End of Semester and General Busy-ness

Readers,

I am now nearing the end of my undergraduate education, and my various classes and other activities are demanding much of my time and energy.  Therefore, I am using the time which I would normally spend writing this week to rest and regain my energy for a couple more rigorous weeks of school.

Please be praying for the developing situation in Boston, both for the grieving families there and for the perpetrators of this tragedy.  This has been a very sad week for many different people, but I know that God is more than capable of bringing light to the darkness in this world.  May He comfort us in our grief, aid us in bringing about justice, and guide us ultimately to forgiveness.

That is all for this week.

-Addison

Intro to Design

"Form follows function." -Louis Sullivan

This week I was in an odd mood, so I decided to make a post on Twitter which I anticipated would get some animated feedback.  The tweet was as follows:

Give me one piece of evidence for natural selection that cannot also be used to support intelligent design. #science
— Addison Alexander (@TheAvengineer) April 10, 2013

Now, if that doesn't invite some trolls to answer, I don't know what will.  Luckily, however, I have very few Twitter followers at this point, so I only got one response.  And to his (maybe her...) credit, the response seemed more or less respectful and level-headed.

@theavengineer cetacean vestigial limbs, vert ocular nerve, nipples for men.
— Nate dog (@superorganismal) April 10, 2013

Now, I am certainly no biologist, and I am quite certain that there is a great deal I do not understand about what the theory of atheistic evolution by natural selection has to say about these three subjects.  In fact, I'm not 100% sure what "vert ocular nerve" means (Google has been singularly unhelpful on this topic, unless "vert" is just a synonym for green).

I am, however, an engineer, and therefore what I bring to the table is a working knowledge of design.  Now, I do understand that vestigial limbs do make a decent case for evolutionary speciation (though cetaceans posed a stumbling block for a while), and perhaps the other two examples given similarly support natural selection.  I really don't know.  But while these three examples are not typically given to support intelligent design, that does not mean that they cannot fit in with the intelligent design paradigm (which was the original question).

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

One of my favorite disciplines is Christian apologetics.  I enjoy using my mental faculties to defend what I believe about God and Jesus.  I am certainly not the best or most qualified apologist out there, but I do feel like I am able to contribute in some small way to defending the Christian faith.

The word "apologetics," as you may know, comes from the Greek word ἀπολογία (apologia), which was more or less a legal term signifying the defense which a lawyer would give in response to a the prosecution's case in a trial.  Essentially, apologetics is simply a defense of one's philosophy.  What this means, in many cases, is that the purpose of apologetics is to simply provide the possibility for something to occur.  Simply demonstrating that there is least one explanation in response to an issue, whether or not there is conclusive evidence for the explanation, is sufficient for the defense.  Just think about it in terms of a murder trial: if there is a reasonable doubt that the defendant is not guilty, that is sufficient not to convict (at least in my understanding).

Now, this might seem like a cop-out, and indeed in our age of scientific prominence, it seems like this is simply a childish ploy to keep myths alive (I've been accused of it several times myself).  But philosophy is not science, and there is no concrete, tangible evidence for any philosophical stance.  And, if you dig a little deeper, this is what the concept of faith is all about.  Faced with doubt and uncertainty, whom do we trust and how to we act?  These questions are just as relevant to the atheist as they are to the Christian.

Therefore, I believe that possibility is sufficient grounds for apologetics.  And in the case of intelligent design and evolution (two concepts which are not mutually exclusive, I might add) the realms of science and philosophy collide.  So apologetics is not out of place here.

Spare Parts

I am going to keep this post short today, so in conclusion, I am going to answer how I feel that cetacean vestigial limbs can reasonably fit in with the concept of intelligent design.  For those who are unaware, cetaceans are essentially the taxonomic order referring to marine mammals (see Wikipedia article here).  And vestigial limbs are the limbs (or bones which would correspond to limbs) in these animals which serve no real purpose (again, see Wikipedia here).  They are typically not developed enough to be used by the animals, and are viewed by evolutionary biologists as remnants of the animal's evolutionary ancestors.  I should say at this point that I am answering this particular example because I do not know what "vert ocular nerves" are and I feel that "nipples for men" is not that strong an argument.  If a reader wishes for me to answer one of these two, I would be happy to (though I will need some elucidation on the first).

At any rate, I see vestigial limbs as a fairly common design phenomenon.  When creating a set of several similar products, it is atypical for each product to be independently designed for every single subcomponent.  For instance, say I were designing a circuit board for implementation in several different computers of varying capacities.  Instead of designing a board for each capacity separately, I would design one which can hold the maximum amount of memory, and then install memory cards as necessary.  In fact, this is exactly how my laptop was manufactured.  When I crack open the case, I can very clearly see that it was built with the capacity to carry two hard drives, but my computer only came installed with one (come to think of it, I might need to upgrade soon...).  There is literally a cavity in my laptop the size and shape of a hard drive, with nothing hooked up to it.  Does this mean that my laptop has not been designed?  Not at all.  In fact, one cannot even say that it was poorly designed.  This was just the simplest way to solve the problem.

This is how any engineer works who is designing components for many different systems all at once.  And this is especially true when working under design constraints.  And let's be honest, God had one of the most stringent time constraints I've ever heard of: I mean, only a week to design the entire earth?!?! (I try so hard to be funny...)  I would never expect that God would design each and every individual creature with a completely unique set of parts, discarding all of those which are unnecessary.  I can very easily see God thinking, "Okay, so I want to make a mammal that lives in the water.  Well, if having a pelvis won't hurt them, why redesign it?"  It is a completely logical way to think.

Maybe you think I'm being ridiculous; maybe I am.  At any rate, the point is, vestigial limbs to not necessarily preclude the idea of a creator.  In fact, if you think about it, they mesh with the concept pretty well.  Perhaps not in terms of biology, but certainly in terms of engineering.

I have written enough on the subject for now.  This week, I leave you with a scripture about God as an engineer:

"Then the Lord spoke to Job out of the storm. He said: 

'Who is this that obscures my plans
     with words without knowledge?
Brace yourself like a man;
     I will question you,
     and you shall answer me.

'Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
     Tell me, if you understand.
Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
     Who stretched a measuring line across it?
On what were its footings set,
     or who laid its cornerstone—
while the morning stars sang together
     and all the angels shouted for joy?'" -Job 38:1-7

Comfortably Numb

“It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.” -George Washington

This week, I have less time than normal to create a blog post, so I am going to keep it short.  A friend gave me the link to the video at the bottom of this post earlier this week, and I thought it was an extremely intelligent and important conversation of a dilemma which seems to be sweeping America today.

I love being an American citizen.  I have a great deal of national pride, and it gives me great joy to participate in the various activities which being a citizen affords me.  But this country is not perfect, and there are certain trends which have arisen in the past few decades which I believe could be threatening the moral and philosophical infrastructure which has held us together for the past couple of centuries.

Separation

I am not here trying to argue anything about same-sex marriage and whether or not it should be legalized, but this issue has brought to the forefront a disconcerting conversational tactic.  When someone mentions that they support the traditional view of marriage, the response is often that they are attempting to oppress others by enforcing their religion on them.  Personally, I think there is far too much ill will on both sides of the debate right now, but this claim of institutionalizing religion is one which has become increasingly popular over the past several years.

I am quite a strong proponent of separating government from religion.  I believe that people should be able to practice their religion without fear of oppression.  I understand that governments founded in religion often abuse this authority and create harmful institutions in their own right.  But I also acknowledge that telling people to check their religion at the door before discussing politics is absurd and counter-productive.

Separation of church and state is great for institutions, but it is impossible for individuals.  A person's faith does (or should) affect how he thinks, and this will necessarily correspond to the way he feels society should be run.  Why is this?  Because our morals are derived from our philosophy, and our philosophy is guided by our faith.  And many laws are nothing more than codified morality (and in other cases, codified philosophy).

Stand for Something

Like I said, I love America.  But I hate modern politics.  The conversations I see in the public forum, whether they come from the politicians themselves or from talking heads, are often nothing more than an appeal to popular opinion.  Most candidates simply tell the public what they think the public wants to hear, in order to maximize their chances of getting elected.

Maybe I am romanticizing somewhat, but it seems to me that our leaders used to tell the public their values, and then let the public elect them (or not) based on that.  Our most beloved (and most effective) presidents did not shy away from discussing their religion; on the contrary, it was at the forefront of their public image.  By clearly stating their beliefs, these men gave American citizens a clear understanding of how they would conduct affairs of the state.  Perhaps the public did not agree with everything the president did, but at least the people understood where his actions came from.

I believe that part of the reason the government has lost much of its efficacy is that leaders are afraid to act on their beliefs now (or perhaps they do not have solidly grounded beliefs).  Honestly, I would be all right with electing a president with whom I disagreed on certain points if he (or she) would ground their political stances in some sort of firm philosophy.  It is much preferable to an official with whom I probably agree but can have no assurances because of his (or her) unwillingness to discuss his beliefs.  What America needs is laws based on the reasoned discussion and agreement of men of all faiths, not policies based on a morality (if that is what it can be called) separate from religion.

One final thing: while I believe Christian public officials should be guided in their decisions by their faith, I still believe that Christianity will still be relevant even if no public officials were guided by faith.  After all, the church was founded under a regime in which it was ostracized, and Christianity continues to thrive where it is least expected.  We have a faith which does not need to be legalized to hold sway; in fact, several places in the New Testament involve guidelines for living in a society which shuns our religion (Romans 13:1-7, Matt. 22:15-22, 1 Peter 2:13-25).  Following Christ is paramount for us, no matter the context.

The video I have posted below is a talk by Dr. Os Guinness which says essentially what I have feebly been attempting to get across here.  Please take the time to watch it.  I think that this may be one of the most important discussions in modern Western culture.


Well, I have spent more time talking about politics than I care to for the next year, so I will leave the discussion at this.  Please let your beliefs affect the actions you make, and do not be afraid to make a stand, especially if you are (or want to be) a government official.  I will end today with a short passage which was addressed to the early church in Laodicea, encouraging them to stand up for their faith.

"To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: 

"These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation.  I know your deeds,that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other!  So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.  You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.  I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see." -Revelation 3:14-18