PREFACE

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.

Romans 1:20

Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?Jeremiah 32:27

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

Romans 1:25

When Charles Darwin embarked on the Beagle, his goal was not to undermine orthodox Christianity, but to learn moreabout the natural world. As he viewed the adaptations ofkinds on the different Galapagos Islands, Darwin developed his hypothesis of descent with modification, oras we know it today, evolution. His was a reasonable hypothesis based on the limited evidence observed at the time. As a true scientist, he showed how his idea could be falsified as quoted in The Origin of Species: “If it could bedemonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” (qtd in Woodward 26). He also showed many of thesame concerns as current creationists including the difficulty of the evolution of the eye (Sunderland 52-52). Michael Behe has shown through the irreducible complexity of the cell in Darwin’s Black Box that traditional Darwinism has been falsified by Darwin’s own reckoning. The truly sad part is Darwin’s naturalistic search led him away from the Bible and caused him to die an agnostic(Pennock 71).

Those today who cling to Darwin’s idea are, for the most part, atheists, agnostics, or those who are ashamed of people who do not follow science over the Bible. 1

Corinthians 2:14 provides that God’s truths are foolishness to these scientists and they will never see God’s great creation in light of Genesis 1. Demonizing atroubled Darwin will not convince them nor bring us closer to revival. I am writing this thesis not to convince the world’s scientist of the truth of Genesis 1,but to further show those who seek the wisdom of God overthat of the world (1 Cor 1:20) that our God is capable ofthings science cannot even conceive. Far from a pile of atoms run by a series of neurons, we are “fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalms 139:14)” in the image of God; a triune being of body, soul and spirit. To do this, it isimportant to leave the scientist’s turf and reexamine creation in light of the source of all truth, the Bible.

As we view the origins debate today, the entire argument is centered on Genesis 1:1, God’s first “bara,” or creation from nothing. Scientists claim all we see came from a big bang and it is possible to get from pond scum to philosophers with only the physical raw materials of God’s creation. Creationists argue that matter could notbe here without God’s first cause and even pond scum cannot happen by naturalistic means. In section one; I will go over the current debate to show that evolution from the naturalist view is impossible. When Richard Dawkins says “evolution is fact (qtd in Denton 75), does he mean the falsified Darwinism, neo-Darwinism, punctuated equilibrium, hopeful monster theory, panspermia, directed panspermia, or some lesser theory making the rounds. We will see that each is right in only one way, as they prove all the others impossible. Yet, forming the body from God’s raw materials is the easy part compared with making a finished product useful in the world.

Section two will deal with a topic mostly ignored in the evolution debate, that of conscious life. Genesis 1:20 gives us the second use of the word “bara” when God created the birds and the fish. In this creation, we see

“nephesh” life, or self-awareness formed. I see this in my dog when she shows the joy of seeing me, sadness in disappointing me, fear at thunder, etc. Consciousness has been called the “hard problem” (Carter 6) and has largely been ignored and treated by the “anthropic principle” which basically says, we are here, so we must have evolved with all we have since the universe must drive toward life (Giberson 205). Since evolutionists have ignored it, so have the creationists. This is a shame as we could show the world just how powerful a God we have with a gift given to all animals (including us) that science cannot even explain.

In section three, we will see God’s third bara which places us above all other animals and makes us in the image of God. Our spirit was given to us in Genesis 1:27where God breathed life into Adam. With the amount of consciousness and personality my dog possesses, she stillonly thinks in the present and shows no interest in worshipping during our family devotions. Animals have souls (Morris 69) and often display amazing instincts andintelligence. But these are qualities given them by God entailed in the first two baras; only man was given a spiritual aspect fully making him in the image of God. Far from the unitary, accidental bundle of neurons surrounded by products of evolution, we are fully triune creations of the triune God and thereby fully made in Hisimage.

In spite of this, evolutionists do have a point when theysay Creation Science is not science. I do not have to seek the truth of creation from scientific discovery; I already have it in the Bible. However, evolution suffersthe same problem. Daniel Dennett often says evolution “must” have done things (Dennett, 1995 341 et al) since there is no other way. The assurance is already given, evolution is true, we just must prove it, making evolution equally as unscientific as creationism. What we need to do is use the ground breaking science of

Dembski, Denton, Behe, Remine and others to show that Creationism is fully compatible with the true science of intelligent design. I will never convince the Daniel Dennetts of the world that evolution is false and God is right, only God can do that through a converted heart. What I seek to do is show how inadequate man’s explanations of the origins of life are compared to the glorious (and true) picture of creation given in Genesis 1. Calling evolution evil will get us nowhere; providing the truth in love with God’s help is the only way to convince those who are willing to listen.

INTRODUCTION

DATELINE OCTOBER 25, 2525: After 250 years of intense research and many failures, Dr Anil Jarius of the “Evolution is Fact” division of the UN presented “Adam” to the world today in Bombay India. Covered with so manywires it was difficult to see parts of the body, he is still the first man-made human in history. Although in aclean room unable to fight off infections and possessing no brain function, Dr. Jarius expects evolutionary forcesto allow him to soon eat breakfast with Adam. Alluding to 2 Peter 3:4, Dr Jarius said “After all these years, Christ still hasn’t fulfilled his promise, yet today we see a true creation in man’s mastery of the universe.

Without considering the timing of Christ’s return or God’s limits on man’s ability to make things from His creation, would “Adam” settle anything in the battle between creation and evolution? Adam would still be an intelligently designed product of God’s first “bara,” or creation from nothing discussed in Genesis 1:1 “God created the heaven and the earth.” This Adam could not then get up to feel the cool morning air on his face or thank the God who created man for the same air.

THESIS STATEMENT: Creation advocates have been arguing against evolution in only one of three areas of the firstweek. Although there is no evidence of evolution from scum to scientists, this represents the low bar, or only the first creation (bara) of Genesis 1. A proper focus should include the second bara, consciousness, introducedin Genesis 1:21, and the third bara, ability to fellowship with and worship God, introduced in Genesis 1:27.

CHAPTER ONE

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.Genesis 1:1

That is how species originate: by descent with modification from earlier species – not by Special Creation.

Daniel Dennett, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea

We see in these two quotes the battle lines drawn betweenGod’s Creationism and the general theory of evolution. At issue is did the basic raw materials to take us from nothing to navigators come from a “big bang” followed by life’s start by chance and “descent with modification” asDennett claims; or were the raw materials created ex nihilo (from nothing) by the spoken word of God? This chapter will summarize the current debate to show just how untenable the theory of evolution is and prove those who hold to it truly have no excuse as shown in Romans 1:20 leaving their wise words foolishness according to Romans 1:22.

SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY

Also known as Complex Specified Information (CSI), Specified Complexity summarizes William Dembski’s contention that organized information displayed throughout the universe cries for the designer implied inRomans 1:20 and could not have arisen by chance. His filter to discover such CSI was unveiled officially in the book Intelligent Design to show that to rule out chance, asystem must display contingency, complexity and specification. Dembski discusses each in the book:

“Contingency ensures that the object in question is not the result of an automatic and therefore unintelligent process that had no choice in its production. Complexity ensures that the object is not so simple that it can readily be explained by chance. Finally, specification ensures that the object exhibits the type of pattern characteristics of intelligence” (1999, 128).

He further sets a probability bound of 10-150 for chance, which is very liberal considering there are only 1080 atoms in the universe (Dembski, 2002, 98). Even at this limit, he finds most biological systems provide evidence of design.

To show that modern science actually validates his technique, Dembski points to SETI (Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence). In Carl Sagan’s screenplay Contact, CSI was separated from background noise by a series of beats and pauses which yielded a series of prime numbers. Contingency was displayed in that any pattern could have been displayed. It was complex and obviously specified leading to great joy at the obvious intelligent design (Dembski, 1999, 128). While unusual, this series is not near as complex as biological systems,so how does science treat CSI in biology?

First, information is recognized in biological sciences. Nobel Laureate David Baltimore remarked “Modern biology is a science of information” (qtd Dembski, 2004, 139) andPaul Davies in The Fifth Miracle said living organisms are mysterious “for their tightly specified complexity” (qtd Dembski, 2002, 149).

Other scientists have looked at the universe and have seen the same complexity. Einstein quipped that the mostincomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible (Dembski, 2002, 98). Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the DNA double-helix said “the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have been satisfied to get it going” (qtd Moreland 68-69). Sir Fred Hoyle added “a superintellect has monkeyed with physics” (qtd Moreland 67). All these non-creation scientists have recognized the vast amount of CSI in the universe and admit the truth of Romans 1:20 without acknowledging the Creator.

How do scientists “without excuse” respond? Richard Dawkins has famously said “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose” (qtd Collins 272). He ignores design because “Darwin made it possible to be an

intellectually fulfilled atheist” (qtd Collins 273). An example of a typical defense can be seen in his treatmentof the eye which gave Darwin “a cold shudder” (Denton 326). To explain its amazing CSI, Dawkins gives a variant of Rudyard Kipling’s “just so” stories and declared is solved. He spins an official sounding yarn about the possibility of a “light-sensitive spot” moving through various stages of shallow cup and deep cup eyes right to our current mammalian eyes (Dembski, 2002, 39). No evidence is presented, no linage, but Dawkins treats it as a fait acompli.

Similar tactics are used with the wing. Michael Denton lays out the amazing design of the feather with its barbsand hooks aligned on the wing perfectly suited for flightas proof of CSI incapable of being produced by gradual evolution (Denton 212). Dennett acknowledges the problembut goes into a non-sequitor about how wings are good formany things and therefore there is an “embarrassment of riches” about how the wing could have evolved (Dennett, 1995, 317). Unfortunately, he doesn’t share any of his embarrassing riches with the audience and his generalities are to be taken as “just so.”

Our wise fools will accept a series of prime numbers as proof of intelligent design because it works for their vain imaginations (Romans 1:21) “ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 3:7). The truth of God’s creation is obvious in the CSI of biological systems requiring far more information thana series of prime numbers cheered by biologists.

IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY

Michael Behe defines irreducible complexity as “a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, whereas removal of any one of the parts causes the system to

effectively cease functioning” (Behe 39). As an example,he gives us the mousetrap which has a hammer, catch, spring, bar and platform; any piece being removed leadingto very happy mice (Behe 42-43).Behe then gives examples of this complexity in biology. The eukaryotic cell (all cells except bacteria) is a bodywith a permeable membrane housing seven different complete functions and many subfunctions (Behe 102-103). Each works as a separate factory supporting the cell and each is essential to the point of rendering the cell useless if removed (Behe 114). No evolutionary literature exists to explain the detailed route to get tothe complete cell, leaving it irreducibly complex (Behe 115-116). The cell alone falsifies Darwin who said “if any complex organ could not be formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down” (qtd Woodward 26). Biologists DC Green and RJ Goldberger agree saying “The available factsdo not provide a basis for postulating that cells arose on this planet” (qtd Thaxton 179). Consider Darwinism absolutely broken down, but it gets worse for evolution.

Behe next looks to cell systems which could not have evolved by chance. The cilium moves liquid from the lungs and propels sperm and similar cells (Behe 59). Even more complex is the bacterial flagellum which requires about 240 proteins coordinating perfectly to produce a propulsion system with a propeller, shaft, bushings, joints and rings Behe 72). Later, Behe discusses the miraculous ability of the body to allow blood to clot correctly, calling it a “paradigm of staggering complexity” (Behe 97). The incredibly complexseries of proteins, enzymes, vitamins etc perfectly allows us to survive paper cuts in amazing ways. Slightly more sensitive, all the blood in the body would clot; slightly less sensitive; the aforementioned paper cut would lead us to bleed to death (Behe 78-79).

As Michael Behe points out in his book, all of these amazing discoveries scream “design” (Behe 232) and shouldbe celebrated for the awe-inspiring finds that they are. However, this would shift the current paradigm close to the God that Romans 1:21 shows us they do not want to glorify.

ORIGEN OF LIFE

Darwin’s “warm little pond” for the origin of life soundsserene and peaceful, but it turns out to be impossible. When Harold Urey and Stanley Miller “created” some amino acids in 1952, they thought that a threshold of life had been crossed and dreamed that the other pieces for the origin of life would fall into place (Wells 14). That dream has subsequently become a nightmare.

These same amino acids as the building blocks of life yield a true catch-22. To build the proteins necessary to get the ball rolling, they must survive earth’s early atmosphere. However, two things destroy amino acids, oxygen and the sun’s ultraviolet rays. Therefore, if theearth’s early atmosphere had oxygen, as many geologists now affirm (Thaxton 85), no amino acids. On the other hand, if there truly was no free oxygen (O 2), then there would be no ozone (O 3). No ozone, no ozone layer; no ozone layer, no protection from ultraviolet rays and therefore, no amino acids. This catch-22 has been noted by many different scientists (Thaxton 81, Denton 262-263,Shapiro qtd Wells 20, et al) and has led Robert Shapiro to call the Miller-Urey experiments “mythology rather than science” (Wells 27).There is still a larger problem, many scientists have concluded after looking at the geologic record that even if the amino acids survived, there is no evidence of any pool in the geologic record with sufficient chemical density to give us the ability to build life’s precursors. With this problem, many now call this part

of Darwinism “the myth of the prebiotic soup” (Thaxton 62).

After observing all the evidence against a purely naturalistic explanation of life’s origins, we must agreewith HP Yockey who said “Every [origin of life] scenario offered by the naturalist [theorists] of any school is invalid since they conflict with biological or mathematical facts” (qtd Remine 90).

MATHEMATICAL ODDS

Physicists, biologists, chemists and geologists have all noted serious flaws in evolutionary theory. Since evolution is based on time and chance, mathematicians have looked at the evidence and found it wanting. As SirFred Hoyle says:

“The chances that life just occurred on earth are about as likely as a typhoon blowing through a junkyard and constructing a Boeing 747.” (qtd Hayward 36)

He further compared the odds as being equal to a solar system full of blind men each working a Rubik’s cube and having every man solve the puzzle simultaneously (qtd Wieland 52).

Hoyle gives these humorous analogies because the staggering odds against evolution are beyond the comprehension of most people. Hoyle calculated just to get 200 base pairs of amino acids together to start life the probability is 10-120 (Hoyle 103). To get the requiredset of enzymes for a simple living cell, the odds explodeto 1040,000 (Demme 6). Remembering there are only 1080 atoms in the entire universe, and Dembski’s probability bound of 10150, we agree with Marcel Schutzenberger that the problems of origins “cannot be bridged with the current conception of biology” (qtd Thaxton 3).

Even if this could be bridged, most mutations are damaging and too many lead to error catastrophe (extinction of a species). JBS Haldane showed in “Haldane’s Dilemma” that over 10 million years, the most changes possible across nucleotides (genes) to avoid error catastrophe is 1667 (Remine 217). This is the equivalent of about 10 lines in a simple book, not nearlyenough to change simians to scientists (Remine 217).

Evolutionist Steven Jay Gould has further stated that we have no firm evidence for any progressive change within any humanoid species (Remine 323). John Reader says the same thing based on a total lack of fossil evidence for human evolution (Hayward 51).

Seeing the absolute impossible odds against ALL facets ofevolution from life’s start to me typing this paper (and you reading it), we see the awesome power of God. All this proves Psalms 139:14 contention that we are “fearfully and wonderfully made.”

EVOLUTIONARY COMPLAINTS

A. God of the Gaps – A valid criticism against some Creation Scientists is saying “God created a miracle” to explain something we do not yet understand rather than just saying “I do not know.” Newton said “God must prod” (qtd Giberson 80) to explain anomalies in his theories when they did not work in celestial bodies. Einstein solved his problems with his general theory of relativity.

Evolution supporters often use their own god of the gaps for their confused deficiencies. When they find an item they cannot explain, they invoke “chance” and say all is well (Dembski 2004 116). If pushed harder, they use the “just so” stories such as those alluded towith the eye and the wing. Evolutionists Pennock

(Pennock 169), Steven Jay Gould (Woodward 118) and others have bemoaned this hypocrisy. Daniel Dennett onthe other hand just calls evolution “universal acid” (Dennett 1995 521) which destroys all inferior theoriesor ideas from people who are silly enough to stand against Darwinism.

B. Homology – Darwin noted with awe how different animals had different limbs with different functions and yet had the same basic bone structure (Pennock 66). This and the similarity of DNA across all life are viewed asproof of a common ancestor (Pennock 89). However, is this as obvious as Darwin and his successors would haveus believe?

My oldest daughter’s favorite painter is Van Gogh. Shecan instantly recognize his paintings based on brush strokes, style, patterns, etc. Would it not be logicalto assume an all-knowing God would use a pattern that works all across His handiwork? This sameness would allow us to see how God works in all life and should beviewed as proof of design rather than proof of evolution.

C. Arguments From Imperfection – Darwin saw imperfect reproductive structures in the orchid and surmise vestigial bones in whale fins and assumed a wise designer (God) would never make such errors (Remine 15). Many scientists have followed this logic with Steven Jay Gould most famously discussing the panda’s thumb (Remine 27). However, Psalms 46:10 says “Be still, and know that I am God…” These arguments assumewe know what design for each individual would be best in an entire system and also assumes God creates life in all cases for perfect function. When God comes out of the whirlwind to answer Job’s accusations, one of the things He points to is the ostrich. Job 39:13-17 has Job consider just how inferior the ostrich is with verse 17 telling Job it was because He “deprived her of

wisdom, neither hath he imparted to her understanding.”God creates and accomplishes His will for His purposes as the oft called “Lord’s prayer” reminds us “Thy will be done” (Matthew 6:10). As God reminded Job, “Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct him?” (Job 40:2). Is it possible that God would create theseinferiorities just to confound “wise” men unwilling to “be still?” Job upon seeing the power of God saw himself for what he really was and said “I am vile” (Job 40:4), unfortunately, scientists still wish to instruct God.

D. Evolution Is Fact, Only The Method Is In Doubt – In The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins says “the theory is about as much in doubt as the earth moves around the sun” (Denton 75). Pennock displays different possible pathways for evolution, but says the overall theory is secure (Pennock 59). Daniel Dennett often says there “must” be an evolutionary pathway, even without any possible evidence in sight (Dennett 1995 41 et al).

As we look at evolution, which “fact” should we consider? Should we accept Darwinism, or maybe neo-Darwinism which supposedly fixes some of the shortcomings of Darwinism (Pennock 86)? Steven Jay Gould, looking at the fossil record and especially the Cambrian Explosion, saw the evidence totally lacking for Darwinism and formulated “Punctuated Equilibrium” (Dembski 2004 144) which is a tidy updating of Goldschmidt’s “Hopeful Monster” theory in which incredible change (feathers for scales) would happen inone generation (Denton 230).

Other scientists, recognizing the truth of Romans 1:20 that life could not have possibly created itself on earth, assumed life was somehow salted in. Crick, Hoyle, Wickersham, Sagan and others believe in panspermia (genes raining on earth) or directed panspermia (intelligent and guided salting the earth to

create evolution) (Denton 271). The only problem is these theories do not solve the problem of the first cause of life which still faces Hoyle’s odds.

To fix all of these problems, Steven Hawking invented the infinite universes theory, or there are infinite universes either parallel or sequential and life just happened to arrive in this one (Remine 80). This theory is to try to reduce Hoyle’s odds to believable and manageable levels.

All of these theories prove the others wrong, and further stretch credulity past the breaking point, but they all deny the need for a creator. Therefore, in order to worship the creature rather than the Creator (Romans 1:25), all will continue to be seriously contemplated.

CONCLUSION

This quick sketch of the current origin of life battles show that although all will eventually kneel before Christ (Romans 14:11), evolutionary science is still too busy worshipping the creature to even have a desire to learn the truth. Believers see a world that couldn’t possibly create itself and marvel at God’s handiwork (Psalms 148, Psalms 38). Those who wish to deny God lookat the impossible odds that God’s first bara was unnecessary and assume just one more role of the dice will provide the next evolutionary advance. I am glad that I can rely on the God who cannot lie (Titus 1:2) rather than mere chance.

Agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow sums up the entire argument this way:

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he

pulls himself over the final rock; he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” (qtd Giberson 140)

As we have seen, the evolution of the body is impossible without God’s provision of the raw materialsthrough His first bara and His creation of life from it. In the next chapter, we will tackle something far more difficult, “nephesh” life, or the “evolution” of consciousness.

CHAPTER TWO

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature thathat life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of

heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth… Genesis 1:20-21

Consciousness is a fascinating but elusive phenomenon; it is impossible to specify what it is, what it does, or why it evolved. Nothing worth reading has been written about it.Stuart Sutherland, International Dictionary of Psychology

Consciousness, a part of nephesh life in the Hebrew, is the bara God gave us to interact with each other and the rest of His Creation. It could be called life in the flesh. Genesis 1:20-21 shows us that, at least at a verybasic level, we share this gift with the animal kingdom. While God has revealed much about his physical creation (first bara), He has chosen to reveal next to nothing about nephesh life. We understand that we are conscious and can treat certain disorders of the mind, but we have no idea how the mind operates and gives us an inner life.This is proven by science’s wildly divergent ideas of what consciousness is and how it came to be. As Christians, we are secure in the knowledge that God gave us this gift to uses for His glory whereas our wise foolsuse “science falsely so called” and “vain babblings” (1 Tim 6:20) to try to deny God and say consciousness arrived from evolution.

BIBLICAL DEFINITION OF CONSCIOUSNESS

God created consciousness in the second bara with the creation of the great whales. Using this creation of nephesh life, He then brought forth the rest of the animal kingdom in Genesis 1:21-25 and this was part of the creation used to make man in Genesis 1:26-27. While Leviticus 17:11 says “the life of the flesh is in the blood” and Genesis 6:27 talks of “the breath of life,” itis possible that these parts of life were made at least partly from the first bara. Life was made with the firstbara with plants on day three (Genesis 1:11), but plants have no consciousness. For this reason, we will restrict

our study of the second bara to consciousness as the partwhich could only have come from this creation.

Consciousness, or self-awareness, is the part of God’s creation we share with the animal kingdom. The word translated “soul” in the KJV is nephesh and we see in Job12:10 that God controls the souls of animals. Therefore,we see animals are dualistic, having a form of body and mind, but they lack a spirit. In 1 Corinthians 15:35-46,Paul shows us that animal flesh is different than ours, and despite God-given intelligence and personality, theirflesh will not be resurrected and they cannot commune with God. This difference is clearly shown in Genesis 2:18-24 as Adam discovered no fellowship with any of the animals before God gave him the gift of Eve.

Consciousness is not really defined as such in the Bible in that we have to use it correctly for God’s glory, but do not really need to understand it. This gift does giveus the ability to fellowship with the saints (Acts 2:42, 1 Cor 1:9, et al), exhortation of the saints (Titus 1:9);and upon activation by the Holy Spirit, display the fruitof the Spirit (Gal 5:22-23). Also, by being able to interact with God’s creation (Rom 1:20), few are able to meditate and praise God (Psa 1:2, 77:12, 1 Tim 4:15, et al). While we see that we do share the gift of consciousness with the animals, ours is greater than all of the animal kingdom in that we are to have dominion over them (Genesis 1:26) and only we can use this gift toglorify God (Ecc 12:13).

SCIENCE’S ATTEMPT TO UNDERSTAND

Susan Blackmore said in the July, August 2006 edition of Science and Spirit “Consciousness is said to be the deepest mystery confronting science…” (Blackmore 74). So incomprehensible is this problem for science that Thomas Nagel, writing in What Is It Like To Be A Bat, says “Without consciousness the mind-body problem would be much less

interesting. With consciousness, it seems hopeless” (Nagel, G 519). With this rich field of study, the “hardproblem” of consciousness is still only mentioned in about 1% of the 30,000 papers which have been written about the subject. Why is the hard problem of “consciousness so hopeless that most scientists ignore it?

Science cannot crack the hard problem because they are wedded to a paradigm that demands a thoroughly materialistic explanation for it. Daniel Dennett notes “materialism o one sort or another [concerning consciousness] is not a received opinion approaching unanimity” (Dennett, G 143). Modern scientists are comfortable in physics since God gave us an understandingof it to allow us to take dominion of the world (Genesis 1:26). Since they are so comfortable with explanations on the first bara, they try to apply the same techniques to the second bara which God has not revealed to us. They then find explanations based on this paradigm woefully inadequate. Colin McGinn sees the difficulty ashe says science just cannot figure out how “the water of the physical brain is turned into the wine of consciousness” (McGinn, G 529). Yet, he later says thatconsciousness is just a further biological development which must be susceptible to some explanation even if human beings are not able to arrive at that explanation (McGinn, G 531).

Edordo Bisiach has looked at the problem and concluded “any intuition to the contrary notwithstanding, consciousness is far from being unitary” (Bisiach, G 251). In this, he recognizes the impossibility of a physically evolved consciousness and blames a lot of the confusion on the fact that we “regard physics as the paradigm of science par excellence” (Bisiach, G237). Yet shortof yelling “design” and recognizing the God of Romans 1, he looks to more study on brain mechanism especially in brain disorders to explain consciousness.

Without excuse, our wise fools soldier on.

NO SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF CONSCIOUSNESS

After looking at subjective consciousness, many scientists have determined that nobody has come up with atheory of consciousness; in fact, a theory of consciousness may be unattainable. Nick Hebert lays the science bare saying

“It is not that we possess bad, partial or flawed theories of inner life. We have no such theories atall, even bad ones. Instead, we possess only vague fantasies, philosophical hunches and speculative, untestable guesses.” (Hebert 21).

Guven Guzeldere agrees and says under our current conceptual scheme, the hard problem “just does not and cannot lend itself to a solution (G G 45). RJ Joynt shows the difficulty of a theory of consciousness by saying “Consciousness is like the Trinity, if it is explained so that you understand it, it hasn’t been explained correctly” (Guz 8). Summing up the current science, David Chalmers says “We’ve left the central datum; the datum of subjective experience” (Blackmore 75). In other words, all current “theories” of consciousness leave out subjective experience and therebylend the theories worthless.

With these problems and dead ends, do our wise fools yell“design” as Behe suggested in Darwin’s Black Box? Of course not, they shift the question like a cosmic shell game. Daniel Dennett, faced with this dilemma, boldly accuses those who doubt the evolution of consciousness with hubris:

“It is time to turn the burden of proof around, the way Darwin did when he challenged his critics to describe some other way – other than natural selection – in which all the wonders of nature couldhave arisen. Those who think the human mind is

nonalgorithmic should consider the hubris presupposed by that conviction” (Dennett, 1999, 451).

He adds as “proof” Orgel’s second rule “Evolution is cleverer than you” (qtd Dennett 1999 451). Hubris or not, I can describe another way, read Genesis chapter oneand see the power of God in giving us nephesh life. But Dennett’s bias would not even consider such a scientific heresy as he has opined “Dualism is hopeless” (Blackmore 75).

Evolution may be cleverer than me, that would not be too difficult. However, the Creator of the universe is far cleverer than Dennett, yet our wise fools persist. Even scientists who honestly look at the hard problem see no ability to explain consciousness with materialistic theories, yet unable to give us the fact that God createdthe universe, they merely give us “untestable guesses” and claim they are facts.

SCIENTIFIC ANSWERS FOR THE SECOND BARA

1. CONSCIOUSNESS DOES NOT EXIST – If a scientist cannot find a way to “scientifically” explain consciousness without worshipping God, just deny it exists! Dennett declares dismissively “I cannot prove that no such sort of consciousness exists. I also cannot prove that gremlins don’t exist. The best I can do is to show that there is no respectable motivation for believing in it” (qtd G 43). Georges Rey goes further comparing a fundamentalist’s belief in God and a literal rendering ofGenesis to a belief in consciousness. Both are believed in a world independent of scientific research and independently of any reasonable argument (Rey G 473). The most strident denial of consciousness is called eliminativism, or the total denial of our own subjective experience (Carter 61). Its strength is that it does solve the hard problem; no consciousness, no problem. However, Rita Carter adds that it is also the hardest

theory to swallow (Carter 61). Adding to this incredulity, John Searle asks “Should I pinch its adherents to remind them that they are conscious? ShouldI pinch myself and report the results in the Journal of Philosophy?” (qtd G G 42). All in all, this “solution” to the hard problem only satisfies the itching ears (2 Timothy 4:4) of those wanting a totally Godless consciousness.

2. EVERYTHING IS CONSCIOUS – If you cannot disprove God’s creation of consciousness by saying it does not exist, an alternate path is to dilute it to meaninglessness by saying that everything is conscious, thereby making the hard problem easy. David Chalmers hasproposed “property dualism” as a possible way to explain consciousness. In this theory, anything that goes through change is minimally conscious. Even rocks would have a small amount of consciousness as they eroded or crumbled. (We did almost have conscious stones in Luke 19:40, but this was a reference to the power and glory ofthe Lord, not to rocky sentient beings). In this case, you would have inner consciousness training and being trained by outer consciousness allowing Chalmers to say “If this view is correct, consciousness does not come in jagged spikes… Rather, it is a more uniform property of the universe, with very simple systems having very simplephenomenology and complex systems having complex phenomenology. This makes consciousness less ‘special’ in some way, and so more reasonable” (qtd Carter 77). This sounds a lot like the universal intelligence of the New Age Movement.

William Crookes adds a different theory of universal consciousness with our minds being similar to radio receivers learning from other consciousnesses. This explains not only consciousness, but channeling, ESP and other extra-sensory phenomena (Hebert 247). These actually do exist as shown by the witch at Endor (1 Sam 28) and the damsel with the spirit of divination in Acts

16. We see examples today, but do not know which are real and which are shams, but we are to avoid them at allcosts (Deut 18:10, Lev 19:31 et al). Therefore, here we have a scientist explaining God’s great Creation with oneof Satan’s counterfeits.

Between these two extremes are other impossible theories.

3. FUNCTIONALISM – Steven L. White explains functionalism as a theory in which all psychological states can be explained solely by the relation between “perceptual inputs, behavioral outputs and other internalstates” (White, G 695). Thoroughly evolutionary, it explains all sensations in strictly in strictly selectiveroles. For instance, pain “plays its evolutionary role in shifting our desires away from our current projects when these projects lead to bodily damage” (White, G 695). It gives us these “just so” stories, but how did pain occur in the first place? This theory assumes pain was always here, what is the selective path to get us this pain?

Functionalism is also known as the brain as computer theory. Scientists who look to artificial intelligence to explain consciousness and even provide it to robots use this theory as their best chance to exclude God. As Gregory Peterson says “The firings of neurons, despite certain important differences, are very much analogous tothe binary operation of a computer, although the brain operates much more like a parallel distributed processor then the familiar serial processor that is in our desktops” (Peterson 289). However, Peterson goes on to say that as of now, those who follow artificial intelligence have not explained consciousness.

Rita Carter, following on the brain as Central ProcessingUnit, says that this would solve the hard problem if thatwas all there was to consciousness; but it does not explain the meaning of what the brain is doing or

personal understanding (Carter 177). So, while science would like this model because of the analogies to physical machines, the theory is lacking because computers are totally deterministic whereas we have subjective free will. This subjective free will is what gives us a rich inner life and destroys functionalist theories. If I was to put a disk in a computer and carry it to another to run the program, the result would be identical. Try to get 10 different people to do a difficult task with the same instruction manual (the Bible, for instance) and see if your results are identical! Einstein and Peirce showed that physical facts would not produce abstract ideas (Moreland 249) which is what functionalism would demand. Searle, in a review of the problem, said “we ought to be amazed by the fact that evolutionary processes produced nervous systems capable of causing and sustaining subjective conscious states…” (Searle, G 457). So amazedin fact it drives me to my knees in awe of the Creator!

Does the Bible support functionalism? James gives us a resounding no. In James 1:14-15 it says “But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin; and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.” In this passage we see sin is the result of inner contemplation followed by action which is the reverse of functionalism. This is further bolstered by many verses talking about the source of sin being the heart or inner being. Matthew 12:34-35 brings this forthvery well as it says “out of the heart the mouth speaketh” in verse 34 with verse 35 adding the admonitionthat out of good and evil hearts of good and evil men arebrought good and evil things. So the Bible clearly contradicts this modern-day heresy. Our actions are not based upon computed inputs leading to the best computational action, but are based on an inner thought life which directs our actions based on our character.

4. QUANTUM THEORY – Almost the exact opposite of functionalism, quantum consciousness tries to explain ourinner life through the physics of quantum mechanics. Whereas functionalism says inputs from the physical worldcreates and shapes our consciousness, quantum theory saysour consciousness actually shapes the physical world. While nobody fully understands quantum mechanics, the basic premises are well defined in Oracle’s “Think Quest”competition of 1996:

A. Energy is not continuous, but comes in small butdiscrete units.

B. The elementary particles behave both like particles (matter) and like waves (energy).

C. The movement of these particles are inherently random.

D. It is impossible to know both the position and momentum of a particle at the same time. The more you measure one property, the less precisely you canmeasure the other.

E. The atomic world is not like the world we live in.

After studying this theory, Rita Carter has concluded that since consciousness and quantum theory are both weird and inexplicable, some scientists assume they mustbe related (Carter 298). She admits this idea may solve some problems, but it will not solve the hard problem (Carter 301).

Another scientist who has extensively studied this theoryis Nick Hebert. His conclusion (aided by Heinz Pagels) is that quantum theory can solve some atomic behavior mysteries. However, if you accept quantum logic as the

logic of the world, quantum mechanics become logical but the every day world ceases to make sense (Hebert 153).

A major plank in quantum consciousness is “thinglessness.” In other words, an event is not real, and therefore not a thing, until acted upon by a conscious observer. In a famous thought experiment widely reported as “Schrödinger’s cat,” Erwin Schrödingerof the University of Vienna imagined a cat inside a prepared box. The box has two photon receptors in which a fired quantum packet could be fired and randomly hit either one. If it hit one receptor, the cat would be fed, if it hit the other, the cat would be killed. Underquantum theory, after the quantum packet had been fired, the cat would be both alive and dead until the box was opened and the cat actually observed (Hebert 169). Einstein, unimpressed with this idea, quipped “I cannot imagine that a mouse could drastically change the Universe by merely looking at it” (Hebert 175-176). He further suggested replacing the cat with a stick of dynamite, one receptor exploding it and the other leavingit alone and wondering what a simultaneous “BOOM” and quiet dud would sound like (Hebert 170). Einstein further despised the “chance” view of the universe. Science’s god of the gaps explanation of one unknowable to solve the unknowable hard problem led to his famous quip that God doesn’t play dice with the universe (Hebert214).

Although unintended, quantum theory makes the mind separate from the body; in fact, it could exist outside the body (Monastersk 3). If this is true, science is back to the dualism Dennett said it was universally opposed to.

Quantum theory is also dramatically opposed to the Biblical account of the world. In Genesis 8:22, after the flood, the God who cannot lie (Titus 1:2) set the

seasons to remain until the end of time irregardless of anybody “perceiving” them or not. A further problem is that God created the heavens and the earth in Genesis 1:1and explained how he did it without the help of man in Job 38. We see in quantum theory an attempt to solve the hard problem with a solution that causes more difficulties then it could ever solve. Denying a Creator God, man wishes to take the mantra of Satan in Isaiah 14:14 sayinghe will attain to the most high. We do not need a Creator; man’s perception will create our reality. This theory has been weighed in the balances and found wanting.

5. BRAIN IS CONSCIOUSNESS – For those who desire to avoid the bizarre conclusions of the aforementioned theories but still cling to a strict materialist view of consciousness, Marvin Minsky provides the way saying “Minds are simply what brains do” (Hebert 116). Hebert notes that the brain is not made of anything extraordinary so it would seem like just as you study theheart to find out about blood flow, you should be able tostudy the brain to find out about consciousness (Hebert 116). However, Francis Crick notes that while the mechanistic view of consciousness may seem logical, it “appears so odd, and at first sight, so difficult to understand that only a rather special explanation is likely to work” (Crick G 277).

Although Searle agrees that consciousness emerges from the behavior of our neurons and so it “is causally reducible to the brain processes,” he adds that you cannot give an ontological reduction of what causes this consciousness. It is for all intents and purposes a black box (Searle, G 453).

A final problem for this theory is that if it is correct,it must be absolutely consistent. However, there are

many cases in which partially damaged brains still provided a full intellectual life. The most striking example is displayed in the book Is Your Brain Really Necessary in which John Lorber of Sheffield University discusses a student:

“There’s a young student at this university,” says Lorber, “who has an IQ of 126, has gained a first-class honors degree in mathematics, and is socially completely normal. And yet the boy has virtually nobrain” (qtd Dembski, 1999, 216).

The boy’s cranium was found to be filled mainly with cerebrospinal fluid. If consciousness is caused by the brain, this boy should have been totally unconscious.

Colin McGinn, looking at this problem, has asked us to try to conceive a perceptual property that allays the mystery of the mind-brain link. He is convinced we are unable to do this (McGinn, G 535). I have no problem with this link. I merely read what I see in Genesis 1:20-21 and believe it!5. OTHER THEORIES – George Rey has said “consciousness is supposed to be (at least in one’s own case) the most obvious thing in the world; on the other [hand], no one seems to be able to say anything very illuminating about it (Rey, G 461). Yet people keep trying to explain it without invoking the God of the second bara.

The Module theory is similar to functionalism in that different modules in the brain control different things based upon inputs. The consciousness module acts as a gateway between different knowledge modules and the central executive module (Block, G 377).

Epiphenomenalism is similar to denying consciousness exists. Instead of consciousness directing behavior, it merely shows up to report what the brain has already done. James calls it the “inert spectator” or “conscious automaton” (Flannagan, G 358). Thomas Huxley calls consciousness a steam whistle which does nothing to

direct or help the locomotive, but noisily reports what work has been done (qtd Flannagan G 358).

Physicalism states that all things in the universe, including consciousness, are physical with no input from anything beyond the physical sphere. To get around the inner life problem, supervenience is invoked which statesthat all changes in the mental are caused by a change in the physical realm (Searle, G 458).

Higher Order Thought, Higher Order Processing, Neural Nets, Wavelength Theory, Ferro electricity, and other theories have been presented to prove consciousness can come without God’s second bara. There is no evidence forany of these which begs the question of how they are more“scientific” than Biblical Creationism.

EVOLUTION OF CONSCIOUSNESS

As different scientists look to the above theories to determine how consciousness evolved, they tend to hit a brick wall. Hebert wonders how an inner life as opposed to unconscious automation aided our ancestors in their struggle for survival (Hebert 38). In the same Elemental Mind, he later questions the ability for natural selection to produce consciousness and says “If we assumewith the materialist that mind is part of nature…than like any other biological function…, it owes its existence and present form to an evolutionary process” (Hebert 134). Guzeldere expresses the same doubt “To putit in evolutionary terms, which function does consciousness serve such that it was selected as a trait in the phylogeny of certain classes of living things?” (GG 31). Searle, who we have already noted as amazed that evolution gave us a rich inner life, calls consciousness “irreducible” (Searle G 453) harkening back to Behe’s irreducible complexity. Not to worry, Searle still thinks evolution of consciousness is possible. Flannaganadds “experience intimates nothing about the causal

origins of evolutionary function, if there are any, for the different kinds of consciousness” (Flannagan, G 97). All of these hardcore monists (there is no mind-matter difference such as dualists or Christians believe) who recognize the truth of Romans 1:20 still cannot leave their paradigm and admit to a Creator God.

How do our wise fools who have no excuse cling to their evolutionary beliefs? Armstrong says that every biological organ or capacity must be looked at for functions. He goes on “Once the question is asked, the answer is fairly obvious: it is to sophisticate our mental process in the interests of more sophisticated action” (Armstrong, G 726). The problem with this bit ofcircular reasoning is that natural selection cannot select for future improvement. This is merely a sophisticated god of the gaps argument to cover science’signorance on the subject. Jeffrey Gray of the London Institute of Psychiatry makes the same argument:

“To those, like me, who are committed to a monist account of consciousness, and moreover an account consistent with Darwinian evolution, the lateness ofconscious experience poses a problem. If conscious experience follows the behavior that it accompanies,then how can it contribute to survival and so subject to Darwinian selection?” (qtd Carter 232).

We see Armstrong’s in this quote that Armstrong’s thesis is exactly backwards for the point he is trying to prove.

How do other scientists get around the hard problem? Dennett gives a politician’s answer, “We have the mind-tools we need to design and redesign ourselves…” (Dennett510). What proof does he have and where are these tools?The answers he gives are either silence or more “just so”stories.

A more clever support of conscious evolution is “memes.” Invented by Richard Dawkins in his book The Selfish Gene, memes are thoughts, ideas and cultural mores that evolve

by replicating in people’s minds. Daniel Dennett and Susan Blackmore are the biggest cheerleaders of memes with Blackmore saying:

“I suggest that the self is more like a story or myth than a persisting entity that has free will andconsciousness. Memes are information passed from one person to another by imitation, and I propose that the idea of a persisting self is a meme-plex, agroup of memes that propagate together. This selfplex is the origin of ordinary human consciousness. Therefore, only systems capable of imitation (and hence of sustaining memetic evolution) can have this kind of consciousness.” (qtd Carter 241).

Dennett agrees, in Consciousness Explained, he says “human consciousness is itself a huge complex of memes” (qtd Block G 394). These memes are supposed to act like genesand evolve basically the same way. Just as with genes, the thinking goes, the evolution is not for the benefit of society or the individual, but the mystery memes themselves. Dennett, who says in Darwin’s Dangerous Idea that culture “must have a Darwinian origin (Dennett, 1999, 341) has grasped onto memes to try to hold onto hisDarwinian paradigm despite its inability to explain consciousness.

From a scientific point of view, memes are fraught with danger. First, as opposed to scientifically proven genes, they are purely conceptual and cannot be measured or observed, so do they even exist? Peter Corning of theInstitute for the Study of Complex Systems says “memes don’t really exist as a distinct causal agency in evolution, and saying they do won’t make it so” (Corning 1). Furthermore, even those who support memetic evolution admit the transmission of ideas is far different than genetic evolution (Boyd and Richerson).

Another problem for science in general and for Dennett inparticular is the difference between genes and memes.

Since there is a definite difference between genes pertaining to the body and memes pertaining to the mind, Dennett, Blackmore and all the others clinging to this idea could be charged with the dualism that Dennett called “hopeless.”

All in all, there is no possible path from seaweed to self-awareness as scientists either admit as they try to figure out how to keep a Darwinian paradigm or merely ignore.

CONCLUSION

When God gives a command, he also gives the ability to carry it out. Therefore, when He commanded man to subduethe earth in Genesis 1:28, he revealed to man the great truths of the physical universe and man has use this knowledge to great effect with our understanding of the atom for energy, genetics and cellular life for medicine,physical laws for travel, etc. However, rather than worshipping the God who gave order to the physical universe, man has chosen to worship the order itself and assumed chance could create all we see through evolution.However, with the first bara, man’s lie of worshipping the creature (Romans 1:25) is spread over God’s revealed truth so at least the theories of physical descent with modification are coherent (but deadly wrong) and with some serious disagreements, somewhat consistent.

While God reveals what we need to accomplish our tasks, he does not necessarily reveal everything to us. In Genesis 6-8, we see a God who let Noah know exactly when the flood was to come so he could get into the ark, but not when the waters would abate. He obviously needed thefirst information to live, but was forced to live by faith that God would eventually bring about the second event. In the same way, we need consciousness to take advantage of the revealed truth of the physical world, but we do not need to know the “nuts and bolts” of it to

use our consciousness for God’s glory. For this reason, God has not revealed the “how” of consciousness and we must receive the gift in faith and thank God for it. It is impossible to please God without faith (Heb 11:6) and this faith is the same which leads to salvation (Eph 2:8-10),

The natural man, comfortable in his conceit and unable tograsp the gift of God’s Creation (1 Cor 2:14), answers that what he knows is all that there is. Since God has revealed much of the truth of the first bara to him, he tries to apply these truths to the unrevealed truth of the second bara. However, since the second bara is givenus as a gift without explanation, the rules of the first do not apply to the second and we get the absolute confusion we see in this chapter. We are confidently informed that Darwinian descent with modification can give us consciousness, but our wise fools have absolutelyno idea of how to construct an evolutionary pathway to arrive at consciousness and no coherent theory even of what it is. As we look at our wise fools floundering while denying God, we are reminded of Romans 3:9 “Let Godbe true, but every man a liar.”

CHAPTER THREE

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 1:27

Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.Richard Dawkins

It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and naturally, hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.

Thomas Nagel, The Last Word

When God, in His third bara, “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life” (Genesis 2:7), this breath was “ruach,” or the spiritual part of man making man, combined with the first two baras, in the image of the triune God. With this bara, man has the ability to seek and worship God which the rest of nephesh life is unable to do. Man cannot change his own nature, so all men worship; it is just a question of what they worship. In Joshua 24:15, we find Joshua challenging Israel to chooseto follow God or another. Shall Israel consider the trueCreator God, the God of the Exodus; or is the correct godthe gods of the world before the flood or the gods of thesocieties around them? We have the same question placed before us today. Do we worship the eternal God of the universe who has revealed Himself through his Holy Scriptures, or do we worship the god of the world, who tells us “Yea, hath God said” (Genesis 3:1) and has promised us tempting counterfeits through “science falsely so called” (1 Timothy 6:20)?

Unlike the second bara of consciousness, the Gospel of Jesus Christ has been fully revealed to man. Unfortunately, 1 Corinthians 1:18 says “the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness.” Why is this preaching foolishness? 1 Corinthians 2:14 gives theanswer “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God.” The natural man tries to explain things from the natural world of the first bara, not seeing the triune nature of creation. For this reason, he is unable to grasp spiritual truths and clings to the counterfeits which Satan gives him. Only saved believersare able to claim the second half of 1 Corinthians 1:18 “but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.” Today, we see a man-based false Christianity and a worship of reason in the United States as our current Baals. The zealots of each have “a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof” (2 Timothy 3:5). By focusingtheir attention on their knowledge of the first bara,

they forfeit the third bara’s truths, and our wise fools continue to worship the creature.

EVERYBODY IS RELIGIOUS

When God breathed “ruach” into man, He created in Adam a spiritual being made to commune with God. When Adam rebelled against God’s goodness, he sought Satan’s throneto be as God (Genesis 3:5) and to ascend to the most high(Isaiah 14:14). Man in his fallen nature forfeited his true triune nature, but kept a yearning to worship a god.In fact, summarizing studies by R A Rappaport in The SacredIn Human Evolution and G P Murdoch in his Ethnographic Atlas, Bjorn Grinde has noted that there has never been a culture in which spirituality has been totally absent (Grinde 101). Grinde goes on to show that even in secular societies such as Soviet Russia, the government attempted unsuccessfully to use secular ideologies to substitute for religion. While we forfeited the true worship of God at Adam’s fall, through the blood of Christ, we can be redeemed back into the family of God and even be considered an adopted brother of our Lord andSavior Jesus Christ (Romans 8:17)!

What about animals? Apes have been shown to be intelligent enough to develop religion, but in the many studies Grinde looked at, apes have no interest in religion (Grinde). These studies assumed that there was no selective value for the apes as there must have been for humans, but we know that it is because apes and otherintelligent animals were created with only nephesh life (second bara) whereas only humans are included in God’s miraculous third bara of ruach.

How about the evolutionary scientist who says he is abovereligion? Is he religious? It turns out the naturalist scientist is every bit as religious as the most fundamentalist Christian or the most jihadist Muslim. Michael Ruse, a self-proclaimed “ardent evolutionist,”

has said “If people want to make a religion out of evolution, that is there business, but we should recognize when people are going beyond the strict science, moving into moral and social claims, thinking oftheir theory as an all embracing world picture” (qtd Dembski, 9 227). Lewis Wolpert in Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast notes that religion is “deeply rooted in our biology” (qtd Gray). Gray, in his review of this book and Daniel Dennett’s Breaking the Spell notes that man needs to believe in myths and that the humanist faith in progress is no different than religious “myths” found in temples or churches. As proof of their religious zeal, William Provine is on a mission to repeat Joshua’s challenge and get people to choose between Darwin and God, convinced that wise people will choose correctly andpick Darwin’s Baal over the true Creator God.

DARWINISM AS RELIGION

Hebrews 11:6 says that without faith, it is impossible toplease God. This faith must be a correct faith. James Barham has indicated that faith is a common denominator in all religions and defines faith as “a strong emotionalattachment to an all-encompassing worldview that outstrips the available evidence.” With this definition,he says there is “little doubt that metaphysical Darwinism functions as a religion” (Barham, Dembski 11).

Thaxton categorizes the Darwinist clinging to the impossibility of evolution as a condition of “extreme faith” (Thaxton 5). Ankerberg and Weldon are more specific:

“The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproven theory – is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution isthen exactly parallel to a belief in special creation – both are concepts which believers know to be true

but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof” (Qtd 1 275).As a priest of the truth, Richard Dawkins calls anybody who denies evolution “scientifically illiterate” (Grinde 4). However, on scientific issues which it addresses, the Bible is 100% accurate, leaving believers in evolution lacking instead of the true faithful. We note that Isaiah 40:22 calls the earth round and the oldest written book in the Bible, the book of Job, talks of the “weight of the wind” (Job 28:25), indicating knowledge ofair having weight. Henry Morris also notes that Dawkins,when faced with the statistical improbability of evolution, said “Superficially the obvious alternative tochance is intelligent design” (Morris, Impact 111). No fact of the Bible has ever been scientifically disproved whereas no idea of macro-evolution has ever been proven, who is really scientifically illiterate?

GOD OR DUST

Common sense tells us something had to predate the universe. Did dust and energy force a big bang to createall we survey, or did a preexisting God lay the foundations as discussed in Job 38 to create everything in the universe? These are really our only two options. Fred Hoyle, who has problems with both ideas, skillfully lays out the current debate in Mathematics of Evolution:

“The trouble lay in an unremitting cultural strugglewhich had developed from 1860 onward between biologists on the one hand and the supporters of the old

beliefs on the other. The old believers said that rabbits had been created by God using methods too wonderful for us to comprehend. The new believers

said that rabbits had been created by sludge, by methods too complex for us to calculate and by methods likely enough involving improbable happenings.

Improbable happenings replaced miracles and sludge replaced God…”

(Holye 3)

This is exactly where we find ourselves today. Hebrews 11:1 defines faith as “the substance of things hoped for,the evidence of things not seen.” We have this faith available from God’s third bara, but it must be activatedby the Holy Spirit to be effective. I have faith in my God and His ability to create through miracles and hope in His promises. The evolutionist has faith in chance and hope that sludge will allow us to evolve more gettingcloser to Satan’s throne of Isaiah 14:14.

The faith of our wise fools is clearly seen in Richard Dawkins rebuke of Behe when confronted with Behe’s work seemingly repudiating evolution. Dawkins accused Behe oflaziness for not going out and finding “the evolutionary pathways” for irreducibly complex machines (12 162). Despite all evidence to the contrary, Dawkins has faith in the unseen pathways of evolution.

Having to have faith in something, Dennett proves his choice of worship when he says “The World is sacred” (Dennett 1995 520). To ensure we know where he stands, in the same book, he challenges the very idea of a creator God:

“If God created and designed all these wonderful things, who created God? Supergod? And who created Supergod? Superdupergod? Or did God create

Himself? Was it hard work? Did it take time? Don’t ask!”

(Dennett 1995 71)In choosing to worship God and accept the gift of the third bara, I believe in a preexistent God as 1 Timothy 1:17 says “Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory for everand ever. Amen.

RELIGION THROUGH THE AGES

We know that true religion started with God’s third bara and the creation of Adam who then communed with the true God. Our wise fools, however, do not see a difference between the true God and all of the Baals through the ages. Remember that Wolpert indicated religion as being “deeply rooted in our biology” and Gray said we need to believe in myths. Against this, Dawkins said that everybody is an atheist for all religions except for the one he believes in (Dennett 2006 210). So our wise foolslump the worship of the living God with all of Satan’s counterfeits (John 8:44) and thereby misunderstand religion in light of the third bara they ignore.

Purpose of Religion

Dennett asks of religion “cui bono,” or who benefits (Dennett 2006 85). If nobody benefits, religion could not evolve in his view. In Breaking the Spell, he says comforting suffering, explaining the unexplainable, and encouraging group cooperation in trials and against enemies are three possible benefits (2006 103). Later, he says safely handling corpses through religious ritualscould be a benefit (2006 112). This could ironically be true as Ephesians 2:1 says we are dead in our sins until Christ saved us!

Against these supposed benefits come severe costs in Dennett’s eyes, the worst effect being the denying of thetruth of evolution (2006 60). Agreeing with Lord Acton that “absolute power corrupts absolutely,” he says priests having a pipeline to God corrupts in this way andleads to kleptocracies as religions demand more and more tribute to access God (2006 172).

All of the above are true of false religions including false Christianity (televangelists, Medieval Catholicism,et al), but it misses the point. True religion is not about cui bono, but of serving God as our only true task as Solomon noted in Ecclesiastes 12:3. Paul noted “If in

this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable” (1 Corinthians 15:19). The early Christians sang hymns as they went on one-way trips to feed lions and rejoiced at being found worthy to suffer for His name (Acts 5:41).

Christians do not serve for our benefit, but for God’s glory who then gives us joy in service as we await to be joined with Him at the last trump (1 Corinthians 15:52). Only true Christians can believe Romans 8:28 and see goodin everything and also be able to give thanks in all things (1 Thessalonians 5:18). Evolution could not have selected for these traits because it cannot select for future hope, only for present benefit. The other primaryreligions in the United States today, secular humanism and compromising Christianity, cannot see joy in all things for hope in the future.

Secular Humanism

Although many would not admit it, secular humanism was recognized by the Supreme Court in the 1961 Torcaso v Watkins as a religion. Its sacred text is the Humanist Manifesto written in 1933 primarily by Raymond Bragg and signed by 34 editors. Humanists do not tend to follow all of the texts just as liberal Christians do not followall of the tenets of the Bible. The basic text of the Manifesto and its revisions are that everything is only what we can see and experience and man is not special, just the most evolved. This is the false worship of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and basically all who call themselves atheist or agnostic.

Dennett proves Romans 1:23-25 and tries to worship the creature saying:

“Is the Tree of Life a God one could worship? Pray to? Fear? Probably not. But it did make the ivy twine and the sky so blue, so perhaps the song I love

tells a truth after all. The Tree of Life is

neither perfect nor infinite in space or time, but itis actual, and if it is not Anselm’s ‘Being greater than which nothing can be conceived,’ it is surely a beingthat is greater than any of us will ever conceive of in detail worthy of its detail. Is it something sacred?

Yes… This world is sacred.” (Dennett 2006 520)Not content to merely worship the creature he then tells us how humanism will save us:

“I, too, want the world to be a better place. This is my reason for people to understand and accept evolutionary theory. I believe that their salvation may

depend on it! How so? By opening their eyes to thedangers of pandemics, degradation of the environment, loss of biodiversity, and by informing them about some of the foibles of human nature.” (Dennett 2006 268)Although denying his naturalism is a religion, he shows the faith of the evolutionist and calls the world sacred.

We see that religion causes problems for society, and therefore should evolve into oblivion, so why do they propagate? Since there cannot be a loving God receiving worship from true Christians, it has to be something else. Dennett thinks he has found that something else inRichard Dawkins’ memes. First mentioned in Dawkins’ 1976The Selfish Gene, he views religious memes as Dawkins does, ideas which spread from mind to mind like viruses across societies despite their “deleterious effects on their human hosts” (Dennett 2006 184). In Christianity, we seethese memes forcing their hosts to spread the Word, not for the glory of a loving God, but merely for the benefitof a selfish meme (Dennett 2006 187). These memes are sosmart that they cause their infected hosts to believe that questioning religion shows a lack of faith, thereby shielding them from reasonable skepticism (Dennett 2006 207).

Since a belief in God is no more worthy than a belief in Santa Clause (Dennett 2006 210), how does the humanist defeat these memes and save mankind? Dennett wants to

get more “brights” (reasonable atheists and agnostics, the word is meant to be quick code such as “gay” for homosexuals) into power. He is hopeful saying “Maybe in the future, if more brights will come forward and calmly announce that of course we no longer believe in any of those Gods, it will be possible to elect an atheist to some office higher than senator. We now have Jewish and female senators and homosexual members of Congress, so the future looks bright” (Dennett 2006 245). I fear for these brights when they meet their maker as they call evil good and good evil (Isaiah 5:20).

How do we get to this future faster? In a move that would make the most committed Stalinist proud, Dennett suggests that if we continue to deny evolution, society will need to describe our teachings “as the spreading of falsehoods, and will attempt to demonstrate this to your children at our earliest opportunity (Dennett 1995 519). This is the religion of pride, trying to ascend to God’s throne with Satan and dispense man’s truth in place of God’s.

Compromising Christianity

Unfortunately many “Christians” hold naturalistic views of the world as they try to rationalize a transcendent God with “modern” science. A 2001 Gallup poll says that 82% of Americans call themselves Christian; I must say wehide this fact well! We have a form of godliness, but deny God’s power over our life and our nature (2 Timothy 3:5). Arguments of “faith” versus “reason” go all the way back to the garden of Eden where we see Satan speaking through the serpent in Genesis 3:1 “Yea hath Godsaid” and it continues today. In our current iteration, reason is natural science and Creationism is the battle for faith with many seemingly orthodox Christians trying to synchronize “science falsely so called” and the Biblical record. Dembski shows how BB Warfield fell intothis trap and took a stand that was the worst of all

worlds. Quoting Livingstone and Noll, he said “Warfield believed Christians could hold a virtually mechanistic account of nature provided they allowed for at least occasional supernatural intervention and maintained the belief that providence sustains the physical world” (Dembski, 7 92). This leads to a weak God who can occasionally meddle with a miracle in the physical world.Although not in favor today, Dembski points out that once“Darwinism conditions religious experience, theology experiences an irresistible urge to universalize evolution as a principle that applies even to the divine”(Dembski, 7 48). This compromise denies the triune creation and makes God part of the first bara.

Trying to be more reasonable, Charles Hartshorne founded “Process Theology,” said to be the “fastest-growing movement in mainline seminaries today” (Pearcy Dembski 65). This modern compromise has God being a divine spirit who evolves both in and with the world. This heresy is called panentheism (“All in God”) and limits God’s ability to control the world as he actually evolveswith it (Pearcy 65). Dembski adds that process theology gives God no veto power over natural laws, but “God always bows to the freedom of creation” (Dembski, 7 156) as opposed to the Biblical record where God controls creation (Mark 4:41).

This compromise leads to a “Christianity” that worships God’s order, but not the God who created the order. Onceagain, it filters all knowledge through God’s first bara,leaving out the eternal triune nature of God and His Creation.

Grinde shows us the ultimate goal of the compromise of scientific naturalism and religion, a utopian bible fit for all humanity:

“A bible designed specifically for the benefit of all humans, taking into account all aspects of our behavioral biology, as well as the particular needs of

modern society, would be a great gift for mankind. With the help of a suitable god, we could bring together all humans, and make them feel solidarity and

responsibility, not just for each other, but for ourplanet and for future generations, and at the same time make them happy.” (Grinde)This is the ultimate of attempting Satan’s throne, makingGod in our image for the good of mankind and leaving all that silliness from the triune creation behind. I believe they will eventually get their wish as Revelation16:14 talks of the false prophet who will oversee the worldwide religion of the Antichrist.

True Religion

In the first two chapters of Genesis, we see God creatingman in His own image; body, soul, and spirit, the ultimate triune creation in the image of the Triune God. However, Adam rebelled and forfeited this right and took on a sin nature masking our relationship with God. However, God in His infinite mercy and love sent Jesus Christ to die for us, the just for the unjust (1 Peter 3:18), allowing us to once again commune with and worshipour Creator (Romans 3:10-31). Only because of God’s third bara, given only to man, can we approach and worship our Lord. This gift is hidden from the natural man who believes only, as Thomas, what he can see. But once our hearts are renewed, we see the truth of our creation in the image of God and see the natural world inlight of an all-powerful God which causes even more worship for He is worthy. We then see in 2 Timothy we have everything we need in God’s word to live all of God precepts in all of His Creation.

CONCLUSION

We see in this chapter that the natural man understands the third bara no better than he understands the second. However, since he sees religions all over the world, the

naturalist scientist lumps Christ’s true religion in withall of Satan’s counterfeits and declares them all myths according to the first bara. In this way, our wise foolstake the banner of Satan in Isaiah 14:14 and place themselves above God, not declaring Him dead, but declaring Him a cruel joke from evolution.This is the only bara out of reach of the natural man. God revealed much of the truth of the first bara to all mankind and all men have the basic gift of the second bara, but 1 Corinthians 2:14 says the “natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: or they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” All men are created in God’s image, but until the heart is renewed (Colossians 3:10, Titus 3:5), the third bara is not accessible for them since Satan blinds their eyes (Luke 8:12, Acts 26:18).

Our task is to crucify the old man with Christ (Romans 6:6) and be dead to sin but be “alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Romans 6:11). Once we do this, the Holy Spirit dwells inside us (2 Timothy 1:14) and teaches us His truth (1 Corinthians 1:13). Only then canwe make effective and take advantage of our triune natureand worship our God in the image of God.

CONCLUSION

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, andreplenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth uponthe earth.

Genesis 1:28

And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all they soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thy self. There is none other commandment greater than these.

Mark 12:30-31

When Thomas first heard of Christ’s resurrection, he responded “Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails,and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe” (John 20:25b). Thomas did believe when Christ came and allowed him to see his hands and thrust his hand into

Christ’s side. Thomas was than rebuked by Christ in John20:29 saying “Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.” This same faith for God’s Creation is shown in Hebrews 11:3 “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” This is faith which can only be given to us by God drawing us and giving us the ability to believe (John6:14). This shows us how far we are separated from God as a fallen race.

Only by seeing our creation in a triune nature can we know how to live for Him and fulfill our given roles. The three verses shown above are really the only commandsin the Bible; the rest of the Bible showing us how to properly carry out these commands. Each of these verses highlights a particular bara to carry out the command. The first bara is connected with Genesis 1:28 as God provides the knowledge of the physical world to enable mankind to subdue the earth. The second bara gives us the tools if instructed by the Spirit to love our neighbor as our self as we work with each other to accomplish our tasks according to Mark 12:31. The third bara conditions our spirit to be able to commune with theHoly Spirit to do everything for God’s glory. These are not three distinct modules working one at a time, but three parts of a unified whole in the image of the TriuneGod who is three persons in one essence. Our body is made of the first bara, we have the ability to work in the world due to the nephesh life of the second bara, whereas the third bara allows us to seek and receive God’s will to correctly operate in this world and walk with Christ. Without the ruach of the third bara, the church would be just like the world today, operating without God’s truth and falling for Satan’s lies. Without the third bara, we would also be unable to love our neighbor as our self since our fallen nature leaves us unable to have this type of agape love on our own.

Finally, we would find ourselves not subduing, but destroying God’s world as we would fight for control rather than take proper dominion of it. To see how each bara is coordinated with the other, we can also see God’sbeautiful and awe-inspiring Creation, share our thoughts with each other and go in corporate worship of the God who has given so much to us. Only believers can have this joy since man views this triune nature as foolishness.

The natural man, only believing in the experienced first bara (but not giving God credit for it), cannot see God’struth as Satan has blinded him according to Mark 4:15. For this reason, it does not pay to get into “profane andvain babblings and oppositions of science falsely so called” (1 Timothy 6:20b). Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins will never be convinced of the truth of a triune creation unless God changes their hearts. They are like the rich man’s brothers in the story of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16:19-31 who have ignored the truth of Scripture and would not believe the obvious truth even ifsomebody returned from the dead to tell them they were wrong. This modest tome was not written to convince the inconvincible, but to give comfort to those seeking God’struth in a world blinded by Satan’s lies. As we look at the true science of the Bible, only God’s creation laid out in the first chapter of Genesis makes sense and thosewho do not see the clear truth of Scripture and revealed Creation are totally “without excuse” (Romans 1:20).

With God’s truth revealed to us, we can see we are fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalms 139:14), a triune creature made in the image of the living God, and give Him “honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.” (1 Timothy 1:7).