Darwinism: the new mythology

Greek mythology introduced us to the Chimera. ImageA hermaphrodite creature that was part snake, part goat and part lion. Ooh, and it could breathe fire! And this is just one of the many hybrid wonders from the greco-roman tradition. Sounds positively mythological, doesn’t it? Well not to Darwinists.

The grand tale of evolutionary history requires that all modern creatures bleed into one single ancestor. Which means that if we hit the “reverse” button on natural history, we should see countless creatures that were “half this” and “half that.” Making it not just likely, but mandatory that monsters from Greek imagination be the norm.

Darwinian fossil hunters are never more excited than when they appear to uncover a creature that seems to bridge two species. The famed coelacanth was one such example. Before actually finding a live one in 1938, we only had fossils of them.

ImageIt is a fish with the ability to breathe air (i.e.: lungfish) for short periods and it is a tetrapod (i.e.: has four primitive limbs). So, naturally, it’s fossilized version sparked massive curiosity and excitement from the evolutionary biology crowd. It seemed to bridge the gap nicely between land creatures and fish. However, once it was found by fisherman off the coast of South Africa, it was rushed to the lab and dissected. To the disappointment of scientists it displayed zero evolutionary change compared to its 65 million year old fossilized cousins. Furthermore, its physiology was no different than other modern lungfish. In short, it was not — despite it’s four limbs — a creature in transition from fish to land dweller.

It appears we have a failed attempt at finding our Darwinian mythological creature. Rats! But the point is that despite the lack of evidence in the fossil record, the story of Darwinism does spur evolutionists to look for the most incredulous and unlikely concoctions in the natural realm. Bizarre creatures that would otherwise only appear in mythology. It also spurs them to look away from the fact that the fossil record delivers ready-made classes of animals, rather suddenly and with no slow bleed from one category to another. But Darwinism is the new collective faith and its adherents don’t seriously entertain its errors. Rather, they continuously seek for evidence of chimeras the way some catholics look for the appearance of the Virgin Mary in their food.

And much like the ancient Greeks’ pessimistic outlook on human destiny, the Darwinian mythology paints a grim, purposeless portrait of the human’s meaningless dance on the cosmic dust speck of Earth. Pain and misery follow most people for much of their lives and then we all bite the dust. The gods are feckless and uncaring. A smooth unfeeling physical reality is forever deaf to the pleas of humans.

The chaos and emptiness of the Greek universe has been transplanted into the secular vacuum of atheism. Wild creatures, despair and all. Darwinism is the new mythology, but in many ways, it is the same as the old one…

 

The Diminishing of Christianity in the West

Once upon a time, theology was known as the Queen of Sciences. This was during a time when the European universities were built to express a Christian culture’s attempts at understanding a Christian world. In fact, the term “university” meant “unity amidst diversity.” All the separate faculties on campus were describing a singular reality. And it was deemed that this reality was evidently a Christian one. Math, biology, physics, anthropology and logic were separate disciplines that offered their own unique angle on the same, ultimate subject: God. So it made sense that of all the faculties, theology was the end point of all knowledge. Hence its status as the crown of the campus.

Fast forward to the modern secular university in Europe and North America. The new queen is evolutionary theory. Mathematics describes the language of a dead machine universe that whirls away and produces order and randomness. Without meaning, feeling or purpose. Biology manifests this controlled chaos by charting the rights and lefts that evolution has taken on its wandering walk to nowhere. Ethics is quite simply whatever most people (in the West) think is right.

Although it began long ago — mostly in the 18th century — the growing secularization of the West is reaching a near full bloom. There appears to be nowhere that secularism will not reach to vigorously erase all traces of Judeo-Christianity. The rise of the homosexual family, the ability to abort any baby, at (almost) any time for any reason and the nanny welfare state are transforming our world into a place where no one needs to check their impulses. There is no sign of Absolute Morality anywhere, so people compare themselves to themselves. Not perfection. Having come to believe we are simply animals, we are now behaving like them.

In fact, there may be coming a time when our obsession with devaluing humanity and elevating animal life reaches a point where a fire fighter will genuinely be torn by having to decide whether he should first save the family baby or the family pet.

Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

- Romans 1:22-23

What is the Christian to do in such times? First, we recognize that we should “not be surprised at the fiery ordeal that has come on you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you.” (1 Peter 4:12) There have been more debauched times in Christian history than the 21st century. Most western Christians are beginning to feel acute ostracization amongst family members and co-workers but not outright physical harm. And even should harm come, we must realize that this purifies us and helps to highlight to non-believers the difference between Christians and the rest of the world. Because ultimately, despite the advertisements to the contrary, this world is split into two, and only two camps. Those that are being saved, and those that are perishing.

Second, we must remember that earth still exists because God is birthing new souls that will ultimately be our best friends in eternity. People we will love forever have still not yet been born. And Christians remain on this battlefield to be salt and light to the world. To help harvest saved souls and store them into God’s barns. Just as those that came before us worked for our salvation, we must remember that this life is incredibly short and has only one real purpose: evangelism.

Lastly, remind yourself that true happiness is not found in security or comfort. If it was, the depression rates in the West since the baby boomer generation would not be 6 times those of the World War 2 generation and the modern Third World. God can offer real comfort and real happiness, even in the midst of trial and suffering. In fact, it is often His best tool to pry our hands off our idols. Whom He loves, He chastises as a son.

I am not offering any practical solutions to living as a believer in darkening times, but I am reminding myself and my fellow Christians that our society is emerging as incompatible with the God that gave it a universe and an earth to live on. And that this was predicted. It is going to get darker before the morning. And that we will receive the strength to carry on in the valley of the shadow of death. Fear not.

Philippians 3:12-21

Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Let those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you. Only let us hold true to what we have attained.

Brothers, join in imitating me, and keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in us. For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things. But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.

The Secular Story of Everything – PART 5: Ghost in the Shell (do you have a soul)

http://intersectionimagebank.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/ghost-in-the-shell.jpg?w=700

What’s In a Brain?

With modern day advances in science and technology, we’ve mapped out the inner sanctum of man: the human brain. Many educated men and women firmly assert that every emotion, dream, creative instinct and inspiration expressed by man is the dry, anti-climactic result of plain chemistry. Could this be?

Or, as fire causes smoke, could the soul be the fire for the biochemical “smoke” of measurable brain activity?

The following text deals with the line of reasoning which views the shell of the human skull as being haunted by the ghost of the human soul.

FIRST ARGUMENT

The “I” Versus the Brain’s Fragmented Nature

As you sit at your computer reading this text, you are keenly aware of the single most basic notion known to man: yourself. Specifically, you are seeing, hearing, feeling, thinking as a single “I.” All sense information is arriving to a central, completely converging “I” and not only are all senses merging into one, but there is the presence of an “I” that is seperate from the senses and can think about and ruminate on the senses. From this singular center of consciousness you can observe all incoming data and devote more or less attention to any senses or inner thought life.

Something which the strict atheist must explain is how could the human brain deliver the experience of “I?”

As the figure below shows, even a single sense such as sight is processed in a fragmented, non-centralized fashion. The retina (a cluster of thousands of photo sensitive nerves) delivers information to the optic nerve which is itself made up of several thousand individual neurons. Each eyeball delivers a highway of these optic nerves, some of which cross to the other side of the brain in the optic chiasma, some remain on their respective side. Eventually, these spaghetti stalks of nerves terminate their journey in a broad area beginning near the midbrain and extending to the occipital lobe at the very back of the brain. In other words, the nerves communicating what the eyes see are splattered throughout a relatively large area of the brain.

http://camelot.mssm.edu/~ygyu/Visual_pathway.jpg

How can such a diverse, non-converging system deliver the visual information to a central “I” when it fails to converge, and in fact, diverges into tens of thousands of splintered ends? This problem is compounded when we consider that all other sense data (i.e.: taste, smell, touch and sound) are also spread out in this fashion and do not converge. Furthermore, they end up in different parts of the brains far away from each other. So how can the central “I” of human experience occur in a system such as the human brain?

Where is the “you” in such a system?

Synesthesia

One explanation has been offered to explain the “I” of human experience from a strictly neurological standpoint. The obvious divergence of our brain’s sensory nerves is countered by pointing to studies of people afflicted with synesthesia. Individuals who are synesthetic see and “hear” colours and they “see” and smell odors. These individuals seem to have abnormal communication between their different sensory nerves. Their optic nerves transfer information to auditory nerves and vice versa. Other people who have experimented with psychedelic drugs will attest to similar phenomena. The reason synesthesia is even possible is because in all individuals, nerves in the brain are connected to each other directly or through intermediary nerves. In short, they can all call or talk to each other. Could it not be that the communication lines between the different sensory nerves creates a brain-wide network that is unified and explains the singular “I” experience of human consciousness?

Let us examine.

 

Remember that the proposed “I” spoken of above is not simply the perfect convergence of all senses. It is also the experience of the senses by something other than the senses themselves. The two are different entities. If you go blind, your conscious awareness continues unblemished. Take all senses away, you will still be able to think and be self-aware.

Sensory nerves that are connected to each other do not solve the problem because there is still no one to talk to. The sense of self you possess is not sight or sound but receives sight and sound. When I speak to someone, I am not speaking to their ear. If I have a thousand phone lines going inside a building, I still need someone to pick up at the other end.

The singular center of subjective experience, or the “I,” cannot be explained by a physical collection of sensory nerves or even the “messenger” nerves between them. A room full of employees is a team, not an “I.”

Even if all our sense neurons (i.e.: sight, smell, touch, taste, hearing) not only spoke to each other, but converged into a single nugget inside our brains. Each sense represented by a single, microscopic nerve fiber. Such a system would still be incapable of delivering the single “I” experience of converged senses and the extra presence of human consciousness. No matter how big or small, close or far apart sensory nerves are, they are physical items and cannot occupy the same place. Therefore, there is no way of forming a complete convergence experience when the raw material is only physical. Therefore something which is not imprisoned by the spatial limitations of matter must step up and perform the “threading” of all faculties into a single sense experience and deliver the “I” which ponders all the incoming information in perfect singularity.

Descartes alluded to this with his “I think, therefore I am” revelation.

By definition, this threading agent cannot be limited by spacial properties. The natural fabric is not able to explain the most basic, primal human experience…

SECOND ARGUMENT

Thought Life: Proof of Non-Physiological Experience

If you cracked open your computer’s hard drive and observed all the internal machinery, you would see thousands of complex connections and communication equipment. You could map out all the events occurring inside a computer using purely physical terminology. Whenever you hit a stroke on your keyboard, you could physically see and measure a circuit firing from your keyboard and traveling through wires connected to more circuits in your hard drive. The hard drive then relays the message to your monitor and pixels are triggered electronically to form the letter of the key you hit.

Absolutely everything occurring could be monitored using the physical senses. Nothing else is occurring in your computer. Your computer is not conscious, it is a material object which relays physical signals. Like dominoes falling over in a line. No matter how complex these signals are, they are purely physical. Your computer is like a very complicated wind up toy. It isn’t sitting there thinking about what is occuring, it is simply the cumulative total of mindless, physical cause and effect.

Likewise, imagine a point in the distant future in which every single function in your brain was totally mapped out. Every time you had a thought, every neuron involved in that thought was monitored and the total journey of nerve firing was recorded and observed by high tech equipment. Wouldn’t this mean that the human was no different than the computer?

No.

The crucial difference is that on top of physical events accompanying our thoughts, there is another, unrecordable event: the thought itself. No matter how good we get at monitoring the brain, there is something occurring which absolutely no equipment, present or future, will ever be able to record: the content of the thought.

For example, in sleep studies, the patient has to tell the scientist what the content of the dreams were. No amount of monitoring of the brain could ever divulge that. If sleep studies were performed so vigorously that eye movement patterns and brain waves could be used to predict the dream itself this still would not damage our argument. Why? Because during the course of all the clinical studies needed to determine which eye and brain patterns meant which thought was occurring, the scientists would have to ask the patient what thought had occurred. They could never determine it simply by watching neurons and eyeballs. No one has access to your inner thought life — now or in the future — unless you let them in on it. No matter how much of a lab rat you become, the non-physical part of your thinking is unrecordable by equipment.

Even tests in which brain surgeons shock parts of patients’ brains and evoke memories do not harm our above point. Simply because A causes B does not mean that A is B. No Christian is arguing that the physical body and the soul are not intimately tied together, we are simply stating that they both exist respectively. Smoke and fire go together, but they are totally separate substances.

I recently read an article by a physician who argued that the brain is all there is and no human soul exists. To make his point he talked about a stroke patient he was examining. He recalled that when he lifted the patient’s arm, she didn’t recognize it and thought it was someone else’s arm. Her brain network had been fragmented and she could not feel or recognize her own body part. Therefore he had to prove to her, using a mirror, that it was, in fact, her arm. The physician was quite satisfied that he’d made his point. My question to the good doctor would be, if the patient’s mind is only a brain, and the brain is broken, who are you teaching to recognize the arm? If my keyboard and keyboard software is broken, I can’t bypass these systems and talk the computer into typing properly. The software and hardware ARE the totality of  the system. I have to replace or repair the physical system and HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE. So, good doctor, whom were you talking to when you bypassed the brain and taught the patient to correct the incoming messages?…

THIRD ARGUMENT

Near Death Experiences[1]

Because of advanced medical services, more and more people can travel further into the death spectrum and be brought back to consciousness. As a result, a significant list of clinical records exists detailing events in which people have behaved in ways which would be impossible were we mere skin and bones.

Physicians and nurses across the world have eye witness, third party observations recorded as clinical fact concerning “odd” experiences with patients. One such case was of a young girl who was brought to an emergency room after being submerged under water for several minutes. She was declared brain dead upon arrival at the emergency room. After several hours of failed recovery of her brain, her emotionally exhausted family was told to go home for the night and get some rest. During the evening, the young victim almost spontaneously snapped out of her coma and began displaying fully functioning brain activity. She spoke at length with the attending nurses and doctors. Her story floored them.

She described being fully conscious the entire time. She accurately described the physical appearance of the doctors which had first attended to her that morning upon her arrival at the hospital. Her descriptions were of doctors who were no longer on shift at the hospital when she awoke, and her descriptions were that of someone observing from a bird’s eye view. More stunning by far was her description of being accompanied by an angel and travelling to her home across town. She described several events occurring in her family home including what song was on the radio, what board game her brothers were playing, what her mother was cooking and what her dad shouted in despair in the living room downstairs. The young girl’s family had been called to the hospital following her spontaneous recovery. However, before they had any contact with their daughter, the parents were asked to verify the accuracy of the girl’s descriptions. To every one’s shock and disbelief, every single detail of the testimony was dead on! Pardon the pun.

Faced with these types of clinically recorded stories, the strict naturalist has to believe that every single, well documented account is a total lie. Something which is much more difficult to do when the individual sources involved in such incidents (i.e.: the doctors, ambulance drivers, firefighters, nurses, etc) are interviewed individually and gain nothing except possible professional ostracization for their testimonies.

Conclusion

The above case for the existence of the soul attempts to confront the atheist believer with information which counters their myopic view of the full spectrum of human experience. Only the tip of the iceberg has been discussed in this paper. Other lines of argumentation can be pressed into service to further the case for the soul’s existence.[2] When all data and anecdotes are studied objectively a powerful case emerges supporting the view that more is happening between our ears than chemistry. Praise to the Lord! We are spirit beings, not automatons.

“You don’t have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.”

- C.S. Lewis


[1] The story related in this paragraph can be found in greater detail in Gary Habermas and J.P. Moreland’s “Immortality: The Other Side of Death”

[2] See Habermas’ “Body and Soul”

Frederick Nietzsche

Frederick Wilhelm Nietzsche was born in Prussia on October 15, 1844. His father and grandfather were pastors, but he grew up to reject the Christian faith. And although popular history has associated Nietzsche with Nazism, it is surprising to the modern reader to find that his work is not compatible with the philosophies of Hitler’s Third Reich.
Nietzsche’s sister married a nazi soldier and liberally edited her deceased brother’s work. This mutated collage was passed around Hitler’s cabinet and consequently, many of Nietzsche’s catch phrases were adopted by the nazi regime. An honest and thorough reading of his work, however, show that anti-semitism and fierce nationalism — hallmarks of the Third Reich — were repugnant to Nietzsche, who even praised the “superior” intellect of the Jewish europeans of his era.
As a child, Nietzsche was a gifted music student and avid reader. At the age of 24, before completing his university studies, he was offered the Chair of Classical Philology at the
University of Basel. Then the youngest ever to be appointed to this position.
From 1870-71 he served as a medical orderly in the Franco-Prussian war. He was infected with diphtheria and dysentery and possibly syphillis during his enlistment. These were the beginning of health problems that would plague Nietzsche for life and eventually drive him into seclusion.
From 1879 until 1888, Nietzsche travelled to temperate climates to ease his lungs and headaches. It was during this time that he wrote his most enduring works. Although he is not responsible for the Nazi regime’s crimes or philosophy, his works are sternly atheistic and helped give birth the the Existentialist movement of the early 1900′s. Albert Camus (The Stranger) and Jean Paul Sartre were particularly influenced by Nietzsche’s nihilism.
The following are some of the more popularly known principles of Nietzsche’s philosophy:
– Beyond Good and Evil:
he saw religious morality (particularly Judaism & Christianity) as “master-slave” morality. Nietzsche displays a typical misunderstanding of judeochristian concepts of morality while making this point. He saw “christian” morality as stating that only “heavenly” things should be sought. That piety, meager living, poverty and suffering were encouraged and that everything wordly, such as wealth, comfort, health were iscouraged by biblical principles. So he believed that judeochristianity thrived in europe and america because it allowed the supressed masses (i.e.: peasants under european monarchies and slaves under american plantations) to suffer on earth, feeling they were going to be especially well received in the here-after. Biblical ethics are not the simplistic dichotomies Nietzsche painted them to be. Riches and honour on earth are often companions to those who follow Christ. Poverty and suffering are not encouraged, even though they are sometimes present in the believer’s life. The fabric of ethical teachings in the Bible center around justice and righteousness, not money, health or lack thereof.
- God is Dead:
Nietzsche’s most famous catch-phrase is “God is dead.” He wrote that as more and more people awaken to the notion that there is no God, the world would sink into a chaotic battlefield. Although he did not believe God was real, he did articulate that the masses needed the concept of God to herd them into orderly living. Almost 3 decades before the two World Wars, and during an increasingly secular age, Nietzsche’s predictions proved grimly accurate.
Interestingly, Nietzsche noted that in the absence of God, men and women would have to discipline themselves to “determined joy” and find purpose in their lives. It is curious to note that nearly all nihilist and existentialist philosophers agree that purpose and joy receive a deadly blow by the notion of life without God. And they then attempt to create purpose and joy outside of God or they commit suicide. C.S Lewis stated that “in a world without fluids thirst is impossible.” If men and women need purpose and joy as much as their bodies need air and water, then the God who even atheists admit is the strongest source of these things suddenly appears far less ridiculous.
- Übermensch:
Unlike the Nazi’s “Superman,” Nietzsche’s ubermensch was not anti-semitic, blond, blue eyed and fiercely patriotic to the German Fatherland. In fact, the concept of Übermensch is not an important part of Nietzsche’s work. It is often translated as Beyond Man and stands for the type of man that Nietzsche felt would be necessary in a world where God was not believed to exist. A Beyond Man lives “beyond” good and evil and religious belief. Nietzsche’s basic description of the Beyond Man is an individual that rejects living in light of the afterlife and Judgment, but becomes fully focused on and pre-occupied with life in the here and now. This philosophy is prevalent in our modern materialist world. The unction to fulfill the now and foresake the eternal life is perhaps the most practical step towards damnation. Christ and Nietzsche are flatly contradictory of one another on practical daily living. Christ calls for dependence on God the Father and to live in light of the inevitability of Judgment. Nietzsche asks us to keep our eyes on our feet as Christ warns of the coming cliff edge. One of these men is correct. Only one.
- Will to Power: More primary than a will to survive, Nietzsche saw the Will to Power as all consuming in the natural world. He stated that most often, men seek to dominate and influence and become the center of their world. He did not necessarily praise this tendency, but he offered no reason to stop it. After all, if this life is pointless and getting your kicks is all you can look forward to, what possible carrot can we dangle in front of a Hitler to deter his own Will to Power. In fact, this facet of Nietzsche’s philosophy was well embodied in the multiple atheist regimes of the early 20th century. Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia and Hilter’s Germany were driven by an elite few who ruled powerless masses and planned on doing so for the remainder of their lives. Without the First Commandment, mankind defaults towards self-worship and a satanic drive to be the center of the cosmos. To put even God’s head under their feet.
In 1888, Nietzsche began to show signs of dementia. He was arrested after watching a man whip his horse. Throwing his arms around the horse he wept bitterly and was taken away by police. During his unravelling he sent non-sensical postcards to friends and family. He was diagnosed as suffering from tertiary syphillis and died in August of 1900 at the age of 56.
Legend has it that during the last years of his life, he was silent for months on end. Then would burst into frenzies of speech. According to the accounts, near his death he would burst out with verse after verse of the New Testament which his mother had taught him to memorize as a child.
Could it be that Christ ruled the final moments of his life? That the losing of a mind that had battled its creator was an act of mercy and salvation. One day, we shall know…

The Secular Story of Everything PART 3: The Big Bang

The first serious proponent of the Big Bang Cosmological Model was a jesuit priest and astrophysicist named Abbé Georges Lemaitre. The year was 1925 and the reception from many scientists was negative. Unlike the previous centuries, the early 20th century saw a shift in the culture of Western Civilization towards secular atheism. And one of the primary motivations for resisting the Big Bang model was articulated by Sir Arthur Eddington, a famous cosmologist of the time, he said plainly: “It seems to require a peculiar and sudden beginning of things… …philosophically, the notion of a beginning is repugnant to me…” Sir Eddington went on to develop his own failed model of cosmology, attempting to allow “evolution an infinite time to get started.”It was an ideological addiction to Darwin’s macro-evolutionary model that was galvanizing resistance to what seemed a supernatural beginning to the cosmos.

Today, we would find it hard to believe that the secular scientists of the time suspected religious poison at play in the early proposals of a hot Big Bang event.

In fact, because of the predominant secular view of cosmology following the wake of the Darwinian revolution, Albert Einstein changed his own math in his early work on relativity. His calculations began to point to a universe that had a beginning. He knew the grain of the scientific establishment and introduced the “cosmological constant” into his theory to “correct” for the math’s tendency to show a starting point for the cosmos.

Make no mistake. The secular worldview was resistant to the Big Bang when it was first introduced.

In fact, the very name came from the scoffing criticism of Sir Fred Hoyle, whose “steady state” theory of an eternal cosmos was being challenged by the new view of a universe with a beginning. In the 1950s Sir Hoyle jokingly referenced the new theory as a “big bang,” in attempts to frame the science as simplistic and stupid.

Ironically, his insult is forever frozen as the lasting name of the science which sent his work to the dust bin.

Since the jesuit priest Lemaitre first introduced the notion of a hot flash point as the beginning of our physical reality, several discoveries have converged to provide stunning confirmation for the Big Bang model.

Edwin Hubble’s 1929 discovery of the “spectral line redshifts” in distant stars and galaxies showed that the cosmos was stretching out and away from a primary location. Like the outside of a balloon as more air is introduced.

Hubble’s discovery prompted Einstein to try his math without the “cosmological constant” he’d previously introduced. And long and behold, his theory of relativity held up and paralleled Hubble’s observations.

With the modern day advent of super space telescopes, scientists have been able to carry out numerous tests to try and confirm or debunk the now prevailing Big Bang model. One such test is the Cosmic Background Radiation tests. Astronomers can look into the night sky and record the radiation “echo” from the most distant reaches of the cosmos. They can also check radiation levels from nearer — and therefore more recent — parts of our cosmos. This background radiation check is the comparison of old and younger radiation “temperatures” that prevailed in the entire cosmos throughout different stages of its history. It is consistent with an initial, super-massive hot flash “big bang” event that has since cooled off at a constant rate.

Other observations such as Stellar Burning have helped increase confidence in the Big Bang model. Simply put, Stellar Burning is a measure of how long a star has been burning.

To those unfamiliar with astrophysics, it can appear extravagant to claim to measure distant stars’ age, but interestingly, it is easier to do so than to determine the precise burning time of a piece of campfire wood. Wood is incredibly complex on a molecular level, whereas stars are almost purely hydrogen and helium. They are pure gas. No solids or liquids and they are in a near perfect vacuum and are spherical with completely evenly distributed surface and internal pressures. Therefore, all we need to know is the amount of time helium or hydrogen takes to “burn” and the mass of a star (ie.: the amount of hydrogen/helium involved) and we get a fairly accurate age determination.

Astronomers have age-checked thousands and thousands of stars. Their findings parallel the redshift data, the cosmic background radiation and other measurements not mentioned in this article. Furthermore, these different measurements by several teams of scientists over several years have delivered a nearly identical estimated age date for the beginning of our cosmos. This number is universally held to be approximately 13.7 billion years.

Our earth is aged at approximately 4-5 billion years old. As old as this may seem, it was — and continues to be — an uncomfortably short amount of time for evolutionary mechanisms to produce the degree and amount of complexity found in the ecosystem. Remember, the cooling of earth and its multiple preparatory stages leave life far less than a billion years to “grow” the Animal Kingdom from single cell organisms.

It is long forgotten — although not by all — that the original introduction of a universe starting from scratch and expanding into life suddenly was considered unscientific by secular minded men and women. It was ridiculed because it seemed supernatural.

Personally, I don’t blame a secular person’s weariness on the supernatural implications of the Big Bang cosmology. In fact, the term “Big Bang” is very misleading. We are not dealing with a clumsy, forceful explosion. The numbers surrounding this event are stunning. For example the ratio of mass-density have to be precise to 1 x 10 to the 60 and 1 x 10 to the 120. This is a 1 with 60 zeros behind it and a 1 with 120 zeros behind it. The initial velocity of this event was also incredibly calibrated to prevent collapse or over-shot.

All energy, space, matter and time were introduced from apparently nothing with a force that was nearly infinite in scale and a precision that boggles the mind of scientists to this day.

Isaiah 42:5 states that “He who created the heavens and stretched them out….”

Job 9:8, Psalm 104:2, Isaiah 40:22, 44:24, 44:24, 45:12, 48:13, 51:13, Jeremiah 10:12, 51:15 and Zechariah 12:1 all make references to a “stretching out’ of the heavens. In fact, this description of the night sky is the most prevalent framework presented in the Old Testament. Interestingly, this is the most well established view of our balloon-like 4 dimensional expanding universe. The greeks never thought of our night sky like that. In fact, no one except modern day astrophysicists and the Old Testament authors have ever described our night sky as an expanding system.

Genesis 1:1 states:

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”

The hebrew word re’shiyth is used for “beginning.” It signals the “chief part” or the “original” or “first” portion of something. Bara’ is used for “created” and is different from the word hayah used in other portions of Genesis 1 and beyond. Bara implies an “ex nihilo” or “out of nothing” creation. Someone outside of space, time and energy causing the sudden, ultra-massive and incredibly well engineered introduction of all space, time, energy and matter.

Before modern science forced us to shift our frame of reference, most secular thinkers, and even ancient greeks, believed in the eternal nature of space, time and matter. Yet the opening lines of the Bible gave us parameters that have proven accurate.

Unlike the intuition of secular men and women….