God's Not Dead 2

I went to see the movie God’s Not Dead 2 (Universal Studios, 2016). I'll abbreviate it GND2. I don’t want to be a spoiler, so I won’t write out the whole plot. But I will tell you that it was about a high school teacher who was sued by the ACLU for answering a question about Jesus Christ, using Scripture, in class.

If you saw the first God’s Not Dead (GND) movie, you will recognize similarities. GND was about a student who was maligned by a college professor because he would not deny God in the classroom. So both movies are about perceived oppression of Christians in academic settings.

Though some may not believe Christians are being oppressed in our country, the credits of the movie show there can be a price to pay when people stand up for what they believe. One real life example I will give is the backlash of the exposé done by David Daleiden against Planned Parenthood. He secretly filmed PP employees talking cold-bloodedly about selling body parts of fetuses, among other shocking images. But it was Daleiden who was indicted in Texas for his undercover work and was recently raided by California DOJ officers, reported by Megan Casella, "California officials seize computers, footage from anti-abortion activist," Reuters, April 6, 2016.

Daleiden's example can be linked with academia because the parts of fetuses go to trained researchers either at universities or in commercial settings. The academic worldview is very often the antithesis of Christianity, even though the medical disciplines do have a noble goal of curing people. They say they are about science and reason and not the "superstitious" religious beliefs. Perhaps that is what justifies their actions in their own minds, and the lines may not always be as clearly drawn as the GND2 movie implies. But cures can be found in other ways and it is imperative that everyone realize the humanity of those who are being killed.

Now, you might say Daleiden was breaking the law in his underground investigation. But consider that a pastor in GND2 says we are in a spiritual war. Non-Christians often see a statement like this as way too overblown. Christians may not always realize where the war is taking place. But the pastor is right, and the people who made the movie, among many others, are in the middle of the battle. When the laws can be unjust, spiritual warriors do not always follow the laws.

God's Not Dead

My husband and I went to the movie, God’s Not Dead (Pure Flix Entertainment, 2014), last week. It was a surprising box office success and from the reviews I’ve read, many liked it. But a wide variety of people, from atheists to Young Earth Creationist Christians (YECCies), didn’t.  If you know the premise, you know why atheists don’t like it. The main character, Josh Wheaton, is a college student who is in a philosophy class where the professor wants to skip the section of his class in which he spends time convincing students that God does not exist. The professor insists the students write “God is Dead” on a piece of paper, sign it and hand it in.  Josh politely refuses, and so is assigned the task of standing before the class and defending his faith. Atheists either deny the movie is realistic or take the side of the professor who is clearly not the hero of the movie.

The reason some YECCies don’t like it is because Josh Wheaton argues for the existence of God by using the science of the Big Bang and Darwinian evolution theories. Both support an Old Earth, while YECCies believe in direct supernatural Creation of the planet and living species about 12,000 years ago. In addition, though the Big Bang broke through older theories of an eternal universe, both Big Bang and evolution theories now are supported by the scientific community under purely naturalistic explanations.

I learned from an interview by Dave Hartline, "God's Not Dead," National Review, March 29, 2014, that the screenwriters, Cary Solomon and Chuck Konzelman, are Catholics. I was surprised because the movie has an Evangelical feel to it.  I have to give these writers credit for “getting it” about the Catholic New Evangelization movement that is supposed to be in effect.  This actually means EVANGELIZING, folks!!!

This leads me to say there are things I liked about the movie and things I didn’t. I have to give a mild spoiler alert: skip down a few paragraphs to the images if you don’t want to know any more about the movie before seeing it. First for the likes: the student takes God seriously. He actually thinks about what his actions have to do with his faith. He stands up for what he believes. I agree with the movie premise that the pressures are against believers in academia, and if you don’t believe this, just follow the Intelligent Design blog, Evolution News. They keep a running tab on the discrimination against anyone who thinks biology is designed, especially in academia. Let’s not forget that Intelligent Design Theory, much less Creationism, is not allowed in public schools.

Another thing I liked about the movie is that the tone for the most part was not hostility toward unbelievers but hopefulness for them to realize the truth. I felt this attitude came across several times especially in side-plots, and became more apparent at the end. This is a difficult attitude to take but necessary for all Christians.

For the part I didn’t like, it has to do with one of the points made by Josh when “defending” God’s existence. Like many other Creationists, I believe direct supernatural formation to be the best explanation for biological complexity. I don’t go along with the main character’s explanation of God directing evolution through seemingly random events. Though this is the line taken by many Catholics, I feel that if we had a clearer picture of biology, this is the very place where we can make an effective argument against the extreme scientism of today. Scientism is the cultural belief that science will answer everything and God doesn’t exist. Today’s cultural climate is where the movie premise is hitting the truth. The effect of science on philosophy is large, and well-known evolutionists take the lead in the discrimination and downright prejudice against believers.  It starts in academia and has filtered throughout the whole culture. Unfortunately, lawmakers and judges who hear arguments for teaching exclusively evolution in public school often are swayed by this cultural attitude.

The deep problem is that the people held as experts inform the public that evolution is true.  What can the public believe? They, like Josh Wheaton, must learn for themselves.  This training is just what I’ve been saying we need for the youth of today to defend their faith.  There are problems with that right now in the Catholic culture too, some of which I have discussed in other posts. But putting that aside for now, let me (again) show you biological complexity.

Photosynthesis is present in Cyanobacteria (pronounced sigh-ann-oh-bacteria). These organisms are among the very first the evolutionists tell us were on earth ("Origin of Life," Berkeley Evolution 101). They take energy, in this case light from the sun, and convert it to the building blocks of life. These are necessary for proteins, DNA, and other components. Evolutionists might tell you there were simpler systems earlier, but because they exist now, it means somewhere along the line the present systems had to form. Plus, the entire photosynthesis system would have been evolutionarily early because these very early fossils show the pigments and bi-products of photosynthesis. And that means the atoms which form them must have been lined up in the precise way of functional proteins and not just a jumble of any old atoms. 

The images here show the overall photosynthesis pathway and three of the protein systems close up. The components are mostly proteins, although there are a few other types of molecules. I will shortly talk about proteins in terms of their sub-units called amino acids, but I have made rough estimates of the total number of atoms in the system. This is a very rough estimate, so if anyone has the exact number, I’d be glad to hear it.

The set of proteins and other molecules known as “Photosystem I” are seen in the second image (NCBI Structure entry 2O01). There are over 50,000 atoms in this large set of molecules. That means they have to be specifically lined up by the cell enough to be in working order. Describing the system, the Abstract at the link says:

This structural information extends the understanding of the most efficient nano-photochemical machine in nature.

Photosystem II, pictured in the third image, has over 83,000 atoms in specific order (Wikipedia entry HERE).

When we add the atoms of photosynthesis molecules (very approximately), the cytochrome molecule has about 1500 atoms, and another integral part, ATP Synthase, has about 90,000. There are several other proteins to help with electron transfer, so we are looking at a total of around 225,000 atoms in a specific order for the photosynthesis system. Also necessary is a functional membrane so that an electro-chemical gradient can build to work the ATP synthase machine, and of course the genes which act as the template to make the proteins, the other proteins needed to copy the genes and make the proteins, and the regulators. The products of the photosynthesis complex go on to an entirely different set of molecules so they can be used to make the basic component of the parts of the cell (sugars, DNA, proteins, fats, etc.). 

When figuring probabilities that all of these parts could come together by chance, we often use the sub-unit of the protein called “amino acid.” This is because we can then assume the cell is already in working order and we can eliminate the chemistry involved in bringing all the atoms together. All biological amino acids have at least 10 atoms. The Photosystem I complex alone contains about 3100 amino acids.  Because there are 20 types of amino acids in proteins, this would bring a possibility of 20 to the power of 3100 combinations. Converting to a more familiar base 10, that would be 10 to the power of 4030 (written 10^4030). Even if the Earth is 4 billion years old, it could not have had more than 10^50 organisms (based on volume of water). In bacteria, a mutation only happens once about every 300 generations. The DNA that mutates during replication for another generation represents each "search" or "try" for the combination of amino acids that will function in the necessary way. The discrepancy is overwhelming for even one of the sets of molecules, since all reactions in a 14 billion year old universe are less than 10^150. And the total Photosynthesis machinery consists of about 15,000 amino acids (counted from composite parts in the RSCB PDB).

Yet, when confronted with these facts, the evolutionist will say something like, “Maybe there was exchange of genes so that part of a previously functional protein became part of this system.” There are several answers to this. First, if evolution were true, all proteins would have to arrive at their functional state by chance. Even a short protein, about 70 amino acids long, would need 10^90 tries to get the right combination of amino acids, and that assumes that the genetic machinery is in full working order and there is an intact membrane. The number 10^90 represents the estimated total number of atoms in the visible universe. Some proteins do need the exact lineup of amino acids, such as histones. And for those less exact, the proportion of functional proteins is still only one in 10^65 or so. Second, even if there are two or more changes at once, the organism will then miss out on the other “tries.” In other words, if the DNA base code changes from CCCCCC to CCCCGG from one generation or organism to the next, it will have missed CCCCCG, which might have been the necessary combination for function (the actual number of bases would be larger but this gives the idea: you get 2 G's instead of 1 G). When you are dealing with random, the genes don’t “know” which parts are functional and which aren’t.

These are the types of facts every Catholic should know.  It is not that difficult, and this is the argument that should be set forth. We should not weakly accept naturalistic, materialistic evolution theory. The student in the movie, Josh, said in so many words that though evolution seems random, God could be directing it. This is the argument I hear from Catholics and other Christians and it is not a valid argument. The problem is not with the paradox which is posed. The problem is that though they say evolution, they imply that biology SEEMS RANDOM when biology actually DOES NOT SEEM RANDOM. The photosynthesis machinery needs to have proteins which are folded in exact shapes and have the exact matches to fit with critical molecules in order for our cells to work. It sure does not seem random to me. The atoms are arranged in specific order so they can make products like no other in nature.

There may have been a time when biologists were overcome by the number of species of beetles and in that way biology may have seemed random to them.  Then we discovered that DNA does mutate in a seemingly random manner. Perhaps the changes within DNA that come about when an organism reproduces may eventually be proven to have some explanation, so that small part of cell biology may actually SEEM random to us now and not be. But that small part of biological metabolism has not been proven to provide the specific order that is necessary for fully functional biological systems. Therefore we can’t say meaningful evolution seems random when we refer to the formation of all working systems that are present in the full diversity of living organisms, including those systems that make living beings diverse.

The arrangement of these atoms is more complex than simple random connections. Although chemistry depends on probabilities of atom movements, it also depends on attractions of types of atoms and the concentrations of each. Since scientists don’t know the exact original conditions on Earth, they cannot tell us that materialistic origin of life is a fact. Likewise, they cannot exactly account for the photosynthesis mechanisms in life. Evolution is not a fact because no one is able to lay out the scientific details of how such systems formed.

These are the types of arguments we need against the evolutionists who feed the public with “proofs” of evolution. There may be small changes after many generations of bacteria, such as in R. Lenski’s experiments with thousands of generations of E. coli at Michigan State.  However, there are explanations for these that do not point toward totally materialistic, naturalistic evolution (discussion at CreationWiki HERE). As Michael Behe points out in the link I've just given, most changes are losses of function that somehow help the organism survive but decrease its overall efficiency. Rarely, a very small change in protein can lead to better function, but it is a tiny part of a much larger biological system which already works.

The need in our culture, as demonstrated in the movie God's Not Dead, is for Christians to learn the truth and then to evangelize. Let us do so!

Science and Culture

I will get to the title theme of this post soon, but I'd like to make some personal notes first. I don't know if you are new to my blog, but there has been a bit of a change. I had a book and several booklets in PDF form in the right column, but have taken them off. I have to admit that it was by accident. I wanted to erase an old reference paper I had on Google Docs, but somehow I erased them all. (2019 Update: I added these files again along with a few new ones which are free to read.)

Despite all this, it’s been good to write semi-regularly on my blog once again. I’ve been told my writing is didactic, basically meaning preachy. I know I can be heavy-handed and when I work on my mystery books, I try to keep the story moving and interesting in order to keep it easier to read. I still think a message is important, but I know people can be turned off if it comes across too strongly.

I was contemplating this when I wrote some of my recent posts. I was getting rather wound up about the problems of the world, and I stopped to consider the tone I should take. I'm still going through some thought processes about this. As my husband said, many blogs are didactic. Sometimes preaching is necessary, and I hope you will take my sincerity into account. On the other hand, I'd like to be clear and inviting. Such, I guess, is the challenge of writing. (And I sometimes go in and edit a post, as I have done with this one.)

I write about various things, and sometimes I take breaks from the blog. If you look at past posts, you will see I have written a great deal about Intelligent Design Theory (ID). To clarify, I have moved on from ID to what I call "Special Creationism," which still has to do with complexity and design in biology as ID does.  However, ID still emphasizes evolution, and Special Creation accepts that God may have made various species directly from scratch. In my posts, I come back again and again to the question of Darwinism and the conclusion that totally materialistic evolution is impossible. It may not seem to you the most fascinating of topics to consider in today’s world. But you might find upon reflection it very much relates to our country’s culture and mindset.

Today’s scientists as a group have great influence on people. They have persuaded government lawmakers concerning various issues. It might seem logical to think that’s the way it should be, since science scholars are intelligent and have a lot of education. Yet a very vocal group has unfortunately not only boasted of their own lack of religion but loudly disdain other persons’ beliefs. They have changed the culture in various ways, including the enforced teaching of evolution in public schools and use of human embryos for research.

I can’t totally generalize, because some scientists are religious. A 2009 survey of scientists showed at least half have some sense of spirituality, reported by David Masci, "Scientists and Belief," Pew Research Center (Nov. 5, 2009). It is interesting that the religious leanings of scientists have remained very close to what they were about 100 years ago. Scientists on the whole, however, are less religious than the rest of the population.

Atheistic scientists may have knowledge of facts, but instead of praying for God's wisdom, they settle for human knowledge alone. One can read in the Bible about what God can do with man’s wisdom:

For it is written:

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,

and the learning of the learned I will set aside.”

(1 Corinthians 1:19 NABRE)

In this Bible chapter, Paul talks about teaching the “message of the cross” (verse 18). Though that may seem foolish to some, it saves us from perishing in the end.

It is very frustrating to see the prejudice against believers, and for a while I was angry about what some scientists say. But then I realized that there are some over-publicized spokespersons and not all scientists are like them. Unfortunately, the loud ones are saying that church and state must be separated in our country and are powerful enough to so far get their way. Adding to that problem is a conflict between what many of us believe and what is being taught to the public, both in schools and in the media.

Our culture is also tremendously impacted. The prevailing mindset of Darwin's theory is "survival of the fittest" instead of the religious theme of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." World views must affect the behavior of children, at least sub-consciously. Though adults may rationalize a motive for group unselfishness, I doubt that all adolescents desire to think that through.

Though I understand that some people are concerned that we teach the most up-to-date science, the irony is that the evolutionists are keeping our kids from learning just that. They keep the numbers of probability of functional proteins from the media, and the new facts of DNA and other complexities of the cell have not been proclaimed widely. So, of those who do believe Darwinian spokespersons, many of them have not been taught all the facts. That is where we need to come in and teach both children and adults what really is happening with new scientific research. When they learn about the fabulous world of biology, they can evaluate for themselves where it comes from. I have already written much about life processes in my blog. As time goes by, more and better animations and scientific data are available. As I explore the Internet, I am pleased to find people are learning about cell biology already, judging from the number of hits some of the animations are getting. They show ever more of the complexity of the cell, the basic unit of biology.

None of us know everything. It seems natural for us to see things with a certain mindset. We evaluate facts from the point of view either of entirely materialistic mechanisms, or from the faith that a Creator had the genius to put life together and get it to work. Believers appreciate the creativity of biology and can go from there to learn more. I pray that non-believers will come to see the Lord's wisdom.

Penn State Alienation

While suffering through the Penn State mess, (2019 Update: ESPN story HERE), I reflect on the problems of institutions of "higher" learning. I know I can't begin to imagine what it takes to keep a university going on the scale of this one. Yet I have had experience on the Internet and with a few colleges and their personnel when it comes to making presentations about Intelligent Design Theory (ID). Though grinding their teeth to make themselves accept one presentation at a religion-science seminar, they wanted to hear no more. Some had been polite, others not so much.

I admit I'm not an expert on genetic research which goes at so fast a rate that few can keep up with all of it. Yet design seems obvious even at very basic levels. At my presentation, no one questioned the science. It was the theology, in my opinion, which made some uncomfortable.

Our institutions have become embarrassed about simple Christianity. Religion is still OK if presented in far-out Far Eastern terms, such as blending of consciousness and the universe. It's OK to talk about materialistic evolution where nature's laws are all that is needed to create everyone and everything. It's OK to study the Testaments as mythic historical stories. But let anyone talk about even the possibility of the God of the Bible directly creating the world, he or she is avoided like the plague.

I have written about changing my point of view from ID to Creationism, because even ID adherents have problems about admitting the theory has anything to do with religion. It is about science, they say, even though individuals may have their own religious views. Science appears to be the "higher" part of the institutions to which we refer. Higher, they seem to hold it, than God Himself.

We all know the research at colleges and universities has had great impact on our world. But not all they do is so momentous or good. Last summer, Penn State scientists came out with a theory that aliens may attack Earth to stop us from killing ourselves through global warming (reported by Fox News HERE). I think I saw that in a movie somewhere which is where they probably got the idea. So-called scientists can have any theory imaginable (the multi-universe theory is another example), but just approach a student group about the design in nature and you are cut off cold.

Perhaps this "Alien Theory" is to shore up skepticism which is due to a continuing scandal. One of Penn State's professors, Michael Mann, has been accused of doctoring data to prove dangerous, presumably man-made, global warming exists. The release of e-mails between him and other scientists a few years ago has been supplemented by more recent ones (Larry Bell, Forbes HERE). Huge amounts of money are involved in grants for research in this area. I'm no expert, but I read some of the e-mails and they don't look innocent to me. Human nature is the same whether it be in scientists or Wall Street traders (and it can be good or bad in both).

How does one get back to what is morally right? Even preachers have their problems, but if they are in church for the right reason, they know they are sinners and they need the Foundation, yes--Jesus Christ, to get them back on the right path. He is what the leaders of Penn State and any institution need in order to have the wisdom and courage to make the right decisions.

Philosophers try to root moral answers based strictly in human reason, and it doesn't work. Why should a sexual predator worry about whether he is hurting someone else? What makes the other's feelings more important than his own? Why should a scientist care more about accurate data than millions of dollars he gets for his research project? It's not what Aristotle or Plato said thousands of years ago, or what human beings alone can make of their thoughts now.

What really matters is what God says. He speaks through His Word and His works. That is, through the Bible and the beautiful design of nature. Though not everyone will be willing to listen, institutions of higher learning would do well to study them both in the way they are meant to be.

Texas Science Standards

Congratulations to those who worked so hard to recently bring about fair Science Teaching Standards in Texas (Evolution News article HERE). Students are now encouraged to critique science theories such as evolution, to evaluate the evidence as it truly presents itself.

The Discovery Institute has encouraged this approach to science classrooms. I can admire it in one way. It avoids the question of religion altogether. And scientific evidence as revealed by current research does show that there are definitely problems with the neo-Darwinian view of small changes through mutation and natural selection.

However much of a problem it is to "bring religion into the classroom," I can't help wondering if there is some way for all of us to deal with science education so that believers can be true to our religions, one of the original goals for our country. Because if religion is denied in science class, sooner or later the cracks will show. For Christians, God is the maker of the world, and therefore science is what God has made. An atheist cannot allow for a cell made by God in any way, whereas a believer can theorize that He made it directly and supernaturally (or at least should consider it as a possibility as compared to an indirect creation by some natural process after the Big Bang). As one of the participants in my last presentation said, God didn't just say, "Let there be light," as in the Big Bang, and let it go at that. According to Genesis, there were acts of creation after that. Whether or not we interpret "day" as 24 hours, it is not unreasonable to believe He directly created the biological cell.

How can that even be discussed when we keep materialistic, naturalistic evolution as the main and only structure which can at the most be picked at here and there? And it still marginalizes all who are Young Earth Creationists, forcing them into home-schooling and speaking against their own religion to pass state requirements for diplomas (as I understand at least some states do).

The Big Bang is looked upon by some Christians as the beginning of God's creation, but scientists speculate what happened beforehand--there is nothing sacred about the Big Bang to them.

Believers and non-believers are still very far apart in worldviews and there should eventually be respect for all people when it comes to our understandings of science. I am glad for progress of the type in Texas, but I don't think we are yet where we need to be.