Rrrrrrrr

Intelligent Design: If A Tree Falls In The Forest, It Does Not
Land In A Science Classroom

There has been a lot of controversy regarding the proposed
integration of ‘Intelligent Design’ into current biology
curriculum. Intelligent Design is the hypothesis that all life
on Earth was created and designed by an intelligent designer.
Subsumed by this hypothesis, although not clearly stated, is
that most proponents of Intelligent Design believe the
intelligent designer to be the most intelligent designer, namely
God. It is proposed that in the name of impartiality,
Intelligent Design be taught along side Darwinian Evolution in
biology classes.

We have two choices in trying to argue against this hypothesis.
First we can show that the hypothesis is false by counter claims
of design flaws. Next we can show that the hypothesis is an
inherently un-testable hypothesis which thus belongs in the
realms of philosophy or theology, but not in science. I will
argue that while the first approach of finding design flaws is
enlightening, it misses the issue. The issue is that for
something to be taught in a science classroom it must somehow
relate to a testable hypothesis: testable by experiment.

The temptation for someone who is versed in biology when
approached with Intelligent Design is to quickly point out all
of the design flaws that they know of. There are many examples
to pick from but the most commonly offered are design flaws in
(human) joints, most notably the elbow and the knee. One of my
personal favourites is the prevalence of people with eye glasses
which suggests there is a possible design flaw in the
maintenance of a spherical shape of the eye. Biologists quickly
offer up their favourite design flaw hoping to see a recantation
of Intelligent Design. To their dismay, they get answers like:
“We do not know the design of the intelligent designer. Perhaps
non-spherical eyes are beneficial in some other unknown way, or
the knee was some sort of design trade off against some other
more beneficial feature. However, the sum of all the trade offs
is the ultimate perfect design, designed by the most intelligent
designer, God.” The frustrated scientist then returns to his
beaker and the Intelligent Design guru returns to his pulpit or
to the White House which are increasingly indistinguishable.

The reason that the hypothetical scientist and the theologian
talk at cross purposes is that they both have failed to realize
the bar of entry to science: a testable hypothesis. In life
there are testable hypotheses and un-testable hypotheses. Some
un-testable hypotheses are:
1) In absence of an observer,
human or otherwise (i.e. a tape recorder): If a tree falls in a
forest, does it make a noise? Yes or no?
2) Suppose all of
history started 5 minutes ago with all of our collective
memories implanted at that moment.
3) All good in the world
is a work of a benevolent God, and all problems people
experience are the result of God working in mysterious (good)
ways.
More topically:
4) The wonder and beauty of the
living world is the result of an intelligent design and all
counter examples such as fossils, design flaws, evolutionary
proofs, are just the result of our inability to grasp the grand
design.

The common thread that runs across all four statements is the
fallacy of an unprovable statement. It is this same thread that
many stitch together to form a rip stop nylon fabric of belief.
Statements 1 through 3 would likely be widely accepted as topics
for a class on philosophy or theology. Statement 4 is no
different. It is an inherently unprovable statement which has no
place in science.

Many have said that science is a religion unto itself. I have
often said that the only reason our language has two words for
science and religion is that we sorely misunderstand both. They
are both searches for the truth. Science is an ideology based on
the Scientific Method and the instrument of that method is the
experiment. Science allows for discussions of all things
provable, even if they are not yet proved. Take for example the
Superstring revolution in physics. It is currently unproven;
however, scientists are building the Large Hadron Collider (LHC)
in Switzerland which should have sufficient power to create
’supersymmetric’ particles which would confirm the theory. What
experiment does Intelligent Design proposes to validate its
hypothesis? How does one experimentally prove something was
designed? Even if such an experiment could be constructed, how
then does that disprove that the designed item was not self
designed and thus (perhaps), not intelligently designed?

Confused? The notion of a self designing design is especially
hard to understand on a planet where we (most) see a clear
distinction between human made and natural objects. [However, it
is a distinction I do not see because humans as part of nature.]
Just the same, the notion of a self designing design is crucial
to evolution, and while complex, its power is compelling. If you
are confused and interested pick up a good book on the subject
or take a course. However, if you are presented with Intelligent
Design, ask for a proposed or executed experiment published in a
reputable scientific journal. Darwin had to go through the same
efforts of the before his works were accepted. There is an
established process in place and it has been put in place by an
intelligent design (irony intended). The designer is certainly
not God and its intelligence is often arguable, just the same it
has served us well so far.

In summation, scientists are, by definition, very inquisitive
people who would love to have conversations about many different
theories and possibilities. The price of admission to such a
conversation is to bring with an experimentally testable
hypothesis. All other discussions belong in a different
classroom.

Comments Off

There are several thorough and lucid sources of information on Jewish laws and customs regarding death and mourning.

The Bond of Life, ed. Rabbi Jules Harlow (The Rabbinical Assembly, N.Y., 1983). Upon learning of the bereavement of one of its members, This is an excellent compilation of readings, instructions about observances, and the weekday services.

The Jewish Way in Death and Mourning, Rabbi Maurice Lamm (Jonathan David Publishers. N.Y., 1969). Perhaps the best source of information in one volume, this has been a major source for this manual.

To Be a Jew, Rabbi Hayim Halevy Donin (Basic Books, Inc., N.Y., 1972).

A Guide to Jewish Religious Practice. Isaac Klein (Jewish Theological Seminary, N.Y., 1979).

The Complete Book of Jewish Observance, Leo Trepp (Behrman House, N.Y., 1980).

O. Glossary

Aninut the period of mourning between death and the funeral service.

El Malei Rachamim a memorial prayer chanted at funerals, unveilings, and Yizkor services. It asks that God grant shalom to the soul of the departed.

Hevra Kaddisha a society of Jews who perform the rites of shmira and tahara.

Kippot traditional skull caps (plural). Kippah is singular.

Kri’ah a ritual act, performed just before the funeral service, of tearing or cutting a garment or a ribbon provided for the purpose. It symbolizes the inner tear made by death in the life of the mourner.

Ma’ariv the service recited daily after nightfall. It consists of the Shema (and its blessings), the Amida, Aleynu, and Mourners Kaddish.

Memorial phrases Phrases commonly seen on Jewish monuments are
(po nikbar/nikbera) abbreviated as (”) - “Here lies buried”

(t’hei nishmato(a) tsrura bitsror hachayyim usually abbreviated ””’. “May his (her) soul be bound up in the bond of life.”

(zichrono/zichrona) livracha), usually abbreviated () “May his (her) memory be a blessing.” The name of the deceased is often added to this phrase.

(alav/aleha hashalom). - “Peace be upon him (her)” é /é

(Hamakom y’nachem etchem b’toch sha’ar avelei tzion vi’y'rushalayim)
é éé é éé
“May God comfort you among the mourners of Zion and Jerusalem.” This phrase is provided by tradition for those wishing to comfort the bereaved.

Minyan - a group of ten adult Jews gathered for the purpose of prayer. The presence of a minyan is required by Jewish law for the recital of the Mourner’s Kaddish and other prayers which are public expressions of praise of God. A minyan may consist of both men and women in some congregations.

Mitzvah - a commandment prescribed by Jewish law. Mitzvot is the plural.

Onen - a bereaved person during the period between death and the interment.

Shiva - the seven days following interment, counting the day of the burial as day one.

Shloshim the thirty days following interment, counting the day of the burial as day one.

Shmira the mitzvah of watching the body from the time of death until the interment. The person who watches is known as the shomer.

Tachrichim traditional Jewish burial garments of white muslin, cotton, or linen sewn without bindings, seams, knots, or pockets. A set for men includes a tallit.

Tahara the traditional washing of the body of the deceased, performed by a Hevra Kaddisha, a Jewish Burial Society.

Tallit - a four cornered shawl, with fringes at each corner, worn by Jews when saying the Morning Prayer. The fringes are called tzitzit.

Tzedakah literally means “righteousness.” This term commonly refers to the giving of money to charitable organizations.

Viddui - a formula of final confession recited by traditional Jews when their death is imminent.

Yahrzeit the anniversary of a person’s death reckoned by the Hebrew calendar.

Yizkor - a memorial service held on Yom Kippur, on the eighth day of Sukkot (Shmini Atseret), on the last day of Passover, and on the second day of Shavuot. Mourners Kaddish is recited at these times.

Rabbi Mel Glazer is a Certified Grief Recovery Specialist who can help you navigate these difficult waves of emotion. He has served pulpits in the United States, Canada, and Johannesburg, South Africa. Feel free to call upon him for guidance when making difficult decisions. He is also available to officiate at funerals for your loved ones anywhere in America. His phone number is 1.877. LECHAIM. (1.877.532.4246)

Comments Off

In early Christianity there were many alternative views that claimed to have authority over one another. Hundreds of rival teachers all claimed to teach the “true doctrine of Christ” and denounced all others as frauds. All claimed to represent “the authentic tradition”. Jesus himself was the only authority they all recognized.1 One of these alternative views was Gnostic Christianity, which gained popularity in the second century.

The term Gnosticism comes from the Greek word gnosis, meaning ‘knowledge’. This knowledge is knowledge of participation, knowledge of union and salvation. It is existential knowledge in contrast to scientific knowledge.2 Gnosticism was influenced by Oriental dualism and Greek philosophies. In this dualism the Gnostics believed that the creation of the world was bad and that its creator, Yahweh, the Old Testament God of the Jews, was an evil being. The God of Gnostic Christianity was a benevolent and loving being, superior over Yahweh.3 This God was God the Father, Jesus’ Father, the “real” God. Paul Tillich said that Gnosis is used in three ways: as knowledge in general terms; as mystical communion; as sexual intercourse.4 This article will be concerned with the second as it applies to the Resurrection.

The theory that Jesus rose from the dead is the fundamental element of the Christian faith. The idea that this event occurred in one unique historical moment is a central theme to the orthodox position. What makes this so ordinary is not the claim that Jesus’ friends had seen him after his death, but that they saw a human being. The orthodox position states that as Christ rose bodily from the grave, so every believer should anticipate the resurrection of the flesh. 4 Some New Testament accounts insist on this literal view of the resurrection and the orthodoxy of the second century insisted on it as well, rejecting all others as heretical. Luke 24:34 states that “the Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon Peter!” Whatever the truth of this claim, in all honesty we can’t verify or disprove it on simply historical grounds - we were not there to see it happen. All we can say is that Peter claimed that the resurrection happened and generations after him continued to believe him, and still do.

For the Gnostic Christian, however, the person who experiences the resurrection does not meet Jesus raised back to life in physical form. He encounters Christ on a spiritual level, such as dreams, ecstatic trances, visions, and spiritual illumination. 5 The Gnostic Christian rejected Luke’s theory. According to them, the literal view of the resurrection was argued to have occurred in the past and because of this it was called the “faith of fools”. 6 The Gnostics insisted that the resurrection symbolized how Christ’s presence could be experienced in the present. To them, it was not literal seeing that mattered; rather, it was spiritual vision. This spiritual vision of the resurrection, in whatever form it took, was the moment of enlightenment - a person could be “resurrected from the dead” right now. Christians could “receive the resurrection while they live”. 7 Gnostics believed that taking the literal view was ignorant.

What interested these Gnostics far more than past events attributed to the “historical Jesus” was the possibility of encountering the risen Christ in the present. They alleged that the risen Christ continued to reveal himself to certain disciples, representing how Christ’s presence could be experienced individually in the present moment. For Christians who wanted to know and experience Christ now, in there own individual present moment, this belief probably seemed like a quick fix. But I beg to differ.

It may be true that Christ’s resurrection is central to Christianity, but I want to take it further and say, putting our faith in the occurrence of the resurrection is actually more central that simply stating it happened. Anyone is capable of saying it happened; not everyone is capable of believing it happened. There is significant difference between the two. One requires faith, the other doesn’t. Here is where I believe the Gnostics should not be considered Christian. In truth, we were not there two thousand years ago to see the resurrected Christ; the reality of the issue says that we honestly do not know if the event occurred or not. But isn’t this what our faith is all about, believing in something not seen? This is why the Christian faith is so beautiful. The mystery of it gives us hope of salvation and eternal paradise. The Gnostic Christians were adamant about experiencing Christ’s resurrection in the present moment, as opposed to relying on the belief that it happened in the past, a belief that requires the central theme of Christianity: Faith. If a person experiences something in the present moment, they don’t need to have faith that it happened because they were there to experience it. If the Gnostics did not need faith, then I argue against their Christianity, for they did not find use for the essential driving force behind a Christian’s whole existence. I believe that the proof of their heresy lies in the fact that Christian Orthodoxy, despite its evolution into many different denominations and doctrines, is still practiced by millions of people, whereas Gnosticism died out long ago. Although people in the modern world did not witness Christ’s bodily resurrection they still, two thousand years later, put their faith in the hope that it did. And sometimes, a simple hope is all a person needs.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. The Gnostic Gospels, Pg 7
2. A History of Christian Thought, Pg. 33
3. Exploring Christianity, Pg. 40
4. The Gnostic Gospel, Pg. 4
5. Ibid, Pg. 5
6. Ibid, Pg. 11
7. Ibid, Pg. 12

REFERENCES
1. Tillich, Paul. A History of Christian Thought. Simon and Schuster, Inc. New York, NY. 1968.

2. Monk, Robert, and Joseph Stamey. Exploring Christianity: An Introduction. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 1984.

3. Pagels, Elaine. The Gnostic Gospels. Random House:New York. 1979.

About the Author

About the Author
Kathy Simcox, Columbus, Ohio, United States
hrdude28@hotmail.com

Kathy works as an Administrative Assistant in the College of the Arts at The Ohio State University. She holds a BA in Psychology and is currently working on a second BA in Religious Studies. In addition to writing, her passions include hiking, biking, kayaking, photography, and singing in her Lutheran church choir. She is also known to read an occasional book.

Comments Off

Joel’s Prophecy of the Last Days

Joel foresaw the coming of the Spirit in connection with the last days. (Joel 2:28-30) It is important to note that these were the last days of Israel and of the covenant that God made with them in Sinai. (Hebrews 1:1,2; 8:13)

The coming of the Spirit signaled that the time of judgment had arrived. In the chapter following, Joel adds, “For behold in those days and at that time, when I bring back the captives of Judah and Jerusalem, I will also gather all nations, and bring them down to the Valley of Jehoshaphat; and I will enter into judgment with them there…(3:1,2)

Peter Cites Joel’s Prophecy As A Warning of Impending Judgment

On Pentecost following Christ’s resurrection, Peter described the events occurring on that day. There appeared cloven tongues like fire, a sound as of a rushing wind and eleven Galileans stood miracoulously speaking in dozens of foreign languages before a curious multitude of devout Jews.

Quoting Joel (2:16-20), Peter warns the nation whose hands were still dripping with the blood of the Messiah, namely that judgment upon them would arrive in short order. The national message of warning urged by the apostles was, –repent! For those who did, salvation awaited.

Particularly, they were to save themselves from that perverse generation, (Acts 2:40) i.e. the one upon whom Jesus predicted would come vengeance for all the righteous blood shed on the earth. (Matt. 23:34-38)

The Spirit and the Parousia

Jesus promised the Holy Spirit during the interim of his going to the Father. This was the time of longsuffering and encouragement to the nation to heed the message of repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)

During his absence Jesus would not leave the disciples as orphans. In his place, he would send the Holy Spirit as a helper until his return. Through the signs, he worked with the apostles until the end of that age, Mark 16:20, Matthew 28:20.

This time is however brief as Jesus referred to it as a “little while,” (John 16:16-19). Jesus’ coming, then at hand, (James 5:7,8) came in a very little while, (Hebrews 10:37), –a period of about 40 years.

Jesus’ return marked the end of the eschatological Spirit in the last days. No longer is he absent, but once again present with the church, not in humiliation, but in his glory, as Lord of lords and King of kings (2 Corinthians 5:8; 1 Timothy 6:14, 15).

William Bell is a public speaker and author of the Re-Examination, a study of the Lord’s return in the first century. His website is: http://www.allthingsfulfilled.com

Comments Off