The View From 1776

-------------------

It is difficult to give exhaustive answers to almost anything so it is understandable that some of my comments might appear to fall short so let me answer some of the very good observations a critic (Mr. “ryan") brought forth…
 
The critic writes:
 
“Wow, a defense of ID straight from the Bible!  And we’re supposed to believe it because it seems true.  Well, I’m convinced!
 
The reasoning used to show that Paul must be telling the truth is an example of the fallacy of false dilemma.  “Either Paul is crazy or he saw God, and he obviously isn’t crazy.” Well, I can think of a few more things that Paul might have been:
 
- Fooled by Satan
- On drugs
- Confused
- Imaginary (ie actually a fictional character used for allegory)”
__________ 
JD comments…
I hope the critic will indulge me for a moment as I review his thoughtful remarks. Do the critic’s suggested answers negate the biblical claims?  ...Let’s look at each…
 
The critic charges that Paul may have been “Fooled by Satan."  Assuming the critic is serious with this remark and not merely sarcastic, Paul frequently warns of Satan’s plots and false prophets working in the church and the world. 
 
Read this single passage though many others easily refute the critics claim:
 
“Then...(Paul)...filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas (a sorcerer) and said, “You are a child of the Devil and an enemy of everything right!  You are full of all kinds of deceit and trickery.  Will you never stop perverting the right ways of the Lord? (Acts13:9-10)
 
To say that Paul has been deceived by Satan into proclaiming the deity of Christ (from Col.) is illogical.  Recall Satan wishes to undermine the mission of Jesus.  Why would Paul scold a “child of the Devil” for perverting the right ways of the Lord, if Paul was himself a “child of the Devil” or even fooled by the devil? In a similar vein when Jesus was charged with being a pawn of Satan for some of his activities, Jesus himself taught that a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand...If Satan is divided against himself how can his kingdom stand? (Lk.11.17), meaning that if Satan gave power to Jesus, who opposed Satan in every way, Satan would be supporting an attack upon himself (NIV Study Bible). Paul was not fooled by the devil as scripture clearly teaches, though clearly he was constantly being assaulted by Satan.  In his pre-conversion state Paul was a pawn of the devil but certainly not after when writing the letter to the Colossians teaching the deity of Christ.  Thus, the critics jab at humor, sarcasm, cynicism or theological reasoning simply fails here.
 
Paul on drugs.  Well, this is a silly remark without basis and typical of those who are completely unfamiliar with New Testament literature, the opinions of early church scholarship or even liberal scholarship of the 19th century.  There are no grounds to believe that Paul was “on drugs,” unless the critic can cite some new information.  The available literature (biblical and extra-biblical) do not support the claim that he was on drugs.
 
Paul is confused.  Again, the burden is on the critic to explain what he means.  Paul is clear regarding the authority and deity of Jesus.  One metric to test the hypothesis of Paul’s “confusion” is constancy in writing.  In fact, the critic is probably unaware but Paul’s writings in multiple places reflect consistency not confusion regarding the deity and supremacy of Christ.  The critic must cite inconsistent scripture versus to show support for his position for it is only scripture that gives us insight into the mind of Paul.  That said, if the critic is attempting to suggest that Paul was confused about the deity of Christ, he shared his confusion with the other apostles, Ananius who commissioned Paul (Acts 9), Barnabus his traveling companion and preacher, the Antioch Church in Syria, the Jerusalem Council, etc.
 
Paul views Jesus as Allegory/fiction/imaginary character.  I assume this is the critics charge regarding the quotation of the Colossians passage.  Paul never views Christ allegorically or as a fiction or imaginary character.  Christ is always viewed as an historical figure.  Listen to this one verse. “And if Christ has not been raised from the dead, our preaching is useless and so is your faith...(1 Cor.15:14).” What does this mean except that Paul believed in the literal person of Christ, who died and came back from the dead, thus justifying Paul’s ministry. If it did not happen guess what...even Paul states that preaching and faith are useless. To simply state that Paul imagined or dreamed up Christ as an imaginary character is baseless, and further even Paul agrees with the critic, for if a literal Christ, did not literally live, and literally die and literally come back from the literal grave, then preaching and faith are literally foolish and useless.
 
The critic continues…
Is it self-evident from that Bible that none of the above are true?  (And don’t worry about refuting those conjectures individually, because I could go on all day.)
 
My Comment....
 
Excellent question but let me offer a prefacing comment.  Perhaps this is where the critic falls along with so many.  Listen to the critics question: “Is it self-evident from the Bible that (Paul is not on drugs, confused etc.)?” A read of the Holy Writ easily dismisses these claims, but one would have to read it to know this!  Still, the critics apparent speculation (Paul is on drugs), in addition to being slanderous, lacks appeal to thoughtful scholarship in the field.  It is the blight of our age.  Many opinions offer no evidence, considered insight or novel formulation.  What has been gleaned from the critics’ inquisition? Does he really believe that the author Paul, a Jewish teacher and scholar of the Jewish law, taught by one of the leading teachers of the day Gamaliel, was drugged out?
 
(Gamaliel who appears in Acts as a prominent member of the highest tribunal of the Jews. He is also treated as the originator of many legal ordinances; as the father of a son, whom he called Simeon, after his father’s name, and of a daughter who married the priest Simon ben Nathanael. Gamaliel I held a reputation of one of the greatest teachers in the annals of Judaism. Mish. Sorah ix.15 pays tribute to this quality, “Since Rabban Gamaliel the Elder died there has been no more reverence for the law, and purity and abstinence died out at the same time.” While believing the law to be wholly inspired by God, he ruled that the sabbath laws should be less rigorous and more realistic. He also argued that the law should protect women during divorce and urged Jews to be kind towards Gentiles. His description in Acts 5:33-39 is consistent with what we know about his tolerant and reasonable nature from other sources. According to Acts 22:3, he was the teacher of St. Paul; but we are not told either the nature or the extent of the influence which he exercised upon the future apostle of the Gentiles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamaliel)
 
Does he believe that a man capable in multiple languages and by the end of his life known by thousands that he brought to faith was on some kind of opium or other substance?  Was the critic’s effort to open a viable line of inquiry or simply reduce Paul’s teaching to so much gibberish? 
 
I did not use such tactics.  For example, as I offered a critique of chemical evolution, I did not groundlessly state that the scientists are “on drugs,” or “confused.” It is not my intension to defame or disrespect these scientists who have done very creative and impeccable studies.  While I have not studied under them, some of my professors from graduate school and acquaintances have known them as colleagues. Some of them have even kindly forwarded papers, for which I am grateful.  Their character, I do not question. I greatly respect the work of scientists like Oparin, Miller, Shapiro and countless others who have built up the hypothesis and experimental work of chemical evolution.  Some of the work is extraordinary and very imaginative.  I don’t say this in a negative sense either.  Millers 1953 spark discharge experiments, for example were very well done, and given the state of the art in analytical sciences, he was very thorough.  His analysis of geological, atmospheric, and the chemical sciences, though done in the 1950’s are not the stuff of casual reading.  If one actually chooses to read Millers published papers, bring a calculator, understanding of earth and planetary science, chemical equilibrium, experimental technique and organic chemistry theory to the effort-and these to name a few.  No I do not criticize his work lightly but I do disagree with his assumptions and I think his own results further refute the materialistic hypothesis.  Moreover, I do believe that uncritical insistence that chemical evolution is true is story telling.  What would anyone call countless text books dogmatically stating that (paraphrase) “molecules turned into living things over billions of years,” while offering inconclusive experimental and geological evidence?  I call it story telling or at least philosophical musings!  Still, I say this within the context of data available not a blind, baseless opinion, mixed with ad hominine attacks.  Unfortunately many critics today offer little else when it comes to the bible.  Even my biblical quotations above, which might be interpreted otherwise, were carefully evaluated by Christian scholarship which looks at the historical, cultural and linguistic data.  Let me clearly answer the critic...Yes, if one cares to read Paul’s writings it is self-evident that Paul was not on drugs!  I think thoughtful scholarship would agree.  
 
 
Critics comment…
It’s amazing how IDers know with such certainty that so many things could NOT have happened.  Proof, please?
 
My Comment…
One important correction here.  I am a creationist not an “IDer” who generally, avoids assigning the name of a creator.  If I was unclear in some of my former pieces, let me clearly state: I believe that God created all things as given in the Biblical account and as suggested in my last piece. I do not claim special knowledge, I quote the Bible. 
 
The issue is about the five phase primordial soup hypothesis.  Do we know if the steps of the model are possible?  Can scientists or materialists say that the events actually happened? Listen to what the experts say:

“Numerous problems exist with the current thinking of RNA (my addition-or DNA) as the first genetic material. No plausible prebiotic processes have yet been demonstrated to produce the nucleosides or nucleotides or for efficient two-way nonenzymatic replication.” (PNAS | April 11, 2000 | vol. 97 | no. 8 | 3868-3871)

Let us stop here and carefully read the laboratory findings.  I did not make it up ..quoted is an expert who reviews and tests the chemical evolution hypothesis in the lab.  I do not claim special knowledge regarding the behavior of RNA or DNA...I am citing the available data.  The author of this article teaches that 1) numerous problems exist for the hypothesis of RNA as first genetic material, and 2) no plausible prebiotic synthesis regarding RNA has been demonstrated.
 
I also cited another study:  “The reported prebiotic syntheses of cytosine involve the reaction of cyanoacetylene (or its hydrolysis product, cyanoacetaldehyde), with cyanate, cyanogen, or urea. These substances undergo side reactions with common nucleophiles that appear to proceed more rapidly than cytosine formation. To favor cytosine formation, reactant concentrations are required that are implausible in a natural setting. Furthermore, cytosine is consumed by deamination (the half-life for deamination at 25°C is  340 yr) and other reactions. No reactions have been described thus far that would produce cytosine, even in a specialized local setting, at a rate sufficient to compensate for its decomposition. On the basis of this evidence, it appears quite unlikely that cytosine played a role in the origin of life. Theories that involve replicators that function without the Watson-Crick pairs, or no replicator at all, remain as viable alternatives.”
 
We can go on with other negative data or evidence supporting my contentions, but the point is clear; simulation studies fail to support the hypothesis of chemical evolution. 

The bottom line here is that it is not me or even another creationist merely stating displeasure or disbelief in the hypothesis of chemical evolution, it is a published advocate of the hypothesis showing more negative results! In this case, the hypothesized path to RNA is apparently closed.  That is the formation of RNA in a prebiotic soup is most unlikely.   We might insist that RNA was part of the accretion model of life, but at least the experimental evidence here fails to support the notion. That is not my conclusion that is what the experts are finding out about the model of chemical evolution-at least here the “RNA World."  
 
The critic is welcomed to comment on the data offered or cite his own.  I think this kind of information should be shouted from the public school roof tops and on the headlines of every leading natural history magazine, rather than relegated to footnote status-if that.  Considering the original Miller experiment, Darwinian advocates dutifully report headlines popularizing a 1-2% yield of amino acids supporting the materialistic origin of life.  I humbly ask, what about the other 98% and what does that mean?  That chasm few care to look into.  The 19th century nature myth finds an impotent ally in these experiments. 
 
All of that said, to the critics “proof please” request, I’d invite him to cite supporting chemical studies (instead of snappy little unsupported shots), which I will gladly analyze.
 
Lastly, what did or did not happen is a part of history.  Materialists assume that the game of natural history has two rules; consult natural observation or consult simulation studies-that is it.  However, I would offer a third possibility taken by analogy from a close cousin to natural history-human history.  History routinely draws from surviving documents, inscriptions, and artifacts.  If we have in our possession ancient documents claiming a memory of the creation event, should we merely toss it aside as so much old junk invented by manipulating savages?  That is a possibility of course but are there other options?  Is it unreasonable to study such stories (and myths) carefully and where possible apply the tools of science, reason and logic to find truth, if there is any?

Here is a reasonable question. If the universe is a creation of God, then who is the God that created the universe?  In some sense, we might ask with so many religions making so many claims which do you choose? Are they all wrong because there are so many or wrong because they are quite fanciful or both? One observation can be made: almost all religions share similar views about creation though they do differ in the details.  Sigmund Freud said the creation stories exhibit “haunting similarities”.  A Christian scholar by the name of R.C. Sproul said that the creation stories are “primal myths,” stemming from a common memory.  

This is fascinating or should be to origins students.  It appears that all creation stories because they are similar stem from a common ancient story.  The question becomes which story is correct?
We can spend many hours talking about creation myths from around the world but scholars have determined that most creation stories share the following characteristics (ICC conference 2003). 

1)    Creation from nothing or the Creator calling forth creation into being as a result of His will.  The Navajo, and Mayan stories fall into this category.  The Wijot of Northern California say it this way, “The Old Man above did not use earth and sticks to make men.  He simply thought and they were.”  The Bible repeatedly says, “and God said…and it was so.”  This is generally taken to mean that God created from nothing or by his command.

2)    Creation from Chaos or a desolate condition.  The Chinese, Greek, Finish, Indian, Japanese and Egyptian stories all teach that chaos or a formless void- preceded everything.  The Bible teaches, according to some translations that the earth was a desolate waste, or formless.  From this God begins to form things on the earth.   The point is some kind of “formlessness” predates newly formed objects. 

3)    Emergence Elements.  Some stories picture God as a kind of potter shaping materials to produce something new.  Adam for example came from the dust of the earth and Eve from Adams side and the earth brings forth vegetation.  African creation myths hold that God carved the world, some calling God the Creator, Moulder, and Constructor. 

4)    Separation elements. In this category, the myth contains elements where light and darkness, heaven and earth, land and sea.  The bible contains all of these pictures.  We also see this in Polynesian myths.

Let’s conclude by saying that many creation stories feature one or more of these elements but the biblical story contains all categories.  Some scholars have concluded that this might mean that the biblical story is the original story of actual historical events. 

Is this an absolute certainty?  No but it is a possibility that the biblical event is the original story.  Like other documented intercultural information exchanges, other cultures drew from this story but as the oral history was passed down from retelling, memory faded and the story was embellished, edited, and mostly forgotten. I’d like to suggest that if the Bible contains all elements of creation stories or nearly so, it is a very good candidate to answer the question of origins. 

If the experts on origin of life continue to tighten the noose around the neck of chemical evolution, is it completely unreasonable to consider other options such as intelligent design or a supernatural Creator?  Is it wrong for teachers in the public school class room to discuss the clear weaknesses with chemical evolution “science” and suggest that there are other possibilities?  I feel the Bible offers a credible testimony of origins and specifically the identity of the Creator. 
 
John M. DeMassa, Ph.D.