A book you should know about--Part 1

I recently read a powerful book that argues for the existence of a creator based on the tiny world of the cell. Years ago, scientists thought of the cell as a primitive and simple thing--a glob of protoplasm. But discoveries have since changed this view. To help explain these amazing findings, Dr. Stephen Meyer, a former geophysicist and college professor who leads the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, wrote Signature in the Cell. The book looks intimidating since it has over 500 pages of information, but it is an important book that many should read. Meyer focuses on the importance of the discovery in 1953 of the information-bearing capacities of the DNA molecule, what he calls the "signature in the cell." For the next several blogs, I'd like to walk you through the book.

His opening chapters define the scientific and philosophical issues at stake in the DNA enigma. Darwin had argued that the striking appearance of design in living organisms could be explained by natural selection working on random variations. But, thanks to Watson and Crick, scientists discovered the structure of DNA. They found that DNA stores information using a four-character chemical alphabet. This information is used to build crucial protein molecules and machines the cell needs to survive. This chemical alphabet functions like letters and a written language or symbols and a computer code. In fact, Bill Gates said, "DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created." Of course, the key question is how the information in DNA arose. You have to have information before you can build the first living organism. In the mid-1980s a controversial book came out called The Mystery of Life’s Origin by Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, and Roger Olsen. These three scientists came to the conclusion that no theory had explained the origin of the first life. They suggested that the information in DNA might have originated from an intelligent source.

Next, Meyer describes the mystery surrounding DNA in more detail. He tells in depth the story of Watson and Crick as they set about to understand the structure of DNA. By the mid-1950s scientists soon realized that DNA could store an immense amount of information. Meyer ties this in with information about proteins -- they build cellular machines and structures, they carry and deliver cellular materials, they allow chemical reactions necessary for the cell’s survival. To do all this, a typical cell uses thousands of different kinds of proteins, and each one has a distinctive shape related to its function. These proteins are made of smaller molecules called amino acids. The structure of proteins depends upon the specific arrangement of its amino acids, but the question was what determined the arrangement of the amino acids. It was Francis Crick who suggested it was the precise arrangement of the four-character chemical alphabet found in DNA that determined the arrangement of amino acids. Scientists soon found there were mechanisms in the cell to transcribe, transport, and translate the information in DNA so that amino-acid chains could be constructed at certain sites. Like a production facility at Ford, the cell uses digitally encoded information to direct the manufacture of the parts of its machines. You can see animation of this process at signatureinthecell.com or in the DVD called Unlocking the Mystery of Life. Here's another mystery -- it takes DNA to make proteins, but it also requires proteins to make DNA; so how did the whole thing get started? Which came first, the chicken (nucleic acids) or the egg (proteins)? The author says scientists must now explain the origin of three key features of life -- DNA's capacity to store digitally encoded information, the complexity of the information in DNA, and the cell's ability to process the information.

The final virtue--fortitude

The final cardinal virtue pointed out by C.S. Lewis is fortitude. We don’t hear it much any more; it’s such a quaint word. But he says it means the ability to face danger as well as hang in there when pain comes. Lewis believes this is a crucial virtue because we need this one in order to practice the other three which I covered in previous blogs.

Whenever I think of fortitude/bravery, I think about one particular individual--Ernest Shackleton. He was putting together an expedition to the Antarctic, and he supposedly placed this ad:

“Wanted. Men for hazardous journey. Low wages. Bitter cold. Long hours of complete darkness. Safe return doubtful. Honor and recognition in the event of success.”

The expedition went on to face a terrible ordeal when the ship was caught in the ice and crushed. Shackleton never gave in to despair, his men fought the elements, and they triumphed in the end. You have to read an account of this amazing saga.

But there are others who demonstrated fortitude. Think of George Washington as his army faced the best troops in the world, Martin Luther King taking on Southern hostility, David squaring off with Goliath, the Spartans at Thermopylae, Americans staring out at a huge Mexican army at the Alamo, Rosa Parks as she refused to move to the back of the bus, Winston Churchill standing up to the attacks of Adolph Hitler.

Contrast this with today’s Americans. We ask our politicians to protect us throughout our lives, we hesitate to boldly proclaim the truth of Christianity, we turn to drugs (prescriptions or on the streets) to lessen the pain whether real or imaginary, we kill ourselves to deal with our problems, we drop out of school when the classes become difficult, we blame others for our shortcomings because that’s easier than changing ourselves.

We all need to practice small acts of fortitude daily, read of those who have performed with fortitude, and ask God for the courage to handle all that life throws our way. It was Jesus who said, “In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.”

Virtue #3--justice

Let’s continue looking at the four virtues C.S. Lewis covered in Mere Christianity. Besides prudence and temperance, he indicated justice was considered a crucial component of virtue.

Lewis believes this is more than just courtroom outcomes. He sees it as more about fairness, honesty, and keeping promises. Of course, this broader definition will impact more of us on a daily basis.

Is America full of justice today? Whenever we call a crime “white collar,” we may be preparing to let someone off the hook in a criminal investigation, a situation which does not seem particularly fair. What about affirmative action? In many cases it is used as a form of reverse discrimination, so how is that improving our society when we replace one form of unfairness with another? Lying and deceit figure prominently in our songs, movies, television shows, and politicians. Just recently the governor of South Carolina was caught in a monstrous lie while he attempted to carry on an affair with an Argentinian woman. We all know about Bill Clinton’s aversion to telling the truth.

But look at the rest of us--not much better when it comes to justice. We make marriage promises, but a high percentage opt out later. We want special favors. We fill out tax forms in a "creative" manner. We cut corners at work. We feel better by saying all we told was a "white" lie. We promise to do something, only to wiggle out of it later.

It's depressing to realize all our shortcomings here. But at least we should be honest enough to recognize the problem and begin to be people who truly honor justice in an unjust world.

C. S. Lewis and virtues--part 2

This blog is a continuation of the previous one, which was reflecting on four cardinal virtues pointed out by C. S. Lewis in Mere Christianity. The second one has to do with temperance. Lewis points out that this is more than simply an anti-alcohol position, which most people might immediately think of, reflecting back to early 20th-century efforts to curb heavy drinking. Instead, he believes it refers to moderation or self-restraint in many areas of life.

There are many applications of this virtue. We should be temperate in our use of leisure time and money, our relationships with people, our language, our food and drink, our mental activities, etc.

So, how do we measure up as temperate people today? Again, it’s pretty easy to see that America has largely lost its ability of self-discipline. Look at our use of drugs, the booming pornography industry, our inability to keep out of debt, the rise of anorexia and bulimia, the fanaticism of many sports fans, the inordinate attention given to pets. I remember when the movie Titanic came out; many of my son’s friends talked about seeing the movie five or six times. The only reason I might have considered doing that would be to make sure that Leonardo DiCaprio was really dead at the end.

C. S. Lewis for yesterday and today

C. S. Lewis wrote a famous book entitled Mere Christianity, which has become a classic in Christian apologetics circles. I was reading through it the other day when I came across a section devoted to four cardinal virtues. It struck me that there is a good reason why these are considered classic virtues by many varied societies down through the ages – they are still true today. In the next four blogs I would like to explore each of the four, showing how important they are to us today and how far we are from achieving them.

The first virtue is called prudence. Lewis defines this as practical common sense, being aware of the outcome of our actions. We can demonstrate this virtue in so many areas of life – how we use our money, communicate with others, do our jobs, develop friendships and romance, schedule our week, vote for the best candidates, etc.

How are we doing today in 21st-century America? Are we prudent people? We probably all know the answer to this question. Take a look at our celebrities – Brittney Spears, Michael Jackson, Alex Rodriguez, Madonna, Jack Nicholson. Not exactly known for common sense, eh? But we can't just blame them. We can see a lack of prudence in other areas, such as our high divorce rate, the amount of debt we accumulate, the chances we take with our health. It strikes me than one key example of our deficiency in prudence is the foreclosure mess. Many people failed to see the outcome of their actions when they bought a home for more than they could really afford. Practical common sense deserted them with the dream of homeownership dangling in front of them.

We need to develop a life of prudence as well as other classic virtues. We can read and be inspired by those who demonstrate such virtues (check out Bill Bennett's Book of Virtues), we can teach our children about this quality, we can watch less TV (a less prudent place I can't think of), we can talk over decisions with our friends, we can develop and nourish friendships with wise people. Most of all, we can spend time reading the Bible, where we encounter examples of both prudent and imprudent people.

So, Who's Really Educated?

One knock against Christians is that we are all stupid, uneducated id-juts led around by smooth-talking pastors out to make a buck. But what’s this? Evidence to the contrary? Yep.

According to American Evangelicalism, by sociologist Christian Smith (what a great name), evangelicals have more years of education than many other groups—fundamentalists, Roman Catholics, and . . . yes, nonreligious. Of all groups surveyed, it was the nonreligious who had the most people with only a high-school education or less. Guess who had the highest number with more than a high-school education. Right—the evangelicals. Then to top it off, a higher percent of evangelicals have studied at the graduate-school level than . . . (can you guess?) the nonreligious.

This book discovered that among highly educated people there is a high percentage of believers in God. It’s certainly true that some become more skeptical about God as they gain education, but the author has discovered that this is mostly due to socialization. They don’t discover something that destroys their faith.

So the idea that more education leads to less evangelical faith is a myth. That’s good to know, isn’t it? Our faith is credible and able to stand up to scrutiny.

The only warning I would interject here is to parents about to send their children off to college. Thanks to liberal professors more interested in indoctrination than instruction, there’s a good chance your children will be pressured to dump their faith. But fill them with good apologetic tools while they are young, consider sending them to a Christian college, encourage them to connect with a good college church group, give them college-oriented apologetics articles to read, and pray for them daily.

Revelation, the age of the earth, and other difficulties

I grew up in the church. I heard many pastors over the years speak firmly about all sorts of different topics. Each time the message was simple: “I’m teaching this because it’s true, it’s obvious, and all Christians agree with it.” After I grew up and read on my own, I found that much of what they said was absolutely true and fully backed by other thoughtful Christians. But there were other biblical topics that I found out weren’t so clear cut.
Let’s start with the age of the earth. When I was young, I heard no other position advocated besides a young earth, meaning 24-hour days of creation going back only 6,000-10,000 years. It wasn’t until I was an adult that I discovered another world of sincere Christians who argued for an old earth, one that has been here billions of years with God creating over an extended period of time.

Then there is the church doctrine of the “Rapture.” Every church I sat in, every pastor I heard, every commentary I read—all treated the “Rapture” as an obvious part of church doctrine. But a few years ago I was amazed to find out that this idea did not come about until the 1830s. For nearly 2000 years no one had seen or advocated such a concept in the New Testament.

Of course, there’s the magical mystery tour of the future as conducted by Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye. These two are the most prominent proponents of a very popular view of biblical prophecy that I heard growing up. Using references from Ezekiel, Daniel, and Revelation, these individuals confidently tell us what is going to happen in the future. Again, I have been surprised to find out that there are many other legitimate ways to interpret these biblical passages. Many biblical scholars, for example, believe a majority of prophecies were fulfilled at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

There’s a pretty simple lesson here for all of us. Whenever anyone attempts to deal with areas of biblical controversy, it would be helpful to admit that not all people agree and that what is being proposed is simply one person’s opinion. We should all encourage one another to do the hard work of studying, praying and coming up with our own conclusions.

Our own "Dear Leader"

President Obama will be addressing America’s school children. That’s OK; it’s pretty mild stuff about seeking excellence. But take a look at what the Department of Education has done with “helpful” lesson plans it has prepared for teachers to use in conjunction with the speech—especially the one for grades 7 through 12.

Before the speech, teachers are urged to use "notable quotes excerpted (and posted in large print on board) from President Obama's speeches about education" and to "brainstorm" with students about the question "How will he inspire us?" Suggested topics for post-speech discussion include "What resonated with you from President Obama's speech?" and "What is President Obama inspiring you to do?"

Now, this is going too far. It’s one thing to focus on the kids and their need to strive for excellence. It’s something else to turn the focus toward the President. “How will he inspire us?” sounds a lot like a North Korean inquiry into their “Dear Leader” and his ability to carry the nation to safety on his back, fighting off the evil imperialists. This whole thing is a continuation of the concept of a secular messiah, come to save us all (mostly from ourselves). Remember the campaign rhetoric like “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for”? Somebody close to the President needs to tell him Americans want a limited government.

A scientist takes on the global warming hysteria

I recently read an article by S. Fred Singer, who is professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia as well as a distinguished research professor at George Mason University. He earned his Ph.D. in physics from Princeton University, so he is a person with authority and prestige. His point is that we are facing a political problem because of a mistaken idea that governments can and must do something about climate change.

He starts with the key question -- is the observed warming of the past 30 years due to natural causes or human activities? He notes that the geological record shows a persistent 1500-year cycle of warming and cooling that goes back for more than one million years. Obviously, the human race is not responsible for that. In addition, during much of the last century the climate was cooling while carbon dioxide levels were rising.

Many environmental activists claim there is scientific consensus that the burning of fossil fuels is the chief cause of this warming. But Singer says there is no such consensus. He notes an increasing number of climate scientists who are raising serious questions about this issue. For example, in one group, the American Meteorological Society, the rank and file scientists never had a chance to have input in a report the organization issued which seemed to support man-caused warming. Within this organization it is estimated that well over 50 percent of the members regard man-made global warming with great skepticism.

Singer says there is one culprit which may be the most important cause of global warming -- the sun. Over years the sun varies in its radiation, which has been measured in satellites and related to the sunspot cycle. It also varies in the amount of ultra-violet radiation, which affects the amount of ozone in our atmosphere. In addition, there is variation in the solar wind that affects the intensity of cosmic rays, which in turn change the amount of cloudiness in our skies.

If natural causes are primarily responsible for climate change, some interesting consequences come about. Regulation of carbon dioxide emissions is pointless and expensive. Focusing on wind power and solar power become less attractive since they are uneconomic and require huge subsidies. Also, substituting natural gas for coal in electricity generation makes less sense because of costs.

Actually, global warming is not the disaster that many predict. Some warming with higher carbon dioxide levels will increase GNP and raise standards of living in many countries, especially in areas of agriculture and forestry. Places in the north could save on heating fuel, increase crop production, use the Arctic as a shortcut to ship between the Atlantic and the Pacific, and accomplish much for people.

Singer makes some good points. And he's not alone -- many scientists are beginning to speak up about the hysteria associated with global warming. As Christians, we need to be good stewards of the earth, and we certainly do not want to ruin what we have here. But we also have a duty to use our money wisely and help those in genuine need. Let's use the minds God gave us to distinguish between fact and fiction.