Orphan Sunday

The Bible repeatedly emphasizes the importance of caring for orphans (see, for example, Deut. 10:18, Deut. 24:19, Ps. 68:5 and James 1:27).  In response to this I want to ask two questions: “why?” and how?”

First, why?  Why does the Lord so strongly stress caring for orphans?

God’s heart is a father’s heart.  He is moved with compassion for the children in this world who have no one to care for them.  He calls on his people – under the old covenant Israel, and under the new covenant the Church – to work with him to care for those children in need.

Also, God want us to understand how very important children are in his scheme of things.  To illustrate this point I’d like to quote first a passage of Scripture, then a brief excerpt from a book.  First, Matthew 18:1-6:

At that time the disciples came to Jesus and said, “Who then is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”

And he called a child to himself and set him before them, and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.  Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.  And whoever receives one such child in my name receives me; but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.”

These words of the Lord remind us that we must approach him and his kingdom the way children do: with humility and, as is mentioned elsewhere in the Scriptures, with faith.  But, lest we fool ourselves into thinking it is only certain childlike qualities that are desirable, Jesus also stated unequivocally that children themselves are valuable to him.

Next, a quote from Too Small to Ignore by Wess Stafford, taken from the beginning of the book’s introduction:

Late one evening D. L. Moody, the premier American evangelist of the 1800s, arrived home from speaking at a meeting.  Emma, his wife, was already asleep.  As her exhausted husband climbed into bed, she rolled over and murmured, “So how did it go tonight?”

“Pretty well,” he replied.  “Two and a half converts.”

His wife lay silently for a moment pondering this response, then finally smiled.  “That’s sweet,” she replied.  “How old was the child?”

“No, no, no,” Moody answered.  “It was two children and one adult!  The children have their whole lives in front of them.  The adult’s life is already half-gone.”

Children are estimably valuable for so many reasons, including the reasons alluded to in the words of Jesus, and in the anecdote about the Moodys: children still have most of their lives yet to live; their little minds and hearts are still tender and moldable; their view of the world is not likely to be jaded; they approach others without pretense, without pride; they have a far easier time placing their faith in God.

But perhaps more important than any of these is the fact that each child has an intrinsic worth as a human being, a God-breathed living soul.  To adults who are busy doing adult things in an adult-oriented world, this can be easy to forget.  All too many adults fall into the trap of thinking of children as nuisances to be put up with, troublemakers to be shooed away, or burdens to be borne until they’re able to pull their own weight.

But the Lord reminds us that these are his little ones, that even the lowliest child in the most forgotten corner of the earth is as valuable to him as the most inspiring leader, the greatest humanitarian, the most accomplished artist, the most famous celebrity.

After the question of “why?” is “how?”  When the Lord tells us to care for orphans, how do we put that command into action?  Here are a few possibilities:

Give a home to a child. Adopt, whether domestically or internationally.  Provide a home for foster children; no matter how short their time with you, it could make the ultimate difference in their lives.

Donate your time and money to families and organizations that help children. If you are unable to give a home to a child who needs one, then help someone else who is otherwise able but needs some financial assistance.  Or help one of the many organizations that exist to help meet the needs of children in your community and around the world.

Regarding the above two suggestions, I will note briefly that there are controversies over whether it’s best to adopt domestically, or internationally; whether it’s better to give money to adoptive families, or directly to birth families so they can keep their children; and which of the many organizations is most deserving (or not).  While these controversies are worth your consideration, do not let them stop you from giving. Regardless of what course of action you choose, your effort will not be wasted.  Just do something, anything, whatever you can!

Be a positive presence in the lives of children. So often our solutions focus so much on meeting physical needs, and the money needed to meet those needs, that we lose sight of the fact that children need love as much as food, clothing or shelter.

They need to know someone cares about them, and takes an interest in their lives.  They someone to give them direction, training, correction and discipline.  They need someone to be proud of them, show them respect, show them how valuable they are.  They need someone to introduce them to Jesus.  They need someone to pray for them.

While many children abroad face problems such as famine, drought, war, and disease, many children here in America face a whole different set of problems: absentee parents (especially fathers); abuse and neglect; negative influences from peers, popular culture, even their schools.  Though you might not be able to help a child in a third-world country, you can help the one that lives next door to you.  Though they still live at home, they may have “lost” their one or both parents nonetheless: to divorce, careers, drugs, alcohol, television, or relationship breakdowns.

Pray for children. Pray for the children you know: nieces, nephews, grandchildren, neighbors, friends, other people’s kids.  Pray for the children you don’t know: when you read about them in the newspaper or a magazine, or see them on television.  Pray for their welfare.  Pray that they will know and love Jesus.  Pray that the Lord will send help to them when they need it.

Whatever you do, don’t forget the orphans.

(I plan to return to my previous series on evolution/creation in my next post.)

Objections to Evolutionism – Conclusion

The five objections posted here sum up my primary reasons for disbelieving evolution, despite much evidence offered in its favor.

My difficulty in trying to understand these issues is in knowing whom to believe.  Wells makes a strong case, using numerous examples, for doubting the credibility of evolutionist claims.  Coyne and Dawkins, for their part, make the point that while scientists dispute many of the details surrounding evolution, they agree that the core evidence in favor of evolution is solid.  But going back to Wells, it seems that some of the key cited evidence is not as solid as it would seem, but has been misrepresented, exaggerated or even falsified – leaving me wondering how much of the rest of the evidence for evolution is trustworthy.  Then again, there are those who claim that Wells’ claims are utterly erroneous.

With the avalanche of material available, so much back-and-forth, so much you’re-wrong-no-you’re-wrong, so many biases seeming to underlie approaches and conclusions on both sides, this issue is an extremely difficult one to wade through.

In the face of such questions of knowing whom to trust, I must return to my Objection Number One, and choose to trust the God who has proved himself to me countless times.  While I will continue to try to resolve the discrepancies I see among the various evidences and arguments offered, I will choose to first put my faith in the Lord.

I cannot ignore the fact, however, that much of the evidence offered by Coyne, Dawkins and others is not merely compatible with evolution, but does in fact seem to indicate that evolution is true.  If creation is true, as I believe it is, then creationists must offer some explanation for this evidence, and show at the very least how it might be compatible with the biblical account of creation.  This will be the subject of my next post.

Objections to Evolutionism – Five

Objection Number Five: There are too many facts evolution simply cannot explain.

I’m not talking about a “God of the gaps” theory, rightly criticized by evolutionists, in which facts not yet accounted for by science are attributed to divine intervention.  In such a view, God’s role in nature gradually diminishes as science makes new discoveries, and creationists must admit that this absolutely cannot be correct.

What I am talking about is not those things which have not yet been accounted for by science, but those things which can never be accounted for by science: why do humans aspire to ideals such as truth, beauty, and love?  What is the source of the universal human sense of morality by which we know, deep in our souls, that some things are right and others wrong – and almost invariably agree on which actions belong in each category?  Why do humans engage in altruistic behaviors?

Such questions not only have not, but can never be answered by evolutionary theory (except by a pat “because we evolved that way,” which is no better than a pat “because God made it that way.”)  The Bible, by contrast, tells us how God made us, and why he made us the way he did, providing deeply satisfying answers to these and many other questions.

Objections to Evolutionism – Four

Objection Number Four: Evolutionists are as prone as the rest of us to “group-think.”

The scientific process is not foolproof when it comes to rooting out error.  In tandem to Objection Number Three is the likelihood that once an idea, even an incorrect one, gains a certain amount of traction among a group of people, it becomes extremely difficult to root out, for the simple reason that everyone “knows” it to be correct.  And the fact that all one’s peers accept something is true is regarded as further “proof” of its truth!

Among the scientific community, it seems to me that evolution (among other ideas) has achieved this status.  Scientists who perhaps understand their own field but not others, or who have doubts about things that don’t quite line up with evolutionary theory, simply dismiss their misunderstanding and doubts while reassuring themselves with the “fact” that the scientific consensus couldn’t be wrong.

Findings that don’t line up with evolutionary theory are “corrected,” contrary evidence is dismissed as “flawed,” and alternative explanations are not explored – because each individual expects his or her little piece of the puzzle to fit into the larger overall picture known as scientific consensus.

Objections to Evolutionism – Three

Objection Number Three: Evolutionist zealots have a history of suppressing dissenting opinions.

From my reading of evolutionist books like Coyne’s and Dawkins’ I recall a passage which I now cannot locate, so I will paraphrase from memory: “Much of the scientific process consists of scientists testing the ideas of other scientists, trying to find and correct errors.  If evolution is false, the scientist who finds the evidence will be eager to present it, as it would secure his or her place in the history of science.  The fact that no one has done so is yet more evidence that evolution is true.”

The only problem with this claim is the numerous cases of scientists and teachers who have tried to make a case against evolution, only to find themselves derided, pressured to resign, their tenure denied, etc.  Examples include: Guillermo Gonzalez, William Dembski, Roger DeHart, and some members of the 1999 Kansas State School Board.  The small amount of research I’ve done into the details of each of these cases leads me to believe that while these individuals have made mistakes, or could have handled their situations better, there is definitely a bias against them and their work due to their anti-evolution stance.

All this makes me wonder how many more scientists may have objections, or at least serious questions, about evolution, but are afraid to speak up for fear they will experience similar results.  How many scientists would knowingly sabotage their own careers, their life’s work, their access to resources to continue their work?

Objections to Evolutionism – Two

Objection Number Two: Evidence in favor of evolution may be presented as stronger than it actually is.

I have a few reasons for believing this may be the case.

First, in my reading of Dawkins’ and Coyne’s books it has struck me that much of the evidence they present as supporting evolution is fully compatible with evolution, but taken on its own does not necessarily lead one to conclude that evolution is true.  This evidence seems equally compatible with the idea that in the beginning, God created numerous types of living beings, which were not descended from a common ancestor.

The evidence I have in mind includes: homologous bone structures among various species; observed adaptations resulting from natural or artificial selection; the taxonomic hierarchical organization of all living things; and the geographical distribution of various species.

The question for creationists is whether a theory of creation has explanatory power at least equal to, if not greater than, the apparent explanatory power of evolutionary theory when it comes to evidence that could be compatible with either theory.  This I will explore further in a subsequent post.

Second, Jonathan Wells in his book Icons of Evolution makes an excellent case that much of the evidence presented as supporting evolution is in fact much less decisive than evolutionists typically claim.

This includes the following evidence: the claim that laboratory experiments have demonstrated the first life could have arisen spontaneously from early Earth conditions; the inference of the “tree of life,” from the fossil record and DNA sequences of modern species, supposedly pointing to a single distant ancestor; the so-called “recapitulation” of evolutionary sequences in the embryos of various species; and the inference that certain modern species are descended from species known from the fossil record (or other similar species).

Third and last, I have heard a number of creationist speakers make claims to the effect that some of the “evidence” in favor of evolution is simply false.  That’s not necessarily claiming that evolutionists are outright lying, only that many tend to interpret the evidence in a way that supports a pre-existing conclusion – namely, that evolution is true.

The biggest subject of debate here, from what I’ve read and heard, is the fossil record.  Both Coyne and Dawkins – and many other evolutionist writers – claim there are no anachronistic fossils.  That is, there are no fossils, not a single one, found “out of order” according to what evolution predicts.

Creationists, on the other hand, frequently claim that the dating of fossils, and the sedimentary layers in which they are found, is a highly subjective process – not nearly as cut-and-dried as evolutionists claim.

Since I have no first-hand knowledge of how fossils and rock layers are dated, for me it comes down to whose word I will accept, since the claims of each camp are mutually exclusive.  Given my other objections, both those already given and those still to come, I’m inclined to doubt the claims of evolutionists that they can know so precisely the ages in question, and that all this evidence invariably supports evolution.

Objections to Evolutionism – One

In my last post, I defined what I’m calling evolutionism.  In response to a comment on that  post I wrote, “When I talk about having faith in evolution, I don’t mean that people are taking it on faith without relying on evidence.”

I will candidly admit that writers like Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins marshal a great deal of evidence that, taken at face value, does indeed support their claim that evolution is true.  I, however, have numerous reasons to distrust the evidence presented, which I’ve summed up in five objections.  The first objection is below, and the next four will each be posted separately to avoid a single over-long post.

Objection Number One: I believe the God of the Bible created the Earth and all living things.

I’ll start right off by saying I’m well aware this is not a scientifically acceptable reason for denying the truth of evolution.

It is purely subjective for me to make claims that I personally know God, I’ve heard him speak to me, and I’ve felt his presence.  It’s also a subjective belief of mine that the Bible is true and should, for the most part, be accepted as literally true.

As subjective as these beliefs are, however, I cannot deny them; I must acknowledge them as my starting point.  Because I know God, and because I believe he has demonstrated to me that the Bible is his Word, I must use this as a framework into which every other truth must fit.

If it could be demonstrated that my beliefs about God are incorrect, then I would be forced to reconsider my opinions on a number of other subjects, including evolution.  Likewise, if it could be demonstrated that the Bible is not trustworthy, then my framework would fall apart.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly for the subject of evolution, even if the Bible is trustworthy I must admit the possibility that I may have interpreted it incorrectly.

Particularly at stake here is my understanding of Genesis chapter one: I believe it is correctly read in a straightforward, literal manner.  Greater minds than mine, however, have concluded that all or parts of that first chapter are true only in a metaphorical, not a literal, sense.  If this is true then my first objection will not stand.

To date, however, all my study and prayer on the issue has led me to the conclusion that according to the Bible, evolution is not true.  From this conclusion, I and other creationists must account for evidence that appears to contradict the biblical account of creation.  How might it fit into the framework established by Genesis?  This I will tackle in a subsequent post.

Evolutionism

First, I want to tackle what I’ve called evolutionism: the belief that the theory of evolution is true, and can account for the existence of all forms of life on the planet Earth.

It is apparent there are many who have just as much – if not more – faith in the truth of evolution as Christians have faith in the literal truth of Genesis chapter one.  Jerry Coyne’s book, after all, is titled Why Evolution Is True – not Why Evolution is Probably True, or Why Most Evidence Indicates Evolution Is True.  Granted, my alternate titles aren’t as catchy, but I didn’t have to read too far into Coyne’s book to know for sure that the title isn’t just a gimmick, a sales ploy: he really does believe, without a doubt, that evolution is true.  He writes in the book’s introduction:

”Darwin’s theory that all of life was the product of evolution, and that the evolutionary process was driven largely by natural selection, has been called the greatest idea that anyone ever had.  But it is more than just a good theory, or even a beautiful one.  It also happens to be true.”

And in Chapter 1, “What Is Evolution?” on page 17, in response to the oft-repeated creationist claim that evolution is “just a theory,” he writes again:

“In Darwin’s day, the evidence for his theories was compelling but not completely decisive.  We can say, then, that evolution was a theory (albeit a strongly supported one) when first proposed by Darwin, and since 1859 has graduated to “facthood” as more and more supporting evidence has piled up.  Evolution is still called a “theory,” just like the theory of gravity, but it’s a theory that is also a fact.”

And he concludes Chapter 1 by writing:

“As we’ll see, all the evidence – both old and new – leads ineluctably to the conclusion that evolution is true.”

Similarly, on page 18 of Chapter 1, “Only a Theory?” of his book The Greatest Show On Earth, Richard Dawkins writes:

“What we now call the fact of evolution was, in1838, a hypothesis for which evidence needed to be collected.  By the time Darwin came to publish On the Origin of Species in 1859, he had amassed enough evidence to propel evolution itself, though still not natural selection, a long way towards the status of fact.  Indeed, it was this elevation from hypothesis towards fact that occupied Darwin for most of his great book.  The elevation has continued until today, there is no longer a doubt in any serious mind, and scientists speak, at least informally, of the fact of evolution.” [Emphasis Dawkins’.]

This is evolutionism: an unwavering faith in the fact of evolution, a belief that it cannot and will never be disproven.

To his credit, on page 16 of his book Coyne writes the following caveat to his claim that evolution is true:

“Because a theory is accepted as ‘true’ only when its assertions and predictions are tested over and over again, and confirmed repeatedly, there is no one moment when a scientific theory suddenly becomes a scientific fact.  A theory becomes a fact (or a ‘truth’) when so much evidence has accumulated in its favor – and there is no decisive evidence against it – that virtually all reasonable people will accept it.  This does not mean that a ‘true’ theory will never be falsified.  All scientific truth is provisional, subject to modification in light of new evidence.  There is no alarm bell that goes off to tell scientists that they’ve finally hit on the ultimate, unchangeable truths about nature.  As we’ll see, it is possible that despite thousands of observations that support Darwinism, new data might show it to be wrong.  I think this is unlikely, but scientists, unlike zealots, can’t afford to become arrogant about what they accept as true.”

But as noble as Coyne’s stated sentiments are, I see among the ranks of evolutionists a great deal of what seems to be arrogance and zealotry.  In other words, the ideals expressed above are often not carried through in scientific practice.  This will be the subject of my next post.

Creation(ism) Versus Evolution(ism)

I’ve mentioned in passing in a previous post that I am a creationist.  The time has come for a fuller discussion of the topic.

This is a subject that fascinates me to no end, and to broaden my understanding on both sides I’ve read a number of books about it – most recently, on the evolution side, Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution Is True and Richard Dawkins’ The Greatest Show on Earth, and on the creation side Jonathan Wells’ Icons of Evolution.

Firstly, I’d like to clarify a few key terms.  Creation and Evolution are the two primary competing ideas for explaining the universe, the Earth and all life as we know it.  Creationism and Evolutionism are ideologies, committed respectively to their unfaltering belief in the truth of one idea or the other.  (I point this out because I often hear or read evolutionists discuss evolution versus creationism, as though evolution did not have its ideologues just as creation does.)  To further expand on these terms:

Creationism is the belief that everything around us was created in a series of special acts by God.  A straightforward reading of the first chapter of Genesis, the Bible’s first book, leads one to conclude that God did this in a mere six days.  Though some Christians interpret this chapter differently, I believe the literal six-day interpretation is the correct one.

Evolutionism is the belief that all life began with a single simple reproducing cell, which through natural selection evolved along countless divergent paths into the stunning array of life on Earth today.  And though evolutionary theory deals only with the common ancestry of all living things, other ideas go hand-in-hand with it: that life arose spontaneously from non-life as molecules arranged themselves into amino acids, which arranged themselves into proteins, which arranged themselves into those simple cells from which all other life descended.  And before that, all the galaxies and stars and planets formed as matter won out over anti-matter, and matter condensed into spinning clouds and lumps.  And before that, all matter and energy burst into existence at the “big bang.” And perhaps most importantly, all this happened according to the laws of physics, without help or direction by any outside force such as God.

(Somebody correct if I’ve missed or misstated any key points; otherwise, let’s move on.)

In coming weeks I’ll be posting, as I’m able, observations on points made in the books referenced above.  I’ll begin with a review of the pro-evolution books: their strong points, their weak points, the flaws in their reasoning, and the parts I’m not sure about.

The Declaration of Independence

Yesterday morning I re-read the Declaration of Independence (helpfully provided by my local newspaper) – something I’ve not done in a very long time.  I was struck by the force of the Declaration’s words, in particular what I’ve bolded in the excerpt below:

“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

When I read the Declaration it got me thinking: how much more destructive of our rights must our current government become before we have no recourse but to “alter or abolish it, and to institute new government”?  Strong language, yes – revolutionary, even – but no less so than it was 234 years ago, when it was first penned.

As Thomas Jefferson wrote then, it is no light thing to change a long-established government.  But at what point – after how long a “train of abuses and usurpations” is it “[our] right, [our] duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for [our] future security”?

All three branches of our federal government have increasingly taken upon themselves powers to which they have no Constitutional right.  In the last ten years or so especially, we’ve witnessed increasing violations of fundamental freedoms by both the Bush and the Obama administrations.  If America’s founding fathers were here today, how much of this do you suppose they would put up with?  How long would it be before they would declare their independence from this government, with the intention of forming a new one?