March 28, 2017

A SENSE OF OUGHT Donald R. Fox

http://essaysbyfox.org/html/essays/

A SENSE OF OUGHT
Donald R. Fox
Do you have a sense of ought? Webster defines the word ought in part as: “obligation or duty: as, he ought to pay his debts.” Further, the word oughtness is defined as “The state of being as a thing ought to be; rightness.” I must admit I have a strong sense of ought. I do not recognize this in a bragging way or anything like that. This feeling of ought, I believe comes from one's upbringing. Sadly, too many folks have not been brought up, raised in any sense of the meaning. Ought or obligation and duty contain the idea of rightness and not wrongness. With our upbringing, all of us choose to accept or reject what he/she has been taught. We are all free moral agents with the power to choose right or wrong. It is very good to have this intellect of doing and acting right.
As an illustration: In our upbringing, one could be taught that it is right to hate a certain race of humans. As one matures, he/she learns, that they were wrong and therefore, changes their past view. As the apostle Paul wrote, “When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.” (1 Corinthians 13:11) A further illustration: It is reported that one robbed and severely beat up an old couple. We are repelled and disgusted by this action. Why? We know that this is not right. Our thought process, our reasoning and logic are right. Oughtness is triumphant! The conscience must always be in tuned with rightness. Unfortunately, too many do not have this wisdom of right/wrong. The enemy of a lack of ought is sin.
A man ought to live so that everybody knows he is a Christian... and most of all, his family ought to know.” (Dwight L. Moody)

A RIGHT STANDARD IS NECESSARY IN ORDER FOR OUGHT TO PREVAIL

Our nation, the USA, is founded on principles contained in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. This is our heritage! Because of internal and external evidence of the Word of God, the Bible, I know this must be our true standard. Oughtness will prevail when we comply with the rightful standard, the Word of God.
Light and truth will come from our heavenly Father and our Savior, Jesus Christ. “Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have light of life.” (John 8:12) “.. and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:32)
The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?” (Psalm 27:1)
And he shall bring forth thy righteousness as the light, and thy judgment as the noonday. (Psalm 37:6)
Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart.” (Psalm 97:11)

OUGHTNESS IS FULFILLED WHEN WE ARE OBEDIENT TO OUR LORD

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” (Matthew 7:21)
If you love me, keep my commandments.” (John 14:15)
NOTE: For additional study see essay entitled “INTUITION”, “CONSCIENCE TUNE UP”, “CONSCIENCE TUNE UP Part 2”, “CHRISTIANITY AND INTERNATIONAL LAW” and “WISHY WASHY ETHICS”.

A SENSE OF RIGHT AND WRONG Donald R. Fox

http://essaysbyfox.org/html/essays/

A SENSE OF RIGHT AND WRONG
Donald R. Fox
I am a very simple man. I have known, and I have a sense of right/wrong since I was a young boy. I am a Christian, and I have obtained this sense of doing right and avoiding/rejecting that, which is wrong. It seems to me a very simple “know how” when you have the facts or obvious decisions to make. It is very easy to know what is right. You can mark that down.
AN ILLUSTRATION OF AN INCIDENT REFLECTING A CHOOSES TO DO WRONG.
(Incident time line September 2013 through February 2014)
Like many of us, I have pondered this recent traffic tie up over the George Washington Bridge. Governor Christie stated he did not know about the lane closures. Other sources state he knew. At this point, I will leave this quandary alone. I will only use it to illustrate the huge dilemma of many not knowing nor acting on right and leaving wrong as wrong. For shame on any person that knows what is right and chooses wrong. Sadly, many could not care less about that which is right and wrong.
LET THE SCRIPTURES TEACH US THE KNOWING OF RIGHT AND WRONG.
The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.” (Psalm 19:8 KJV)
For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth.” (Psalm 33:4 KJV)
I know, O LORD, that thy judgments are right, and that thou in faithfulness hast afflicted me.” (Psalm 119:75 KJV)
I have taught thee in the way of wisdom; I have led thee in right paths.” (Proverbs 4:11 KJV)
The thoughts of the righteous are right: but the counsels of the wicked are deceit.” (Proverbs 12:5 KJV)
And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you; Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children: Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;” (2 Peter 2:13-15 KJV)
End Note: For the Christian or one who desires to enjoy a virtuous life it is undeniable that the Word of God will always direct us the way of righteousness.
Note: The following is a few web sites dealing with the tie up traffic that involved Governor Christie and the contradictions. http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/01/attorney_for_david_wildstein_asks_port_authority_to_reconsider_paying_legal_bills.html

Christ A Kite Whom Men Fly, Not The Rock Upon Whom We Stand By Wellington H. Smith, Jr.

http://www.gospelgazette.com/gazette/1999/dec/page20.shtml

Christ A Kite
Whom Men Fly,
Not The Rock
Upon Whom We Stand

By Wellington H. Smith, Jr.

Here is a striking quotation:
“There is an Athenian love of novelty abroad, and a morbid distaste for anything old and regular, and in the beaten paths of our forefathers. Thousands will crowd to hear a new voice and a new doctrine without considering for a moment whether what they hear is true. There is an incessant craving after any teaching, which is sensational, and exciting, and rousing to the feelings. There is an unhealthy appetite for a sort of spasmodic and hysterical Christianity. . . .The whole tone of men’s minds on what constitutes practical Christianity seems lowered. The old golden standard of the behavior, which becomes a Christian man or woman, appears debased and degenerated. The tendency of modern thought is to reject dogmas, creeds, and every kind of boundary in religion. It is thought grand and wise to condemn no opinion whatsoever, and to pronounce all earnest and clever teachers to be all these. Mighty foundation-stones are coolly tossed overboard like lumber, in order to lighten the ship of Christianity, and enable it to keep pace with modern science. Stand up for these great verities and you are called narrow, illiberal, old-fashioned, and a theological fossil!”
When do you think these words were written? Were they penned by a faithful modern preacher, lamenting the glitz and guile of the contemporary Church Growth Movement? In fact, the words were written by J.C. Ryle more than a century ago. The pressure upon Christians in general, and preachers in particular, to be contemporary in the name of making the Gospel relevant is not a new one. The apostle Paul, knowing that preachers in every generation from his time to the end of the world would face that pressure, wrote to counter it. The apostle had himself determined to preach nothing in cosmopolitan Corinth except Christ crucified (1 Corinthians 2:1-2). He had reasoned with the sophisticated philosophers in Athens, not by offering to them a novel teaching for which they hungered, but by declaring to them the ancient truths of God as Creator and Sustainer of life, of man being a sinner in need of salvation, and of Christ being Redeemer and Judge (Acts 17:16ff). Accordingly, Paul set out a singular pastoral strategy for all ministers to follow. Preachers are to preach the Word (2 Timothy 4:1-5). They are not to analyze, anticipate, follow or set fads. Preachers are to preach and faithfully seek to apply the whole counsel of God whether men will listen and respond favorably or not. Yet, to hear many in the church today, one would think that Christ is not a rock upon whom we stand so much as a kite upon whom we fly, blown by the ever changing fads and fashions of these modern times. Today, unless we are conversant in the jargon of demographics, small and large group dynamics, homogeneous units, fund-raising and membership expanding drives, celebratory worship, and church architecture which aims to employ family life centers and food courts as tools to evangelize sinners and edify saints, we are made to feel that we are not only out of touch with the contemporary world, but are marginalized in the church, and are sinning against the Lord.
It has been said that the ABCs of success in today’s churches are: attendance, building, and cash – all in large quantities. As pervasive as such a value system is, one is struck with how devoid the Scriptures are of such considerations. Not a word in the New Testament is written about large church edifices or budgets. At times notice is given that great numbers were added to the ancient church. Yet, as much, if not more, attention in the Word is given to the conversion of single individuals, such as the Ethiopian eunuch, and to the nurture of small but faithful churches, such as the one at Phillipi. We must resist the pressures to let personal values achieve ascendancy over objective virtues; to let the building of material edifices and transient programs eclipse the building of character in immortal souls; and to let a fascination with what is new replace faithfulness to what is true.
Men in droves may want what is novel. That does not give us justification to disguise or deny the fact that the faith once delivered to the saints is ancient, though ever living and relevant. The mercies of our Lord are truly new every morning. Nevertheless, Christ himself is the same yesterday, today and forever.
 
I fear that many in the church today fancy themselves wiser and more caring than Jesus. Men today, being rich in the trinkets of this world, refuse, as did the rich young ruler, to renounce such rubbish and follow Jesus. Yet, whereas our Lord was grieved and let the rich young ruler go his way, many in our day would run after his modern counterparts, endeavoring to refashion the claims of Christ in terms more amenable to the hankering of those heading away from the Lord of life and glory. The problem with such endeavor – and it is a fatal flaw – is that men are competent to fashion only false gods. Neither is our Lord nor is his Gospel raw material to be worked into the shape we desire. We, not he, need changing.
I know a man who was interviewed by a committee to determine whether he would preach for a church. He was asked what programs he would offer to make the church contemporary and appealing to the young and the unchurched. He replied that his work was to preach the Word saturated in prayer, as that is the only strategy God has given to evangelize those in darkness and to build up the children of light. He was told that he would fail in the ministry if he did not modify his naive thinking. He replied that he would rather fail while faithfully preaching the whole counsel of God than to succeed by doing anything else. Far from that man’s ministry being a failure, it has for nearly two decades produced some of the richest, strongest, most tenderly loving, faithful, and fruitful believers in the world today. While that ministry has gone on largely out of season, there are signs that it may soon be in season. Thanks be to God, whose Word and Spirit sustain his people through all seasonal changes, as fads can never do.

"THE BOOK OF ACTS" The First Gospel Sermon (2:22-41) by Mark Copeland

                          "THE BOOK OF ACTS"

                   The First Gospel Sermon (2:22-41)

INTRODUCTION

1. With the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost...
   a. The promises of Joel, John the Baptist, and Jesus were being fulfilled!
   b. As foretold by Joel and John, a time of judgment and salvation was at hand!

2. After explaining the meaning of the miraculous events on that day, Peter...
   a. Quickly diverted their attention from the miracles to the message
   b. A message involving a crucified, risen, and exalted Lord!

[With Peter's message we find the proclamation of "The First Gospel
Sermon." For the first time, the gospel of Christ was preached and people
were told how to respond.  Let's take a closer look at...] 

I. THE SERMON

   A. JESUS ATTESTED BY GOD...
      1. Peter proclaims Jesus as a Man attested by God through His miracles - Ac 2:22
      2. Done in their midst, they could not deny the signs Jesus did while alive!

   B. JESUS PUT TO DEATH...
      1. By crucifixion, which they themselves did with lawless (Roman) hands - Ac 2:23
      2. Though according to God's predetermined purpose and foreknowledge
           - cf. Isa 53:10-12
      3. Jesus' death and their involvement they could not deny!

   C. JESUS RAISED FROM THE DEAD...
      1. God raised Jesus, having loosed the pains of death - Ac 2:24
      2. Peter offered three proofs that Jesus rose from the dead
         a. David's prophecy, fulfilled in Jesus - Ac 2:25-31; cf. Ps 16:8-11
         b. Eyewitness testimony, by the twelve apostles - Ac 2:32; cf. Ac 1:21-22
         c. Outpouring of the Spirit, which the audience themselves saw and heard 
             - Ac 2:33
      3. Compelling evidence to those who were present!

   D. JESUS EXALTED AS LORD AND CHRIST...
      1. The outpouring of the Spirit was the result of Jesus' exaltation - Ac 2:33
      2. Jesus' exaltation was also prophesied by David - Ac 2:34-35; cf. Ps 110:1
      3. Thus the crucified Jesus was now Lord and Christ! - Ac 2:36

[Powerfully, effectively, Peter presented Jesus as a good man who was
crucified, raised from the dead, and now exalted as both Lord and Christ.
As we continue, let's notice...]

II. THE RESPONSE

   A. THE REACTION...
      1. They were cut to the heart (convicted of their sin) - Ac 2:37
         a. This implies they believed the message about Jesus
         b. As told:  "know assuredly that God has made Jesus...Lord and Christ"
             - cf. Ac 2:36  
      2. They asked Peter and the apostles, "What shall we do?" - Ac 2:37
         a. Indeed what can one do, what should one do?
         b. Some say there is nothing one can do, for that would suggest salvation by works
         c. But obedience is not inconsistent with salvation by faith 
            - cf. Ro 1:5; 6:17; 16:25-26
         d. Indeed, Christ is the author of salvation to all who obey! - He 5:9; cf. 1Pe 1:22
         e. Thus the gospel must be obeyed! - cf. 1Pe 4:17; 2Th 1:7-8
         f. Even as Paul was told to go to Damascus, where he would be told what he must do 
            - cf. Ac 9:6; 22:6
         g. And as Cornelius was to send for Peter, who would tell him what he must do 
             - cf. Ac 10:5-6,33,47-48

   B. THE REPLY...
      1. They were told to repent - Ac 2:38
         a. Which is what Jesus wanted His apostles to proclaim - cf. Lk 24:46-47
         b. To repent is to make the decision to turn from one's sins toward obeying God
      2. They were told to be baptized - Ac 2:38
         a. Which is what Jesus wanted His apostles to proclaim - cf. Mt 28:19; Mk 16:15-16
         b. To be immersed in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins - cf. Ac 22:16
      3. That they might received the gift of the Holy Spirit - Ac 2:38
         a. That is, to receive the Holy Spirit as a gift (for more, see here)
         b. Which had been promised and now poured out - cf. Ac 2:33
         c. And was now promised to all those who obey Christ - cf. Ac 2:39; 5:32

   C. THE RESULT...
      1. Following further exhortation:  "Be saved (save yourselves, ESV)
          from this perverse generation" - Ac 2:40
      2. 3000 gladly received his word and were baptized - Ac 2:41
      3. Those baptized were "added" by the Lord to His church - Ac 2:41; cf. Ac 2:47

CONCLUSION

1. What an amazing conclusion to a day that started with amazing events...
   a. Jesus was proclaimed as a crucified, raised and exalted Lord!
   b. Three thousand souls responded immediately to the gospel!

2. When the gospel is shared, what should people do...?
   a. Believe (know assuredly, with conviction that Jesus is the Lord who died for them)
       - Ac 2:36
   b. Repent of their sins (make the decision to turn from sin and turn to God) - Ac 2:38
   c. Be baptized for the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit - Ac 2:38-39

Is that what you were told to do when the gospel of Christ was shared
with you?  Or were you told a "different gospel" (cf. Ga 1:6-10)?  To
ensure that you are truly saved, make your response the same as those
souls on the Day of Pentecost...

   Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day
   about three thousand souls were added to them. ~ Ac 2:41
 
Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2012

"THE BOOK OF ACTS" The Outpouring Of The Spirit (2:1-21) by Mark Copeland

                          "THE BOOK OF ACTS"

                 The Outpouring Of The Spirit (2:1-21)

INTRODUCTION

1. In our previous lesson, we saw how Jesus's disciples waited for the
   promise of the Spirit...
   a. They assembled together - Ac 1:12-14
   b. They prayed together - Ac 1:14
   c. They prepared by selecting Matthias to replace Judas Iscariot - Ac 1:15-26

2. In Acts 2, we read of significant events that occurred on one day...
   a. The outpouring of the Spirit
   b. The first gospel sermon
   c. The beginning of the Lord's church

[In this lesson, let's direct our focus on the first:  the outpouring of the Spirit
Beginning with...]

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OUTPOURING

   A. THE DAY...
      1. It was the day of Pentecost - Ac 2:1
      2. Called the Feast of Weeks in the OT, celebrating the wheat harvest - Exo 34:22
      3. Pentecost means "fifty", observed fifty days after the Passover - Lev 23:15-16
      4. Thus observed on a Sunday, the first day of the week
      5. Jesus had ascended to heaven just ten days before - cf. Ac 1:3,9-11

   B. THE EVENT...
      1. "they were all with one accord in one place" - Ac 2:1
         a. The entire company of 120 disciples, or just the apostles?
         b. The pronoun "they" points back to the nearest antecedent noun ("apostles")
              - cf. Ac 1:26
         c. "They" were sitting in one house (120 people in one house?) - cf. Ac 2:2
         d. Those who spoke were Galileans, suggesting the apostles  - cf. Ac 2:6
         e. For the apostle  were from Galilee, while the 120 disciples were from all 
             over Palestine
      2. The sudden arrival of audible and visual signs - Ac 2:2-3
         a. A sound as of a mighty rushing wind, filling the house where they were sitting
         b. Divided tongues, as of fire, sitting upon each of them
      3. Enabling the apostles to speak in foreign languages - Ac 2:4-11
         a. They were filled with the Holy Spirit
         b. They began to speak with other tongues (i.e., foreign languages)
         c. Drawing the attention of devout Jews from other nations assembled for Pentecost
         d. Everyone heard them speak in their own language - cf. Ac 2:6,11

      C. THE REACTION...
         1. Those who understood were amazed and marveled, though perplexed 
              - Ac 2:7-8,12
         2. Those who did not understand the languages simply mocked  - Ac 2:13
         3. Peter explained that it was too early for them to be drunk - Ac 2:14-15

[The circumstances of the Spirit's outpouring were indeed amazing.  What
was significant about it...?]

II. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE OUTPOURING

   A. PROCLAIMED BY JOHN THE BAPTIST...
      1. One was coming who would baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire - Mt 3:11
      2. Separating wheat from chaff, gathering the one and burning the other - Mt 3:12

   B. FORETOLD BY JESUS...
      1. Jesus told His apostles this would happen - Ac 1:4-5
      2. It would empower them to be His witnesses - Ac 1:8

   C. EXPLAINED BY PETER...
      1. The events were prophesied by Joel - Ac 2:16; cf. Joel 2:28-32
      2. Who foretold of the Spirit's outpouring - Ac 2:17-18
      3. In a time of judgment (70 A.D.?), but also a time of salvation
         - Ac 2:19-21; cf. Mt 3:11-12
      4. What they saw and heard was also evidence of Jesus' resurrection and
         exaltation to the right hand of God as Lord and Christ! - cf. Ac 2:32-36

   D. MENTIONED BY PAUL...
      1. The Spirit had been poured out abundantly through Jesus Christ - Tit 3:5-7
         a. Saving people through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Spirit 
             - cf. Jn 3:5
         b. Leading to justification by grace and becoming heirs of eternal life 
             - cf. 1Co 6:11
      2. By the Spirit we have been baptized and drunk freely - 1Co 12:13
         a. Baptized into one body (i.e., the church) - cf. Col 1:18
         b. Made to drink of the Spirit - cf. Jn 7:37-39

CONCLUSION

1. With the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost...
   a. The promises of Joel, John the Baptist, and Jesus were being fulfilled
   b. It proved that Jesus rose from the dead and was exalted to the right hand of God!
   c. As foretold by Joel and John, a time of judgment and salvation was at hand!

2. With the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost...
   a. Some benefits were temporary, serving to reveal and confirm the Word
   b. Other benefits are age-lasting, offering salvation and
      sanctification to all who obey

We learn more of the work of the Holy Spirit as we make our way through
the Acts of the Apostles.  For now, remember what Peter said to those who
had witnessed the events on that day:

   Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be 
   baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins;
   and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the 
   promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar
   off, as many as the Lord our God will call." ~ Ac 2:38-39

Three thousand Jews responded favorably by being baptized on that day (Ac
2:41).  Have you responded in the same way...? 
 
Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2012

Husband and Wife in the Quran by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=8article=4993

Husband and Wife in the Quran

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The Islamic world has not distinguished itself over the centuries in its respect for and kind treatment of women (Austen, 2012; Thompson, 2011; Kotz, 2009; “Melbourne Islamic…,” 2009; “Missouri Couple…,” 1991; “Father of…,” 2008; Schoetz, 2008; “Raped…,” 2007). This observation is unprejudiced and hardly novel. Around the world for centuries, Islamic women have endured a subpar status with Islamic men. As General George S. Patton observed, having witnessed the impact of Islam on the countries of North Africa during World War II:
One cannot but ponder the question: What if the Arabs had been Christians? To me it seems certain that the fatalistic teachings of Mohammed and the utter degradation of women is the outstanding cause for the arrested development of the Arab. He is exactly as he was around the year 700, while we have kept on developing. Here, I think, is a text for some eloquent sermon on the virtues of Christianity (1947, p. 43, emp. added).
No doubt 7th and 8th century Arabian culture contributed to Muhammad’s view of women. However, the Quran stands on its own for its advocacy of female inferiority. For example, in Mohammed Pickthall’s translation of the Quran, Surah 4:34 reads:
Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great (emp. added).
A host of Islamic translations confirm this translation. The words in bold in Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s translation are rendered: “refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly).” Ahmed Raza Khan’s translation reads: “sleep apart from them, and beat them (lightly).” Maududi has “remain apart from them in beds, and beat them.” Wahiduddin Khan “refuse to share their beds, and finally hit them.” Shakir has “leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them.” Sarwar reads: “do not sleep with them and beat them.” Saheeh International reads: “forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them.” Qaribullah and Darwish have: “desert them in the bed and smack them (without harshness).” Qarai reads: “keep away from them in the bed, and [as the last resort] beat them” (Tanzil Project, 2007-2014).
Observe two startling realizations from this passage:
(1) The Quran explicitly gives sanction to Muslim men to beat their wives. Some translators try to soften the directive by inserting qualifiers like “lightly” (Ali, Raza Kahn) and “without harshness” (Qaribullah and Darwish), but the Arabic text is unqualified. In stark contrast, the Bible, while assigning differing roles and responsibilities based on gender, nowhere suggests that men have a right to inflict physical punishment on women. The intimidating, overbearing role of men in Islam is proof that the religion was invented by a male.
(2) The command to banish a wife to a separate bed implies at least three concepts that cast Islam and the Quran in an unfavorable light.
First, the Bible and the Quran contradict each other on this point. Paul instructed the Corinthian Christians:
Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control (1 Corinthians 7:2-5, emp. added).
The Quran says a man may sexually banish his wife, without her consent, as punishment for displeasing him. Yet Paul said a married couple is not to refrain from sexual relations except by mutual consent, and then only for a brief period. One cannot take the position that the Quran and the Bible are both from God. They contradict each other on many matters. Insisting that these differences are due to the Bible having being corrupted is an untenable and unsubstantiated explanation (Miller, 2005, p. 89; Miller, 2013).
Second, when one weighs both the Bible and the Quran’s portraits of deity, it quickly becomes self-evident to the unbiased observer which of the two books portrays the inspired view of women. The Bible contains the fair, compassionate, majestic perspective in taking into account both marriage partners as equals. As Peter stated so eloquently: “Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered” (1 Peter 3:7). Both male and female were made in God's image (Genesis 1:27).
Third, observe further how the Quran exposes its human origin, demonstrating that it came from man, not God. Women are “wired” differently from men. They have one-tenth the testosterone of men (“Testosterone,” 2011). To suggest that a man could punish his wife by the cessation of sexual relations with her is undoubtedly written from the perspective of a man, and not from the vantage point of most women.
Comparing the Bible with the Quran is a useful exercise. The process calls the inspiration of the Quran into question. At the same time, the Bible’s superiority is reinforced.

REFERENCES

Austen, Ian (2012), “Afghan Family, Led by Father Who Called Girls a Disgrace, Is Guilty of Murder,” The New York Times, January 29, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/30/world/americas/afghan-family-members-convicted-in-honor-killings.html?_r=0.
“Father of Slain Teen Girls Upset That Daughter Dated Non-Muslim, Police Records Show” (2008), Associated Press, January 9, http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/01/09/father-slain-teen-girls-upset-that-daughter-dated-non-muslim-police-records/.
Kotz, Pete (2009), “Faleh Almaleki Runs Over Daughter in Attempted ‘Honor Killing,’” True Crime Report, October 30, http://www.truecrimereport.com/2009/10/faleh_almaleki_runs_over_daugh.php.
 “Melbourne Islamic Cleric Says its OK to Rape Your Wife,” (2009), Herald Sun, January 21, http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/rudd-condemns-rape-in-marriage-cleric/story-e6freol3-1111118630585.
Miller, Dave (2005), “Is Mark 16:9-20 Inspired?” Reason & Revelation, 25[12]:89-95, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=572&article=433.
Miller, Dave (2013), “Has the Bible Been Corrupted?” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=4649.
“Missouri Couple Sentenced to Die In Murder of Their Daughter, 16” (1991), The New York Times, December 20, http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/20/us/missouri-couple-sentenced-to-die-in-murder-of-their-daughter-16.html.
Patton, George S. (1947), War As I Knew It (New York: The Great Commanders, 1994 edition).
“Raped ‘for reading Holy Bible’” (2007), News.com.au, April 17, http://www.news.com.au/national/raped-for-reading-holy-bible/story-e6frfkp9-1111113353497.
Schoetz, David (2008), “Daughter Rejects Marriage, Ends Up Dead,” ABC News, July 7, http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=5322587&page=1.
Tanzil Project (2007-2014), http://tanzil.net/#4:34.
“Testosterone” (2011), Lab Tests Online, American Association for Clinical Chemistry, http://labtestsonline.org/understanding/analytes/testosterone/tab/faq.
Thompson, Carolyn (2011), “Jury Convicts Muslim TV Exec of Beheading Wife,” Associated Press, February 9, http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/02/07/closing-arguments-begin-new-york-beheading-murder-trial/.

The New Testament: A Product of Man or God? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=830

The New Testament: A Product of Man or God?

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Skeptics frequently claim that the writers of the Bible such as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John “invented” moments in the life of Jesus. They question how the Gospel writers knew what Jesus thought and did when He was alone. How could Mark have known what Jesus prayed when He was alone in the Garden of Gethsemane? How did Matthew know what the devil said to Jesus when he tempted Him? Do such references reveal an inconsistency? Are these passages of dialogue in Scripture just reconstructions of the kind of thing a character might have said?
Our faith is not based upon what one might have said or what might be right. Our faith is based upon fact. Skeptics totally ignore the fact that the Bible writers were guided by the Holy Spirit. Before Jesus sent the apostles on the limited commission, He promised that the Holy Spirit would guide them supernaturally (Matthew 10:19-20). Later, as Jesus spoke to His apostles on the night of His betrayal, He said: “But the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you” (John 14:26, emp. added). Shortly thereafter He promised them: “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the truth” (John 16:13, emp. added).
Not only did Jesus promise that the Holy Spirit would come upon the apostles, but the apostles themselves claimed to be guided by the Holy Spirit when they taught the gospel. On the Day of Pentecost, the apostle Peter claimed the apostles had received the promised Spirit (Acts 2:33; cf. John 16:13). When Paul wrote to the brethren of Galatia, he told them that his teachings came to him “through revelation of Jesus Christ” (1:12). To the Ephesian brethren, Paul wrote that God’s message was “revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets” (3:5, NKJV). These men did not “invent” stories and teachings about Jesus and the church. Neither did they have to rely on their own cognizance to remember the events that took place twenty or thirty years prior to their writing. The reason is because the Holy Spirit revealed the Truth to them.
One might wonder, further, how Mark’s Gospel account can be considered inspired if he was not an apostle. Part of the answer can be found in Ephesians 3:5 where Paul claimed that the Holy Spirit had been revealed to Christ’s “apostles and prophets.” How was the Spirit given to prophets like Mark, Luke, James, and Jude? How can we accept these books as the Word of God? Answer: The apostles could lay hands on individuals and impart to them certain miraculous gifts. One of these gifts was the gift of prophecy (1 Corinthians 12:10). Thus, in addition to apostles, there were prophets in the early church who were guided by the Holy Spirit (Acts 13:1; Ephesians 2:20; 3:5).
Other evidence that points to the Scriptures being the authoritative Word of God is the early recognition of the inspiration of the New Testament. In 2 Peter 3:16, Peter put Paul’s letters on a par with the Old Testament Scriptures when he compared them to “the rest of the Scriptures.” In 1 Timothy 5:18, Paul quoted Luke 10:7 as “Scripture.” Within forty years after Paul had written his first epistle to the Corinthians, Clement of Rome wrote a letter to the Corinthian brethren, noting that apostle Paul wrote “under the inspiration of the Spirit” (The First Epistle of Clement, 47). Thus, the New Testament books were recognized as the inspired Word of God.
In short, none of the New Testament writers “invented” moments in the life of Jesus. Rather, just like the writers of the Old Testament, they were fully inspired by the Holy Spirit (cf. 2 Samuel 23:2, Acts 1:16, 2 Peter 1:20-21, 3:15-16, and John 16:13).

The Design's in the Details by Trevor Major, M.Sc., M.A.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=1338

The Design's in the Details

by  Trevor Major, M.Sc., M.A.

 Michael J. Behe (1996), Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: The Free Press), hardbound, 307 pages, $25.00.
Hailed by some as a coup for the cause of creation, this eagerly-awaited book does not disappoint. Michael Behe, associate professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, unabashedly argues a case for intelligent design in life. Others have tackled this same argument, but Behe breaks new ground in having his book printed by a division of a major publishing company (Simon & Schuster).
Behe presents three major points. First, he argues that evolution has to go further in explaining the origin of complete structures or organs. Currently, evolutionary speculations involve nothing more than arranging or rearranging a stockpile of preexisting components. Perhaps, following the most vociferous opponents of design such as Richard Dawkins, evolutionists could argue that the nerve cell, retina, cornea, and other parts of the eye came together accidentally. They may even offer a seemingly persuasive scenario whereby this occurred in gradual, successive steps. But this is woefully inadequate, Behe argues.
Following the title motif, the author likens the eye to a kind of black box, and its components to a series of smaller black boxes. A “black box” is a term drawn from the world of modern machines. It is something very complicated that an average mechanic will not touch. He will unplug it, send it away to the factory for repair, and replace it, but he will never open it up to fix anything inside. Someone could go to an airplane, for example, remove the black boxes, put them together with some fresh aluminum sheets and parts from other airplanes, and create a whole “new” design. But he will get nowhere without those preexisting, highly complicated black boxes. When special kinds of scientists—people such as biochemists—open up the black boxes of molecular machines, blood coagulation, and the metabolic pathway (to mention some of Behe’s favorite examples), they fail to find still smaller black boxes. At some point they run into “irreducible complexity”—a single system which, if any part were removed or crippled, would cease to perform its obvious function. But Behe does not merely throw down the gauntlet and walk away. He devotes considerable space to describing the irreducible complexity of the preceding examples, and shows the difficulty in explaining these systems by any sort of blind, unthinking, natural process.
In the second part of the book, Behe takes an unusual approach. He starts out by trying to find the evolutionists’ explanations for any complex biochemical system. A comprehensive search in a seemingly promising source, the Journal of Molecular Evolution, turns up very few attempts to explain the evolution of such systems. Some papers offer very imaginative, or very simplistic, solutions, but none offers a detailed Darwinian model. Behe broadens his search to other likely journals and textbooks, with the same result. He concludes that molecular evolution has not published and, therefore, it should perish.
Finally, Behe tries to establish that the search for intelligent design is possible without ruining science. He eliminates a couple of non-Darwinian, but naturalistic, proposals, and concludes that intelligent design is the only explanation for the irreducible complexity he observes. But the author also draws a distinction between the claims for design or evolution, and scientific proof for such claims. Presumably, Behe would expect to find many examples of design throughout nature, but he urges fellow scientists to look at each organism, part of an organism, or intricate system within the living world, on a case-by-case basis.
Overall, the book is very well-written and presented. Technical descriptions not crucial to the argument are set aside in specially-marked sections, and Behe (with some good editors, no doubt) has done a good job at writing on as popular a level as possible. The author does not hide his belief in God, but a few brief, sporadic comments indicate a desire to distance himself from young-Earth creationism. Perhaps these were intended to make the book more marketable, but they were unnecessary because Behe’s arguments stand without any reference to the age issue. Nonetheless, everyone should catch this glimpse of a design argument for the new millennium.
[For a somewhat objective critique of Darwin's Black Box by an evolutionist, with responses, see The Boston Review. For further reactions from evolutionists (especially ultra-Darwinists), see the (unofficial) Richard Dawkins site.]

It is not Enough to be JUST a Creationist by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=452

It is not Enough to be JUST a Creationist

by  Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

INTRODUCTION

Origins. The mere mention of the word stirs controversy, especially in our day and time when evolutionists battle creationists in oral debates, in print, in the news media, and even in the courts. Most people understand that when a discussion centers on origins, in reality it is an entire cosmogony—a whole system of thought regarding where we came from and why we are here—that is under consideration. Evolution and creation are admittedly “thorny” topics, and often evoke very strong, deeply seated emotions, because of the dichotomy that exists between the two concepts. The Universe and its inhabitants came into existence either through natural means (viz., evolution), or supernatural means (viz., creation), those being the only two possibilities.
However, it is not my purpose in this discussion to examine either the many fallacies of evolutionary theory, or the many reasons why biblical creationism should be accepted and defended. Instead, my comments will be directed at people who accept the Bible as God’s inspired, inerrant Word, and who believe in the literal, historical account of creation as recorded in Genesis 1-2. The point I would like to make is that it is not enough to be just a creationist! Here is why I make such a statement.

IF CREATION, THEN WHAT?

James Coppedge, in his book, Evolution: Possible or Impossible?, remarked: “The growing evidence against evolution will eventually force American evolutionists to face the fact that the position is untenable. Some will then openmindedly explore the idea of creation, while others will doubtless persist in materialism at any cost” (1975, p. 180). Over the past several years, as the creation/evolution controversy has become both more public and more heated, and as the many scientific and biblical evidences for creation have come into view more clearly, there have been some who have made changes in their views on origins—abandoning their belief in evolution and accepting creation in its place. Good scientific evidence, and good biblical interpretation, establish the fact that they have made the right choice. And, of course, there always have been those who have accepted creation in the first place, and who simultaneously have rejected evolution.
But, is merely accepting “creation” enough? As unorthodox as my answer may seem at first glance, I suggest that the proper response to such a question must be an unequivocal “No.” It is not enough to be just a creationist. Please do not misunderstand. It is imperative that those people who wish to be pleasing to God accept what He has said regarding creation (or any other issue, for that matter). Henry Morris correctly observed:
They tell us not to “waste time on peripheral controversies such as the evolution-creation question—just preach the gospel,” not realizing that the gospel includes creation and precludes evolution! They say we should simply “emphasize saving faith, not faith in creation,” forgetting that the greatest chapter on faith in the Bible (Hebrews 11) begins by stressing faith in the ex nihilo creation of all things by God’s word (verse 3) as preliminary to meaningful faith in any of His promises (verse 13). They advise us merely to “preach Christ,” but ignore the Savior, and that His finished work of salvation is meaningful only in light of His finished work of creation (Hebrews 4:3-10). They may wish, in order to avoid the offense of the true gospel, to regard creation as an unimportant matter, but God considered it so important that it was the subject of His first revelation. The first chapter of Genesis is the foundation of the Bible; if the foundation is undermined, the superstructure soon collapses (n.d., p. 2, emp. in orig.).
Certainly, creation is important. But that is not all that is important. With the acceptance of either of the two systems of origins (evolution or creation) must come an acknowledgment of the implications and inferences that accompany each system. Acceptance of evolution, for example, will force an acceptance of the implications surrounding that system (e.g.: nothing supernatural exists, therefore, there is no God; man is nothing but an animal, religion is merely an “invention” of evolved man; naturalistic forces are responsible for everything we see and are, etc.). Acceptance of the biblical account of creation also forces acceptance of the implications surrounding that system (e.g.: there is a God, man is a creation of, and responsible to, that God; there is an objective, moral code given by the Creator, etc.). The question thus becomes: if creation is true, then what are some of the implications and inferences accompanying it, and how do these affect me?

IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO BE JUST A CREATIONIST

Acceptance of biblical creationism carries with it many implications. Space will not permit a discussion, or even a listing, of all of them. We would like, however, to mention one which we feel is perhaps the most basic of all: acceptance of the biblical concept of creation acknowledges the existence of the God of the Bible, and therefore His system of man’s salvation. In other words, my point in titling this tract as I have is this: it is not enough to be just a creationist; one also must believe exactly what God has said in regard to salvation as well. There will be many creationists who will not inherit heaven, because although they accepted God’s account of creation, they rejected His plan of salvation. That is to say, although there are many people who accept creation, who believe in God, and who claim to accept the Bible as His word, they will be lost because they are not New Testament Christians.
While it is important to be a creationist, it is more important to be a saved creationist. It is both admirable and commendable to defend the biblical account of creation, but it is of even greater importance to obey God’s commands regarding the salvation of one’s soul. How sad it will be to see those who, on the Day of Judgment, will be turned away from heaven in spite of the fact that they believed in the biblical account of creation. They were creationists, but they were not saved! Jesus Himself remarked:
Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works? And then will profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity (Matthew 7:21-23).
The Lord’s point is quite clear: there will be those people who were “good” people—doing works in “His name”—but who, in reality, had not done what He told them to do. They had built their houses on sand (human doctrines), not rock (the Lord’s commands). Consequently, their houses did not stand (see Jesus’ comments in Matthew 7:24-27).
Some will argue, of course, that there are many good and sincere people today who are creationists. That is no doubt true. But “sincerity” or “goodness” alone is not enough. No doubt Uzzah was “sincere” when he stretched forth his hand to steady the ark of the covenant of God as the oxen stumbled, and he thought the ark would be destroyed (2 Samuel 6:6ff.). But God struck him dead, because he disobeyed a direct command not to touch the ark (Numbers 4:15). Saul (later called Paul) was “sincere” in his persecution of the church, and even did what he did “in all good conscience” (Acts 22:19-20; Galatians 1:13; 1 Corinthians 15:9), yet God struck him blind (Acts 9:3-9). Paul later would admit, in his own writings, that he was sincere, but sincerely wrong. God does not want just sincerity. He wants obedience (John 14:15).
It is by the Word of God that we one day will be judged (John 12:48). That being the case, it behooves us to ask, “What does the Word of God say about my salvation?” Fortunately, the Scriptures are crystal clear on this important point. God has not left us without divine wisdom regarding what to do to get out of sin and into Christ. He has told us what to do to be saved. God wants creationists, yes. But God wants saved creationists! He does not want anyone to perish (2 Peter 3:9), yet only those who come to Him in the way He has stipulated will enjoy eternal life (Acts 17:30; John 14:6).

WHAT MUST ONE DO TO BE SAVED?

Jesus Christ, speaking as the Son of God, said: “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father but by me” (John 14:6). Jesus invites all men everywhere to enjoy salvation in Him (John 3:16). He came to “seek and save the lost” (Luke 19:10). Since “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23), all are lost and in need of being saved. What, then, must one do to be saved?
Obviously, one who accepts creation, and who wishes to seek the God of that creation, wants to be pleasing to that God. Hebrews 11:6 then becomes important: “And without faith it is impossible to be well-pleasing to him; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek after him.” How, then, does one build such a faith? Romans 10:17 provides the answer: “So faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” Thus, faith is built by the Word of God. In addition, however, there is the important step of believing that Jesus Christ is Who He claimed to be—the Son of God. John said: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.” He also stated: “He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life” (John 3:16,36).
Hearing and believing, however, are not enough according to the Scriptures. Repentance also is necessary. “The times of this ignorance therefore God overlooked; but now he commandeth all men everywhere that they should repent” (Acts 17:30). Jesus Himself said: “I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all in like manner perish” (Luke 13:3).
Once a person has heard the Gospel message, believed in Christ, and repented of his former sins, he then must be willing to confess publicly that Jesus is indeed the Son of God. “Every one therefore who shall confess me before men, him will I also confess before my Father who is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me, him will I also deny before my Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 10:32-33).
This person, then, who has heard, believed, repented, and confessed, is faced with one last, and very important question: How do I get rid of my sins? To a person who wishes to become a New Testament Christian, this is the single most pressing question in his or her life. What must a person do to get rid of sin? Once again, the answer is provided by Scripture. Examine Acts 22:16. What did Ananias tell Saul to do to get rid of his sins? “And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on his name.” Saul was told rid himself of his sins through baptism. Jesus Himself said: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16, emp. added). On the Day of Pentecost when the church was established, Peter commanded those people who wanted to know what to do to be saved, to “repent ye, and be baptized, every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins” (Acts 2:38, emp. added).
Where is salvation found? Salvation is found “in Christ.” Paul stated in 2 Timothy 2:10: “Therefore I endure all things for the elect’s sake, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory” (emp. added). Where are all spiritual blessings found? Spiritual blessings are found only “in Christ.” Paul wrote in Ephesians 1:3: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ” (emp. added).
The obvious question, then, is: How does one get “into Christ”? Baptism brings us “into Christ.” Paul told the first century Christians in Rome:
Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life (Romans 6:3-4).
He told the Galatians: “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ” (Galatians 3:27, emp. added). Peter said it was baptism that saves us (1 Peter 3:21). If we do as God has commanded, then his grace saves us because our faith has brought us in line with His teachings (cf. Ephesians 2:8-9). Baptism, of course, is neither more nor less important than any other of God’s commands regarding what to do to be saved. But it is necessary, and without it, one cannot be saved. One thing we know for certain—“faith only” is not enough. Belief in Christ is simply not enough. John 12:42 makes that clear. The rulers “believed on him; but because of the Pharisees, they did not confess it.” James said their “faith alone” did not save them (2:19). In fact, James even went so far as to say: “Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith” (2:24, emp. added). One must undergo baptism (immersion) in order to: (a) wash away sins, (b) get “into Christ” and (c) come into contact with the cleansing blood of Christ.
After a person becomes a New Testament Christian, the Lord Himself then adds that person to the church of Christ (Acts 2:47; cf. Romans 16:16), not any man-made denomination. That person becomes a member of the one church established by Christ (Matthew 16:18; Colossians 1:24; Ephesians 1:22; 4:4-6). He then is commanded by Scripture to live a faithful life, which will be followed by a crown of righteousness in heaven (Revelation 2:10).
It is not enough to be just a creationist; one must be a saved creationist. This article is written with an urgent plea to those who may be “creationists,” but who are not saved creationists. Many creationists will not enter heaven because they have not obeyed God’s simple commands regarding their own salvation. I urge you to consider your salvation. Have you done all that God commands in order to secure that salvation? If not, please read, and then re-read the Scriptures mentioned in this article, and come to the Lord in humble submission to His will, so that you can be a New Testament Christian as well as a creationist.

REFERENCES

Coppedge, James (1975), Evolution: Possible or Impossible? (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Morris, Henry M. (n.d.), “The Gospel of Creation and the Anti-Gospel of Evolution,” Impact Article No. 25 (San Diego, CA: Institute for Creation Research).

Did Moses Make a Scientific Mistake? by Wayne Jackson, M.A.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=113

Did Moses Make a Scientific Mistake?

by  Wayne Jackson, M.A.

Q.

The Bible speaks of two animals, the coney and the hare, as “chewing the cud.” Isn't the Bible mistaken on this point? These animals do not actually chew the cud, do they?

A.

An infidel once wrote: “Something that has long perplexed me is the way that inerrancy proponents can so easily find ‘scientific foreknowledge’ in obscurely worded Bible passages but seem completely unable to see scientific error in statements that were rather plainly written.” This skeptic then cited Leviticus 11:5-6, where the coney and the hare are said to chew the cud, and boasted that since these animals do not have compartmentalized stomachs like those in ruminants (e.g., the cow), Moses clearly made a mistake. What shall we say to this charge?
First, no scientific mistake can be attributed to the Bible unless all of the facts are fully known. In such an alleged case, the biblical assertion must be unambiguous. The scientific information must be factual. And an indisputable conflict must prevent any harmonization of the two. Do these criteria obtain in this matter? They do not.
Second, we must note that the words “coney” (Hebrew shaphan) and “hare” (arnebeth) are rare and difficult words in the Old Testament. The former is found but four times, and the latter only twice. The etymology of the terms is obscure. In the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament), shaphan is rendered by dasupoda, meaning “rough foot,” and arnebeth becomes choirogrullion, literally, “swine-pig.” Hence, identification becomes a factor. It is commonly believed, however, that the arnebeth is some species of hare, and that shaphan denotes the Syrian hyrax.
But, so it is claimed, neither of these chews the cud. A number of scholars have noted that both of these animals, even when at rest, masticate, much like the cow or sheep, and that Moses thus employed phenomenal language (i.e., describing something as it appears), for the purpose of ready identification, inasmuch as these creatures were ceremonially unclean and thus prohibited for use as food (Archer, 1982, p. 126).
That is not an impossible solution. Bats, for example, are listed along with birds in Leviticus 11, not because both are mammals, but simply because both fly. The Scriptures do not necessarily follow the arbitrary classification systems of man. When Christ said that the mustard seed is “less than all seeds,” (Matthew 13:33), He was speaking from the vantage point of the Palestinian citizen—not that of a modern botanist. We today employ phenomenal jargon when we speak of the Sun “rising and setting.” Technically, it is not correct to refer to a woman’s amniotic fluid as “water,” and yet doctors employ this language frequently. Why do we not allow the biblical writers as much literary license as we ourselves employ? The bias of agnosticism is utterly incredible.
There is, however, another factor that must be taken into consideration. Rumination does not necessarily involve a compartmentalized stomach system. One definition of “ruminate” is simply “to chew again that which has been swallowed” (Webster’s Dictionary). And oddly enough, that is precisely what the hare does. Though the hare does not have a multi-chambered stomach—which is characteristic of most ruminants—it does chew its food a second time. It has been learned rather recently that hares pass two types of fecal material.
In addition to normal waste, they pass a second type of pellet known as a caecotroph. The very instant the caecotroph is passed, it is grabbed and chewed again.... As soon as the caecotroph is chewed thoroughly and swallowed, it aggregates in the cardiac region of the stomach where it undergoes a second digestion (Morton, 1978, pp. 179-181).
This complicated process provides the rabbit with 100% more riboflavin, 80% more niacin, 160% more pantothenic acid, and a little in excess of 40% more vitamin B12 (Harrison, 1980, p. 121). In a comparative study of cows and rabbits, Jules Carles concluded that rumination should not be defined from an anatomical point of view (e.g., the presence of a four-part stomach); rather, it should be viewed from the standpoint of a mechanism for breeding bacteria to improve food. Cows and rabbits are similar in that both possess a fermentation chamber with microorganisms that digest otherwise indigestible plant material, converting it into nutrients. Some of the microorganisms in these two animals are the same, or very similar. Carles has stated that on this basis “it is difficult to deny that rabbits are ruminants” (as quoted in Brand, 1977, p. 104). Dr. Bernard Grzimek, Director of the Frankfurt Zoological Gardens in Germany, likewise has classified the hare as a ruminant (1975, pp. 421-422).
On the other hand, the hyrax also is considered by some to be a ruminant, based upon the fact that it has a multiple digestive process.
The hyrax has a very long protrusion, a caecum, and two additional caeca near the colon. At least one of these protrusions participates in decomposition of cellulose. It contributes certain enzymes necessary for breakdown of the cellulose (Morton, 1978, p. 184).
Grzimek’s Animal Life Encyclopedia (1975) considers the hyrax as a ruminant. Professor Joseph Fischel of the University of California has suggested that the biblical allusion to the coney as a cud-chewer probably was due “to the structure of its digestive system, the protuberances in its large stomach together with its appendix and maw possibly being regarded as analogous to a ruminant’s four stomachs” (1971, p. 1144). In his significant study of the intestinal microflora in herbivores, scientist Richard McBee observed that the hyrax has a fermentation chamber for the digestion of grass by microorganisms (as quoted in Brand, 1977, p. 103).
Finally, the precise meaning of gerah, rendered “chewing the cud” in most versions, is uncertain. Many orthodox Jews consider it simply to mean a second mastication, or the semblance of chewing. Samuel Clark stated that the meaning of gerah “became expanded, and the rodents and pachyderms, which have a habit of grinding with their jaws, were familiarly spoken of as ruminating animals” (1981, 1:546).
In view of the foregoing facts, it is extremely presumptuous to suggest that the Mosaic account contains an error relative to these creatures. A sensible interpretive procedure and/or an acquaintance with accurate information would have eliminated such a rash and unwarranted conclusion.

REFERENCES

Archer, Gleason (1982), Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Brand, Leonard R. (1977), “Do Rabbits Chew the Cud?,” Origins, 4(2):102-104.
Clark, Samuel (1981), “Leviticus,” The Bible Commentary, ed. F.C. Cook (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Fischel, Joseph W. (1971), “Hyrax,” Encyclopedia Judaica (New York: Macmillan).
Grzimek, Bernard, ed. (1975), Grzimek’s Animal Life Encyclopedia (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold).
Harrison, R.K. (1980), Leviticus (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press).
Morton, Jean Sloat (1978), Science in the Bible (Chicago, IL: Moody).

God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=2106

God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective

by  Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: The following article was written by A.P.’s staff scientist. He holds M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Texas at Arlington and Auburn University, respectively, with emphases in Thermal Science and Navigation and Control of Biological Systems.]
“[T]he principles of thermodynamics have been in existence since the creation of the universe” (Cengel and Boles, 2002, p. 2, emp. added). So states a prominent textbook used in schools of engineering across America. Indeed, these principles prove themselves to be absolutely critical in today’s engineering applications. Much of the engineering technology available today is based on the foundational truths embodied in the Laws of Thermodynamics. As the writers of one engineering thermodynamics textbook stated: “Energy is a fundamental concept of thermodynamics and one of the most significant aspects of engineering analysis” (Moran and Shapiro, 2000, p. 35). Do these laws have application to the creation/evolution debate as creationists suggest? What do they actually say and mean? How are they applied today in the scientific world? Let us explore these questions.
The word “thermodynamics” originally was used in a publication by Lord Kelvin (formerly William Thomson), the man often called the Father of Thermodynamics because of his articulation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics in 1849 (Cengel and Boles, p. 2). The term comes from two Greek words: therme, meaning “heat,” and dunamis, meaning “force” or “power” (American Heritage..., 2000, pp. 558,1795). Thermodynamics can be summarized essentially as the science of energy, including heat, work (defined as the energy required to move a force a certain distance), potential energy, internal energy, and kinetic energy. The basic principles and laws of thermodynamics are understood thoroughly today by the scientific community. Thus, the majority of the work with the principles of thermodynamics is done by engineers who simply utilize the already understood principles in their designs. A thorough understanding of the principles of thermodynamics which govern our Universe can help an engineer to learn effectively to control the impact of heat in his/her designs.

THE FIRST AND SECOND LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS

Though there are many important thermodynamic principles that govern the behavior of energy, perhaps the most critical principles of significance in the creation/evolution controversy are the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. What are these laws that not only are vital to the work of an engineer, but central to this debate?

The First Law

The First Law of Thermodynamics was formulated originally by Robert Mayer (1814-1878). He stated: “I therefore hope that I may reckon on the reader’s assent when I lay down as an axiomatic truth that, just as in the case of matter, so also in the case of force [the term used at that time for energy—JM], only a transformation but never a creation takes place” (as quoted in King, 1962, p. 5). That is, given a certain amount of energy in a closed system, that energy will remain constant, though it will change form (see Figure 1). As evolutionist Willard Young says in defining the First Law, “Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but can only be converted from one form to another” (1985, p. 8).
figurea
Figure 1
This principle, also known as the “conservation of energy principle” (Cengel and Boles, p. 2), can be demonstrated by the burning of a piece of wood. When the wood is burned, it is transformed into a different state. The original amount of energy present before the burning is still present. However, much of that energy was transformed into a different state, namely, heat. No energy disappeared from the Universe, and no energy was brought into the Universe through burning the wood. Concerning the First Law, Young further explains that
the principle of the conservation of energy is considered to be the single most important and fundamental ‘law of nature’ presently known to science, and is one of the most firmly established. Endless studies and experiments have confirmed its validity over and over again under a multitude of different conditions (p. 165, emp. added).
This principle is known to be a fact about nature—without exception.

The Second Law

In the nineteenth century, Lord Kelvin and Rudolph Clausius (1822-1888) separately made findings that became known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Suplee, 2000, p. 156). The Second Law builds on the first, stating that though there is a constant amount of energy in a given system that is merely transforming into different states, that energy is becoming less usable. Extending our wood burning illustration above, after the wood is burned, the total amount of energy is still the same, but transformed into other energy states. Those energy states (e.g., ash and dissipated heat to the environment) are less retrievable and less accessible (see Figure 2).
figure2
Figure 2
This process is irreversible. The implication, to be discussed below, is that the Universe is running out of usable energy. Lord Kelvin stated that energy is “irrevocably lost to man and therefore ‘wasted,’ though not annihilated” (as quoted in Thompson, 1910, p. 288). This principle is known as entropy. Simply put, entropy states that nature is tending towards disorder and chaos. Will the paint job on your house maintain its fresh appearance over time? Will your son’s room actually become cleaner on its own, or will it tend toward disorder? Even without your son’s assistance, dust and decay take their toll. Although work can slow the entropy, it cannot stop it. Renowned evolutionary science writer Isaac Asimov explained:
Another way of stating the Second Law then is “The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!” Viewed that way we can see the Second Law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself—and that is what the Second Law is all about (1970, p. 6).
Entropy is simply a fact of nature. Entropy can be minimized in this Universe, but it cannot be eradicated. That is where engineers come in. We must figure out ways of minimizing energy loss and maximizing useful energy before it is forever lost. Thousands of engineering jobs are dedicated to addressing this fundamental fact of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Your energy bill is affected directly by it. If the Second Law was not fixed, engineers could not develop the technology necessary to maximize usable energy, thereby lowering your energy costs.
This concept is analyzed and quantified by engineers using what thermodynamics textbooks call “efficiencies.” Efficiencies reduce to “energy out” (desired output) divided by “energy in” (required input) (Cengel and Boles, 2002, p. 249). For instance, a turbine is the “device that drives an electric generator” in steam, gas, or hydroelectric power plants (p. 188). By taking the actual work done by the turbine and dividing it by the work required to operate the turbine, an engineer can calculate the turbine’s efficiency. Discovering or designing ways to maximize that ratio can be lucrative business for an engineer.
Another type of efficiency is called “isentropic efficiency.” For a turbine, isentropic efficiency is essentially the ratio of the amount of work that is done by the turbine to the amount of work that could be done by the turbine if it were “isentropic,” or without entropy. Again, the closer an engineer can approach 100% efficiency, the better. However, engineers know they cannot reach 100% efficiency because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Energy loss is inevitable. As the engineering textbook Thermodynamics: An Engineering Approach states: “Well-designed, large turbines have isentropic efficiencies above 90 percent. For small turbines, however, it may drop even below 70%” (Cengel and Boles, p. 341).
Some engineers devote their entire careers to minimizing entropy in the generation of power from energy. All this effort is based on the principles established by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. These principles are established as fact in the scientific community. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines “law” as “a statement describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met” (2000, p. 993, emp. added). Since laws are invariable, i.e., unchanging and constant, they have no exceptions. Otherwise, they would not be classified as laws. Tracy Walters, a mechanical engineer working in thermal engineering, observed:
It has been my experience that many people do not appreciate how uncompromising the Laws of Thermodynamics actually are. It is felt, perhaps, that the Laws are merely general tendencies or possibly only theoretical considerations. In reality, though, the Laws of Thermodynamics are hard as nails, and...the more one works with these Laws, the deeper respect one gains for them (1986, 9[2]:8, emp. added).
Evolutionist Jeremy Rifkin stated that “the Entropy Law will preside as the ruling paradigm over the next period of history. Albert Einstein said that it is the premier law of all science; Sir Arthur Eddington referred to it as the ‘supreme metaphysical law of the entire universe’” (1980, p. 6). God designed it. Creationists believe it. Engineers use it. Evolutionists, as will be shown, cannot harmonize it with their theory.

ENGINEERING EXAMPLES EXHIBITING THERMODYNAMIC PRINCIPLES

Some evolutionists argue that creationists take the Laws out of context when applying them to the creation/evolution debate. Mark Isaak, the editor of the Index to Creationist Claims, for instance, alleges that creationists “misinterpret” the Second Law of Thermodynamics in their application of the law to the creation/evolution controversy (Isaak, 2003). So what is the proper context for the Laws of Thermodynamics? Do these principles apply to the debate or not? Are creationists “misinterpreting” the laws?
A host of examples could, of course, demonstrate how mechanical engineers use the Laws of Thermodynamics in design today. Without these laws being fixed and well-understood by the scientific community, such designs would be impossible. As explained earlier, the vast majority of the work engineers do with the laws today is in their application to nature, rather than the study of the laws themselves. The laws already are thoroughly understood. To determine if creationists are “misinterpreting” the Laws of Thermodynamics or inaccurately applying them to the creation/evolution debate, consider three engineering examples that demonstrate the Laws in action.
Example #1. Perhaps one of the most celebrated—and appreciated—engineering designs of the 20th century pertaining to thermodynamics is the air-conditioning system. Briefly explained, an air-conditioning unit is a machine that was designed to acquire a large quantity of air from a system (e.g., a home or the interior of a car), remove heat from that air, and then release the cooled air back into the system, while disposing of the heat into a “heat sink” (e.g., the outdoors). Simply stated, this process occurs through what many engineers call a vapor-compression refrigeration cycle (Moran and Shapiro, 2000, p. 517)—a cycle heavily rooted in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In this cycle, a fluid (called a “refrigerant”) in “super-heated” vapor form flows through a pipe and into a compressor where it is compressed into a hotter gas with a higher pressure. From the compressor, the gas moves into the next phase of the cycle, composed of a set of coils (a condenser). As the refrigerant flows through the condenser, some of the heat is removed, and the refrigerant condenses into a liquid. Moving through an expansion valve, the refrigerant is “throttled” into a colder, lower-pressure mixture of liquid and vapor.
One principle of thermodynamics, as noted originally in 1824 by the French physicist Sadi Carnot (Suplee, 2000, p. 156), indicates that in a system, heat will move from higher temperature sources to lower temperature sources until an equilibrium temperature is reached (Incropera and DeWitt, 2002, p. 2). This principle is directly utilized in the final step of the cycle. In this step, the low temperature refrigerant exiting the expansion valve moves through a set of coils called the evaporator that absorbs heat from the refrigerated area. At this point, the refrigerant has absorbed enough heat to return to its initial vapor state, and is ready to repeat the cycle.
In what way did the thermodynamic laws come into play in this process? One of the major responsibilities of the engineer is to take the principles stated by the laws of science and understand them enough to be able to apply them in new designs. In order to apply scientific laws, engineers must formulate ways to quantify the concepts articulated by those laws. In the case of the above example, engineers must take the principles stated in the Laws of Thermodynamics in particular and quantify them. To apply the First Law of Thermodynamics to design, engineers must first quantify the energy that is or will be present in a system (work, potential energy, kinetic energy, heat, internal energy, etc.). As the First Law states, the amount of energy present in the system remains constant during a closed system process—a system that “consists of a fixed amount of mass, and no mass can cross its boundary” (Cengel and Boles, 2002, p. 9). The engineer must calculate the amount of energy utilized within a system before a process and set it equal to the amount of energy present in the system after the process. The energy may change forms (i.e., work is partially transformed into heat), but the total amount of energy in the system remains constant.
Considering the above example again, engineers would quantify the energy that is being inserted into the system (such as the electrical energy required to run the compressor) and the energy that results from the processes in the system (such as the heat released into the “heat sink”). The energy would then be equalized, with a primary concern being to achieve the optimum usable energy as an output, understanding that there will be a certain amount of wasted energy due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics (see Figure 3). The more usable energy achieved in the system processes, the more financially desirable the process, and the less energy wasted.
figure6
Figure 3
In order to facilitate this endeavor, a quantification of the principles inherent in the Second Law of Thermodynamics is essential. As noted earlier, efficiencies are essentially a measure of the usable energy achieved during a process. Achieving optimum energy efficiencies in the design of different machines helps to reduce the inevitable entropy implied by the Second Law.
Again, in the above example, in order to accomplish the refrigeration cycle, a compressor is used. To run the compressor, work (energy) must be used to compress the refrigerant to the right pressure to go through the condenser. Engineers must design these compressors to yield optimum efficiency, taking the Second Law into account, since the refrigeration/air conditioning process is not an isentropic one (i.e., a process with no entropy). The amount of energy required to operate the compressor to pressurize the refrigerant is more than the heat transfer that will occur from the hot room to the hotter outdoors due to the presence of the Second Law. In other words, usable energy is lost along the way (see Figure 4). This unalterable principle, which governs and permeates all of nature, will be shown to contradict the theory of evolution. Available energy is gradually being consumed. Engineers can slow the process, making the loss as efficient as possible, and maximizing energy usage. However, energy loss cannot be stopped due to the existence of the exceptionless Second Law of Thermodynamics.
figure4
Figure 4
Example #2. A second thermodynamic engineering example is seen in much of today’s electronic equipment. For example, a computer has many microchips (see Figure 5). Due to an understanding of the First Law of Thermodynamics, when work is done within a computer by a microchip, an extremely high amount of heat is released to its surroundings. As noted earlier, the Laws stipulate that the amount of energy that goes into a process must equal the amount of energy that results after the process. As computers get more powerful, the heat energy output becomes a more serious problem, especially considering that the computer components are moving closer to each other as computers become more compact. The intense heat that radiates from chips must be transferred away from the computer, or melting will occur among the system components. Faced with this significant problem, engineers are called upon for solutions. How can we continue to decrease the size of computers, increase their power, and still have the ability to transfer enough heat out of them to preserve their components? By adjusting the amount of power input and the rate at which heat is released in the First Law equation, engineers can ensure that the system will not be overloaded with heat.
figure5
Figure 5
Example #3. A third example of how engineers use thermodynamic principles in design is demonstrated by the examination of a vapor power plant that produces electrical power (see Figure 6). Similar to the air conditioning system, the vapor power plant cycle also often is composed of four components. According to Moran and Shapiro, in this cycle liquid water is passed through a boiler which has a heat input. The water then changes phase to a vapor and enters a turbine, where it expands and develops a work output from the turbine (electrical power). The temperature of the vapor drops in the turbine and then goes through a condenser where heat is passed from the vapor into a “cold reservoir.” Some of the vapor condenses to a liquid phase. The water then passes into a pump (compressor) where the water is returned to its initial state before repeating the cycle (2000, p. 229). Again, engineers recognize the limitations imposed by the Second Law, and must minimize entropy as much as possible when designing the turbine and pump (recognizing entropy cannot be eliminated). The more efficient the cycle components are designed, the more power the world gets and the less wasted energy there will be.
figure6
Figure 6
To recap, the engineering community utilizes the simple concepts inherent in the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics—laws which govern nature in a very straightforward manner. The First Law: Energy in any closed system is constant. The amount of energy in a system before a process must equal the amount of energy that is in the system after the process (though it will change form). The Second Law: The energy in a given system is becoming less usable. Some of the usable energy inevitably will be lost, no matter what measures are taken. It would be beneficial if entropy were zero for an automobile’s fuel system. We could buy one tank of gas and simply reuse all of its energy indefinitely! The fuel would not transform into wasted, less usable forms (heat, exhaust, etc.).

IMPLICATIONS OF THE LAWS

When understood properly, the Laws of Thermodynamics apply directly to the creation/evolution controversy in precisely the same way they apply in the above examples to the work of engineers. In fact, these foundational truths utilized daily by the engineering world, have eternally significant, spiritual implications in that they prove that God exists. How so?
If there is no God, the existence of the Universe must be explained without Him. The Big Bang theory claims that all matter in the Universe initially was condensed in a sphere the size of a period at the end of this sentence (see Thompson, et al., 2003, 23[5]:32-34,36-47). However, this theory offers no explanation for the origin of that sphere. The only logical possibilities for its existence are that it popped into existence out of nothing (spontaneous generation), it always existed, or it was created (see Figure 7).
figure7
Figure 7

Possibility 1: Spontaneous Generation of the Universe

Consider the entire physical Universe as a system consisting of all mass/matter/energy that exists in the Universe. Without a God, this Universe would have to be a closed system. Since our system encompasses the entire Universe, there is no more mass that can cross the system’s boundary, which necessitates our system being closed—without the existence of God. If mass, matter, and energy could enter and/or exit the system, the system would be an open system—which is the contention of a creationist. However, without a God, the entire physical Universe as a system logically would have to be a closed system. Atheists must so believe in order to explain the Universe without God.
The First Law of Thermodynamics states that in a closed system, the amount of energy present in that system is constant, though it transforms into other forms of energy, as in the case of the above compressor. So, if the Universe as a whole initially contained no mass/matter/energy (energy input is equal to zero), and then it spontaneously generated all of the mass/matter/energy in the Universe (energy output is unequal to zero), the First Law would be violated. Applying the earlier example of the compressor, this circumstance would be equivalent to saying that the sum total heat loss and compressor work is greater than the electrical input—which is impossible. Without intervention from an outside force, the amount of mass/matter/energy in the Universe would have remained constant (unchanged) at zero. As was mentioned earlier, there are no exceptions to laws, or else they would not be laws. The First Law of Thermodynamics has no known exceptions. As previously explained, the Law is accepted as fact by all scientists in general and utilized by engineers in particular. Therefore, the Universe, composed of all mass/matter/energy, could not have spontaneously generated (popped into existence on its own) without violating the exceptionless and highly respected First Law of Thermodynamics. The energy level of the Universe would not have been constant. Spontaneous generation would be the equivalent of a zero energy input to a system and a non-zero output (see Figure 8). The Universe could not have come into existence without the presence and intervention of a Force outside of the closed system of the entire physical Universe. The Universe therefore must be an open system that was created by a non-physical force (not composed of mass/matter/energy) outside of the physical boundary of this Universe (above nature, or supernatural) with the capability of bringing it into existence out of nothing. That Force can be none other than the supernatural God of the Bible. Scientifically speaking, the Universe could not and did not spontaneously generate.
figure8
Figure 8
Unfortunately, though this truth is so glaringly obvious, there has been a recent surge of sentiment in the impossible notion that this Universe could have created itself—that something could come from nothing. British evolutionist Anthony Kenny (1980), physics professor from City University in New York, Edward Tryon (1984), and physicists Alan Guth from MIT and Paul Steinhardt of Princeton (1984) are just a few who are open proponents of this notion. However, the truth still stands. Until the First Law of Thermodynamics ceases to be a fundamental law explaining this Universe, the spontaneous generation of this Universe from nothing is impossible.

Possibility 2: Eternal Existence of the Universe

Again, considering the entire Universe as a system necessitates that it be a closed system. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that though energy in a closed system is constant (First Law of Thermodynamics), that energy is transforming into less usable forms of energy (i.e., the Universe is “running down”). This process is irreversible. There is a finite amount of usable energy in the Universe (which explains the widespread interest in conserving energy). That usable energy is depleting according to the Second Law, as illustrated by the less usable heat output in the examples cited earlier. Engineers strive to slow this inevitable depletion of energy, but it cannot be stopped. If the Universe has always existed (i.e., it is eternal), but there is a finite amount of usable energy, then all usable energy already should be expended (see Figure 9). Yet, usable energy still exists. So, the Universe cannot have existed forever. It had to have a beginning. The eternality of matter would be the equivalent of a system with an energy input and 100% usable energy output (see Figure 10).
figure9
Figure 9
figure10
Figure 10
No wonder the evolutionists, themselves, sometimes concede this truth. In his book, Until the Sun Dies, renowned evolutionary astronomer Robert Jastrow stated:
The lingering decline predicted by astronomers for the end of the world differs from the explosive conditions they have calculated for its birth, but the impact is the same: modern science denies an eternal existence of the Universe, either in the past or in the future (1977, p. 30, emp. added).
In his book, God and the Astronomers, Dr. Jastrow reiterated this truth: “Now three lines of evidence—the motions of the galaxies, the laws of thermodynamics, the life story of the stars—pointed to one conclusion; all indicated that the Universe had a beginning” (p. 111).

Possibility 3: The Inevitable Implication

To repeat, there are only three possible explanations for the existence of matter in the Universe. Either it spontaneously generated, it is eternal, or it was created. Atheists use the theory of evolution in an attempt to explain the existence and state of the Universe today. In order for the theory of evolution to be true, thereby accounting for the existence of mankind, either all of the mass/matter/energy of the Universe spontaneously generated (i.e., it popped into existence out of nothing), or it has always existed (i.e., it is eternal.). Without an outside force (a transcendent, omnipotent, eternal, superior Being), no other options for the existence of the Universe are available. However, as the Laws of Thermodynamics prove, the spontaneous generation and the eternality of matter are logically and scientifically impossible. One possible option remains: the Universe was created by the Creator.

CONCLUSION

Evolutionists claim that science and the idea of God are irreconcilable. “Only one of them can be the truth,” they say, “and you cannot prove there is a God.” However, the Laws of Thermodynamics, which science itself recognizes in its explanations of the phenomena in the Universe, were designed by the Chief Engineer. As expected, they prove to be in complete harmony with His existence, contrary to the claims of evolutionists. God, Himself, articulated these laws centuries ago. At the very beginning of the Bible, the First Law of Thermodynamics was expressed when Moses penned, “Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the seventh day, God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done” (Genesis 2:1-2, emp. added). After the six days of Creation, the mass/matter/energy creation process was terminated. As evolutionist Willard Young said regarding the First Law: “Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but can only be converted from one form to another” (Young, 1985, p. 8). Through the hand of the Hebrews writer, God also articulated centuries ago what scientists call the Second Law of Thermodynamics: “You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands; they will perish, but You remain; and they will all grow old like a garment” (1:10-11, emp. added).
The inspired writer wrote in Hebrews 11:3, “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.” Paul declared in Acts 14:17, “Nevertheless He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good, gave us rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.” The psalmist affirmed, “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork” (19:1). Paul assured the Romans, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse” (1:20, emp. added).
In closing, we return to Lord Kelvin, the Father of Thermodynamics, for fitting final thoughts.
I cannot admit that, with regard to the origin of life, science neither affirms nor denies Creative Power. Science positively affirms Creative Power. It is not in dead matter that we live and move and have our being [Acts 17:28—JM], but in the creating and directing Power which science compels us to accept as an article of belief.... There is nothing between absolute scientific belief in a Creative Power, and the acceptance of the theory of a fortuitous concourse of atoms.... Forty years ago I asked Liebig, walking somewhere in the country if he believed that the grass and flowers that we saw around us grew by mere chemical forces. He answered, “No, no more than I could believe that a book of botany describing them could grow by mere chemical forces”.... Do not be afraid of being free thinkers! If you think strongly enough you will be forced by science to the belief in God, which is the foundation of all religion. You will find science not antagonistic but helpful to religion (as quoted in Smith, 1981, pp. 307-308, emp. added).
So, according to the Father of Thermodynamics, evolutionists are failing to “think strongly enough.” No wonder the psalmist asserted: “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (14:1).

REFERENCES

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2000), (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin), fourth edition.
Asimov, Isaac (1970), “In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can’t Even Break Even,” Smithsonian Institute Journal, pp. 4-10, June.
Cengel, Yunus A. and Michael A. Boles (2002), Thermodynamics: An Engineering Approach (New York: McGraw-Hill), fourth edition.
Guth, Alan and Paul Steinhardt (1984), “The Inflationary Universe,” Scientific American, 250:116-128, May.
Incropera, Frank P. and David P. DeWitt (2002), Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer (New York: John Wiley & Sons), fifth edition.
Isaak, Mark (2003), “Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution,” The TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy, [On-line], URL: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof.
Jastrow, Robert (1977), Until the Sun Dies (New York: W.W. Norton).
Jastrow, Robert (1978), God and the Astro­nomers (New York: W.W. Norton).
Kenny, Anthony (1980), The Five Ways: St. Thomas Aquinas’ Proofs of God’s Existence (South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press).
King, A.L. (1962), Thermophysics (San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman).
Moran, Michael J. and Howard N. Shapiro (2000), Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics (New York: John Wiley & Sons), fourth edition.
Rifkin, Jeremy (1980), Entropy: A New World View (New York: Viking).
Smith, Wilbur M. (1981), Therefore Stand (New Canaan, CT: Keats Publishing).
Suplee, Curt (2000), Milestones of Science (Washington, D.C.: National Geographic Society).
Thompson, Bert, Brad Harrub, and Branyon May (2003), “The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique [Part 1],” Reason & Revelation, 23[5]:32-34,36-47.
Thompson, Silvanus P. (1910), Life of Lord Kelvin (London: Macmillan).
Tryon, Edward P. (1984), “What Made the World?,” New Scientist, 101:14-16, March 8.
Walters, Tracy (1986), “A Reply to John Patterson’s Arguments,” Origins Research, 9[2]:8-9, Fall/Winter.
Young, Willard (1985), Fallacies of Creationism (Calgary, Alberta, Canada: Detselig Enterprises).