|
CHAPTER 6
ABIOGENESIS
Abiogenesis is the term used to describe the historical event in
which atoms and molecules became organized as living conglomerates,
a complex transition as profound as the conversion of raw sand,
gypsum, wood, silica and metal ores into an office building. There
is a massive schism between an aggregate of the basic elements
comprising the universe swirling around on a dead planet and the
first extremely complex, functional structures we call living things
represented by fossils of thermophilic blue-green algae, thought to
be 3.9 billion years old. In order to get a feel for how vast this
gap is, consider the bridge that would be necessary to travel from a
chemical mixture being energized randomly with super-heated water,
lighting bolts or radiation from space to the miracle of complexity
and information detailed below. It is a simple living cell,
the most basic form of what we consider life, described by
micro-biologist Michael Denton in his book, “Evolution, a Theory in
Crisis.” That cell, magnified a thousand million times until it is
15 miles across, would appear thus.
“What we would see then would be an object of unparalleled
complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we
would see millions of openings, like the port-holes of a vast space
ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials
to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings
we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and
bewildering complexity. We would see endless highly organized
corridors and conduits branching in every direction away from the
perimeter of the cell, some leading to the central memory bank in
the nucleus and others to assembly plants and processing
units. The nucleus itself would be a vast spherical chamber
more than a kilometer in diameter, resembling a geodesic dome inside
of which we would see, all neatly stacked together in ordered
arrays, the miles of coiled chains of the DNA molecules. A
huge range of products and raw materials are being transported to
and from all the various assembly plants in the outer regions of the
cell.
We would wonder at the level of control implicit in the movement of
so many objects down so many seemingly endless conduits, all in
perfect unison. We would see all around us, in every direction
we looked, all sorts of robot-like machines. We would notice
that the simplest of the functional components of the cell, the
protein molecules, were astonishingly complex pieces of molecular
machinery, each one consisting of about three thousand atoms
arranged in highly organized 3-D spatial conformation. We
would wonder even more as we watched the strangely purposeful
activities of these weird molecular machines, particularly when we
realized that, despite all our accumulated knowledge of physics and
chemistry, the task of designing one such molecular machine – that
is one single functional protein molecule – would be completely
beyond our capacity at present and will probably not be achieved
until at least the beginning of the… (21st century). Yet the
life of the cell depends on the integrated activities of thousands,
certainly tens, and probably hundreds of thousands of different
protein molecules.
We would see that nearly every feature of our own advanced machines
had its analogue in the cell: artificial languages and their
decoding systems, memory bands for information storage and
retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly
of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices
utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the
principle of prefabrication and modular construction. In fact,
so deep would be the feeling of deja-vu, so persuasive the analogy,
that much of the terminology we would use to describe this
fascinating molecular reality would be borrowed from the world of
late twentieth-century technology.
What we would be witnessing would be an object resembling an immense
automated factory, a factory larger than a city and carrying out
almost as many unique functions as all the manufacturing activities
of man on earth. However, it would be a factory which would
have one capacity not equaled in any of our most advanced machines,
for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a
matter of a few hours. To witness such an act at a
magnification of one thousand million times would be an
awe-inspiring spectacle.
To gain a more objective grasp of the level of complexity the cell
represents, consider the problem of constructing an atomic
model. Altogether a typical cell contains about ten million
atoms. Suppose we choose to build an exact replica to a scale
of one thousand million times that of the cell so that each atom of
the model would be the size of a tennis ball. Constructing
such a model at the rate of one atom per minute, it would take fifty
million years to finish, and the object we would end up with would
be the giant factory, described above, some twenty kilometers in
diameter, with a volume thousands of times that of the Great
Pyramid.”
There are statistical and chemical categories of evidence directly
refuting any assertion that the engineering marvel described above
could have originated strictly through natural means.
Furthermore, the explanation naturalists typically offer for the
origin of a living cell should be ignored simply because of its
irrelevancy to the issue at hand. We will look at that “explanation”
first.
Darwinists glibly but feloniously apply the principals of mutation
and natural selection to the world of chemistry. Those
principals are not relevant to non-living molecular structures,
however. Something has to be alive in order to metabolize and
reproduce and natural selection can only operate on organisms that
reproduce. We see minor mutations causing changes in species
in the form of micro-evolution. Darwinists then use this data
to support speculation that the same thing occurs in larger groups
of organisms, macro-evolution, which has been exposed as a giant
leap of faith on their part. But at least that leap warrants
investigation. They have, however, absolutely no grounds
whatsoever for claiming that principals of “random genetic mutation”
& “natural selection” apply to non-living structures and the
allegation doesn’t really deserve to be entertained.
Suppose a city’s organizational scheme changed over time because the
course of a river meandering through it shifted randomly during the
city’s history. This would be an example of two principals, “random
course alteration” (mutation) and “natural re-organization” (natural
selection), causing the geographic evolution of a city, a fact
easily confirmed by on-going observation and historical maps of the
city. But would our conviction that the city’s organizational
pattern had evolved over time also justify utilizing the principals
of random course alteration and natural re-organization to explain
the origin of the city’s very first structure, an outer wall made of
bricks. In other words, could we say with credibility that
those principals caused some bricks to form from river mud and then
assemble themselves into walls and ramparts? Of course
not! In our analogy, principals affecting the changing
organizational pattern of the city over time can hardly be used to
explain that city’s origin. It is an example of expanding the
causal influences of the river beyond reason and the same holds true
for the principals of mutation and natural selection as inadequate
explanations for the origin of a cell. In the latter case, the
causal influences were broadened beyond their scope simply to
support a philosophical commitment. Mutation and natural
selection could only have been exerted as causal influences if the
phenomena of self-duplication was present during the process that
produced the first living cell, and it was not.
Think of the cell described by Denton as a mobile shoe factory
filled with automated machines that process and gather the material
necessary to build an exact replica of the “mother factory” every 6
months, as well as making shoes. The factory is made of concrete,
steel, glass, and so forth, and the automated machines are made of
copper wire, cables and ball bearings. All are precisely
fitted together. Similarly, the cell is constructed of sugars,
phosphates and amino acids precisely fitted together to form
proteins that make up the functional systems of the cell. The
proteins are analogous to the automated machines. The factory
may change in appearance and function over time, that is evolve,
because of random events. If it accidentally made a duplicate of
itself that was more efficient, maybe because its machines
fortuitously gathered some crude oil instead of compost as fuel, the
duplicate might produce shoes faster, thus making it more likely to
survive in the volatile shoe market. Eventually the duplicate might
become dominant and replace the original factory. But how could a
random assembly of nuts, bolts and wire vaguely resembling a robotic
arm, for example, have a better chance of evolving into an automated
robotic machine than a neighboring random assembly of nuts, bolts
and wire that appeared to be a piece of useless junk? Neither
“hardware molecule” could reproduce and then “submit” a potentially
more viable “mutant offspring” to an imaginary marketplace of
“machine molecules” waiting to be bonded as a completed robotic
machine. The whole idea is absurd but these same ideas are applied
to the origin of cells. Amino acids, sugars and other inorganic
molecules, the building blocks of life, have no way of reproducing
themselves. A random assembly of such material would stay just that,
a non-living inorganic conglomerate of atoms. Simply put, the
evolutionary principles of mutation and natural selection do not
apply to amino acids or sugars any more than they apply to the nuts
and bolts filling the bins in a hardware store. Let’s say a
simple hardware molecule appeared because a nut and washer threaded
themselves onto a bolt when someone shook a hardware bin. How
could this haphazard union of hardware become more fit for survival
by possibly becoming a different size in order to meet the
specifications of some future, but as yet notional, robotic arm
unless it knew in advance where it was going to be inserted? And
more significant, how could it do this unless it could reproduce
itself and give birth to some mutated siblings that might meet the
future specifications? The point is this. The evolutionary
principals of random mutation and natural selection do not offer any
sort of explanation for the origin of the first living cell.
Statistical probability experts and organic chemists not only agree
that a living cell could not have originated through evolutionary
principals but condemn another evolutionary theory postulating that
the first living cell resulted from a series of undirected chance
chemical reactions and that natural selection wasn’t necessary.
Consider the following.
All living cells, whether they are simple bacteria or the tissue of
a human brain, have as their nucleus DNA and are made of protein
molecules. DNA is a complex macro-molecule constructed in such
a way that it stores and furnishes the information necessary for
metabolism and reproduction of the organism which it represents. It
holds within itself the instructions for this function in an
alphabet made up of four chemical “bases” called nucleotides. Each 3
base “triplet” in the long chain of bases making up DNA specifies a
particular amino acid out of exactly twenty. There are many
more but only the select twenty are used in biological
systems. A specific sequence of amino acids spelled out in
triplet code represents a particular protein. A molecule
similar to DNA named RNA then copies the sequence and transfers the
information to the manufacturing area of the cell. There the
specific protein is constructed and transported to its ultimate
cellular location where it performs a precise metabolic
function. It may have an assembly or transport function or be
part of the protective cellular membrane, or catalyze other
metabolic processes or perform any one of hundreds of other
functions. If the proteins are not coded for and manufactured
correctly, the cells they are a part of will die and ultimately the
organism the cells are a part of will die as well.
Organic chemists are now demonstrating that chemical reactions
between various amino acids, sugars, phosphates and other inorganic
molecules will not build the complex systems described above, and
many of them go out on a professional limb and say that intelligent
design was necessary. Thaxton, Bradley and Olsen in the “The Mystery
of Life’s Origin” detail why. It is a book well received and
reviewed by the author’s peers for its scientific accuracy. It
spells out in very thorough fashion, through the use of equations on
thermodynamics as they relate to chemical reactions, why any
attempts to build complex living cells through the use of random
energy input have failed. It demonstrates that the compounds
break down as quickly as they are generated before they even come
close to something as complex as DNA.
In virtually every single attempt to build a living cell from a
simulated chemical mixture using various types of contrived energy
sources imitating what conditions may have been like on a pre-biotic
earth, it has taken “investigator interference” and advanced
technology to prevent any compounds formed from breaking down.
And the compounds that were attained were far from anything that
could remotely be thought of as living. They were simply
life’s building blocks.
Like Bradley, Thaxton and Olsen, probability theorists also
strenuously maintain that living cells will never form naturally,
effectively closing the door on the flimsy attempts to explain the
origin of life within the evolutionary paradigm. We will again use
the factory analogy to help show why.
It’s as though a brick vault in the center of the factory is
constructed of 26 differently encoded bricks. Each brick has a
letter of the English alphabet carved on its face and the bricks are
precisely sequenced in order to convey instructions for building
duplicate vaults, foundations, floors and roofs for future
factories. They also spell out instructions for the
construction of robotic assembly machines that, after reading the
instructions encoded on the bricks of the vault at the center of the
“mother” factory, gather the materials and assemble new factories.
They also assemble duplicates of themselves to work in the new
factories. This is similar to the “working system” of every living
cell on the face of the earth, whether that cell makes up a plant’s
leaf , a zebra’s skin, an octopuses retina or a spider’s stomach
lining. It is an extremely complex system. Many biologists, after
understanding this system, ask the following question. How did the
first DNA information storage and retrieval molecule appear without
the cellular factory in place to make and sustain it or how did the
cellular factory appear without the blueprint for its construction
in place in the form of DNA? It’s like asking how the first
vault with its inlaid building instructions got built without
building instructions. They are valid questions.
The reason probability theorists say it’s a problem getting a system
like a cell or factory to assemble at all is because they’re so
complex. The very simplest life form, by definition the
simplest free living thing that can duplicate itself, a biological
cell utilizing the system analogized above, theoretically would be
comprised of 239 protein molecules. Each of these would
contain an average of 445 amino acids in perfect sequence of the 20
different types, and all 445 would have to be precisely slotted into
position. The probability that such a simple creature could
come together by chance, and none so simple have yet been found, is
1 in 10~137,915. That's a 10 with 137,915 zeros following
it. Just to put this number in perspective, the age of the
universe would be written as only 10~18 seconds. There are
only 10~80 fundamental particles (electrons, neutrons & protons)
in the entire universe. The scientific community in general
agrees that if something has odds greater than 1 in 10~50 of
occurring, it should be considered, for all practical purposes,
impossible. All of this means that the mathematical
probability of life forming on its own anywhere is totally
incomprehensible.
With tongue in cheek, we could use
decks of cards to confirm the odds that a simple cell could not have
assembled randomly. There would be 239 decks, representing proteins,
and each deck would have a unique color and would consist of 445
cards, representing amino acids, and each card would have a number
anywhere from 1 through 20. We could then write down several
different sequences 445 units long, representing several types of
protein, always using numbers from 1 to 20. We could document
each of the several different sequences on a sheet of paper and call
this “information Code A”, sealing the data in an envelope. We could
then write down a separate, unique sequence of numbers, using the
numbers 1 through 239, with each number representing a differently
colored deck, and put it in the envelope as well, calling it
“information Code B”. At this point we could manufacture millions of
sets of cards and enlist millions of unsuspecting scientists to
begin laying out the cards on a floor in any pattern they choose,
all 106,355 of them from each set (445 x 239). For any given
set, how long would it take before the properly colored cards from
each color-coded deck were laid end to end in the several different
sequences listed in information Code A, with each full deck lined up
according to the sequence in information Code B? The resulting
arrangement would be extremely simple compared to an actual living
cell, but if we had forever, it would never happen.
If such a fortuitous outcome is supposed to be the natural course of
events, it should be no problem to experimentally demonstrate that
non-living matter will chemically bond into something we call
living. In fact, a good scientific theory demands experimental
verification. It has not been accomplished in almost 50 years
of trying - nor has anyone come even close.
A notable experiment was performed by Stanley Miller in the 50's in
which he attempted to duplicate what he thought a "primordial soup"
might consist of, the basic elements of which living cells are
constructed, and charge it with electricity to represent an
electrically charged atmosphere. He produced some amino acids, the
building blocks of life, but nothing that could even remotely be
considered living. A very good analogy would be that he
produced a few lettered bricks, a few bags of concrete, several
pallets of roof tile, some sensors and one arm of a robotic worker
in his attempt to produce a functional factory building with robotic
workers.
Later two scientists, Spiegelman and
Kornberg, independently doing experimental work in the field of
molecular biology, synthesized a replicative form of double
stranded, circular, viral DNA. But two facts prevent these
experiments, exceptional though they were, from supporting molecular
evolution. First, they both required the use of living viruses
to create synthetic ones, meaning life was used to produce more
life, not that life was produced from non-living matter. Second,
their experiments involved the clever “assembling” of various
biological components. In other words, the synthesis would not
have taken place without intelligent intervention. Simply put,
they showed that life can be created, and we need to expand the
definition of living even to say that, but they did not prove that
life spontaneously ignites.
All origin of life experiments,
without exception, have failed to demonstrate that a living cell can
originate through the random mixing of chemical components. Any
successes, such as the creation of amino acids or basic protein,
have simply been successful demonstrations that life's building
blocks can be produced in a laboratory by the creative intellect of
scientists working with highly sophisticated technology developed
through intelligence. But the order and complexity of the
arrangement of those building blocks in a living cell is the barrier
that natural forces, or mankind, can not surmount.
Consider one example, among many, of
the special bonding requirements necessary for biological systems to
work. It is the phenomenon of chirality, a biological term referring
to one particular way in which the linking of amino acids to form
proteins must take place. Protein is formed by very long
chains of 3-dimensional amino acids that must all be
left-handed. In a pool of randomly formed amino acids, such as
those created by origin of life experiments like Miller’s, an equal
number of race-mates, left and right handed amino acids, is always
present. Gloves can be used as an analogy in visualizing race-mates.
A left-handed glove can’t fit into a right-handed glove even though
the construction is identical and symmetrical. In the case of
biologically functional proteins combining from a pool of left and
right handed race-mates, it would be necessary for the decoding RNA
molecule to form through the random linking of many thousands of
left-handed amino-acids without a miss. Accidentally incorporating a
right-handed molecule somewhere in the chain would be lethal to the
protein, without exception, as it could not perform its metabolic
function.
A common misconception about the
original organization of complex macro molecules is promoted by
naturalists and chirality can be used to illustrate this
misconception. In discussing the first appearance of a perfect
sequence of 1000 left-handed amino acids, for example, naturalists
will say the odds are, that on the first try, about 500 will be left
handed, and they are right. In time, they say, more and more
left handed race-mates will be added to the sequence until all the
amino acids are left handed. The problem is, the 500 appearing in
the first “attempt” do not hang around waiting for more of their
fellows. In the volatile and unstable world of “pre-organic”
chemical bonding, any resulting molecule that isn’t living and can’t
reproduce disappears by breaking down chemically or bonding with
other molecules into something permanently stable but
inorganic. It is an all or nothing, now or never,
situation.
Consequently, the phenomenon of
chirality can be vigorously cited as one of several denials of the
possibility of a biologically functional protein appearing through
random chemical bonding. Even though biologists understand
this problem, evolutionists suggest that billions of years ago
chirality was not necessary for living tissue, as it is now. They do
not explain why this would be so and they offer no experimental
evidence demonstrating that living tissue can, or ever could,
function non-chiraltic.
Not only is the organization of a
cell complex beyond comprehension, it is a complexity rich in
teleological information. The brick vault, by itself, may be
very complex because its bricks have to be precisely laid, plumb and
level, with even gaps and reinforcing steel placed at regular
intervals, and so forth. In other words, a brick vault is far
more complex than a pile of bricks. But the brick vault is increased
in complexity many times over by the requirement that it also spell
out instructions to a robotic worker. The instructions convey
to the robot not only how to make the bricks and steel but how to
lay them so as to assemble another “tutorial” brick vault, as well
as assembling more robots like itself. In building this vault,
we can’t simply pick up bricks randomly and lay them end to
end. We must carefully choose each brick one at a time and
then lay them end to end so they convey teleological information in
the form of a language code.
Teleological
information is the most complex of all information in that it is
information directing an end purpose. A sign reading “Santa
Monica – ten miles” is a sign conveying information. But it is
not as complex as a radio broadcast that says, “The Santa Monica
Freeway to Santa Monica is blocked at Crenshaw Blvd. To reach Santa
Monica, turn north on Fairfax and then west on Wilshire.” Both
examples use language codes to convey information but the radio
broadcast conveys information directing an end result and is more
complex. Furthermore, human language codes, that is symbols placed
in sequence that convey teleological information, are always, and
there are no exceptions, the result of what we call intelligence,
meaning intelligence always precedes language.
DNA
is a molecule made up of nucleotides in a sequence conveying
teleological information, how to construct an anteater, for example,
and that is why we say DNA houses the “genetic code”. The genetic
code and human language are analogous in that both convey
teleological information through the use of sequence. The
obvious inference, therefore, is that intelligence preceded the
genetic code.
We
say that the triplet code sequence in DNA is a language because the
specific sequence has meaning in terms of the particular protein it
refers to in the same way the letter sequence B-R-I-C-K has meaning
in terms of the particular type of building material it refers
to. As these sequences are stored, retrieved and incorporated
as information in a lengthy sequence specifying the placement and
purpose of various building materials and proteins, they ultimately
convey information for the purpose of constructing a factory or a
cell.
The analogy above is not meant to
imply that the genetic code is the result of intelligence, as an end
in itself. Instead, just as human language is an intermediate
tool for further purposes, the genetic code is an intermediate tool
for the primary end purpose - living things. The code is a tool to
implement the plan, just like a set of specifications helps
implement a plan to build a factory. Neither the factory nor
the living thing would ever appear without the use of building
specifications in the form of a language code created by an
intelligent entity.
The
DNA molecule contains the genetic code for every living structure
and without it life wouldn't exist. The genetic code for any
given species specifies the growth and development of billions of
cells, how those cells will be organized and how each individual
“organization” will react to the environment in such a way as to
gain the privilege of being called living.
In the face of all this, it is no
wonder that the dismal history of origin of life experiments leaves
us with the feeling that it takes an intelligent being vastly more
intelligent than us to create life. As a gauge of the gap
between us and our Designer, the amount of information in human DNA,
as measured by information theorists, would fill 1000 volumes the
size of a standard encyclopedia in print much smaller than the print
on this page. That is a stack of books about 200 feet
high. An average reader would take about 15 years to read that
much information, reading at a pace of 8 hours per day, 7 days per
week.
At the present time we can’t
duplicate the level of information in terms of quantity and
sophistication displayed by a living organism. We can, however,
determine objective criteria for establishing a measurement of that
information. Primarily this involves a computer program. If we
were able to write a program that would accurately and completely
represent the structure and behavior of a living organism, we could
measure that program in terms of “bits” of information. The
genetic programs (genomes) of higher living organisms consist of
something like a thousand million bits of information.
We have the intelligence and
computer capability to store and retrieve the information specifying
the construction of an automobile, for example, but not for a living
organism. For a living organism the program would necessarily
have to provide the information necessary to describe the
construction of a machine which could diagnose it's own ailments,
repair itself, utilize raw material from it's environment in order
to sustain itself without outside help and reproduce itself.
That is frankly beyond the limits of human ability, at least now or
in the near future. But within the DNA of every living thing
is written such a program. If we suggested that one of
mankind's computer systems with a comparable storage and retrieval
system could appear by chance, we'd be told to see a
therapist. But that is exactly what evolutionists are
theorizing. They are saying the DNA housed information code
that puts our best computers to shame appeared by chance.
Darwin said the key to understanding
the past is to understand the present and extrapolate backwards.
Using that line of reasoning, we see today that specific information
directing the organization of material for a purpose, such as what
we would see in blueprints, design specifications or computer
software, for example, is always the result of intelligence. DNA
therefore, being perfectly analogous to all three of these examples,
although it arrived long before us, must also be the result of
intelligence. That intelligence must not only surpass intelligence
as defined by human standards, it must exceed those standards at
least beyond the lofty heights we have aimed for but consistently
failed to reach. Put another way, living organisms must have
been designed and programmed by an intellect far superior to ours
because the function of DNA is far more complex than the most
complex thing of which we can conceive of and create.
The
use of language as a means of conveying purposeful information is
one of many measuring devices used for determining the level of an
individual’s intelligence. In all cases, the greater the informative
content of the language code, the greater the level of intelligence
present prior to the appearance of the informative code. In
other words, it takes more intelligence to write the specifications
for constructing a nuclear reactor than it does for a brick. The
informative content of the genetic code, if used as a tool to
measure the level of intelligence necessary to produce that code,
renders us as being dull in comparison. This means some of our
species, naturalists, consider a chemical reaction capable of
generating more intelligence than all of us put together.
What are they thinking? A single
human cell is vastly more complex in terms of information than the
simplest living cell. It contains about three or four billion
amino acids. A Mercedes Benz is an engineering marvel and yet
the human cell, in complexity of information, makes the Mercedes
Benz look like a child's toy. Would anyone propose that a
Mercedes could appear by chance? The gas-powered lawn mower is
about as simple, compared to the Mercedes, as a simple life form is
to the human cell in information content. It is no more likely
that the lawn mower appeared by chance than the Mercedes. The
lawn mower, the Mercedes and the living cell need planning and
know-how to be assembled. Existence of the raw materials from
which they are made is simply not enough.
Symbols arranged in sequences conveying information directing the
effective use of energy and raw materials for the construction of
something according to a design do not occur by accident. They
are always the result of intelligence. The blueprints,
engineering calculations and design specifications for the Mercedes
Benz would not have appeared through natural forces in the
production foreman's office if he had waited forever. They
needed an engineer.
Let’s say we some day create a
species of intelligent robot with self-awareness. The species
might work in an isolated environment, say on another planet mining
uranium, and in time may become interested in its own origin. To
what characteristic of the robotic species nature would we attribute
the unwavering position, by certain “intellectual” segments
within the robot’s social-structure, that it had originated via
natural causes only, without the benefit of intelligent
design? We might be tempted to program a little more common
sense and less imagination into our robots. But intellectual
pride probably renders common sense useless. Regardless, those
robots who recognized that their own complexity resulted from
intelligent design would stand a far better chance of discovering
the mechanism of their own construction than those who wasted their
time and resources doing dead end research intended to prove that
they had originated by chance. Those holding out for intelligent
design could enthusiastically explore the inner workings of their
own structure with awe and wonder. They could attribute their design
and original appearance to a “supernatural” entity with far greater
resources than their own and could certainly do so without
jeopardizing their intellectual integrity.
Everything we have considered so
far, when linked with the fact that no experimental duplication or
verification of natural biogenesis has ever occurred, forces us to
ask how it can be credibly postulated that a living cell popped into
existence by accident just because the earth happened to become
suitable? The answer is that it can't and to so propose is an
insult to the human race. Our species’ deductive and inductive
capacities either represent a masterpiece of molecular design in the
form of teleological information or those capacities are of no more
significance than any other by-product of a material interaction. If
the latter is true, strict material determinism is a fact and free
will is a whimsical idea. The choice to feed a hungry stranger
rather than kill him on the spot is of no more consequence than a
bolt of lightning hitting a tree rather than a rock. But man’s soul
screams in protest at the extreme reductionist thinking naturalists
have forced on his attempts at self-understanding. The
God-fearing among us can be grateful, therefore, that science is
finally and convincingly providing evidence in support of what our
instincts have told us all along, that we are something special.
It's amazing the
ho-hum appearance the conclusions reached from our analogies and
inferences have when placed on paper or a computer screen somewhere
in a sea of words. They deserve better. They need to be shouted in
the streets. We are not randomly forged carbon based
aggregates. We are created beings and when we begin to
understand that, it becomes obvious we have a purpose. Nothing is
created without a purpose and nothing has a purpose unless it was
created. So, as the only species on earth with the created genetic
capacity to comprehend even the concept of purpose, it makes sense
for us to further assume it is knowable and attainable.
As for naturalism, it must be
remembered that it's rampaging step-child, Darwinism, was initially
promoted over 130 years ago, long before the information aspect and
nature of the genome governing all biology was known - in other
words before we were aware of the gravity and complexity of the DNA
code.
The
idea of naturalism is now so thoroughly entrenched within the fabric
of materialistic society, however, that some scientists have
jeopardized their careers by supporting the position outlined
above. Sir Frederic Hoyle, the famous astronomer, was well on
his way to being nominated for the Nobel prize until he published
his books expressing mathematically based doubts as to
naturalist/Darwinism. He was rapidly eliminated.
Dr. A. E. Wilder Smith, holder
of three PHDs, the first in physical organic chemistry, gave the
Huxley Memorial Lecture at Oxford University in 1986. Although
his thesis proposing an alternative to naturalist theories of life's
origin was well received even by his opponents, he has since been
unable to have it published by any reputable scientific
journal. (His alternative introduced a factor representing
intelligent input for the origin of teleological (purposeful)
information, the type of information theorists say appears in DNA.)
Any criticism of naturalist/Darwinism has been effectively censored
at the professional level and the lay-public never hears it. This is
the climate we find ourselves in as we search for
truth.
The
truth can be censored but not eliminated however. A detailed
analysis of information theory relating to the genome effectively
buries the philosophy of naturalism. One is sufficient but
naturalism has suffered from three deadly blows.
1.
The only evidence presented as support for naturalist/evolution, the
fossil record, was originally organized by evolutionists in order to
jell with the assumptions of Darwinism but in reality it indicates
stasis and huge gaps between sub-groups of living things, past and
present.
2.
The reality of the big bang mandates a universe with a beginning,
thus eliminating an infinite universe both spatially and in time as
a naturalist bulwark and necessitating a first cause or
creator. It also necessitates intelligent design as an
explanation for the finely tuned structure of the universe and the
solar system.
3.
The huge quantity of information and complexity contained in the DNA
molecule and a living cell prohibits any possibility of their chance
random assembly, and their accidental organization is also
prohibited by thermodynamic laws of organic chemistry.
The obvious conclusion many
scientists are now reaching is that nature alone as an explanation
for the origin of life is grossly erroneous. Science is
finally doing its job, admitting its mistakes and gradually leading
us down the path of truth. But of course science is limited by
the “Singularity”, the big bang, and so eternal truth must be found
elsewhere.
CHAPTER 7
WHAT ABOUT
RELIGION?
The previous chapter highlighted
“intelligent design” as one of the arguments theists use to support
the existence of God. The universal need to discover a purpose for
living and the rationale that such a need would not exist in a
god-less, hence purposeless, universe is another argument offered by
theists for the existence of God. It is similar to the "universal
moral consciousness" line of reasoning mentioned in Chapter 2. It
should be noted that each of these philosophic arguments for the
existence of God has been thoroughly developed throughout history
and has been accepted by some of the greatest minds to have
represented humanity. Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, Pascal,
Einstein and many other celebrated thinkers all believed in a
supreme intelligence. We continue to mention these arguments because
at some point one realizes that multiple lines of evidence and
philosophic arguments in favor of a given belief system, by their
sheer weight, give credibility to that belief system and they should
ultimately converge and harmonize. Theists believe that God
exists and if they are mistaken then these lines of evidence and
philosophic arguments would tend to contradict each other or
diverge. One bit of evidence or argument can be resisted to
some degree but, as in a court of law, it is finally an overwhelming
“body” of evidence that decides the case. In our case, that
body of evidence is providing just enough light to confirm that we
are on the right path in our search.
On the other hand, Darwin’s
naturalist dogma is a casualty on an unlit dead-end street.
Good riddance! Why mourn the inevitable demise of a mistake
affecting the behavior of millions? Anyone who believes we are
merely clever bipedal brutes will act accordingly - or wish they
could.
As criminologists and detectives
combed through the basement of Jeffrey Dahlmer's home in Milwaukee
several years ago, they were sickened. They must have wondered
if they were searching the residence of a human being or combing the
lair of some carnivorous beast. They found the skeletal and
decomposing remains of 17 young men, some partially eaten.
After Dahlmer's conviction, even his fellow inmates considered him
not of their kind and he was beaten to death in a prison shower
room. He lived and died like a predatory beast and we can only
speculate as to whether or not he believed his ancestors were
such. If he accepted the false notion that his family tree
included hyenas, there was no motivation to resist the dark impulses
that drove him.
Criminal behaviorists know that
imprisonment alone will not significantly deter the exhibition of
behavior society considers evil. It takes a change of
heart. Sadly, as it must have been in Dahlmer's case, the
theory of naturalist/evolution is solidly entrenched in the minds
and hearts of many and could prevent them from knowing and
accounting to their creator until it's too late.
But it’s never too late for those
willing to open their minds, so for us a further expose' of the
truth is in order. We recognize our status as created beings
but knowing something has been designed and built isn't enough to
determine its purpose. We may reasonably conclude that an
unfamiliar automobile parked in front of our house didn't appear
there because of an explosion in the junk-yard down the street, that
is by natural forces operating randomly upon car components.
We can then speculate that it was designed and built by Ford Motor
Company. But if it was really built by General Electric as a
prototype solar powered vehicle, our attempts to fuel it with gas
will be wasted and may ruin it. Before attempting to use the
vehicle, therefore, we had better locate the stamp of the
manufacturer and the instruction manual. In other words, we
had better communicate with the maker. For mankind, religion
has been offered as the legitimate conduit for that communication -
meaning its spokesmen claim to correctly state our purpose and how
to go about fulfilling it.
But
prior to examining that assertion, and in the interest of leaving no
naturalist stone unturned, we will consider the supreme last-ditch
effort at naturalist intellectual gymnastics by some modern
physicists. They use phenomena observed within the realm of
quantum mechanics as a springboard for various notions intended to
eliminate God as the cause of the universe, one of which actually
attributes the origin of the universe to man. This is included in
the chapter on religion because it is definitely metaphysical in its
content and is a shrewd attempt to “deify” man by making him the
creator.
Some physicists postulate that reality doesn't exist until it's
observed and by observing the universe we bring it into the status
of reality. They draw an illogical parallel with delayed
choice experiments in quantum mechanics where it has been
demonstrated that the observer can influence the outcome of quantum
mechanical events.
An
associated wave exists with every quantum entity, meaning protons,
neutrons, electrons and such can be mathematically described as
either waves or particles and how they manifest themselves is
determined by how we choose to observe them. The act of observation
is said to give specific reality to the quantum entity.
Performing cerebral somersaults in their application of one of
several “quantum interpretations” of reality, some physicists say
we've given reality to the entire universe by observing it, using
their observations of sub-atomic quantum entities as
analogous. They say that as we observe the background
radiation left over from the big bang, we have brought the creation
event into the status of reality. They imply that said reality
didn’t exist prior to our observation. It seems they've not
only answered the old question about whether a falling tree makes a
loud crash if there are no ears around to hear it, they’ve gone a
step further and said that by stumbling upon its petrified trunk
laying on the ground, we caused its fall. This is not the
stuff of science but rather of philosophical speculation squared.
Most of us believe that the observer doesn't actually convey the
status of reality upon the entity but simply chooses certain methods
of observation and those methods seem to affect whether the entity
will behave as a classic physical particle or as part of a
mathematically expressed probability wave function. It has the
potential to act as either. That potential defines its real status,
not the observer.
There are
levels of thought in the realm of philosophy, and now unfortunately
in the realm of science, having no practical application for those
of us who strongly suspect that we are not the creator and further
allow for at least the possibility that a creator exists to whom we
will answer some day. The “Copenhagen Interpretation” of
quantum physics, as the above philosophy is officially named, is
just one of several quantum interpretations of reality and basically
says that we determine reality by our acts of observation.
A differing interpretation of
quantum effects called the “Many Worlds Interpretation” says all
potentials are real but they exist in an infinite number of parallel
universes, none of which are accessible to each other. The
example typically used to support this view is the cat in a
box. Its death can be brought about by the observation of a
quantum entity and consequent triggering of cyanide by a Geiger
counter, the observer, which may or may not, depending upon the 1/2
life of the radioactive material in question, detect (observe) the
quantum entity within a particular time period. Is the cat alive or
dead during this period? The Copenhagen view says its ultimate
state is determined by the act of observation and until then the cat
exists only as a probability wave. The “Many Worlds” view says
it is both alive and dead but in different worlds. According to the
“Many Worlds Interpretation”, because an infinite number of possible
worlds exist, ours is not so surprising. This philosophy
neatly allows for a naturalist explanation for our world because of
the infinite number of chances for a world like ours to be observed,
while the observer based reality view makes us the creator.
Both of these interpretations imply that God is not necessary to
explain our existence.
A third view, however, is not
incompatible with a Creator and as we will see, the Copenhagen view
is not as well. Called the “Transactional Interpretation”, it
supposedly resolves the many problems inherent in the Copenhagen
interpretation, such as the fact that many parts of the universe
have yet to be observed but they must certainly exist. They
must exist because of the anthropic principal, which recognizes that
the entire universe is describable through precise mathematical
equations and that unobserved portions of the universe must be real
as described by those equations or we, as carbon based life forms,
wouldn’t exist. The Transactional Interpretation has quantum
entities moving backwards in time, resolving paradoxes created by
observer-based experiments, upon which the above mentioned
interpretations are based. These experiments show that sub-atomic
entities seem to “know” whether we are going to measure their “spin”
on a vertical or horizontal axis. The equations of the Transactional
Interpretation actually work so maybe subatomic particles can travel
backwards in time and if they do, it has yet to be demonstrated how
that fact would eliminate God.
In any case, quantum mechanics is a
mysterious world and many physicists, in an attempt to salvage
naturalism, take advantage of that mysteriousness by promoting their
own philosophies. Why are naturalists so willing to embrace any
viewpoint that eliminates God? Certainly the conjecture that
an intellect superior to man designed the highly complex and
sophisticated structures comprising and supporting life is as
credible a view of reality as the Copenhagen Interpretation, and all
the others. The simple fact that “all the others” are there is
evidence that science certainly hasn’t proven anything regarding the
basis of reality. In fact, even the Copenhagen view is not
incompatible with a God transcendent to time, space and matter. God,
as the ultimate observer, would have brought the universe to the
status of reality, according to the Copenhagen interpretation.
Still yet another view, the “Pilot
Wave” Interpretation”, like the Transactional Interpretation in its
recognition of the experimental verification of a “non-local”
relationship between different parts of the same original subatomic
entity, attempts to come to grips with such a strange
phenomena. It is strange because if one part of the entity is
measured along a vertical axis and is observed as spinning up, the
other portion will instantly and automatically manifest itself as
spinning down, and vice versa. But if we choose to observe the
first part on a horizontal axis and it spins right, the second part
will spin left and vice versa. The second part always “knows”
instantaneously how the first was measured, horizontally or
vertically, even though they are separated by great distances.
This phenomena contributed to the Pilot Wave Interpretation, which
essentially postulates a thoroughly holistic universe, meaning every
quantum event is manifested universally because at the instant of
the big bang the entire universe was a single quantum entity.
A good theist would have no difficulty with this view.
Actually, a good theist philosopher would have no problem with at
least three of the current quantum interpretations of reality, the
Copenhagen version, the Transactional version and the Pilot Wave
version. The only one immune to theist harmonization is the
many worlds view and it is conveniently beyond the horizon of
experimental verification, as by definition the barriers between the
many worlds are impenetrable. But formulating an idea that is
forever immune from any type of verification does not provide any
credible or logical basis for rejecting a conflicting idea. It
is a fallacious argument and does not deserve consideration, except
as entertainment along the lines of Alice in Wonderland.
In any case, this profusion of ideas
about the nature of our universe has stimulated the search for a
“Grand Unified Theory” of everything and the number one contender
seems to be “String Theory”. In 1984 physicists discovered
that all possible symmetries of nature can be included in only two
possible models, one with 10 dimensions and one with 26 dimensions
of space and time. The dimensions are tied together with
“string”, which at certain temperatures shrinks to the point type
fundamental particles we can observe in our four dimensions of space
and time. According to string theory we can never experience
the other dimensions. Presently the whole concept is purely
theoretical but so far its predictions are borne out in
experiments. Theists welcome further insight in the field of
string theory as the God they propose is one with access to
dimensions beyond our own and, in fact, His existence requires
them.
But mystic dialogue of this type can
only side-track us in the discovery of our eternal destiny and we’ll
probably be dead before anyone figures it out so let’s move on.
Until now we’ve received worthwhile guidance through philosophy and
science, but not enough to draw any firm conclusions about our fate,
so with guarded optimism we'll see if religion has the answer.
But that religion must not be just another portrait of God painted
by man. It must include a “revelation” from the Creator as the
basis of its credibility.
We will assume the Creator knows our
purpose and destiny and that He chose to tell us what it is.
If He set the universe in motion and remained incommunicado ever
since, His creation is a grand paradox populated by moral beings
with a sense of purpose who can't discover why they're here or why
they should care. Our pursuit of truth is an exercise in
futility. Without a revelation from God, we're back where we
started. We must formulate our own ideas regarding His nature,
and that means anyone's opinion is as good as anyone else's.
So our search in the area of religion will only include those belief
systems alleging to include knowledge imparted to man by God.
That narrows the field substantially but still leaves too great a
selection. We must therefore establish some guidelines.
First, there's a certain amount of
knowledge about God attainable simply by observing His
creation. This method of pursuing “God knowledge” is called
"natural theology" because we learn about God by studying
nature. In fact, prior to the modern age men who performed
what today would be referred to as scientific inquiry were called
natural theologians or philosophers, men like Galileo or Newton, for
instance. It's a valid enterprise, as any created thing is a key to
the nature of its creator. Anarchists build survival camps,
not courthouses, and we would never attribute the “creation” of
Disneyland to a man with Hitler’s nature or the creation of
Buchenwald to a man like Walt Disney. Their creations wouldn’t
match with what we know about them and if we weren’t familiar with
their nature, common sense would tell us that a man who built
concentration camps was not motivated by the laughter of children.
A creation also tells us something
about the level of knowledge and wisdom possessed by its
creator. For example the Egyptian pyramids tell us their
builders had an extensive knowledge of classical physics, surveying
techniques and structural engineering. Similarly, because we
were created as intelligent beings and the cause is always greater
than what it produces (2nd law of thermodynamics), our Creator must
be vastly superior to us in intellect. We also have an
instinct about what constitutes evil, making us created beings not
only possessing intellect but a moral nature as well, so God must
also have a moral nature, but one we would expect to be more acutely
sensitive to evil than ours.
Modern scientists have provided keen
insight to natural theologians. They have exposed the
profoundly beautiful and awe inspiring combination of simplicity and
intricacy manifested by the universe and the life forms it supports,
confirming our intuitive sentiment that God is not only vastly
superior to us in intellect but literally incomprehensibly more
intelligent, powerful and wise. Philosophy and the mind
sciences also give us insight into the complex duality of our moral
nature. We not only sense evil but seem to know instinctively
“the right way” while having the capacity to love others and
appreciate justice, therefore God must not only be more acutely
sensitive to evil than us but must be vastly more righteous, loving
and just.
A purported revelation from God
then, given to us in the name of a specific religion, must not
contradict what we can glean for ourselves from His creation.
Simply put, we will shy away from gods who are purported to be
capricious, mean or incapable like those typical of pagan religions.
Second, God's communication must bear a stamp absolutely beyond the
ability of man to duplicate and that communication's claim to
supernatural origin must be its defining characteristic.
Prior to beginning the process of elimination however, we must
dispel a commonly held world-view that all religions lead to “peace”
with the supreme being, whoever He may be. The sentiment is that
sincere worship of a “higher power” will be rewarded regardless of
the nature of the higher power or the belief system through which
the worship is offered. That may be a comforting thought but
it's just another way of saying that it doesn't really matter what a
man believes, an idea permeated with problems.
Those who believe all
“spiritual” expressions have the same end result fail to account for
that basic of logic we referred to earlier, the law of
non-contradiction, which says something can't be and not be at the
same time. If conservative Christian theologians say there's
only one path to God and spiritualists or ecumenical theologians say
all paths lead to God, one viewpoint is wrong. Earlier we
considered the possibility of experiencing dire consequences by
adopting a false belief system or philosophy so we will certainly
resist the temptation to rest comfortably with the notion that
whatever we worship will reward us. Besides, from natural theology
it would seem the Creator places a high premium on men who are
correct in what they believe. Why else would He create us with
such a sensitive capacity to choose between good and evil, or to
know the difference, and why is life so intolerant of moral
mistakes? Every society in history has produced a proverb or two
informing men that evil choices have grim repercussions. It
makes more sense to assume that we are expected to be right in what
we believe so a religion saying it reveals the one true God will not
be disqualified on that basis alone.
If all sincere behavior, ritual
worship, meditation and prayer taking place as a means of making
oneself acceptable to a god are equally valid then either there are
multiple gods or one schizophrenic god because the moral standards
that many of these behaviors and methods of worship represent
contradict each other. That is precisely why we’re seeking a
religion that authoritatively claims to have a revelation from
God. It is also why we would trust that revelation a little
more if it didn’t make the absurd and contradictory claim that
everyone’s idea about God is valid.
Of course naturalists jump at any
opening and say that if humanity’s moral standards contradict each
other, we don’t have a universal moral consciousness and therefore
we can’t attribute morality to God through natural theology.
But natural theology doesn’t say that every man has correctly
determined God’s moral standard, rather, that men simply make moral
judgments, meaning that as creatures men are moral beings and
therefore their Creator must also be a moral being.
We are seeking a religion that is
consistent with the nature of the created world and its beings but
also one that has a unique stamp of divinity. Earlier we said
if truth is knowable, someone in history must have known it.
So if to know the truth is to know the Creator, then presumably
someone knows Him. There are many self-proclaimed religious
superstars who have claimed that intimacy.
If one of these so called prophets
alleges to have divine authority, however, we should examine his
credentials with no less vigor than we would anyone else who was
intent upon dramatically affecting our future. When engaging
an attorney or doctor, for example, that is an individual claiming
to have the knowledge & wisdom to authoritatively suggest
courses of action that will profoundly impact our lives, we are
obligated to verify their credentials. We are fools if we
don’t. Proper inquiry will verify their status as
professionals, masters in their field. In every calling known
to man and for every warped reason imaginable, successful
impersonations have been accomplished but a deception will become
readily apparent with diligent investigation. We don't want to
waste time with impostors and we certainly want to avoid following
them.
Because this is not a
leisurely study in the field of comparative religion but rather a
quest for truth in the matter of eternal security, we will look
first and foremost at any claim so uniquely appealing it demands
priority. We want to unlock the mystery of death because of an
instinctive dread that our destiny after that impending event is
affected by our moral choices during life. Anyone claiming to have
done this certainly qualifies to be heard. If the claim
appears to have substance, we will scrutinize whatever credentials
are offered, with our fingers crossed, because if the credentials
are valid, we will have been liberated by the truth.
Books on comparative religion are
invariably quite thick. The printed material and oral
traditions emanating from the major religions of the world are even
more overwhelming. We might be occupying a cemetery plot
before we could analyze all of it thoroughly. How then do we
proceed? If it were riches we were seeking, we wouldn’t spend
much time with offers of wealth through various franchises if the
President said we could tour Fort Knox with a voucher for all the
gold we could carry. We might briefly scan the business
opportunities but would settle down comfortably for a good hard look
at the Fort Knox deal. Here are some of the spiritual offers
that have been made throughout history.
Confucious: He lived
around 500 BC in China and had some commendable ideas about how to
behave ethically and as such could have been included in the chapter
dealing with philosophy. Confucians revere their ancestors but
as to victory over death or claims to know the will of God, neither
Confucius or his followers ever offered anything unique as proof
that their opinions as to human purpose and destiny should be given
any more credence than anyone else’s.
Buddha: He lived
about the same time as Confucius in India and the same general
description can be applied to Buddha as was given to
Confucius. He was a religious figure who believed the
annihilation of desire was the supreme achievement and that by
living “right” according to a prescribed eight point ethical system
one could break the cycle of karma and endless rebirth. He
simply offered another ethical system of behavior, proving he was a
moral creature, but one with no greater lock on truth than any other
intelligent human being who decided to formulate a standard of
behavior and present his ideas to the rest of us. Neither he nor his
contemporary in China made any victorious claims regarding man’s
ultimate enemy, death.
Mohammed: He was a
self-proclaimed prophet who said he received revelation from God
through dreams and visions. Great, maybe that’s what we’re
looking for. But is that all? Purported spiritual revelations
through dreams and visions are certainly not extraordinary, as any
medicine man on peyote will confirm. Actually Mohammed seems to have
been nothing more than the prototype cult leader of today. He
took a mixture of existing religions - Judaism, Christianity and an
ancient Arab cult that worshipped the moon and twisted their
doctrines to suit his purposes. Mohammed never offered any
assurance other than his word that he was a legitimate spokesman for
the Creator of this universe. But why should we take his
word? Is it more valid than Buddha’s word, or Confucius’ or
the neighbor’s? What proof did he offer that his authority
should be accepted? History teaches us that the proof he
offered was a sword. Convert or else and such is the principal
of Islamic fundamentalism today. But force is not a legitimate
vehicle for disseminating truth. If it was, then truth changes
because history teaches us that the philosophies put forth by
empires change as their power base changes. And if proof is needed
that Islam doesn’t free one’s mind from concern over what lies
beyond the grave, simply ask a Muslim if he’s certain of his eternal
future. The stock answer is no. The Koran, which supposedly came
directly from Allah, says that Allah may choose not to show mercy
even on those who practice Islam. Allah is aloof and capricious. But
worse than that, even if what the Koran said about God did not leave
us a little nervous, we couldn’t trust it anyway. It is
basically a contradictory revelation. Islam, through the Koran,
claims to accept the scriptures of Judaism and Christianity as a
revelation from God but then denies what those scriptures say about
their prophets. We have decided not to waste time with
contradictory religions.
The Dali Lama, Elron Hubbard, Joseph Smith, Zoroaster, Ghandi,
Shirley Maclaine, David Koresh, Moon, Hindu Gurus by the trainload –
enough. We could spend our entire lives looking at the claims
of every self-anointed prophet the world has produced. What we
seek is more than rhetoric about achieving bliss offered by mere
mortals with no more verifiable claim to metaphysical truth than
quantum physicists. We must look at the one individual who
made the boldest claims of all and see if he backed them up.
CHAPTER 8
IN THE
FLESH
He is Jesus of Nazereth. His
life is the fulcrum of human history. His birth provides the frame
of reference used to record the events of our lives as the world
synchronizes its calendars using the appearance of the man from
Galilee as a starting point. He did not claim to have the
answer to every question plaguing humanity - He claimed to be the
answer. It was written that He predicted His death and
resurrection. To a man His disciples spent their lives testifying
that He fulfilled that promise. With billions of followers,
His tomb should be the most celebrated religious monument in the
world. It isn’t because it’s been empty since 3 days after His
execution. He also said He was the Son of God and held the key
to eternal life. It is obvious we need to examine the
credentials of Jesus. If they're valid, He is the culmination
of our search and to look further would be pointless.
The
Normandy Club, a gambling casino in Gardena, California, has a rigid
security system, as all casinos do. They accumulate large sums
of cash daily, attracting individuals who would risk their lives and
freedom to have it. After the day’s receipts are tallied and
reconciled, they're locked in a safe and guarded by armed security
officers and then turned over to an armored transport company for
deposit in the bank.
One day in January, 1995, the
cashier in charge unlocked the safe and, after checking his
credentials, turned the funds over to a properly uniformed
individual purporting to be a transport company employee whose
authentic appearing vehicle was parked near the front door.
The routine was automatic and took no more than a moment.
About twenty minutes later another armed guard showed up asking for
the daily receipts. He was the real thing but by that time the
imposter was long gone. He and his accomplice, who was driving
the fake armored car, had pulled off a masterful
impersonation.
It is one thing for a pretender to
imitate someone in a position of authority and gain a measure of
acceptance in a specific situation. He might catch his victims
napping and be successful, as were the two outlaws in
Gardena. But consider the awesome task of preparing a
cover allowing someone to successfully impersonate the President of
the United States, for example. It would be impossible.
Only the true president could withstand the intense scrutiny heaped
on a man in his position, on a moment by moment basis, by hundreds
of people in the press, the secret service and on his staff.
Now look at just a few statements attributed to Jesus Christ, out of
scores similar in context, and see if He is claiming a position of
authority at least equal to the current most powerful man on
earth.
"All authority in heaven and on
earth has been given to Me" Mark
28:18
"I am He that liveth, and was dead;
and, behold I am alive for evermore" Revelation
1:18
"I am the way, the truth, and the
life" John
14:6
"I give them eternal life, and they
shall never perish" John
10:28
"Whoever acknowledges Me before men
I will acknowledge him before My father in heaven" Matthew
10:32
"I and my Father are one" John
10:30
"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the
Beginning and the End," says the Lord, "who is and who was and who
is to come, the Almighty." Revelation 1:11
These claims are certainly for a position of authority far greater
than that of the president. Jesus Christ appears to be saying
he is equal with God. That would be difficult to fake.
Unless He can live up to those statements, we must scorn Him as the
most presumptuous fraud in history, or a raving lunatic.
Either that or He spoke the truth. One thing is sure,
however, he did not allow us the option of considering Him wise and
good while rejecting His claims. If someone says Jesus was a
wise and good man but not the Son of God, they don't know what He is
reported to have said. A wise and good man would not make
those claims unless they were true. But what has been offered in the
area of credibility? What are His credentials?
Although there are ancient
non-biblical sources of information corroborating the life of Jesus
Christ as a fact of history, the primary source of information about
Him is the Bible. Holy Scripture and Jesus Christ are
inevitably and eternally entwined. Jesus Christ is referred to
in Scripture as the “Word”.
"In the beginning was the Word, and
the Word was with God, and the Word was God...and the Word became
flesh and dwelt among us..." John
1:1
Simply
put, the Bible claims that Jesus Christ, the living Word, is the
supreme revelation of God in the flesh. The Bible, or written
word, also claims to be the revelation of God. Jesus Christ
claims to be the fulfillment of the Bible. What the written
word says about God, therefore, is fulfilled in the flesh by the
living Word, Jesus Christ.
So Jesus Christ is whatever He is
revealed as in the Bible. The credibility of the living “Word”
depends absolutely and irrevocably on the written word. The
credibility of a journalist or a scientist is determined by the
truth of what he reports in his journal. If what he writes is
found to be false, his credibility has been lost. If the Bible
is not true, we can dismiss Jesus Christ as a charlatan with no more
clai |
