withallyourmind.net

One approach to dealing with a problem is to adopt the ostrich approach, that is to stick one’s head in the ground and pretend there is no problem. A comment by a colleague of mine takes just this approach with the issue of Intelligent Design. He states that there is “no controversy in the scientific community”. He also suggests that “every shred of objective evidence” supports evolution. And that “not one shred of objective evidence refutes it”.

This sort of blind faith in Darwinism is exactly the problem. As he accurately notes, believing something to be true does not make it true. Over 400 respected scientists have signed a document stating, “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” Believing there is no controversy doesn’t make it true. To accuse the ID community of lying to support their argument is to commit the ad hominem fallacy (instead of attacking an assertion, the argument attacks the person who made the assertion).

Many are still hoping that they might soon lift their heads from beneath the sand and their will be know talk of intelligent design. To state that there is no controversy, all evidence supports evolution, and none refutes it illustrates the blind adherence to scientific naturalism that is the problem. No evidence, no matter how powerful, would be enough to convince some to abandon Darwinism. That constitutes a blind adherence to a belief system, not science.

All would be better served by a critical evaluation of the evidence. The irreducible complexity and specified complexity found in living organisms which cannot be accounted for by Darwinism has led some to postulate that the best explanation for the evidence is intelligent design.

I have been on a two day leave of blogging for two primary reasons. First, a transition of my body clock from night shifts to day shifts and the blur of the 24 hours involved. Second, I celebrated my 26th wedding anniversary with my wife and best friend. We spent the day together, then finished with a nice dinner. Among our activities of the day was a trip to the Salvador Dali Museum in St. Petersburg, Florida.

It is a very interesting place to visit. It houses the largest and most important collection of Dali oil paintings, sculptures, objects and drawings in America. One vacillates between shock and awe as one wonders through the museum. Dali, a Spanish artist, was one of the most famous surrealists, although he did paint in other styles. Surrealism, according to Artcyclopedia is a style in which fantastical visual imagery from the subconscious mind is used with no intention of making the work logically comprehensible. It was founded in 1925 by Andre Breton.

Richard John Neuhaus commented in C.S. Lewis in the Public Square, “What we today call postmodernism is the long–delayed general dissemination of what, in the earlier part of this century, appeared in the arts under the title of “modernism.” Surrealism, dadaism, the writings of James Joyce and, later, Samuel Beckett—all proclaimed a world that has lost its story, and, along with its story, its coherence, purpose, and promise.” Walking through the museum, gazing at paintings with titles such as, “Skull with Its Lyric Appendage Leaning on a Night Table Which Should Have the Exact Temperature of a Cardinal Bird’s Nest”, one senses with Dali the loss of coherence, purpose, and promise.

The gospel stands in stark contract to Dali’s surrealistic images. It has not lost its story, the story of God’s grace given to man through the sacrifice of Christ Jesus on the cross. It is full of purpose and promise. To me, the art of Dali and other surrealists, such as Max Ernst, do capture quite well the life of one without Christ. Christ brings order from disorder. He presents reality in a world which denies one true reality. His word helps us to make sense of a world which doesn’t make sense except when viewed from a Christian perspective.

     If someone were to ask me what the single most important technique to remember when in an apologetic dialoque is, I would tell them it is what the people at Stand to Reason call the columbo tactic in their series Tactics in Defending the Faith (which I very highly reccomend). This tactic basically consists in asking careful questions in order to direct the conversation. I like to think of the tactic as containing two specific types of questions that the apologist should use extensively. I call these what questions and why questions.
     The what questions are used in order to get the person to clearly state his/her view on something. They are effective as conversation starters and clarifiers. For example, you may start a conversation with someone by saying “What is your view of such-and-such,” thereby getting them to state a belief. You may then use another what question to clarify their response. For example, you may say “What do you mean by that?” Or “Let me get this straight, are you saying….?” The benefits of such questions are two-fold. First of all, they show a genuine interest in the views of the other person, which makes him/her more likely to be open both in the current conversation and to the possibility of further discussions. Secondly, they help to ensure that you truly understand the person’s views so that you are not arguing against a belief that they do not actually subscribe to.
     Why questions are questions that ask for a justification of belief. For example, you may ask the question “Why do you say that?” or “How did you come to believe that?” These types of questions also accomplish two important things. The first is that they keep the burden of proof on the person who is making the claim. With many nonbelievers, this alone is enough to disarm them. This is because often people use silly objections to Christianity that they have gotten away with in the past or have heard others get away with, but for which they have no justification. For example, people often say things like “all religions are basically the same,” or “the Bible is full of contradictions,” or “the Bible has been significantly altered through time.” These objections were probably enough to scare away Christians they talked to in the past, but most times if you ask a question as simple as “Why do you think that?” the person will be left speechless and uncomfortable. Of course the person may be able to cite a similarity between religions or come up with a perceived contradiction or a textual variant and this is why Christians must do their work and have a basic understanding of comparitive religions and textual criticism. This is part of being always ready to give a defense (see 1 Pet 3:15). Nevertheless, the important thing is that you have put the burden of proof where it belongs - on the person who is making a claim.
     The second effect of why questions is that they force the person to think hard about their beliefs and the implications of those beliefs. It helps them to think consistently, and it exposes their presuppositions. And this is a point that Francis Schaeffer made often and well - whenever a non-Christian tries to be consistent, he finds himself in tension. As Schaeffer says in The God Who Is There,

the reason for this is simply that a man must live in reality, and reality consists of two parts: the external world and its form, and man’s “mannishness,” including his own “mannishness.” No matter what a man may believe, he cannot change the reality of what is. As Christianity is the truth of what is there, to deny this, on the basis of another system, is to stray from the real world…

    Christians should not be afraid of good reasoning and on the contrary should always encourage the quest for truth. This is because, as Schaeffer said, “Christianity is the truth of what is there.” Similarly, it is often quipped that all truth is God’s truth. Now, I don’t want you to think that I’m claiming that a non-Christian can use nothing but reason to deduce all the truths of the Christian faith (and even if he could, that he could then make himself be a member of that faith). I firmly believe that you cannot prove Christianity, but only its reasonableness. I also firmly believe that saving faith is entirely a gift of the grace of God through the Holy Spirit. Yet I still also believe that man (even fallen man) is made in God’s image and retains a real although supressed knowledge of God which will never allow him to be settled or fully consistent with his (non-Christian) beliefs. When you consistently ask why questions, you both force the person to think about what his presuppositions are and teach him to reason consistently. Once he does this, you can use the tactic that Francis Schaeffer calls “taking the roof off.”
     Schaeffer says that “every man has built a roof over his head to shield himself at the point of tension.” The job of the apologist is to actually advance the person towards the logical conclusion of his non-Christian presuppositions because as the person advances in this direction he feels the tension ever stronger. The roof is taken off and the man sees clearly that apart from the message of Christianity, he is utterly lost in meaninglessness and is morally dead. And it is precisely at this point of despair that the man is most ready to be confronted with the gospel message because he feels clearly, perhaps for the first time, that he is what the Word of God says he is - dead, lost, and alone. We can then with all hope and love hold out the truth that God has provided a solution to the problem of the lostness of man - a salvation by grace through faith in the atoning sacrifice of the Son of God, Jesus Christ.

For more information on the columbo tactic, see: Take a Tip from Lt. Columbo

For more information on taking the roof off, read Francis Schaeffer’s The God Who Is There

The news today reports that Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers checked yes on a 1989 questionnaire which asks, “If Congress passes a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution that would prohibit abortion except when it was necessary to prevent the death of the mother, would you actively support its ratification by the Texas Legislature?” According to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, “This raises very serious concerns about her ability to fairly apply the law without bias in this regard.” Based on the senator’s assumption, no one would qualify for the Supreme Court. To be a justice one must have gone through life without forming any opinions. By the same reasoning, one who had stated they would have opposed this same amendment would also be unable to judge fairly. To be a qualified candidate for the supreme court, one must not have any opinions about any issues. This is, of course, ludicrous. What Sen. Feinstein is really saying is that a candidate’s opinions must agree with those of the pro-abortion group.
Melinda Penner, at Stand To Reason, wrote a nice blog on this very subject. She states, “…as an originalist regarding the Constitution, I believe judges should interpret what the Constitution says regardless of their personal views and commitments. I don’t want conservatives or liberals ruling based on their political or religious opinions.” One’s opinions about issues, whether conservative or liberal, should not matter. What should matter is how one approaches the Constitution of the United States. The real question in this case is not whether one supports or opposes abortion, but whether one will interpret the law as an originalist or whether one will legislate and be an activist judge.
I’m afraid, using Sen. Feinstein’s criteria, anyone with an opinion is disqualified from sitting on the Supreme Court. That leaves….no one.

I have recently finished reading a book that I borrowed from my son, Jeremy. It is one of the most practical, helpful books I have ever read. Decision Making and The Will of God, by Gary Friessen, should be required reading for all Christians. If you are unsettled and anxious about knowing the will of God, this book will help. Not only that, it may bring peace over decisions made in the past. Most Christians I have known have a deficient understanding of what God’s will is for their lives and how to know that will. Thank God for some clarity on the subject. Who does God want you to marry? What career does God want you to have? What school does God want you to attend? How much money does God want you to give? For answers to these and other questions, read this book.

Mark D Roberts has provided a series of blogs dealing with supposed contradictions in the gospels. The entire series is well worth the time invested in reading. He uses an excellent analogy to assist one in understanding differences in the gospel accounts. One of the most commonly photographed and painted buildings in America is the red fishing shack in Rockport, Massachusetts. After providing a photograph of this shack, he then presents four renditions by four different artists. Each artist paints to convey a certain mood, feeling or insight. One may gain additional insight into the setting by comparing all four paintings. Some are more literal, some more suggestive. None are actual photographs. Mark Roberts suggests the gospels are more like inspired paintings than acutal photographs. Painters can provide a slice of reality that eludes the photographer. The four gospels enable us to see Jesus from various points of view, providing a more complete picture than we would have if we only had one Gospel.

Not too long ago, I was reading a passage of scripture which provided fresh insight into why we give to supply the needs of others. It is a passage I had read many times before, but had never really seen in this fresh light. When we give, the focus is often on ourselves and the receiver of the gift. We may be concerned about the amount or motivation for giving, or we may be concerned about how the recipient will use or respond to our gift. 2 Corinthians 9:11-15(NIV) places the emphasis where it belongs…GOD!

You will be made rich in every way so that you can be generous on every occasion, and through us your generosity will result in thanksgiving to God. This service that you perform is not only supplying the needs of God’s people but is also overflowing in many expressions of thanks to God. Because of the service by which you have proved yourselves, men will praise God for the obedience that accompanies your confession of the gospel of Christ, and for your generosity in sharing with them and with everyone else. And in their prayers for you their hearts will go out to you, because of the surpassing grace God has given you. Thanks be to God for his indescribable gift!

The most important thing about giving is that it will cause God to be glorified. If you are thanked appropriately…well, that is not important. The most important thing is that someone might receive a gift, have their need supplied, and give thanks to God. The purpose of giving, as is the purpose of our lives, is to glorify God! Let us give to cause folks everywhere to thank, praise, and glorify God.

CNN today has an article discussing the choices made by doctors at Lousiana hospitals post-Katrina. As a residency-trained, board certified emergency physician working in a large emergency department that saw almost 130,000 patients last year, I am faced routinely with end-of-life situations. I feel a deep sense of responsibility to do what is right for my patients. First and foremost I must act in accordance with the dignity and inherent value of human life. Physician-assisted-suicide is, in every case, immoral. Certainly, under no circumstances, crisis or not, should a physican intentionally seek to cause the death of an individual.
Finder is correct to point out that those physicians may have been forced to practice triage-type medicine. This is disaster or battlefied medicine. One must make quick decisions as to who will die no matter what interventions are enacted, who will survive with little or no intervention, who will survive with immediate intervention, and who needs attention, but not necessarily emergently. In so doing, one must let some die who are judged to be in such dire condition, as to die even with immediate attention. No matter how much I am exposed to end-of-life decision making, it is always unsettling to decide to let someone die. I must decide when to stop resuscitative efforts when a patient presents in cardiopulmonary arrest. At times, when a patient has made it clear he does not wish to be on life-supporting interventions, I must withdraw support which I know will hasten death.
Having said this, a physician does have the responsibility to relieve suffering when possible. Morphine given to relieve suffering is a moral act. Morphine given with the intent to cause death is immoral. The intent of the caregiver is paramount.
This issue is much too complex to be covered in a short blog, so here are my final points:
1. We must always uphold the sanctity of human life.
2. We should not be too quick to judge the Louisiana physicians who were making triage-type decisions.
3. Physician-assisted-suicide can never be justified.

A very interesting article was posted yesterday at The ID Report that details a lawsuit being filed against the National Science Foundation and UC Berkeley for using federal funding to publish material that encourages teachers to use religion to promote acceptance of evolution. A revealing quote:

The website further suggests classroom activities that explicitly use religion to promote evolution. In one suggested activity, teachers are supposed to share with students statements by religious leaders on evolution, but only those “stress[ing] the compatibility of theology with the science of evolution.” In another activity, students are assigned to interview ministers about their views on evolution, with the purpose of showing students that “Evolution is OK!” Teachers are cautioned, however, that this particular activity may not work if they live in a community that is “conservative Christian.”

“While the government has a legitimate purpose in educating students about the science of evolution, it’s outrageous that tax dollars would be spent to indoctrinate students into a particular religious view of evolution. There are many different religious views about evolution. How dare the government tell students which religious view is correct!” said plaintiff Jeanne Caldwell. “This is propaganda, not education.”

At Telicthoughts, in The Quiet Revolution, Steve Petermann makes some interesting observations about ID and philosophy of mind. There has been a shift away from strict materialist metaphysics among some eminent philosphy of mind philosophers He contrasts the reaction of the philosophy community to a shift toward forms of dualism and the reaction of the scientific community toward intelligent design.

[Clarification by Jeremy: Unfortunately, this "shift towards forms of dualism" is not anything like the body/soul dualism that most Christians believe in. There is still a very very small minority of philosophers of mind who accept this sort of dualism, called substance dualism. Rather, what many philosophers of mind are now accepting is what is called property dualism. Although they still insist that a human person has no soul that is separate to his body, they are realizing that mental properties cannot be reduced to physical (neurological) properties. It's hard to spell out exactly the way this view works without a lot of groundwork being laid first, but generally and simply speaking, a property dualist would say that you are still identical with your body (or perhaps your brain), but it is the case that your body has strictly physical properties, and it also has emergent, mental properties that, in the words of Kim "stay outside the physical domain."
The key thing to remember, however, is that although this shift does not reflect the substance dualism that seems to be implied by the Bible (and that is intuitive to most people), it is still a shift towards antimaterialism. Besides this shift itself, which would help the ID movement if it catches on in other disciplines, these philosophers should be applauded for accepting the fact that if a certain theory cannot do justice to the way things are, one should look elsewhere, even if better solutions transcend the mere physical.]