Can you prove it?

Some people want proof that the Christian view corresponds to reality… What type of proof would be valid?

If you mean evidence from laboratory experiments, what science consistently shows is that:

• We have no experimental evidence that something comes from nothing.
• We have no experimental evidence that life arises from non-life (abiogenesis remains unproven).
• We have no experimental evidence that highly complex systems arise spontaneously from simplicity without guidance.
• We have no experimental evidence that sustained order naturally emerges from total chaos without external input.

All known experimental evidence points in the opposite direction.

If you want proof from logic, we can reason that:

• If the human mind is purely the product of blind chance and undirected evolution, then we have no ultimate reason to trust our conclusions as reliable indicators of truth (a point made by thinkers like Alvin Plantinga).
• If there is no meaning or purpose to anything, then debate, opinions, or moral judgments ultimately have no binding significance.
• If we operate only from what the human mind can perceive or reason, then there is no ultimate guarantee that our thoughts correspond to reality (thus the need for divine revelation paired with human investigation).

If you mean proof from history, scholars widely agree that:

• The Bible provides an accurate historical record of events, geography, cultures, languages and archeological data, aligning with other authoritative records. The evidence shows it is deeply rooted in real history, contrary to the claim that it is merely myth.
• Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical person.
• He was crucified under the Roman governor Pontius Pilate in the first century.
• His earliest followers were utterly convinced he rose from the dead, providing strong evidence of his claims, and many endured persecution and death because of this belief.
• The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus and the Bible (his story) have had an unparalleled influence on global history, shaping law, justice, science, philosophy, art, literature, education, healthcare, and more.

Taken seriously, these historical points provide a foundation for the Christian claim that Jesus is God, arguing also for the Bible’s trustworthiness and thus its thesis statement: “In the beginning, God created…”

When applied to questions of ultimate origins, evolutionary theory functions more as a belief system than as observable science. Microevolution (small changes within species) is well-documented, but questions remain about how entirely new kinds of life (macroevolution) arise and how life itself began. Similarly, beliefs such as “matter is eternal” or “the multiverse exists” cannot be proven; they are philosophical extrapolations from a belief system. Many leading atheists admit their position begins with a prior commitment against God. Believing in eternal matter is no less a leap of faith than believing in creation ex nihilo.

On the other hand, design is evident everywhere in the universe. Intelligence gives order, meaning, and purpose—matter alone cannot. At every level, even down to the cell, life is built on information. The genetic code, for instance, is not just biological—it is linguistic. Richard Dawkins, though an atheist, acknowledges that DNA functions like a code: “What lies at the heart of every living thing is not a fire, not warm breath, nor a ‘spark of life’. It is information, words, instructions...” At the heart of biblical creation is not merely matter, but the spoken word. “And God said…” introduces a universe built through divine speech—through information, intention, and order.

Conversation - part 8

 How can we build understanding with those who profoundly disagree with us?

Be sure to read the previous posts on this topic from January 2022 to get the full story...

This was Derek's 7th and last post in the conversation. I will provide my response later because this is such a long entry and I should add a few notes at the end here. His opening was really nice and I appreciated his friendly tone and recognition of our growing understanding. He never answered my last post and this brings to mind many questions for me. Did he feel that no more could be accomplished by continuing the discussion? Were there events in his life that changed his outlook dramatically or even made him unable to respond? Why did he later delete all his posts? I may never know. 

Derek's last post:

Hey Paul, I have been busy studying for midterms so I have taken a while to get back to you, but I have finally finished my response. I hope that you carefully read through it, and I apologize for the length (I think it's over 1000 words, sorry), but it shouldn’t be too difficult to digest.

Being a father doesn’t teach one very much about the biology and physics behind the creation of life, as you seem to suggest it does, but I do appreciate the distinction you are making with respect to what you meant when you wrote of logic not giving you life.

I have come to the conclusion that we create our own meaning in life -- this statement may sound silly or trivial, and in a way I would agree, but I don’t believe there is any evidence for some convoluted “great cosmic purpose” for humans existing, and I think that this viewpoint is honestly selfish and it presupposes that humans are incredibly important at a cosmic scale, which I think is ridiculous if you even consider something like the scale of the universe, most of which humans will never actually interact with or observe at all. I think this idea of cosmic purpose, as I am calling it, is what you are mostly getting at in the beginning of your response, but again I find it ridiculous to give humans such abstract importance for no reason.

I will say, lacking an understanding of biological evolution, it would be almost impossible to deny that humans were, in terms of importance, leagues above all other creatures, since humans can do so many seemingly magical things which no other animal, no matter how diverse or strange it is, can do. However, from the perspective of evolution, humans are simply animals and our tools really aren’t as impressive as we might think they are, especially at a cosmic scale.

‘Problems in the world’ are caused by complex interplay of many different subtle factors, saying that there is a primary cause for problems in general is ridiculous.

I see there are other questions about my “purpose in life”, and how I’m “valuable as a person”, which are arbitrary and subjective measures, and I have already explained partially why I don’t believe in cosmic importance of humanity’s existence.

I think I could more concisely summarize my previous statements about logical reasoning by stating that logical reasoning as a whole cannot be ‘caused’ by anything, since cause/effect is intrinsically logical, by definition. This may seem trivial, but it ALL has to do with our definitions, which is what logic is all about. In fact, I could argue that the entire reason I’m an atheist is because I am careful with my words. This is why I believe claiming that logic is ‘caused by something’ is utterly contradictory.

Look, I don’t even have to make a historical argument for morality being separate from religion. Just know that you can google the subject and find pretty convincing historical arguments, such as with the history of burying the dead.

Rather, let me make a case from my perspective: I have moral values, and I can tell you, at least partially, where they come from:

1. My understanding that treating others kindly results in other treating others kindly, which in turn results in a better world.
2. My empathy towards other animals/people, which is admittedly not a logical thought process, but rather a product of both my upbringing and my emotional response centers. However, I would make the argument that the importance of empathy is logically obvious from my above point.
3. My desire to help the world have a better future, despite my belief that I am going to disappear forever after I die, which, similarly, comes from my upbringing and from my understanding of empathy.

It isn’t rocket science, and there really isn’t a great mystery. Morals come from life experiences, from what your parents teach you, and from your brain chemistry. It’s a combination of these, and possibly more, factors. Also, I could make an evolutionary argument about the importance of morality in human (conscious) society, being that the evolution of empathetic feelings and sentiments cause people to stick together and form communities, to communicate, form language, work out issues with non-violence, etc… all of which act to prolong survival, and increase odds of reproductive success. My main point is that morality can indeed be understood as a logical mechanism, rather than a greatly mysterious entity (the same is true with consciousness, I would argue).

Now, we get into my beef with the terms “spiritual”, etc… , which I contest are inherently rhetorical. The concepts of spirituality, the paranormal, etc… exist because of man’s inability to fully understand the world around us. Think about it, what EXACTLY is a spirit? It is described by many as , say, “ the part of you that survives after you die, which includes your personality”, right? Well, doesn’t this sound ridiculous when you try to actually contemplate it? How can this be possible? What substance is a spirit made of? Is it your personality from the moment you died, or your personality from another age? What mechanism is responsible for this? Can we mathematically model this phenomena? Why should I even believe this is true? Does anybody have any actual evidence of this happening, or even a sound argument for why such a thing should exist? What about conjoined twins - do they have one or two spirits? The brain is responsible for one’s personality, which is something that is a relatively new discovery for mankind. How does the brain connect to the spirit? What about the fact that your brain is literally comprised of two personalities? So many seemingly fundamental questions go completely unanswered every time I bring this up with someone who endorses these ideas of spirituality, etc… and it seems to me that the spirit is just the precursor to understanding the functions of the brain (which we still don't fully comprehend).

Think about “the paranormal” as well. People describe an event as being paranormal only in the case that they cannot explain the event, or do not understand it. In this way, 'paranormal' is just a superfluous term which communicates “ I don’t understand that”. However, people who endorse the paranormal typically claim “the event cannot be explained” and then do not provide evidence for why this should be believed. They might rightfully dismiss some logical explanations, but then they make the astonishing leap to dismissing all possible logical explanations.

If you remember me talking about how problematic it is to state that logic is caused by some external “thing”, it is similarly problematic to state that something can be caused without logic being involved, since we arrive at an instance of saying “A causes B” but we are not actually using the correct definition of “cause” (since we are saying the causation is illogical - which doesn’t make sense - the whole point I’m trying to make). To summarize, ‘explaining’ something as “paranormal” is actually just evading explanation using rhetoric.

Once you start trying to explain the paranormal, it just becomes scientific theory so that the qualification “paranormal” becomes completely superfluous.

Similarly, once you start trying to study and understand the "spiritual", you realize that there is nothing there.

A few notes and some questions:

So, in some ways we are back to where we began but with a very different tone and hopefully a deeper appreciation for the other person in the conversation. I believe that this is almost all we can expect but certainly we can pray for more, knowing that the Spirit of God is at work in our hearts and is really the only one who can change us. I pray that I was sensitive to His leading in this conversation and that I was truly attentive to the hopes and the fears behind what Derek so graciously shared with me.

As you can see, there are still a few difficult points to deal with from his post. Now he is trying to define the term "spiritual" but it seems to be mixed up with the idea of "paranormal". I address this briefly in my response. The bigger issue, however, is the meaning of life and the value of human life in particular. Thankfully he did spend quite a bit of time on the questions I had provided. His answers are fairly good, considering the perspective he is working from. This is where I spent most of my time in my final response. Meanwhile, how would you respond to his post? How can you provide a real and useful definition of "spiritual", if that is even possible? What can you say about the meaning of life or the value of human life? How can you know that your answers to anything here have real value or meaning?

Conversation - part 6

How can we build understanding with those who profoundly disagree with us?

Be sure to read the previous posts on this topic from January 2022 to get the full story...

Commentary:

This post shows a real shift in Derek's attitude and willingness to open up. I was very grateful for that. He even tells some of his story about growing up in a Christian home, although there is no information on how his parents lived out their faith or helped him to grow spiritually or intellectually. My impression is that there were strong secular forces at work in his life, either through friendships, teachers or other adults which influenced his ideas about God and faith. 

Derek's post:

I could be convinced that science/logical reasoning had an inherent limitation in its ability to explain phenomena if you could provide me a logically sound argument along with acceptable premises in support of this. It's that simple, and it is 100% objective. That's the beauty of logic.

You act like it is completely subjective what I consider to be evidence, but it is simply what I have stated above - a logically sound argument with acceptable premises. This is also the type of evidence that I would require in order to believe a god exists (or physical evidence of some sort, of course).

The 'logically sound' aspect means that the argument doesn't violate itself or contain a logical contradiction, and the 'acceptable premises' part means that the argument begins with axioms which anybody would consider to be obviously true.

To recap, the two claims:
"science hasn't yet explained A"
"science is not able to explain A"
are completely different, and you need a logically sound argument supporting whichever one you are claiming to be true. The first claim is trivial to support, but the second one requires, as I keep repeating, a logically sound argument with acceptable premises.

I will repeat this again: if you can actually logically prove the second claim, you will indeed be awarded the nobel prize since it would be a major finding relating to science and mathematics, and our ability to understand the universe.

There isn't really much of a story as to why I am an atheist, other than the fact that I have taken a very close look at all religious arguments I have been able to find, from as many different religions as I could manage. In this seven or so year examination, I have found that the arguments are all very well dressed, and that they appear to be reasonable until you break the intuition-logic barrier and realize that they don't actually make sense.

I mean, I used to be a christian until I was a teenager, and then I slowly realized that I hadn't ever seen god, or spoken to god. This bothered me greatly, and it kept me awake for some nights, and I would get to sleep by reading some argument online that would affirm me god existed. However, I would wake up and go through one, two, maybe a few days before I had time to think again, and I would realize that there was some sort of hole in the argument that didn't quite add up. This kept happening, and I started to think Jesus and the Christian God might not actually be real. I really was unsettled by my inability to confirm my beliefs. I looked at arguments in support of other gods from other religions, and realized they were all the same in their flaws. Every argument was either "the universe is too complex, ..." or "god's existence is so obvious that it is undeniable" or "atheists aren't real", or it was a well dressed pseudo-logical argument that would quench my thirst for a while, but then I would realize it was flawed too.

Fast forward, and I have come to the conclusion that the average person's inability to distinguish logical reasoning from flawed argumentation is hurting society greatly, and that it is one of the biggest threats to humanity for a number of reasons. This extends beyond religions too, and goes into many aspects of society.

Commentary:

I was still wondering what type of evidence Derek needed. It is as if I had not provided any arguments yet at all! His comments about not seeing or hearing God are not based on logical or rational evidences, but rather experiential evidence, which is tied to how most of us interpret evidence anyway. I probably had already answered his questions clearly and concisely with references to history, philosophy and the Bible. If we demand that others present the same kind of ‘evidence’ that they demand of us, we usually don't end up any closer to agreeing than when we started. I'll include a modified infographic to demonstrate the types of evidences that are commonly accepted in most fields outside of direct scientific experimentation. 

He spent quite a bit of time explaining logic to me, but I'm not convinced that he knew how to recognize it or use it. So my response had to go in a different direction. I also needed to validate his desire to understand the world and to communicate with me about these topics.

My response:

Yes, logical reasoning is really important and I am also interested in this. So, thanks for your extended explanation and a bit of your story. It does make me very sad to hear that having not seen or spoken to God, you must conclude that He doesn't exist. You are not alone in this, as I have not seen or heard an audible voice. But, logically speaking, that doesn't mean that he is not speaking to us, only that we don't hear him or are expecting something different.

I have also heard arguments like "the universe is too complex", etc. but those certainly are not the ones that convince me either. My faith in Jesus is not from having seen him or heard him speak to me, but because I can't live without Him. I know that I have no good in myself, no value, no purpose unless it is given to me by the one who gives me life. Even logic can't give me life or purpose because logic does not explain why we have "something" instead of "nothing", or "life" instead of "non-life", or "consciousness" instead of just a brain, or beauty or love or even logic itself. Don't get me wrong, I love logic as well. But I must conclude logically that logic and order in the universe are not natural and are certainly not a result of a random sequence of events. Logic is completely dependent on the existence of order and design, not to mention the very strange idea that words actually have meaning - a correlation to the real world - and that we can "know" the real meaning of words.

Here are 2 interesting quotes for you (from people much smarter than me). Friedrich Nietzsche said, "Two things will happen: the 20th Century will become the bloodiest century in history because the 19th Century killed God and universal madness will break out." Isaac Newton said, "He who is presumptuous enough to think that he can find the true principles of physics and the laws of natural things by the force alone of his own mind, and the internal light of his reason, must either suppose the world exists by necessity, and by the same necessity follows the law proposed; or if the order of Nature was established by the will of God, the [man] himself, a miserable reptile, can tell what was fittest to be done." They lived very different lives and had very different beliefs but they both realized the logical result of a world without God, a world that we are living in now.

My dear friend, please keep searching and I pray that God will show himself to you in a new and very real way - not for any religious reason, but so that you will know Jesus who offers us real life.

Questions for you:

What evidence would you demand to know for sure that God exists and that He loves you? Would it be reasonable and fair to demand that same quality of evidence to prove that God does not exist and/or does not love you? Why or why not? Why are we always asking for evidence anyway? Do we really change our minds because of evidence, or is it something else that changes our hearts before our minds are able to change?

Conversation - part 1

How can we build understanding with those who profoundly disagree with us?

This post begins a series of posts in order to review an online conversation with Derek that began in January of 2020. As I have reflected on this discussion over many months, my intent was always to invite him to work through this conversation again, contributing his ideas and commentary, which would give a more complete context to the thought process behind the words we actually used. But now, going again to the YouTube entry where this conversation took place, Derek has deleted all of his entries and so there is no way for me to contact him. This makes me very sad. I don’t know what has happened to him, but I pray that he has found answers that satisfy  his deepest needs. Maybe my interaction helped with this and maybe not, God knows.

It began with a random video that was a negative response to a video on the value of the 10 Commandments. The video response itself was nearly worthless, so I don’t recommend it. Neither do I particularly recommend the video on the 10 Commandments posted by Denis Prager, though he does have some very valuable insights on this topic. As I looked through a few of the comments that day, one conversation caught my attention. If you are interested in the thread, you can access it on Youtube here. 

Derek was responding to a comment by Matthew who had tried to highlight the ​​differences between covetousness, jealousy and greed. Derek and Matthew had interacted briefly but Derek was digging deeper with the following questions. Unfortunately, I did not save those earlier posts from Derek.

His original questions were as follows…

1) How can god be moral if he created, actively maintains, and keeps occupied, hell, even when it is the case that it's solely for the thought-crime of unbelief? What about his kill count that is so much larger than that of Satan himself, as stated in the Bible? How is this "loving"?

2) How do the concepts of original sin and inherited sin make any sense? Or, if you would rather answer this more precise question, why EXACTLY do you believe that babies, long before they can retain memories, let alone understand what is meant by "good" "evil" "god" "original sin" "satan", etc..., are destined for eternal damnation from the get-go, just because of some guy making an honest mistake (didn't know evil from good) in the ancient past?

3) As I demonstrated in my previous comment, faith and evidence cannot both be tools of the Christian, by definition of these terms. Which, then, do you choose as your foundation? Honestly, if it is faith, we have no reason to speak, because I would agree that faith is perhaps the most true reason that you believe. If you choose evidence, then you must do two things in turn: explain why the bible emphasizes faith so strongly (in contrast to your evidence-based viewpoint), and show me what demonstrable evidence, physical or logical, you have in favor of your beliefs.

Commentary:

When I wrote this, my intention was to communicate the value of his questions, which seem to be sincere and indicate that he is looking for real answers to real questions. He is concerned about protecting the innocent, defining morality, faith and the ultimate source of knowledge or truth. We can see that each of these questions cannot be adequately addressed by hard data or science and demand a recognition of something outside of our sensory experiences to even be able to ask the questions in the first place! But I tried to take the questions at face value without attacking any misconceptions. I wanted to show him that a discussion of these topics could be done politely and without accusations in order to invite deeper understanding between us and maybe even friendship.

My response:

It looks like Matthew has not responded to you - so in the interest of continuing your reasoned and polite discussion, I'd be happy to share my thoughts.

First: The problem with the whole discussion here is that we all live with a concept of justice and fairness that is built into our western culture. If you look at primitive tribes now or in ancient times, specifically those with little or no exposure to a biblical view of the world, then you see that these assumptions are definitely not universal.

So, if you will allow me to address your 3 questions above, here are a few ideas. You are welcome to respond or disagree because I know that we come from different perspectives on this...

1 - Hell may be a lot of things but it is primarily "separation from God". The imagined torture or punishment of hell as a tool or creation of God is not possible because it is simply where God is not present and therefore does not intervene. An eternal hell is simply a result of my choice to pay for my own sin and not accept the payment available through Jesus' death. Hell is my choice so no one can ever say that God chooses hell for someone. BTW: if you don't believe there is a hell or a God, then this is probably irrelevant information. As for death, everyone faces it. There is no escape from it but we certainly can and do hurry it along for ourselves and for others. There is no evidence that a "kill count" is higher for anyone (except for certain humans in history that you can probably name).

2 - This is directly connected to the first issue - a faulty understanding of what hell is. Babies and anyone else without the mental capacity to choose right from wrong are not destined for hell, thanks to God's grace and mercy. Original sin is simply our inherited disposition to choose our own way and separate ourselves from God (and from everyone else). I see this in my tendency to do what is not good and hide it even from myself.

3 - Faith and evidence always go hand in hand because no one can ever fully know something that is outside the capacity to measure or test. Evidence points to the truth about my wife's love for me and I also believe (have faith) that she loves me and I act on that belief. Historical evidence, eyewitness accounts and the lives of those eyewitness afterward point to the resurrection of Christ from the dead, but it also demands faith because it is outside the workings of the natural world.

I've provided brief answers according to my current understanding of the Bible. Hopefully I will have better answers in the future, but please accept these for now ;)

Questions for you:

What do you see behind his questions? What is his motivation? Which perspective is closer to your beliefs and how would you support it? Could I have provided a better invitation for continued discussion? What do you think his response will be?

Meditate on it day and night

“Meditate on it day and night” (Psalm 1) - this is a reference to continual thinking, processing and discussion over a lifetime as you dig deeper into the symbolism and ambiguities of Scripture in light of the bigger picture of life. This means that any one part of Scripture, taken as a single entity, can lead us the wrong direction because it is so different from our current perspectives and cultural orientations. We tend to ask the wrong questions and come to the wrong conclusions because we are not thinking in the same direction, have not processed it adequately, want to fit it into our current theories or simply don’t have enough information. There is a compelling need to see the full scope of the Bible and its story of God in relationship with humanity in an intimate and personal way. This Story becomes my story because I see myself in the struggles, the failures, the rebellions of others. This is a very helpful, transformative and hopeful process when it develops in us a profound sense of humility, responsibility and fear of God.

But, this phenomenon of “letting this story become my story” is also happening in the postmodern, post-truth world. This extreme version is called “narratology” and can be a very powerful and sometimes very subversive tool for creating a new thought process in others. It began with Satan in the garden of Eden when he told Adam and Eve a story that they adopted as their own. But, as it was only part of the truth, it led them to disastrously wrong conclusions.

Which stories are you listening to these days? Are there cultural stories being told that are focussed primarily on emotional connections? Are there stories being told which are intended to make you feel guilt or shame? Are there stories that purposefully ignore the issue of original sin or emphasize our differences as the root source of conflict? Are there stories that blame certain groups of people instead of our individual (or humanity’s) rebellion against God? Are there stories which make God in man's image instead of man in God's image? Beware of these stories! These are usually meant to manipulate and always point us in the wrong direction even as they contain elements of truth. These stories lead us away from recognizing and honoring the image of God in every person. They lead us to think we have the answers ourselves apart from our repentance and God’s forgiveness. These stories lead us away from the sufficiency of Christ and into slavery and hatred. They lead us to depend on religious, philosophical, financial, works based or even political solutions to society’s struggles. They lead us to manipulation and fear-based control of others. But in the end, it is me who is deceived.

This brings us back to the original idea, “Meditate on it day and night.” Unless we let God’s Word impact every area of our thinking, asking to “be transformed by the renewing of our mind”, we may be trapped in the same way that Adam and Eve were trapped. Every morning my prayer is, “God, open my eyes to see as you see, to love others as you love me, to reject the lies of a broken world so that I can honor you and value others.” I don’t have all the answers, but I know where they can be found and they are not in the ideas of those who do not know God and have no desire to honor Him. Truth is always rooted first in God’s revelation through His Word and confirmed by the leading of His Spirit at work in my heart. “Your Word is truth.”

If you want to learn a bit more about Jewish Meditation Literature, see the Bible Project's video on this topic at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhmlJBUIoLk

A picture of a tree

“All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree.” Albert Einstein

And what is the name of that tree? That is the real question. When I imagine this tree, I see a bright, full, strong tree growing beside a river. It is set apart from others, having privileged access to the water, its roots growing deeper and its branches reaching higher each year. The animals of the forest come and rest under its shade in the long, hot afternoons. The birds nest in its broad, stable branches where the squirrels play in the evenings.

There are many who have heard the name of this tree. Many have whispered the name over the years, looking long and hard for it. Some have found it and as they recount the story of their search, others laugh and mock or just nod quietly in understanding. Many have even died in defense of that tree, not that any could destroy it; this tree stands beyond the reach of any destructive intent but not so far from any who search for its shade. I have seen young people who sit and marvel at its beauty day after day and others who wander far from it, discontented and lost. I have heard the words of old men who did not believe in its existence and others whose every word was the rustling of its leaves and the flowing of its sap.

The name of the tree is Truth and it is rooted deep in the eternal and unchanging Word. It was planted before the beginning of time and served well the Creator in the founding and forming of our universe. It breathes life and speaks to everything in our search for understanding. Its branches are science, math, history, philosophy and art, but also, mercy, justice, compassion and love. It eludes many who think they are wise, and many who think they know nothing are standing in its shade.

Fractured Education

One of my goals this summer is to catch up on the reading that I never can get to during the school year. Part of that, of course, is current events. It is amazing to see how inconsistent people can be in their ideas and it shows up at all levels of society. Probably it is related to pervasive postmodern culture which has no problem with conflicting "truths" all being true. The obvious result is, "If they conflict, then one is really very false or both are false!"

Take a look at this simple example in the area of education. An article in "Christian Today" talks about the debate in Germany over the possibility of allowing theological questions about the origin of the world into biology classes. An interesting issue, no doubt. The very nature of biology leads us to ask questions about origin; and the classroom is one important venue for the sharing of ideas in a free society, right? What really gets me though is a comment by a member of the Protestant Church's theology committee! He says, "Frau Wolff is ignoring the differences between natural sciences, religion and philosophy. That does not correspond to the Protestant view." What is that!? If he believes that God made the world and everything in it, then what exactly are those differences? It would be helpful to know what "differences" he refers to. Is it differences in fact or differences in method? Either way these fields of study, taken honestly, should cross paths periodically and support a cohesive view of the true human condition and the world we live in. Is it acceptable to say that God made us in religion class, that we are a product of chance in biology class, and that we "made" ourselves in philosophy class? That approach is part of what I call fractured education.

I'll leave the resolution of the issue to your own detailed research. But, take into account another little article from "The Christian Science Monitor" - a site I RARELY read! An article about a linguistic project talks about the probability of a common language root. Sound familiar? Take a peek at Genesis 11:1. Then there is a comment about human genetics tracing its ancestry "to as few as 1,000 individuals". The years may need some adjustment, but it is very interesting to see how science falls into line with biblical truth. Of course I don't want to "prove" the Bible through science, we must come to God in faith, but it supports the idea that fractured education is a worthless means of learning!