A Meaningful World

Sorry for the delay on posting this! Quite honestly, summer is getting to me and I'm feeling rather lazy. 

Book: A Meaningful World: How the Arts and Sciences Reveal the Genius of Nature by Benjamin Wiker and Jonathan Witt

Description: Meaningful or meaningless? Purposeful or pointless? When we look at nature, whether at our living earth or into deepest space, what do we find? In stark contrast to contemporary claims that the world is meaningless, Benjamin Wiker and Jonathan Witt reveal a cosmos charged with both meaning and purpose. Their journey begins with Shakespeare and ranges through Euclid's geometry, the fine-tuning of the laws of physics, the periodic table of the elements, the artistry of ordinary substances like carbon and water, the intricacy of biological organisms, and the irreducible drama of scientific exploration itself. Along the way, Wiker and Witt fashion a robust argument from evidence in nature, one that rests neither on religious presuppositions nor on a simplistic view of nature as the best of all possible worlds. In their exploration of the cosmos, Wiker and Witt find all the challenges and surprises, all of the mystery and elegance one expects from a work of genius. (from Amazon.com)

My Thoughts: I loved this book. In case you haven't picked up on this yet, I love reading books about creation and evolution and the natural world, and this is one of the best that I've read, both in terms of content and in terms of the quality of writing.

Wiker and Witt took a unique approach to the problem of creationism vs. naturalism, one that is based less on science but is nonetheless perfectly valid: if the universe was created, it must have been created by a genius, and the universe would therefore have the marks of genius just like any other great work of art. Most people can agree, I think, that the universe is beautiful and intricate, at the very least; most would consider it a work of art even if they don't believe in a Creator.

What a beautiful approach!

Wiker and Witt began by examining genius in human art, namely Shakespeare's Hamlet and The Tempest, and then examined several aspects of our universe to show how they exhibit markers of genius just as the plays Hamlet and The Tempest do as well. It would be ridiculous to think that Shakespeare created each of his plays by randomly putting one letter in front of another for a hundred plus pages; how much more ridiculous is it to think of our universe, then life coming together one molecule at a time? Perhaps the most interesting argument made in favor of design was the existence of science as it does: in each discipline, the matter under study is simple enough for the first scientists to eventually discover the basics of that discipline, but the farther they delve into the subject, the more complex it becomes. If the universe was random, wouldn't at least some disciplines have complex basic rules, making it difficult to impossible for scientists to understand?

Wiker and Witt also spent a great deal of time discussing postmodernism (and to a lesser degree naturalism), drawing it out to its logical conclusion of utter meaninglessness for everything in the universe. I thought that they pounded this topic too much; it may be the logical conclusion of these philosophies, but few if any scientists (or people, for that matter) think them through so coherently. Few scientists (or people) believe in utter meaninglessness. On the other hand, it is important to realize that it is what they ultimately point to.

Perhaps my only other criticism was that Wiker and Witt dissed Charles Darwin way too much for my tastes--but then, I like Darwin. I thought they treated Darwin as if he had purposefully created a theory that argued that the world was meaningless and random, and I don't think that's true. He simply argued for a theory that does not, after a shallow examination, appear to require a Creator.

More Than A Theory

Book: More Than A Theory by Hugh Ross

Description: Christians are increasingly challenged with evolution theories as the only models for the origins and histories of the universe and life. But is there any valid scientifically testable alternative?

In More Than a Theory, Hugh Ross offers a comprehensive, testable creation model. This fascinating book responds to the recent, well-publicized challenged from aggressive atheists to the idea of a creator. It also reminds the scientific community of what constitutes good science. Furthermore, it supplies Christians with the scientific information they need to defend their conviction that the Creator is the God of the Bible. (from Reasons to Believe Shop)

This was a powerful, convincing outline of a creation theory based on both current science and the Bible. I found Ross's explanations extremely convincing.

Strengths of this book included an overwhelming amount of evidence that there are many, many factors (over 800) that had to be fine-tuned to make human life on earth possible--things like the brightness of the sun and how that is balanced by the atmosphere, and the amount of tectonic plate activity. The chances for that happening randomly are astronomical--1 in 10^1,050--and it just deepened my conviction that God is an awesome God!

I also really like how everything was framed as a model, open to scientific testing. Finally, Ross made a really interesting point/claim: that the western emphasis on Darwinian/naturalistic evolution, and our refusal to let that be challenged (at least in science) makes science boring, and that's why there's so few new scientists in many western countries. Ross really did a good job explaining the science.

Criticisms: 1) Closed-mindedness about certain things, such as that humans must have fossil fuels and technology to develop advanced civilization and that life had to be the way it turned out. Seriously? 2) Insistence that all of earth is here only for humanity's benefit and pleasure. I know that this is to some degree stated in Scripture, and part of my irritation comes from the fact that I'm still struggling to figure out what I think it means. 3) Insistence that humans have to have been "specially" created, i.e. not related to hominids. The Biblical basis for this was never explained, and I'm not sure there is one. Wasn't every single species specially created? I think God taking the time to cause evolution to go a certain way to create a species is pretty special and counts as special creation, even if that is how all species are created.

Overall, a strong book, well-written and well-researched, about God's role as Creator and how that fits into current scientific knowledge. Highly recommended!

A Matter of Days

Book: A Matter of Days by Hugh Ross

Description: An old-earth view takes on the challenges of young-earth proponents through a study of history, Scripture, and nature-and a testable creation model. (from Amazon.com)

This was a really good book. I found it thought-provoking and well-reasoned. It's about reasons, both Biblical and scientific, to believe in long creation days. By long creation days Ross meant "days" representing epochs rather than literal 24-hour days. Also focused on fostering reconciliation between people who believe in long vs. short (24-hour) creation days.

I would highly recommend this book to anyone curious about creationism, of any kind. It was much better and more accessible than Fingerprint of God, another Hugh Ross book--there was much, much less math, and all the science he uses as evidence is much better explained. There was also nothing theologically objectionable about this book--Hugh used just as much Biblical evidence to support his claims as scientific, if not more. He assumes that the Bible is absolutely true--every single word. It's an amazing point to start from. (There are some cool Bible verses that support current science!)

As is probably obvious by now, I do not believe in creation taking place in 6 24-hour days. I believe that evolution has happened in the past, and to some extent is happening in the present day. Why? Firstly, evolution is something that is happening, according to science, and it's something that scientists have figured out to a decent amount. Life does not stay the same. Why would God create a world that seemed to be billions of years old, where evolution appeared to be happening and have been happening for billions of years, if that wasn't true? That would be lying, and God doesn't lie. Obviously not all of science is right, but evolution is something that has stood up to tests for over a hundred years and been tested by literally millions of scientists. I think it's reasonable to accept that it has happened and is happening, at least to some extent.

Please don't get me wrong--I absolutely believe in God, specifically the God of Christianity who sent His son to die for our sins. I just also believe that evolution is perfectly compatible with Christianity and the God of the Bible. There are a lot of holes in the theory of evolution as it's argued by the scientific community in general. It continues to argue that evolution is a purely random process, when mathematics show that the chances of that, and of life evolving in only 3 billion years, are so unbelievable miniscule. It continues to argue that evolution is a purely random process, when all of life seems to have been preparing earth for humans to live there: the fact that water is exactly perfect to support life (for instance being lighter frozen, allowing warmer water to stay protected from the colder temperatures and therefore allowing life to live in it); the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs, allowing humans to evolve from the mammals of the time; cyanobacteria evolving photosynthesis, which creates oxygen as a byproduct and eventually led to the evolution of creatures that need oxygen to breathe (like us); the fact that life has always shows a tendency to become larger and larger. There's also so much that evolution can't explain about life itself; all of the important evolutionary 'innovations' (the origin of life, having multiple cells working together, moving from the ocean to land, flight) are things where scientists can clearly see the stages, but are completely incapable of figuring out why or how the first stage led to the second one. To me, that points to God.

The other aspect of evolution that, to me, points to God is how evolution happens. There's a lot of talk about natural selection in many discussions of evolution, but the truth is that, at least in the scientific community, most scientists today believe that random chance is the single largest driving factor of most evolution. The reason most populations that are separated from each other become so different as to become separate species is not because of natural selection leading to different adaptations; it's because of randomness in their environment (like a flood that wipes out half of the population) or their genes (a mutation, or purely in which genes get passed on and which don't) that is the reason that most populations become different enough to be seen as different species. Except, of course, that as a Christian I believe that nothing is random. God has His hand in everything, and everything happens for a reason. All of those 'random' occurrences in evolution are really God, shaping life to become how He wants it.

The Fingerprint of God

Book: The Fingerprint of God by Hugh Ross

Description: Dr. Hugh Ross, astromomer, tells the fascinating story of how the latest research into origins not only has sealed the case for divine creation, but has revealed the identity of the Creator Himself. (from Amazon.com)

Overall, I found this book to be a very worthwhile read. Ross attempts to prove with science why God must have created the universe and life, rather than seeing science and religion as polar opposites--a refreshing change, I must say. He also discusses, much more briefly, reasons why Scripture does not actually conflict with the scientific evidence for how the universe was created.

Honestly, those parts of the books were the parts that I enjoyed the most. I love biology, but I get sick of the assumptions that evolution and Creation are two mutually exclusive ideas. They are not. After all, 

it is also safe to assume that physical evidence will not lie, because God created the evidence and God can't lie (although misinterpretations could of course still happen). Ross even goes so far as to argue that one can only reach the fullest understanding of God through a combined knowledge of Scripture and nature.

I will admit, however, that I had some problems with this book. The first half at least of the book was about astrophysical proof for God, and was written in a way that I couldn't understand most of the proofs or why they were so impressive. Too much math and quantum mechanics for me! So I didn't exactly feel convinced by the end of it.

★★★★

My favorite quote: "One further consideration [of the reasons for creation] from an altogether different perspective concerns the nature of creativity itself. Observe any skilled sculptor, painter, or poet, a craftsman of any kind. Observe the painstaking, yet joyful labor poured into each object of his design. Examine the creation on any scale, from a massive galaxy to the interior of an atom, from a whale to an amoeba. The splendor of each item, its beauty of form as well as of function, speaks not of instantaneous mass production, but rather of time and attention to detail, of infinite care and delight. Such delight is expressed throughout Genesis 1 in the oft-repeated statement, 'And God saw that it was good.'" (160)