Free Will #10 - Delving back into free will with more random numbers

          I’ve been doing a lot of reading about free will lately, and I hope to be able to put together some future entries that update some of my thinking.  I think some of my earlier entries were rather naïve of, if nothing else, the historical context of the ideas I presented.  But that is the nature of learning. 

          Anyway, something came to mind recently, and I’d like to try it out.  It kind of goes back to my “Turing Numbers” <here>, but I have a few more thoughts.

          The question I asked myself was whether a random series of numbers could encode information.  I’m assuming I’m not the first person to try this, and I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a whole field related to this.  But I wanted to see if I could create a series of numbers that has all the characteristics of a series of random numbers, but in reality encodes a message.  And I want the “message-encoded” random series to be indistinguishable from a truly random series of numbers.

          So, here is what I came up with.  It is a series of 149 binary digits.  I present two such series below.  One of these is random (well, I just used the random number generator in Excel) and the other was created by me and encodes a simple message.  What I wonder is whether you can tell which one is which?

BOX A

1	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	1	0	1	1	1	0	1	0	1	1
0	1	0	1	1	1	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	0	1	1	0	1	0
1	0	1	0	1	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	1	0	1	1
0	0	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	1	0	1	0	1	1	1	0
1	0	1	0	1	0	1	1	0	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	0	1
1	0	1	1	1	0	1	0	0	1	0	1	1	0	0	1	1	1	0	1
0	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	1	1	0	1	0	0
1	0	1	0	1	1	1	1	1

1’s = 77/149 (51.7%)

BOX B

1	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	1	1	1	0	0	1	1	0	1
0	0	1	1	1	0	1	0	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	1	1	1	0	1
1	0	0	1	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	1	0	1	1	1	1	0	0
0	0	1	1	0	0	0	1	0	1	1	0	1	1	0	0	1	1	0	1
0	0	0	1	0	1	1	1	1	0	1	0	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	1
1	0	1	0	1	1	1	0	0	1	0	1	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	1
0	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	1	1
0	1	0	1	1	0	1	0	0

1’s = 74/149 (49.7%)

          There are certainly various statistics you can run on these two sets of numbers.  I will tell you that they are both supposed to represent a 50:50 distribution of 0’s and 1’s – a series of coin flips.  I included the total number of 1’s in each of the two boxes (below each box), and they are both close to 50%.  I did not spend a lot of time trying to work out other ways to characterize this series.  For example, I’m sure that there is a predictable distribution of the number of 1’s in a row for a truly random series, and I did not work hard to make sure that my encoded series met those criteria.  I assume that I could write a computer program to figure out those details for me.  But, the point is, I believe I could match whatever characteristics of the random number sequence you care to measure if I had a long enough series.  Thus I think, without trying to come up with a real mathematical proof, that I could match any simple random series yet still encode information.  I’d be interested if anyone can figure out which of the two series is the “encoded” one; and if so, how you figured it out.  Of course, it would be really impressive if you could figure out the encoded message, but I think you’d need a longer series to figure that out, even if I told you which one had the message.  I think that there is just not enough information to figure out the message…so I would be shocked if someone could figure out the message.  I’ll give the “answer” in my next entry.

          Who cares?  Well, I had this idea and I thought I would try it out.  It has to do with free will and how it can avoid determinism.  Specifically, I was thinking about the random (or indeterminate?) nature of some aspects of quantum mechanics.  My thought would be that maybe we think something is random when it is actually “intentional” and only appears to be random.  Is there any way for us to know the difference between the two?  In general, we think of all material things as being either determined or random.  But is it possible that some (or all??) random things are actually intentional?  By intentional, I mean that some form of “will” imposes on the event to make it happen with a specific desired outcome.  The outcome looks random to us, but it achieves an intentional outcome, not a random one.  It would have no pattern because the “will” doesn’t have a pattern (because, of course, it’s a “free will”).

          So, with my two sets of numbers, I could give one of you the way to break the code and then I could communicate with you through what appear to be random numbers to everyone else.  Is that possible?  It seems to me that, with the appropriate effort on the part of the encoder, it can be done.

          I’m going to jump way ahead for the moment, admitting that this idea is not fully thought-out.  I have been wondering how free will could effect an outcome in the brain without messing with the fundamental laws of physics.  How could an “uncaused cause” (which I believe free will is – see <here>) not mess with the nice, well-characterized, determinant laws of physics?  Well, it seems to me that the idea of information encoded in a random distribution could provide an answer or at least a clue.  If the will is directly affecting what appears to be a random particle path, yet does so without disrupting the properties of that random distribution, it could transmit information (i.e. its intention) without messing up the rest of the physical laws.  Is that possible?  Well, it came to my mind, so I thought I would put it out there.  

Put Your Ideas to the Test - #14 - Test Tubes

          Time to pull out the test tubes!

In the next few entries, I’m about to go down another path with respect to the “experiments with God” that we have been discussing.  I hate it when people don’t tell me where they are going first.  If you want me to go with you, I want to know where I’m going to end up.  So, I’m going to tell you in this entry; then we will get into the details in the future. 

I will state this as simply and as clearly as I can, and I will state it as something “I” want.  But recognize that this is also something I am hoping some of you will personalize to your own situation.

I want to find out if Jesus Christ is still alive and still active in people’s lives, as we have discussed before <here>.  I want to see some physical, tangible evidence of his work in my own life.  I am being a bit selfish here in the sense that I’m not really worried about anyone else.  I want evidence that is sufficient and fully-convincing for me personally.  Whatever Jesus may have done in the past for others is not enough – I want my own personal audience.  But, as such, I’m also not looking for a second “rising from the dead” or “feeding of the 5000”.  I just want something that is fully convincing to me.  And though I don’t believe it will ever happen, I’m ready to follow this Jesus if he comes through.

I recognize that I can’t tell Jesus what to do.  I can’t just dream up something and say “do this” and expect him to do it.  If Jesus really is there, then he surely isn’t so weak as to be constrained to do what I tell him to do.

But, on the other hand, I am looking for evidence of the type of Jesus/God who really does want me to believe.  So, ultimately it comes down to this:  if I can’t tell God what to do, then he’s going to have to tell me what he is going to do.

          Can Jesus talk to us?  Does Jesus talk to us?  Well, if he is there and he wants me to believe…and he is all-powerful…then surely he can figure out how to talk to me, can’t he?  But how would that happen?  Does he tell me in a dream?  Does he appear in front of me in a vision and say something audible?  Does he show up next to me as I’m walking along the road, and start talking? 

          Actually, in the broad range of Christian experience, all of these things have been reported to have happened, and much more.  And I, personally, don’t discount that they could still happen.  But I’m not sure these things do it for me.  God speaking in a dream?  Dreams are random – they’re just neurons firing when they have nothing else to do.  God speaking in an audible voice?  Sounds like hallucinations.  Drugs, maybe.  God showing up next to me?  Sounds creepy.  I met a guy at the bus station once who told me that he was the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  I just laughed.  I didn’t stick around to find out if he had any heavenly guidance for me!

          I am going to look for God to make clear to me something that he is going to do; and then ask him to do it.  The process of God “making it clear” is not necessarily going to be anything miraculous in and of itself.  The miraculous evidence will be when I ask God to do what he made clear, and he does it.  But he and I both have to agree that whatever that thing is, it is of sufficient evidence that I will believe and will believe wholeheartedly and will “live my life on his terms” <see earlier discussion of this point>.

          How will God make it clear?  I’m going to suggest three things, in order of importance and usefulness.  Then we will have to dig deeper into these three things in future entries.  The three things are:  1) the Bible as a foundation, 2) my mind, and 3) circumstances.  I am going to suggest that through these three things, God can make clear to me what he wants to do to prove himself to me.  Then I am going to ask him to do it and wait and see what happens.

          I have to just make one caveat here.  First, if this happens, it’s only going to happen once.  By that I mean that if you say “God, if you do this I’ll believe in you for the rest of my life”, and then you renege on the “rest of my life” part, you shouldn’t expect that you’ll get another (and another, and…) chance.  Therefore, if God has already made himself clear to you, then you’ve got what you’re going to get.[1]  Well…except I know from personal experience that God can give you a second chance…he’s allowed.  The point is, if you’re coming back a second time, you better be ready to duck! 

          Well, that’s where I’m going.  Want to come?

---

[1] It would also be reasonable for God to say “I already rose from the dead once – why isn’t that enough?”  However, we’re just hoping that God will go easy on us since we weren’t there to see it.

My 1000 Page List Explained

In the previous entry, I presented my list of “1000 pages that I think everyone should read”.  Please send me your own lists as well.  In this entry, I’d like to go into a bit more detail about why I chose the 7 books I chose.

“Ecclesiastes”, written by Solomon

          I don’t imagine that a lot of Christians would choose Ecclesiastes on any of their lists of “Books of the Bible to read.”  I struggled myself as to whether to include it because, to be honest, my later selection by Tolstoy is essentially an expanded, more intense version of Ecclesiastes.  But, if Solomon really was the wisest man ever to live, as the Bible claims, then it seems worth reading something he wrote.  Even given that, most people would have picked Proverbs and even Song of Solomon over Ecclesiastes.  But Proverbs is a “middle” book in my mind:  it presents kind of the middle of the road thinking.  I prefer to go to the extremes and get to the point.  I always want to quickly run ahead and find out where a line of thinking is going to lead me.  The reductio ad absurdum really appeals to me.  Ecclesiastes is the extreme of thinking “if I remove God, what’s the point?”  Some people think that the Bible is outdated and out of step with the times.  To that I say: read Ecclesiastes!  Besides, it is by far the shortest book on my list, so it’s a simple read.

“Gospel of John”, written by Apostle John

          Some will say “why should everyone read that fairy tale?” and others will say “why just John – why not the whole Bible or at least the whole New Testament?”  Well, first of all, the whole Bible is more than 1000 pages by any normal-sized page count, so that wouldn’t fit my criteria.  But, more importantly, I focused on the part of the challenge that ways “…everyone should read.”  I think that most of the Bible is written for those who already believe.  I definitely think that every Christian should read the whole Bible – in fact I think they should keep reading it over and over.  But not much of the Bible is really written for “everyone”, in my opinion.  But the Gospel of John was specifically written to describe and present Jesus to the masses.  Certainly, if everyone wants to read the whole Bible, that is fine – that’s great, really…but I’m pretty sure everyone does not!  But I think – and again, this is just my opinion in answer to the question – I think everyone should read the Gospel of John.

          The Gospel of John is, in many ways, one of the most attacked books of the Bible (I suppose outside of Genesis).  But, the bottom line is that it is either:  true and the most important book in the world, or it is a false and intentionally deceptive book.  I think everyone should be forced to make their own decision about it, and I don’t know any other way to decide between those two extremes other than to read it for yourself. 

“Epistle to the Romans”, written by Apostle Paul

          There are two reasons I chose Romans.  First, it most clearly lays out the basic principles of Christian beliefs.  The first eight chapters, in particular, present the logical progression of Christian thinking.  I think everyone should understand that progression, whether they agree with it or not, and so I put it on my list.  Over the ages since it was written, this book has been the most instrumental to many Christian thinkers.  If you were to make a list of the most important books ever written, Romans would surely be on any reasonable list.

          The second reason I put Romans on this list is because it is so unassailable in terms of its history.  Is there any scholar who doesn’t believe that Paul wrote this book somewhere in the 60’s AD?  People frequently argue about the Gospels and who wrote them and when they were written (especially John’s Gospel), but you don’t see arguments about Romans.  Everyone agrees that this is what Paul wrote.  Because of that, I got interested in a line of arguing I called “Paul in 4D” that I put somewhere on this site <*here*>.

          Finally, this is a short book as well.  Just read it.

“Penseés”, written by Blaise Pascal

          I did not come across this book until I was in my 40s, and it was like a lightening bolt.  I have talked about this book elsewhere <*here*>.  Pascal was a contemporary of Descartes (a little younger) and Newton (a little older).  I think he might be smarter than either one of them!  Unfortunately, he died quite young and never finished this book.  So, what you really have in Pensees is a collection of some fairly finished thoughts, some completely unfinished thoughts, and everything in between.  That makes it harder to read than most – it’s more like reading a series of very short essays than a cohesive book.  Maybe just think of it as reading a blog!  The thing is, it was written in the mid-1600s, and is as relevant to today as you can imagine.  I don’t agree with all of what Pascal wrote, but there are some passages there that are just spectacularly deep and important.  It’s well worth the effort to read.

“A Confession”, written by Leo Tolstoy

          No, not “War and Peace” – it’s too long for this list anyway!  “A Confession” is Tolstoy’s brutally honest view of his life up to that point.  It is his summary of the meaning of life.  I hesitated to include this for “everyone” to read because it can be taken as extremely depressing.  If you are depressed before you read this, it might push you over the edge.  However, in my opinion, the antidote for this book is the Gospel of John, which is also on my list, so you should be reading both.  If you’re depressed already, maybe you should read John first…then Tolstoy…then maybe John again!

“Miracles”, written by C.S. Lewis

          I knew that I had to include at least one of CS Lewis’ works in my list.  He was a fantastically clear and accessible writer, in my opinion.  His book “Mere Christianity” is certainly the most well-known of his non-fiction work.  Of course his allegorical “Narnia Tales” are certainly very well-known as well, but I don’t think any fiction should be on a list that “everyone should read”.

          This book is not about whether miracles have happened, but rather it is about whether they could happen.  As I have said elsewhere in this blog, I think that very fundamental issue has to be settled first for every person.  Is that door locked or unlocked?  I don’t know of many books that directly address this very fundamental issue.  Maybe, if you know of one, you should put it on your list.  I’ll definitely read it.

          I think this book is probably the most difficult to read from a purely academic standpoint.  By that I mean that, for many, it’s the kind of book you can’t read all at once and you may have to re-read some passages to understand the point he is making.  But the issue is so critical that it is worth the effort. 

“Being Mortal”, written by Atul Gawande

          I think this is the longest of all the books I chose and it is certainly the most recent.  This book is less than ten years old.  It is also probably much more relevant to Western cultures, and especially the U.S. than anything else on my list.  So, should everyone read it?  Maybe I stretched it a bit with this one.  But if you are alive today and you live in the U.S., I think you should read this book.  It is about how we practice medicine with those who are elderly and dying.  At some point I will do a more proper review of this book in this blog.  But it was a book that really got me to thinking and one that I just had to talk about as I was reading through it.  It is very relevant to today. 

So, now you have my reasons for the books I picked.  I might change my mind tomorrow – who knows!  Anyway, as I said before, I’d be very interested in hearing any such lists that others might have!  Please share them.

1000 Pages Everyone Should Read

I’m always interested in lists of the most popular books, or books people have read, etc.  Usually it’s a list of something like 100 books – something that would take a really long time to get through (unless you are a speed reader, and I am not).  So, I thought it might be more interesting to identify a list of books that was small enough that any reader could reasonably read through the list in a year.  There are a lot of ways to do this, but I came up with a plan that I think is pretty workable.  It is basically a list of “1000 pages that I think everyone should read”. 

The rules of the list are as follows:

1) Identify 1000 pages (give or take ~50 or so) of reading that you think everyone should read.

2) You can’t break up a book, i.e. you can’t pick and choose passages from one book and passages from another.

For my personal list, I only picked one book per author, but I’m not sure that should necessarily be a rule.

Also I broke up the Bible because it is a book of books.  Therefore, I could choose one or more books out of the Bible without violating rule #2.

One technical issue that confronts us is “how long is a page?” or “what defines a page?”  I know that is vague and varies – especially if you decide to pick a book from the Bible and use one of those microscopic print Bibles!  But, I wanted to make this easy for everyone to do.  It’s easy to find out how many pages are in a book on your shelf.  It would have been more technically accurate to define the list by “number of words” or “number of characters”, but those details are not as readily available as the number of pages.  So, when it comes to “how many pages”, I just looked at whatever copy I had, or I looked on Amazon at the first copy that popped up, and determined the total number of pages.  This is just for fun anyway – so no reason to make it difficult.  Also, the list doesn’t need to add up to 1000 pages – just something close.

I figure 1000 pages is an amount that anyone could easily read in a year with just reading a few minutes a day.  If you’re serious about it, you could complete this reading in a month or so even in the midst of a busy schedule.  That seemed about right to me.

So…here is my list (in order by date written):

“Ecclesiastes”, written by Solomon, ~24 pages

“Epistle to the Romans”, written by Apostle Paul, ~42 pages

“Gospel of John”, written by Apostle John, ~72 pages

“Penseés”, written by Blaise Pascal, ~169 pages

“A Confession”, written by Leo Tolstoy, ~64 pages

“Miracles”, written by C.S. Lewis, ~294 pages

“Being Mortal”, written by Atul Gawande, ~304 pages

That’s a total of 969 pages.

I didn’t pick any fiction because I figure that fiction is a matter of taste and so I couldn’t come up with any fiction that I think “everyone should read.”  I’m a big fan of Tolkien and so on, but I would only recommend it if you like that sort of thing.  I also ended up picking books that were written at vastly different time periods.  That seemed kind of cool to me, but really it just worked out that way.

The idea is to share such lists and agree to read each other’s lists of 1000 pages.  Therefore, I’d be very interested in hearing other people’s lists following the rules I laid out above.  I think it would be a good challenge among us all to agree to read each other’s book lists.  After all, 1000 pages doesn’t take that long to read.  I wonder how many of us might have the same books on our list – or will any book make anyone’s list more than once?

By the way, it would also be interesting to create a similar list that consisted of specific passages from each book.  For example, Penseés, which is really an unfinished collection of writings by Pascal, certainly has some sections in it that are too unfinished to really be that useful, so there are some of the 169 pages that you could skim over.  Also, there are other books, especially biographies, that I have found very moving, but biographies tend to be longer.  If you try to make your own list, you’ll find that you have to struggle with what to do with some of the longer books.  For example, I asked myself if I should delete the first four books of my list for an autobiography by Nabeel Qureshi, but that just didn’t seem like a good trade.

So, there it is.  I’d be very interested in hearing any such lists that others might have!

The Multiples

          I like to do a lot of reading – primarily non-fiction these days.  Actually, probably more than half the books I “read” are books I listen to while I’m driving.  I almost always have a book that I’m listening to while I’m driving.  For the past couple of years I have been tracking how many books I get through in a year, and it is about 25-30.  I’m not sure I’ll get through that many this year as I’ve been reading through Roger Penrose’s “Shadow of the Mind” and that is proving to be a very slow read!

          I don’t like to read the same book twice (in general).  I don’t generally watch movies more than once.  I like to venture into something new – something I’ve never experienced before.  I remember that in college I once had a roommate who would put a 45 on the record-player, put it on repeat, put on the headphones, and sit there and listen to the same song over and over.  Yes, I know that dates me!  But I thought it was bordering on the pathological – how could anyone sit and listen to the same thing over and over again?  Well lots of people do.  I usually get too bored.

          The odd thing is, I have a very bad memory.  So, you’d think that I might want to re-read books.  I just think that generally I feel that I’m missing out on something out there that might be in a book I haven’t read. 

          Given all that, I thought it would be interesting to present the list of books and movies that I have read/listened to/watched more than once.  At some point I’ll present my personal list of top books and movies, but today it is just the “multiples.”  There aren’t that many.  I mean, I haven’t even read my own book <*here*> more than once!

          First, let’s start with the movies.  I don’t watch that many and, as far as I can recall, I’ve never watch a movie more than once at a movie theater.  So, these are movies I watched once at the movie theater and then again at home.  Also, I’m only listing the movies I voluntarily watched more than once because I wanted to see them.  That means I excluded the million times I watched Dumbo with my kids when they were little!  It also means I didn’t include the various Hallmark Christmas movies I have watched with my wife!  Sorry Ed Asner – you won’t make my list.

          So, with those caveats, here is the list of movies I’ve watched more than once, in order of most times to fewest times (according to my best recollection):

1.  Monty Python and the Holy Grail

2.  Star Wars (the original three)

3.  Lord of the Rings (but never all at once yet)

4.  Apollo 13

          I think that’s it.  Maybe I need to get out more…

          As far as books go, it’s a little trickier to remember.  Also, how do I count the Bible?  As one book or many?  I think I’ve read through the Bible from Genesis to Revelation about half a dozen times, but I’ve read each book more than that, just not in order.  I’ve read through the book of Philippians at least a thousand times.  Someday, just for fun, I’ll list my favorite and least-favorite books of the Bible.  Anyway, let’s get on with it.  Here are the books I’ve read more than once, in order of most times to least times:

1.  The Bible

2.  Lord of the Rings (Tolkien)

3.  Narnia Tales (CS Lewis)

4.  Miracles (CS Lewis)

5.  The Three Musketeers (Dumas)

6.  Around the World in Eighty Days (Verne)

7.  The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County (Twain)

          Well, there it is.  Not sure what it all means exactly except that I’ve surely forgotten a lot of what I have read!

Christians: You Don’t Need a God of the Gaps!

          This is written for Christians.

          I want to encourage Christians to stop trying to find a “God of the Gaps” and just be satisfied with a “Lord of All”.

If you are not familiar with the term “God of the Gaps”, it is a term that refers to the idea of finding gaps in what science can explain and using those gaps to show that we still need God to explain the universe.  The term “God of the Gaps” is generally used in a derogatory way toward Christians who are trying to argue that there is evidence for belief in God.  An example of the “God of the Gaps” reasoning is the origin of the universe.  At the beginning of the Big Bang scientists say that there was a small ball of stuff that rapidly expanded to start universe.  Those arguing for belief in God will argue that someone had to make that little ball that started everything – and that someone must be God.  Science can’t explain how something comes from nothing and so God is needed to explain the existence of the universe.  The scientist will say that what the Christian is doing is just trying to find gaps in scientific theories to find a need for God.

This kind of thinking and reasoning is pretty common.  In fact, I used this line of reasoning when I talked about free will <here>.  I admitted then that I was straying into the “God of the Gaps” area, and I'm probably going to have to modify that entry based on the thoughts I’m about to express!

The scientific response to this type of reasoning is that there may well be things we don't understand right now, but in the future we will figure it out and therefore the “need” to use God to explain that gap will go away.  Science is constantly learning and figuring out how things work and explaining things that previously were mysteries.  For example, in the past people thought that the rain came by the gods or that an eclipse was a supernatural event.  Science explains how those events happen through natural, repeatable laws. Scientists generally expect that they will, eventually, be able to explain everything (including free will!).

What seems to underlie this whole line of reasoning is the sense that if science can explain everything then God is not necessary.  That is a real trap, in my opinion. 

I can see why many scientists would fall into that trap because the scientist is coming at things from a purely naturalistic and materialistic viewpoint and science itself, of course, relies upon explaining events through nature.  But what I don't understand is why Christians, or any believer in God, falls into that trap.  If science explains something, why does that eliminate God from the mix?? It’s like the canvas-maker trying to find exposed spots in a painter’s painting so that he can say “see – this is painted on my canvas!”  You don’t need an area of blank canvas to prove there is a canvas.  The canvas underlies the whole painting, whether there are blank spots or not.

I have a saltwater aquarium in my home – something I really enjoy.  If you have a saltwater aquarium, you know that the upkeep is critical.  Water quality must be maintained and monitored on an almost daily basis.  You really need to do water changes every week or so, and you need to monitor levels of calcium, magnesium and so on and add those chemicals when necessary.  It takes a lot of work!  And, like anyone, I’m busy.  So, like most saltwater aquarium owners, I strive as much as possible to have the maintenance happen automatically.  I have a system that automatically adds water as it evaporates.  I have a system that mixes new saltwater.  Someday I hope to add a system that tests for the various chemicals and doses the water automatically.  All of this automation doesn't mean I didn't put the whole system together.  In fact, in my opinion, it’s even more of an amazing system when it is working automatically and I don’t have to take care of it every day.  To me, automation is a significant improvement – it’s a better creation.  If the natural world can proceed and function based on a variety of initially established laws and principles, that does not make it any more or less created or uncreated.  In fact, as far as I can see, it makes it more amazing.  We don’t have to find unexplained gaps in the natural world to see God’s work.  It is either all around us or it is not there at all.  By this I mean that you see what you see based on your fundamental beliefs about the universe.  If you believe there is a God, then God is in all and responsible for all and you can appreciate His creation in everything you see.  If you believe there is no God, then you will see natural forces at work in everything whether you have the detailed naturalistic explanation at your fingertips or not.  This is true of everything, including aspects of the natural world such as the Big Bang and evolution.  If God established a natural world that utilized evolution to advance, that does not make it any less of a creation.  The existence of the natural world is a miracle in and of itself and any details with respect to how it has progressed or continues to progress does not make it any more or less of a miracle.

The reason I want to bring this up to Christians is because I think this idea that there is a need to find gaps in science prevents Christians from really appreciating God's creation to its fullest.  Rather than constantly being able to look at creation and revel in all its wonder and glory and really understand the depth and the details that are being uncovered by science, Christians seem sometimes afraid of science.  At the very least they become suspicious of science (and scientists) because they view science as constantly finding things that explain away the need for God.  My point is: science can’t explain away God.   If a scientist does not believe in God, it’s not because science forced him there – it was an a priori notion.  And if the Christian sees God’s handiwork in a sunset, it’s because of his a priori notion.  There are aspects of the physics of the big bang and aspects of the genetics of evolution (and so on) that are just fascinating.  Too many Christians are afraid to delve into them for fear – an irrational fear in my opinion – that accepting any aspect of those fields of science takes away from God’s work.  But those fields are just as incredible and amazing as a beautiful sunset, and if you are a Christian, you can appreciate God’s work in every detail. 

For Christians to miss out on God's amazing creation because of their irrational fears is a sad thing.  That's why I want to encourage Christians to understand that God does not need gaps in which to live!  Just appreciate that He is Lord of All.

Book Reviews and Recommendations - Entry #5

Coming to Peace with Science

by Darrel R Falk

          As I have discussed elsewhere <here>, I am not particularly interested in the “evolution-creation” debate, even though it must certainly be the most popular debate topic in the arena of faith vs. science.  However, the book “Coming to Peace with Science” provides what I consider to be an excellent review of the topic from a Christian perspective.  I recommend this book to anyone who is a Christian who wants to gain a scientifically credible view of this whole topic.  I also appreciate Dr. Falk’s call for unity in the Christian community.

          The basic premises of the book include the following:

1.  Well-accepted scientific theories, such as evolution and the origins of the universe, do not disprove the existence of God or destroy Christian principles.

2.  The existence of the universe, or of complex life-forms, or any other natural event, does not prove the existence of God.

3.  Therefore it is entirely reasonable that a Christian can fully support and use theories such as evolution and still fully believe in the fundamental principles of Christian faith and in the Bible.  Further, Christians can and should recognize the work of God in the universe, regardless of the timeframe over which that happened.  But creation itself is not the linchpin of apologetics that many Christians consider it to be.  Efforts spent by Christians to disprove theories like evolution are misguided and deter us from our real purpose.

          I feel that the book provides an excellent review of the scientific evidence as it relates to this issue, particularly with respect to the age of the earth.  In my opinion, this evidence was presented in a scholarly, yet readable, manner.  Dr. Falk reviews the data from multiple fields, showing how the evidence points to a universe and earth that are much much older than 10,000 years.  His background is biology, so fields such as the fossil record, diversity of species, and genetic lineage are treated in much more detail.  He has had a lot of experience teaching these topics to students and I feel that he really excels here.  If you already have a strong background in these fields, then I doubt you will learn anything new – but the book is not written for that purpose.  It is really written for Christians who seek to have a solid, academically-based understanding of the data and evidence that has been collected over the past 200 years or so.  If you are looking for that, I think this book is an excellent place to start.

          Dr. Falk also spends some examining the interpretation of scripture as it relates to these topics – primarily the first few chapters of Genesis.  He believes in the importance of the Bible to Christian faith and believes in the literal interpretation of the Bible.  He reviews various methods of interpreting Genesis that are consistent with methods of interpretation used in other passages of the Bible.  This part of the book is a good overview of the general concepts, but I think there are better books with respect to delving into issues of interpretation in depth. 

          Finally, Dr. Falk presents a case that the debate about the earth vs. sun being at the center of the universe was similar to the present day creation vs. evolution debate.  Specifically, the experience of Galileo is presented as a case where Christians can learn about important principles in the faith-science debate.  Since I agree with Dr. Falk on this, I think it is a very useful argument.  I’m not sure everyone would agree, but I do think it is worth Christians learning about the arguments presented by Galileo and the scripture passages used by the church at the time. 

          So, I recommend this book to those interested in the topic.