come into existence until 1852 by Sir William Hamilton, more than 500 years after William of Ockham's death.  Since that day, Occam's Razor has evolved to become something that William would never have embraced himself.  For scientists and philosophers today, Occam's Razor has been employed as a heuristic (general guiding rule) to guide scientists in the the development of theoretical models, rather than simply being an arbitrary tool between conflicting theories.  In other words, Occam's Razor has become a nearly irrefutable principle of logic that no objective scientist would dare to question.

But the fact of the matter is that Occam's Razor is not a crystal ball to all logic and objectivity.  In fact, there are quite a few problems with this supposed gem of philosophical thought.  The bottom line is that validity of a theory and simplicity are not automatically related.  Whether an idea or a set of facts is littered with complexities or is stripped down to its absolute bare simplicity has no bearing on its veracity.  Sure, the simpler concept may be easier to understand, but it is not inherantly more correct than a complex theory.  The danger of "appealing to simplicity" is that there are many cases in which factual scientific theories and ideas are incredibly complex. The theories behind quantum mechanics and general relativity for example are so complex that appealing to Occam's Razor wouldn't be practical.  As a result, Occam's Razor can become, at times, a logical fallacy.

As one science blogger aptly illustrates, Occam's Razor can regularly fall victim to a number of pitfalls in science:

Occam’s Razor is actually a vestigial remnant of medieval science. It is literally a historical artifact: William of Ockham employed this principle in his own 13th century work on divine omnipotence and other topics “resistant” to scientific methods. The continuing use of parsimony in modern science is an atavistic practice equivalent to a cardiologist resorting to bloodletting when heart medication doesn’t work.

And it is in the life sciences where Occam’s razor cuts most sharply in the wrong direction, for at least three reasons.

1) First, life itself is a fascinating example of nature’s penchant for complexity. If parsimony applies anywhere, it is not here.

2) Second, evolution doesn’t design organisms as an engineer might – instead, organisms carry their evolutionary history along with them, advantages and disadvantages alike (your appendix is the price you pay for all your inherited immunity to disease). Thus life appears to result from a cascading “complexifying” process – an understanding of organisms at the macroscale will be anything but simple.

3) Third, we know that the even the simplest rules of life can give rise to intractable complexity. Unless you’re a biophysicist, the mechanisms at your preferred level of analysis are likely to be incredibly heterogenous and complex, even at their simplest.

[...]

Thus, the utility of Occam’s Razor is highly questionable. Theories which it would soundly eliminate are usually questionable for other reasons, while useful theories might be discarded for a lack of parsimony relative to their over-simplified competitors. The theory which states “height determines weight” can do a reasonable job of providing evidence that seems to support that theory. And it’s highly parsimonious – Ockham would love it! But the theory which says “nutrition, exercise, and a collection of more than 100 genes predict both height and weight” is highly unparsimonious, even though we know it’s better than its competitor theory. Statisticians have quantified the appropriate penalty for various theories based on the number of variables they involve, but the more theoretical modes of quantitative science have yet to catch up.

In other words, Occam's Razor is wonderful for grasping at the low lying fruit that is easy to reach, but offers little in terms of understanding many of the complex realities of the modern world.  Sure, we would all love to have simplicity reign supreme.  It makes life easier.  But sadly, this cannot always be the case.  No matter what Lynyrd Skynyrd has to say on the matter, there really are no "Simple Men."

Or simple solutions to all of life's problems.

"Let There Be Light": The Big Bang, Evolution, God and Creation, Part II

Part II: Reckoning the Genesis Creation
with Scientific Creation

***Note: Be sure to start with Part I of this series, which can be found here.***

In this installment I want to attempt to look at how the biblical account of creation (found in the Book of Genesis) compares with scientific reality, and how both can be useful source material. To do so we must first attempt to understand why so many Christians adhere to such a strict and literal interpretation of the Holy Bible.

Sola Scriptura
During the Protestant Reformation, religious leaders like Martin Luther, John Calvin, Huldrych Zwingli, John Knox and many others revolted against the traditional doctrines of the Catholic Church, which had maintained a virtual monopoly over Christianity for centuries. Due to a number of factors (church corruption, disagreements over doctrine, church hierarchy, etc.) these "reformers" essentially sought to improve the conditions and direction of Christianity in their day. As a result, the Protestant Reformation brought to life different interpretations for what it meant to be a Christian.

One of the key arguments that arose from the Protestant Reformation was the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (By Scripture Alone). As mentioned above, one of the key problems that reformers had with the Catholic Church was the emphasis it placed on the supremacy of the Pope and other hierarchical leaders. The emerging Protestants had little tolerance for such practices and sought to place ultimate ecclesiastical authority in a source other than a Pope. In consequence, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura became extremely appealing.

At its core, Sola Scriptura suggests that the Bible is the only inspired and authoritative word of God, and the only source for Christian doctrine. As a result, the authority of all ecclesiastical leaders became subordinate and inferior to the ultimate authority of the Bible. In short the Protestant Reformation taught the defenders of Sola Scriptura that no single person (i.e. the Pope) could ever claim superior status or authority over the Holy Bible.

It should therefore come as no surprise to learn that Sola Scriptura caught on very fast with the emerging Protestant congregations. As the Bible became more prevalent in the lives of ordinary believers (thanks to the printing press), more and more people were able to study for themselves the doctrines found in scripture. This essentially placed the burden of salvation back into the hands of the individual, since ultimately Protestants rejected the need to follow a Pope. By studying and then applying the teachings of the Holy Bible, one would be able to find all the needed guidance in order to gain salvation.

And as one would expect, any attack on the sovereignty and infallibility of the Bible was met with severe scorn. In Puritan America, for example, Roger Williams' ideas were met with such scorn that he was eventually forced to flee. Williams suggested that the anti-Christ was the Catholic Church (a common belief at the time) and that its distortions of true Christianity were so severe that a restoration of the holy apostleship was needed in order to know God's true will:

If Christs Churches were utterly nullified, and quite destroyed by Antichrist, then I demande when they beganne againe and where? who beganne them? that we may knowe, by what right and power they did beginne them: for we have not heard of any new Jo: Baptist, nor of any other newe waye from heaven, by which they have begunne the Churches a newe

. (John Winthrop Papers, vol. III, 11. Quoted in Roger Williams: The Church and the State, 52, by Edmund Morgan).In other words, Williams was stating that Christianity needed further guidance and understanding in addition to what the Bible taught. Needless to say, this didn't sit well with those who embraced Sola Scriptura.

Fast forward to today. Scientific discovery has completely changed many of our traditional views of the universe, and in the process, has contradicted (heck, completely refuted) many of the teachings found in the Bible. As a result, those who defend Sola Scriptura are constantly attempting to explain (in a futile effort mind you) why the Bible is still the superior source of knowledge. Take for example this ridiculous debate over dinosaurs. If we take the Bible as literal truth, we must accept that the earth is no more than a few thousand years old (see 2 Peter 3:8). Faced with this Biblical teaching, defenders of Sola Scriptura must then attempt to explain why science insists that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. Here is an example of their futile attempt to reconcile this dilemma:


Needless to say, this willful rejection of scientific fact combined with blind allegiance to ancient scripture, has become the main catalyst for today's religion/science debates. Men like pseudo-scientist Ken Ham (shown in the video above) have gone to such ridiculous and futile lengths to prove the Bible's validity that it comes as no surprise to see that 4 in 10 Americans believe in the literal Bible account of creation.

So how are we to reckon the realities of scientific discovery with the biblical accounts of creation? Perhaps we will never fully be able to. With that said, there are ways that we can see the truth of both arguments.

The "Seven Days" of Creation

The Book of Genesis opens with a very general overview of God's creation of humanity, the Earth and the universe in general. Needless to say, this vague creation story has become the topic of ridicule in the scientific community. After all, science has proven that the earth is much older than a few thousand years and life took millions of years not days (or 1000 years for each day) to develop.

But is the Genesis story of creation completely worthless? Should we discard it right out of the gate for its apparent flaws? If you accept Sola Scriptura my answer would be, yes. Of course the creation story in Genesis isn't literal truth as so many suggest. But if you believe that the Bible is ancient man's attempt to explain his origins, then some incredible truths can be found. If we take each day and juxtapose it to what science teaches, we can see that there are some striking similarities.

Genesis 1:2-5: 2.) And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3.) And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4.) And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5.) And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

According to astrophysicists, the universe began when a singularity of light, heat and matter suddenly exploded roughly 14 billion years ago, sending an immense amount of heat, matter and gases into the expanses that became space. As the matter and gasses cooled, it eventually coalesced into giant galaxies, stars, nebulas, planets and other celestial bodies.

Genesis 1:9-10: 9.)And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

10.) And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

Geologists have shown how during the Archean Eon the Earth experienced incredible tectonic activity. As the Earth's core continued to form, the planet experienced a huge jump in temperature. Volcanic activity spewed molten rock across the surface of the planet. During this era, the Earth's magnetic field was established, which protected it from the immense solar winds of the time (winds that were 100 times greater than what we see today). This protected the infant planet's atmosphere from being stripped away, unlike the atmosphere of Mars which was completely annihilated during this era. During the later parts of the Archean Eon and the beginning of the Proterozoic Eon, water began to form on the newly cooled planet's surface.

Genesis 1:11-1211.) And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12.) And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

At this point, life is introduced to the world. Some have suggested that these verses are in complete opposition to evolution since they employ the phrase "after his kind." Geologist and theologian Greg Neyman suggests otherwise. He writes:

Notice that God did not say, "Let there be grass," and there was grass. God told the land to produce the vegetation! It was the land doing the producing, not God. God told the earth to bring forth grass, and in verse 12, "the earth brought forth grass..." In essence, God let the land "do its thing" on its own. Instead of flat, out of nothing creation, the text for Genesis actually supports evolution better!

And when speaking of verses 20-21 (which also have to do with the creation of life) Neyman writes:

In this passage where God creates ocean life, He tells the ocean to bring forth the creatures. He does not say, "Let there be whales;" or "let there be sharks." Verse 21 shows the result, that "God created great whales." Verse 20 gives the process God used to create..."Let the waters bring forth..." Again, this seems to support evolution better than flat, out of nothing creation.

This is an important and often ignored distinction. The Bible does not say that God simply snapped his fingers and created all forms of life. Instead, it says that "the water brought forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven" (Genesis 1:20). And as any evolutionary biologist will tell you, life on earth began in the sea. As evolutionary biologist Steven Faux (who happens to be a distant relative of mine) states:

Animal life developed in the sea before reaching dry land. The first fishes were evident about 500 million years ago. Land tetrapods (four-footed land animals) evolved from sarcopt fishes (lobe-finned) about 400 million years ago.

By 300 million years ago the first reptiles were found.

The first mammal-like reptiles (synapsids) were evident by 200 million years ago. True mammals probably arose about 100 million years ago (see also: Bininda-Emonds).

The first birds (like Archaeopteryx) were evident about 150 million years ago, and they derived from dinosaurs.

So does the Bible support evolution? That probably depends on how you interpret the "Good Book." As I have stated before, any literal interpretation of scripture makes it extremely difficult to accept and embrace the realities of scientific discovery. It's just one of those unfortunate side effects of Sola Scriptura. With that said, I do not see any problem with embracing evolution and the general Genesis story. One can imagine those early biblical prophets, who lacked the current understandings of science, trying to explain the origins of the universe within the context of their time and understanding. From their perspective, breaking the creation into a week-long event seems to make sense, and all things considered, they didn't do as bad of a job as some seem to think.

***Part III: Adam, Eve and the Garden of Eden***

"Let There Be Light": The Big Bang, Evolution, God and Creation, Part I

Part I: An Introduction Into
The Pretended War Between
Religion and Science

"In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth."

This short sentence has caused more controversy than perhaps any other sentence in Western literature. The natural questions which have arisen over centuries of debate on this passage have obviously centered on how God actually went about creating the heaven and the earth. Did he magically snap is fingers and say, "It is well"? Or were the natural laws of science the primary conductors of creation?

Of course, these questions force us down the road to where the intersection between religion and science regularly collide in a violent head-on crash. Ever since Nicolaus Copernicus looked into his telescope back in 1609 and discovered that the earth was not at the center of the universe (a discovery that greatly angered the church and cost Copernicus his freedom), religion and science have been engaged in a tug-o-war for exclusive rights to the ultimate origins of man and the universe. Even 400 years after Copernicus, despite all of our advancement and discovery, mankind is still engaged in this same tug-o-war which has spread into our schools, communities and even our politics.

But this supposed tug-o-war is, in reality, an illusion.

Though I am not a scientist (far from it actually) I recognize that there are some basic facts that cannot be refuted no matter how much we want to believe otherwise. For example, our earth is a spherical object (7,926.41 miles in diameter) that orbits the sun at approximately 67,062 miles per hour. Of course, these are facts that almost nobody debates. But 400 years ago, such a claim could land a person in prison and even end with their excommunication and death. Today no religious figure would be so foolish as to suggest that the earth is flat or at the center of the universe, nor would they suggest imprisonment and death for those who believed otherwise. We have moved past such trivial debates.

But other trivial debates still remain.

First off, I fully recognize that my take on this topic could be construed as offensive to some, but I hope you will believe me when I say that I mean no disrespect. Every man/woman is entitled to believe as he/she sees fit. Religion is a personal endeavor of faith; and faith, as Jesus said, can move mountains. With that said, I also believe the words of Daniel Patrick Moynihan who stated that "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." Regardless of what we believe, some scientific facts are undeniable.

Such is the case with evolution. Ever since the days of Charles Darwin, scientists have been putting together the pieces of the evolutionary puzzle, and their work has yielded incredible fruit. Today, scientists have been able to map the human genome, illustrate our development via fossil records, calculate the age of rocks and bones with advanced atomic testing methods, explain the natural functions of the universe, etc., etc., etc. Simply put, the debate over the reality of evolution is closed. Yet despite these fantastic discoveries some still maintain that science is wrong, while a literal interpretation of a book written thousands of years ago is right.

Now don't get me wrong, I am not a hater of the Bible. In fact, I believe that the Bible has brought more people happiness and joy than any other book in human history. Those who knock the Bible usually are the same people who have never read it or attempted to understand it. With that said, my original statement stands: I cannot, in good conscience, accept a literal interpretation of scripture (scripture that was written by those of late antiquity and translated over and over again) as the exclusive authority on matters that are scientifically proven to be false. At the same time, I refuse to accept the belief of many within the scientific community which suggests that scripture (and even religion as a whole) is somehow outdated, irrelevant and thus unworthy of our devotion. Such a conclusion seems, in my view, to actually be quite UN-scientific and downright arrogant.

This is why I stated that this "tug-o-war" between religion and science is an illusion. In reality, we require both to help us understand who we are and where we came from. Though religion and science may appear different on the surface, the fact of the matter is that they were made for each other. There is no REAL debate between religion and science because God is the author of science. The natural laws which created the universe and humanity are His laws. The Big Bang was His doing and Evolution is His handiwork.

Of course, this probably isn't going to sit well with many devout scientists and religious zealots but I don't care. These are my views and I am sticking to them. I for one am sick and tired of hearing people on both sides insist that they alone are right, while the other side is wrong. It's time we quit throwing the baby out with the bathwater and accept that both sides have much to offer. As Albert Einstein put it, "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." Science needs to learn that despite all it has proven, it cannot observe faith in a petri dish. It will never be able to explain the intangible truths of the universe or the infinite strivings of the human spirit. In short, science's biggest hurdle is accepting the fact that observable facts are not the only facts that can be observed.

On the flip side, religion must accept the fact that the stories found in scripture are ancient man's attempt to explain his origins. Obviously, ancient man didn't have the scientific understanding we possess today. As a result, his stories explaining mankind's origins (chiefly those from the Book of Genesis) are founded in innocent ignorance. After all, how could those of late antiquity possibly understand the Big Bang, natural selection, DNA, etc.? But this does not give today's devout believer a pass. In our modern era we have been given (thanks to God) and incredible amount of knowledge that no other society could even dream of. We know with 100% certainty that the earth isn't 6,000 years old (more like 4.5 billion), that snakes can't talk and that modern Homo Sapiens have their origins not in a garden but on the African plains roughly 200,000 years ago.

If our goal is truly to come to a better understanding of who we are and why we are here (the ultimate question that both religion and science tries to answer) we need not turn a blind eye to the beauty of religious faith and the discovery of scientific research. To do so is to see the world only in black and white. And unfortunately it is the extremists on both ends, who insist on this black and white view of the world, who are causing all of the controversy. We will only see the amazing tapestry of colors that is the creation of humanity and the universe when we reject the all-or-nothing nonsense of the secular scientist and the religious radical.

To my ultra-religious friends I say this: It is time to do away with the childish understandings of ancient man and to accept the knowledge of our present day. As 1 Corinthians 13: 11 states:

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

Stop and ask yourself why you believe evolution to be such an affront to your faith. Is your belief in God so dependant on literal interpretation of ancient works that you are rendered incapable of accepting and understanding the truths of evolution and science? How is your belief in a God, who simply snaps his fingers, creates the world in six days, takes a nap on the seventh (because nothing says omnipotent like needing to check out for a day or so), and introduces evil to the world via a talking snake and a naughty apple, any less relevant than a belief in a God who brings about the beauty of the world via evolution and natural law?

To my secular scientific friends, who rely exclusively on the merits of "rational" thought and "observable" facts I would ask this: Why does your "reasonable" understanding of things entitle you to belittle those of faith? Are you so arrogant as to think that those who believe in God are simply delusional by choice, since they believe in that which is intangible to the scientific method? By what scientific data are you able to justify your mockery of those who claim a deep, intimate spiritual connection with the divine? Can you offer up anything of substance other than "it's just an emotional reaction"? The reality is that in your quest to disprove that which cannot be seen with a microscope or tested in a laboratory, you have actually added credence to faith. You have proven that we cannot discredit any theory until it has been thoroughly tested. And for the believer, the theory of God is tested (and proved) on a daily basis. It is proven in the answer to a simple prayer. It is proven in the acts of charity of a neighbor. It is proven in the hope for a life after death. In short, the faithful have been using your methods long before science came on the scene. Or as NASA Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow stated:

The scientist has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.

In conclusion, let us quit buying into the stupid rhetoric brought on by the zealots and the culture warriors who insist upon the myth that religion and science are somehow opposing forces. Instead, let us think of religion and science as peanut butter and jelly. Though on the surface they look, taste, smell and feel completely different, nobody will debate that peanut butter and jelly are made for one another. I leave you with the words of Pope John Paul II:

Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish...We need each other to be what we must be, what we are called to be.

***This is the first post in a new series on science, religion, God and creation. In part II I will address how the different religious and scientific interpretations of the creation of the world (the Genesis story) can help us develop a better understanding of things when they are taken together as opposed to at odds with one another.***

The Religious Symbolism of Rainbows

A few weeks ago, my family and I had dinner at the Golden Corral near my house. We should have known better because the dinner was CRAP (as is often the case with Golden Corral). But while leaving, my wife captured the following video of the most impressive rainbow we have ever seen. It was so impressive that a bunch of people came out of the restaurant to see it for themselves. Sadly, the video doesn't due this justice. It was an incredible sight to behold:


As simple and "routine" as rainbows may seem to us after a rainstorm, there is something almost magical about seeing colors forming an arc in the middle of the air. Of course, science has fully explained this phenomenon. In reality, rainbows are not magic but are the result of the sun's light reflecting off of droplets of moisture in the atmosphere. The arc of course is the result of the sun's positioning in the sky v. the angle of the observer (usually a 40-42 degree angle), thus creating the visible arc.

But what did people of antiquity think of rainbows? How did they explain the "magical" colors appearing before them after a rainstorm?

Of course, the most famous tale of rainbows in the ancient world comes to us from the Book of Genesis. In chapter 9, we read of God's promise to Noah and how he vows to never again destroy the world with a global flood:

11.) And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

12.) And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:

13.) I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.

14.) And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:

15.) And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.

16.) And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.

Of course I recognize that much of how one views this story depends on how you view the Bible. If you esteem the "Good Book" as literal truth, then the rainbow carries an extremely special significance. Pseudo-scientist Ken Ham, advocate of creation science and founder of the extremely controversial group "Answers in Genesis" and the "Creation Museum" states the following with respect to rainbows:

The next time you see a rainbow, remember that God judges sin. But He is also merciful, and He made a covenant of grace with Noah and the animals—He will never again judge with a worldwide Flood

But Christians are far from the only religious group to find a special providential purpose for rainbows. In Greek mythology Iris, Goddess of sea and sky (and who is the personification of the rainbow) is commanded by Zeus to serve as the link between the Gods and humanity. As a result, the rainbow serves as a bridge between heaven and earth. The ancient Chinese and Hindu cultures believed that the rainbow was a slit in the sky, which divided humanity from the Gods. In the Epic of Gilgamesh, the rainbow is the jewelry of the Babylonian goddess, Ishtar, who holds it into the sky after the rain as a promise that she will never again kill humanity with a flood. And, of course, no ancient rainbow tale would be complete without everyone's favorite: the leprechaun's pot of gold!

The rainbow even has some important symbolism in more modern times. In 1950 The World Fellowship of Buddhists adopted a rainbow flag as a symbol of peace. In 1921 the International Co-operative Alliance adopted a rainbow flag as a symbol of "unity in diversity." Each color of the rainbow came to stand for a specific goal for the organization and the flag is still largely accepted today. And in recent decades, the rainbow has been adopted by both the peace movement of the 1960s and the LGBT movement of today.

So how do I see the rainbow? Perhaps I should simply see it as Sir Isaac Newton did: a light prism reflecting off of water. And though on the surface, the rainbow can be completely understood through scientific study, I believe (as I believe with all nature) that there is a deeper connection to the divine. As the 18th century scientist/theologian, Emanuel Swedenborg stated when writing about rainbows:

It may be wondered that the bow in the cloud, or the rainbow, should be taken as the token of the covenant in the word -- when the rainbow is nothing more than a certain appearance arising from the modification of the rays of light from the sun then falling upon the drops of rain; and -- unlike the other signs of the covenant in the church just referred to -- only a natural phenomenon. But that the bow in the cloud represents regeneration, and signifies the state of the regenerate spiritual man, no one can known unless it be given him to see and therefore to know how it is.

[...]

It is because natural things correspond to spiritual that when what is around the regenerate spiritual man is thus presented to view it appears like a bow in the cloud; which bow is a representation of spiritual things in his natural. The regenerate spiritual man has a proprium of the understanding into which the Lord insinuates innocence, charity, and mercy; and according to the reception of these gifts by a man is the appearance of his rainbow when it is presented to view -- more beautiful the more the proprium of the man's will is removed, subdued and reduced to obedience.

In other words, to separate the spiritual from the scientific is a fool's errand. To see things exclusively through the prism of religion or science is to see the world with one eye. The two should go hand-in-hand to help better explain the true nature of things, and the rainbow is perhaps one of God's greatest illustrations of this fact. The more mankind purifies himself/herself from the vices of the world and embraces goodness, the more truth comes to light.

Of course I don't believe that rainbows never existed before Noah, nor do I believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. Such an approach is childish. At the same time, it is equally childish to allow science the exclusive rights to an explanation of how nature operates. God and nature are like peanut butter and jelly: they were meant for each other. The rainbow, though a simple reflection, is also a reflection of God and his goodness...

... As is all of nature.

Take us home, Judy Garland:

Raptures and Raptors

Why Americans Replace
Sanity With Lunacy

So yesterday's end of the world prophesy turned out to be a massive dud (shocker). The day passed without so much as a single significant tornado, earthquake, flood or lightening bolt from a pissed off God who has decided that he aint' gonna take our crap anymore. And while the overwhelming majority Americans (both religious and non-religious) fully comprehended the utter stupidity of yesterday's bogus apocalyptic prediction, I couldn't help but notice just how much attention this ridiculous little story had attracted.

We live in a funny era. On the one hand the blessings of science, technology, medicine, etc. make our time better than any before it. People live longer, healthier and I believe happier than ever before. Gone (for the most part) are the days of peasantry, totalitarianism and general ignorance. Technology has brought our world together in ways that we still don't fully understand or appreciate. To borrow from the words of Eleanor Roosevelt, "The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams." How very à propos.

On the other hand, however, we live in a time when apocalyptic, doomsday prophesies of all kinds seem to be constantly hovering about, reminding us that some catastrophe is lurking just around the next bend. They attempt to convince us that our society, despite its incredible achievements and advancements, is doomed to collapse under the weight of our pride, gluttony, wickedness, stupidity, or simply because we refuse to listen to Glenn Beck. Whether in the form of a Mayan calendar, global warming, economic collapse, Muslim terrorists, solar flares, killer asteroids, swine flu or those "evil liberals", we are literally inundated with a constant barrage of the crazy and the insane.

Now, I need to make it clear that as a practicing Christian I believe 100% in the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. With that said, I also believe in Jesus' admonition in Matthew chapter 6: 33-34:

33.) But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

34.) Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

In other words, quit worrying about what you can't control. Yes, bad things may happen in the future but this should not be our focus. If instead we choose to "seek first the kingdom of God" by helping those who despise us, doing good to our enemies, caring for the sick, etc., etc., etc. we will discover that "the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself."

Of course Jesus isn't suggesting that we shouldn't prepare for a rainy day. Of course we should. Preparing for a rainy day is one thing (what any prudent, reasonable person can and should do). Giving into the mass hysteria of impending Muslim incursion, predicted Mayan destruction, pretended overthrows of our freedoms by evil communist fascists, and cataclysmic celestial events is quite another thing.

But apocalyptic, doomsday nonsense isn't confined exclusively to the end-of-days type rhetoric we have all come to "enjoy."

While Harold Camping and his followers were anxiously awaiting the commencement of the Rapture, I was with my family at the Rocky Mountain Dinosaur Museum in Woodland Park, Co. While informally perusing the various collections of bones, fossils and teeth left behind by those massive animals I couldn't help but think of how these same Christian radicals (not to mention millions of other devout Christians across the nation) would be horrified to hear the things being told to my children. Dinosaurs living millions of years ago? I don't think so. Doesn't the Bible tell us that the earth is only 6,000 years old?

You mean the same Bible that Harold Camping used to predict yesterday's rapture? Or the same Bible used to justify slavery by the Confederacy?

Perhaps on the surface this seems like a ridiculous comparison to make but hear me out. In a 2010 Gallup Poll, Americans were asked whether or not they believed in evolution. The results were deplorable. Only 35% of Americans believed in (er, ACCEPTED the reality of) evolution, less than any other "modern" nation on the planet. In addition, 40% stated they believed God had created the world in 6 literal days and that the earth was no more than "a few thousand years old." In other words, most Americans reject the reality of our origins and a very large percentage (4 in 10) believe that dinosaurs walked with man despite all of the irrefutable scientific evidence to the contrary.

Maybe I am making a mountain out of a mole hill here but I doubt it. Take for instance the "Creation Museum" in Petersburg Kentucky, which attempts to explain the world's origins within the context of the Holy Bible. Then there is the group "Answers in Genesis", an organization created by Evangelical "scientist" Ken Ham (who is also responsible for the Creation Museum). Answers in Genesis does exactly what its name suggests: they attempt to explain man's origins based on the Genesis story (i.e. Garden of Eden, world-wide flood of Noah, etc.). And speaking of Noah, one cannot help but grimace in pain at the thought of a Noah's Ark theme park being funded by taxpayer dollars (and let us not forget that Kentucky Governor Beshear defended its construction, not to mention the inclusion of DINOSAURS being present on the ark. After all, the world is only 6,000 years old). Make no mistake about it, religious conservatives (and they are a huge segment of this nation's populace) have declared war on science:



Now, it would be one thing if this war on science centered around small, seemingly insignificant tidbits (i.e. is the earth 4 billion or 5 billion years old). But when you claim that fundamental concepts of modern science are wrong simply because "the Bible says so", you are being willfully idiotic. When you claim that carbon dating, quantum physics, biology, geology, paleontology are all wrong and you are right, you have gone down a VERY slippery slope. As Martin Luther King Jr. stated, "Nothing is more dangerous to the world than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."

It is with all of this in mind that I return to my original point. How can Americans be so willing to believe in crazy, apocalyptic predictions? How can we as a society be constantly chasing phantoms that don't exist, while at the same time having more technology and information at our disposal than at any other time? Could it be because we are unwilling to accept reality? We are so scared of the unknown; so uncertain of what lies ahead. We cling to ancient stories of long ago as the basis for our lives instead of simply appreciating the fundamental messages of said stories: that faith, love and charity conquer all. Of course Noah didn't load all the animals on his ark, nor was there a global flood as so many desperately continue to claim. Instead of getting hung up over these obvious falsehoods, let us appreciate Noah's incredible faith in the face of ridicule and scorn. After all, isn't that the main point?

And on that same note, of course God will return in his own due time and in his own way. Do we really need to fret over when and how this is to come to pass? Is stressing over economic turmoil, political strife or killer asteroids really going to change anything? Again, I appeal to the teachings of Jesus:

33.) But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

34.) Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

Everyone take a deep breath. Things are going to be just fine.

Right, Glenn Beck?

Thomas Jefferson: Creationist?

At the Publick Occurrences, 2.0 blog, Jeff Pasley posts an interesting/mind boggling article on the "Creation Museum" outside of Cincinnati. The "Creation Museum" was established in 2007, mostly through the efforts of the controversial group Answers in Genesis, and the highly criticized Christian speaker/"scientist," Ken Ham. The museum's mission is to to try and bridge the gap (or destroy the gap) between science and the Bible, thus proving that the infallibility of the Bible reigns supreme over modern scientific theory (and proving evolution as a fraud) As the Creation Museum's website states:

The state-of-the-art 70,000 square foot museum brings the pages of the Bible to life, casting its characters and animals in dynamic form and placing them in familiar settings. Adam and Eve live in the Garden of Eden. Children play and dinosaurs roam near Eden’s Rivers. The serpent coils cunningly in the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Majestic murals, great masterpieces brimming with pulsating colors and details, provide a backdrop for many of the settings.

In addition to its emphasis on dinosaurs roaming the earth only a few thousand years ago and Noah riding the waves in his arc during a global flood, the Creation Museum "paves the way for greater understanding of the tenants of creation and redemption" by refuting the "traditional" understanding of science (it is worth noting here that a recent poll by the American Association for the Advancement of Science revealed that 99.85% of the material presented in the Creation Museum is refuted by the scientific community).

So what does this have to do with Thomas Jefferson? Well, as Jeff Pasley points out in his article mentioned above, these idiots with the Creation Museum are crediting none other than THOMAS JEFFERSON as being one of the museum's "intellectual progenitors." Pasley writes:

The Creation [Museum] is an expensive, high-tech send-up of modern scientific thought about natural history, devoted to presenting the text of the Bible as literal scientific fact and instilling visitors with a fear and loathing of the post-Enlightenment world. Yet guess who gets named by the article’s author (Joseph Clarke) as one of the museum’s intellectual progenitors? Poor Thomas Jefferson, whose liberal religious views and avid interest in Enlightenment science were constantly ridiculed and condemned during his life-time. He clipped all the miracles and supernatural references out of the Gospels for nothing, apparently.

In this post, Pasley mentions an article by Joseph Clarke, who defends the Creation Museum's "scholarly" pursuit of scientific truth. In addition, Clarke pathetically attempts to include Thomas Jefferson as a supporter of the Creation Museum's mission. He writes:

But while the Creation Museum undoubtedly reflects these recent trends, moralistic distrust of city life has a rich history in America. When, in 1925, John Scopes was tried for teaching Darwinism to a high school science class in violation of Tennessee law, the case against him was argued by William Jennings Bryan, a luminary of the young fundamentalist movement and a staunch agrarian. In Bryan’s view, urban industrial capitalism was inextricable from the social Darwinist credo of survival of the fittest and the cultural ills to which it gave rise. Before Bryan, Thomas Jefferson argued against Alexander Hamilton that the cold rationality of economic development would lead to social waywardness unless held in check by a thriving agrarian culture: “Corruption of morals…is the mark set upon those, who, not looking up to heaven, to their own soil and industry, as does the husbandman, for their subsistence, depend for it on casualties and caprice of customers.” Jefferson’s proposed design for the Great Seal of the United States depicted the nation of Israel journeying through the wilderness in search of the Promised Land.

Yes, even the religious skeptic, Thomas Jefferson, who not only doubted the legitimacy of Christianity but also removed a number of stories from his own Bible, is now being linked with hard-core creationism! This is a bizarre attempt at linking modern creationism with America's founding history, especially when we consider Jefferson's own words on the "infallibility" of the Bible:

The religion-builders have so distorted and deformed the doctrines of Jesus, so muffled them in mysticisms, fancies and falsehoods, have caricatured them into forms so monstrous and inconceivable, as to shock reasonable thinkers...Happy in the prospect of a restoration of primitive Christianity, I must leave to younger athletes to encounter and lop off the false branches which have been engrafted into it by the mythologists of the middle and modern ages.

I guess some people will go to any lengths to prove their nonsense.

Defending the Book of Mormon: The DNA Rebuttal

In the past year, a number of religious, scientific and historical skeptics have come forward with new evidence that they believe completely and utterly destroys the validity of the Book of Mormon. This new evidence, which centers on several DNA studies, states that the claims made in the Book of Mormon, particularly regarding the origins of Native Americans, is completely and utterly bogus. Now, as most religious people are aware, one cannot prove the validity/invalidity of the Book of Mormon (or any scripture for that matter) purely with science. Scripture, and religion in general, are matters of faith which transcend the physical world. As a result, any person of faith (from almost any religion) will tell you that a spiritual conversion is paramount to understanding matters of faith. And as our missionaries have been stating for over 100 years, one needs to pray sincerely and with real intent to the only source (God) that can give your soul clarity on such issues.

With all of that aside, I want to focus on these alleged "smoking gun" discoveries that supposedly shed "irrefutable" doubt on the validity of the BoM.

First off, as some of you probably already know, the Mormon Church recently made a one-word change to the introduction of the BoM. The old version read:

After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principle ancestors of the Native Americans (my emphasis).

The new version reads as follows:

After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and thy are among the ancestors of the Native Americans (my emphasis). "After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians."

So why the change? First off, let's keep in mind that this is NOT the first time that the Mormon Church has made changes to the BoM. There have been literally hundreds of changes over the years. Unlike many Evangelical Protestants, we as Mormons do not accept the doctrine of Sola Scriptura -- i.e the infallibility of scripture. We accept that ALL scripture (including the BoM) is written by man, and therefore subject to human error. Even the Title Page of the BoM reminds us of this:

And now, if there are any faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgement-seat of Christ.AndAnd now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God...

This simple fact helps us understand the change. The Mormon Church has always tried to update and correct its doctrine/scripture when necessary.

Now, skeptics will claim that these changes are the symptom of a church cover up. They will say that these recent DNA discoveries have forced the Mormon church to change fundamental doctrines in an effort to appease the scientific community. They are mistaken. The Mormon Church has never EVER claimed that our scripture was perfect. In fact, the very man who translated the BoM made such a claim:

"I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book."

Nowhere does Joseph Smith say that the BoM is infallible. Instead, he says "most correct." This still allows for human error to occur, but does not take away from the book still being the "most correct" of any on earth.

Now, this whole controversy over one stupid little word is the result of some recent scientific discoveries. In 2006, around the same time that the change to the BoM introduction was made, scientists were testing the DNA of several old Native American tribes that were still in existence. Their results: the DNA of Native Americans IS NOT Jewish/Hebrew/etc., but instead is ASIAN. As a result, Mormon skeptics have literally pounced on this proclamation and declared it to be proof-positive that the BoM is/was a fraud. After all, how can one refute DNA evidence? Isn't this the same evidence that is declared to be 99.8% accurate in a court of law? Case closed, right?

Not so fast.

There are a few factors that we must take into account before we simply declare this study to have closed the book on the BoM case. Here are four key issues that all of us (including the Mormon faithful) need to consider:

#1: New World Colonization
From all credible archaeological and historical accounts, the "New World" was populated with between 300 and 400 million native inhabitants. As we all know, after Christopher Columbus "sailed the ocean blue in 1492" and discovered the New World, a literal fever of exploration, colonization and conquest caused the Spanish, French, Dutch, English, Portuguese and others to stake their claims in these strange lands beyond the Atlantic. And as history shows, the European conquest was a huge success, a success that inadvertently caused the literal genocide of the vast and diverse Native American population. Between the early years of Columbus' discovery (1492) and the onset of the American Revolution (1776) most experts estimate that the amount of death (caused primarily by European disease) took the lives of over 80% of all Native people. In other words, 8 in 10 Native Americans were dead before the United States ever became a nation.

So what does this mean for the BoM? Simply put, the DNA samples taken from these various ancient tribes is only indicative of 20% of all Native Americans. In other words, the test conclusively proves that 2 in 10 Natives don't match what is preached in the BoM.

But it gets worse.

#2: Mitochondrial DNA
As most laymen (or women) know, DNA are the basic building blocks of life that is past on to offspring through sexual contact. Both male and female chromosomes combine to create a new life form, whose genetic makeup is a mix of both paternal and maternal DNA (I realize that as a novice in science I have no right to make any profound comments on DNA research but I think my very simplistic explanation is sound for this topic).

Now, when testing the descendants of a particular individual/race/civilization, scientists are not able to simply take a regular DNA sample. Instead, they must look to MITOCHONDRIAL DNA. The Mitochondria is often referred to as "the powerhouse" of the human cell. And for some reason, it contains its own DNA that can be traced back thousands of years to determine one's origins. From all scientific standards, the testing of mitochondrial DNA is foolproof and considered a solid scientific practice. As a result, any assault on the testing of mitochondria, from the perspective of accuracy, would be futile. HOWEVER, there is one key element to mitochondrial DNA that does shed doubt on the DNA testing of Native Americans. Mitochondrial DNA is MATERNAL. In other words, a male cannot pass on his genetic material into the mitochondria of his children. Only the female can accomplish this.

So what does this mean for the DNA testing of Native Americans? It means that the results are a representation of FEMALE genetic origins. And since men account for roughly 50% of the human population, we are forced to omit 50% of all Native Americans from this test. So, we take our 20% of surviving Native Americans and divide it in half, which gives us roughly 10%. Simply put, the DNA testing of living Native Americans proves that only 10% of all Native Americans are of Asian decent.

Hence the reason for the change in the BoM intro. The testing clearly proves that 1 in 10 Native Americans do not fit with the BoM story. So, in an effort to reflect this reality, the Mormon Church has made the change..."AMONG the ancestors of the Native Americans."

#3: Reading the BoM the Right Way
This probably sounds conceded. I'm not suggesting that I know the right way to read the BOM. That's a personal decision. Instead, I am suggesting that we get rid of an old but persistent myth when reading the BoM. For too long, members (and non-members alike) have assumed that the BoM is the story of three separate migrations to the New World: the Jaredites, Lehi and his family, and the people of Mulek. The BoM mentions these three, AND ONLY THESE THREE independent migrations. For some reason, it is assumed that these parties arrived to a virgin land, vacant of any other human life, and that somehow these relatively small migrations multiplied until they became large enough to fill all the lands from Canada to the tip of South America.

My question: where does it say ANYTHING to this effect in the BoM? Why do we insist that Nephi, Lehi, Bro. of Jared, etc. were the ONLY people living here? Isn't that quite presumptuous? For one thing, the wives/daughters of Lehi, Nephi, Laman, Lemuel, etc. would have had to give birth to HUNDREDS of children each in order to hit the numbers that Columbus and other explorers encountered in 1492. Physically speaking, this was impossible for women of the ancient world.

Perhaps the following analogy will help make sense of this. When we read the records of the Puritan settlers of Massachusetts, they often make it sound as though they stumbled upon a fresh, untouched, virgin land just waiting for them to colonize. As we know this wasn't the case. Literally thousands of Native Americans lived in and around the region, not to mention the fact that a dozen or so European ventures had already been in the area. The Puritans didn't discover a virgin land and neither did Lehi, Nephi, etc.

#4: What Tribe Were They?
Last point. Remember what tribe Lehi was from? He was the son of Joseph, who was sold into Egypt (1 Nephi 5: 14-16). And as we know, Joseph had two sons: Ephraim and Manasseh. Now, we have no way of knowing which of the two Lehi came from, but it is at least very likely that they came from Manasseh. Why? Manasseh was a nomadic, wandering tribe that was heavily involved in shipping, trade and sheep-hearding. And if you recall, Nephi, Laman, etc. were unfamiliar with Jerusalem when asked to return to the city by Lehi. I find it interesting that Nephi keeps calling Jerusalem the "Land of our Inheritance" instead of "Home." Could it be that they were hardly ever there? Wandering about as Manasseh had always done? As quasi-nomads?

And then there's the case of Lehi. Isn't it amazing that he had no problem wandering in the "wilderness." It was almost as if he had done it before...lots of times. Could he have been a trader? How did he and his kids learn Egyptian?

And remember Ishmael? Back in Lehi's Day, "Ishmael" was a VERY popular name among...not Jews...but the ARABS! Why would Lehi be friends with an Arab?

Of course this is all speculation, but the evidence seems to support it. And here's one last thing to consider about Manasseh: Since they were a wandering tribe, that meant they were regularly in contact with other civilizations. In fact, national identity in the ancient world was nothing like it is now, and as a result, the intermixing of blood was common. Could Manasseh have incorporated some Asian blood? Oh, and keep in mind that the Assyrians conquered and led away the tribe of Manasseh during their conquest of Jerusalem. It wouldn't be hard to see how intermixing could have taken place at that time as well!

In conclusion, the so-called "smoking gun" evidence provided by DNA testing is anything but. Fortunately, we don't have to rely on that.  In the end, The Book of Mormon, like any book of scripture, requires faith.  Science, history, etc. have their roles but so does scripture, and for that I am glad we have the Book of Mormon today.