Immaterial Reality Times Two

Not too long ago, I posted about the notion that information is the immaterial reality that cannot be explained by reference to material causes.

Now this.  

Not only is the genetic code a language, it is two languages with two different purposes stacked onto the same chemical sequence. 

From the original article:  "The genetic code uses a 64-letter alphabet called codons. The UW team discovered that some codons, which they called duons, can have two meanings, one related to protein sequence, and one related to gene control. These two meanings seem to have evolved in concert with each other"

David Klinghoffer responds:  "But think about how implausible this is. Let's say I write an article in English about Subject A. But ingeniously I choose my words in such a way that the article can also be read in a different language, providing information about a related but separate Subject B. Meditate for a moment on the ingenuity this would take -- not only that, but the forethought, with imagining a complex, distant goal being the first step in the process."

The genetic code uses a 64-letter alphabet called codons. The UW team discovered that some codons, which they called duons, can have two meanings, one related to protein sequence, and one related to gene control. These two meanings seem to have evolved in concert with each other. - See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/12/genome_composes080111.html#sthash.KHQsXchU.dpuf

The genetic code uses a 64-letter alphabet called codons. The UW team discovered that some codons, which they called duons, can have two meanings, one related to protein sequence, and one related to gene control. These two meanings seem to have evolved in concert with each other. - See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/12/genome_composes080111.html#sthash.KHQsXchU.dpuf

The genetic code uses a 64-letter alphabet called codons. The UW team discovered that some codons, which they called duons, can have two meanings, one related to protein sequence, and one related to gene control. These two meanings seem to have evolved in concert with each other. - See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/12/genome_composes080111.html#sthash.KHQsXchU.dpuf

CS Lewis, 50 Years Ago

Hard to believe it was 50 years ago that JFK was assassinated.  One of my earliest childhood memories was watching the flag draped coffin with Kennedy's body slowly passing down the streets on our old black and white TV with my parents.   I had just turned four.

Unknown to me at that time was the life and death, the same day, of C.S. Lewis who probably influenced me more than any other person, save Christ Himself.   I started reading Lewis in high school, first Mere Christianity, then The Screwtape Letters an later the Narnia books and the space trilogy.   Lewis was a brilliant mind, but many have had a brilliant mind.  No one wrote like Lewis, as Sherwood Wirt once said, Lewis had the ability to "make righteousness readable".   His clever turns of phrases, proper British prose and logical argumentation combined to make thinking enjoyable.

Three articles caught my attention today.

Language Games

One of the tenets of the postmodern drift is that "language is a mask to power".   I've been chewing on a brief post at Powerline for a few days that tersely dismisses that postmodern credo as a failed canard.

Basically, the claim of the secular progressive academia has often been that truth is determined by cultural consensus.  Different cultures make different truth claims.  Since ultimate truths are beyond the reach of reason, if they exist at all, we are left with the uncomfortable suggestion that whoever has power gets to control the language, and as a result gets to impose its version of truth on everyone else.  So the "rich" usually have the most power, thus they are usually the oppressors who control the language, creating words and destroying un-words according to their whim.

What they don't tell folks until they have been indoctrinated, is that their remedy to this injustice is for someone else to control the language.  (More)

Naturalist Claim: Global Flood Explains the Cambrian Explosion

Interesting article at Evolution News.

Stephen Meyer's new book Darwin's Doubt raises questions about how a vast array of life forms and body plans for those life forms could arise during the Cambrian explosion.  Critics of the book apparently mostly trashed it without engaging it, but Casey Luskin makes note of some attempts to deal with the specific question raised.

Here's the gist of a significant problem:  (more)

Misquoting Augustine, Revisited

A number of months ago I posted several times on the misuse of Augustine by Theistic evolutionists.   The gist of the posts, here, here and here, was that Augustine's "Literal Meaning Of Genesis", often quoted in a way that implies Augustine would have approved of reading Genesis 1-11 in a non-historical manner.  I countered with extensive quotations from City of God that showed Augustine was very insistent that Genesis was true history, and more specifically, that if there is an allegorical meaning or spiritual meaning, that always is parellel to and not in opposition to the historical.

Australian Creationist organization Creation.com is one Young Earth Creation site that I frequent, along with certain ID and Theistic Evolution sites to keep myself up to speed on things. 

This article profiles Professor Benno Zuiddam who teaches theology at North West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa.  He essentially makes the same point, that yes, some early church fathers believe there was an allegorical meaning in the Old Testament, but that allegorical meaning did not negate the historical truth of the events. 

Dennis Prager on Tolerance

The always worth reading Dennis Prager wrote a few days ago about the abuse of power in the name of tolerance. 

The key case that sparked his column is described in these words by Prager:

"Last week, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that an event photographer's refusal on religious grounds to shoot the commitment ceremony of a same-sex couple amounted to illegal discrimination.

"The photographer had never objected to photographing gays. She did not, however, wish to be part of a ceremony to which she religiously objected. In America today, thanks to myriad laws and progressive justices, people can go to prison for refusing to participate in an event to which they object."   (More)

Roger Olson - Arminian Order of Salvation

Roger Olson may be the most able articulator and defender of the Arminian viewpoint out there.   I thought this was well done.

Here's the heart of how salvation works logically (not chronologically) from an Arminian perspective.

Slippery Slopes

Progressive Christians often decry the use of the “slippery slope” argument when it suits them.  One example here.  On the one hand, I see their point.  I recall the old line from my early days that one drink necessarily leads to alcoholism or one rock and roll riff leads inevitably to Satan worship.  

There is a problem with such arguments that progressives would be correct in opposing if they stated the problem correctly.  It is fallacious to say that because some who have taken step A wind up at point Z, it is true that taking step A will always and inevitably lead to step Z.   Of course that is not the case, but I don’t think anybody ever said it was.

What Difference Does It Make?

Interesting stuff coming out of Washington since Steve Hayes at the Weekly Standard produced three different versions of "talking points" eventually used by Susan Rice to blame the attack on the Consulate in Benghazi Libya that killed Ambassador Chris Stephens and three others on an anti-Muslim video.

Even  ABC news has reported that the talking points underwent 12 revisions.  Jay Carney had claimed only single edit.  We now know that is untrue and that the decision to make the changes came from the State Department.

Scour the internet and even Mother Jones and the Huffington post are now paying attention to the story.

One might ask "What difference does it make?" to a blogger who mainly is concerned with theological issues.  (More)

Science Deniers - the 70s

A bit late for Earth Day, but given that conservatives are incessantly labeled "science deniers" this article caught my eye.   Jon Gabriel at Freedomworks has compiled a list of the the 13 worst Earth Day predictions.  (He quotes Ronald Baily from Reason.com, "Earth Day, Then and Now")

Being a 1977 high school  graduate, I disagree that the 1970s were a lousy decade.  We did have Star Wars, The Doobie Brothers and plenty of denim and some of the best muscle cars ever.  But I do remember the fear-mongering about the coming ice age.  It is precisely why the global warming alarmism of today gets taken with a grain of salt by conservatives from the get-go.

A few of the highlights - or rather lowlights.(More)

Traditional Marriage, Children and the Economy

Interesting read at Mecatornet about the effect of the erosion of traditional marriage onr the economy.  Key paragraphs:

"A productive household does not simply happen when parents beget a child. The foundation for a productive household begins with marriage. Other arrangements cannot measure up, not for the child, not for the couple, not for society, and certainly not for the economy.

"Cohabitation does not take the place of marriage, and there are very strong indications that cohabitation may rival single parenthood as the largest generator of child poverty, while divorce is the cause of most women and children entering poverty in any given year. If marriage makes the world and economy go ’round, these newer family structures truncate productivity, and society begins to limp along."

Not exactly new news.  

Kingdom - Not of This World

A lot of focus is placed in progressive circles on the "here and now" implications of the "kingdom of God".  A number of themes emerge, most of which made me vaguely uneasy.

One theme seems to be positing the Kingdom of God as a counter to the "Constantinian" view of the church, in essence to say that Christians (read conservatives) shouldn't be on a quest for political power.  (This misses the point of conservatism altogether which is largely a quest for the limitation of power.)

Another theme suggests that the Kingdom of God means the church is its own political force in exemplifying a nonviolent society committed to social justice and radical equality.

But what exactly is the Kingdom?   (More)

Jim Wallis Supports Same Sex Marriage - Why I am Not Surprised

Headline at Christian Post "Jim Wallis Now Supports Same-Sex Marriage".

First of all, no surprise here.  Anyone who has read the Sojourners site at all could see how the social justice bent of the overall ethos there and the progressive theological influences would make this a logical step.  Add the overwhelming support for same sex unions from those who comment there and the criticism Wallis faced from the left for not doing this sooner...let's just say I'm not in the least surprised.

What interests me is the reasoning and the approach Wallis takes.  He begins by talking about the overall decline in marriage in the culture at large.

"We are losing marriage in this society. I'm worried about that – among low income people, but all people. How do we commit liberals and conservatives to re-covenanting marriage, reestablishing, renewing marriage?"

Now that sounds like something conservatives and liberals could agree on, right?  (More)

Future of Evangelicalism - Roger Olson

Roger Olson has a lengthy two-part post up about the future of Evangelicalism (see here and here).  The gist is that evangelicalism as an ethos can still carry on according to five basic concepts based on the Noll/Bebbington quadrilateral of biblicism, conversionism, crucicentrism and activism, to which Olson adds a respect for historic orthodoxy.  But Olson thinks evangelicalism as a movement is dead.  It has fragmented into three basic groups. 

One he describes as "conservative, neo-fundamentalist" and identifies the Gospel Coalition as an example.  The second group he describes as "conservative, mediating evangelicals" and lists Christianity Today as one example.  Finally he identifies the "postconservative evangelicals" and includes Scot McKnight and Sojourners magazine as examples. 

I have to say I generally agree with him on this one.  As a movement, evangelicalism is at war with itself, particularly in relation to biblicism and activism, for conservatives and progressives define those terms very differently.  For progressives, the cross is increasingly about Christ identifying with the oppressed and is less an less about atoning for sin.  For progressives activism is increasingly about rejecting conservative concerns about the sanctity of life, individual responsibility and preservation of the nuclear family - activism is increasingly about grievances of oppressed groups, liberal definitions of social justice, radical inclusion and eradication of boundaries including advocacy of same-sex relations in some form.    Even the Noll/Bebbington quadrilateral fails to unite evangelicals these days.  (More)

Atonement and Resurrection

Critics of the Penal Substitution viewpoint generally object to PSA on an emotional level, that is, the image of Christ being punished to satisfy some standard of justice seems unfair (since he was innocent) and makes God look vindictive and violent.  Of course many of those who object are progressives who question pretty much everything and want to reinvent atonement according to some social justice narrative.  So in some of the wild new atonement speculations, Jesus died to identify with the poor, the marginalized, the oppressed.  Depending on how far they have gone in redefining sin and justice, the very notion of needing salvation from moral guilt and judgment seems nonsensical to some.  Others want the cross to be about politics, the Roman empire executed Jesus so real Christianity is about resisting empires (usually Western democracies get classified as empires while Communist regimes and Muslim caliphates get a pass).

But others are still somewhat connected to orthodox faith and even to evangelicalism and merely have been influenced by the emotional response of some to the "cosmic child abuse" charge.   Isn't there a better way to think about this whole sacrifice thing?  (More)

Reverse discrimination

There appears to be growing evidence that the advancement of gay rights, particularly gay marriage, does cause discrimination against people of faith.  So "no bullying" leads to bullying.

In one case a Portland couple is under investigation for declining to fashion a wedding cake for a lesbian couple

There are similar cases in the UK, one involving a marriage counselor who felt giving marriage advice to gay couples violated her faith.

While the secular society claims there can be no absolutes, it is clear full acceptance of gay inclusion is a secular absolute that is increasingly enforced with public accusations of irrational bigotry and now the threat of legal ramifications. So the force of law, the courts and eventually the police will almost certainly be used to make sure everyone complies with the new sexual ethic.

Essentials - A Graphic

On the essentials unity...

So what is essential? What are the vital doctrinal issues that matter, not only for the integrity of the Christian faith, but also for the unity of the whole of Christianity.

I'll need to deal with Roger Olson's distinction between a "centered set" and a "bounded set" in a future post, but for the moment I would offer one way I use to mentally quantify the essential and the non-essential and it is probably something many of us do without realizing it.

I have in the past suggested different levels for what is essential.   

• There are creedal essentials which Christians are almost all unified on.  
• There are confessional essentials that Protestants at least used to be largely agreed upon.  Then there are denominational distinctives that may be important for particular reasons but are not essential.  
• Finally there are lesser matters of conscience that should not be cause for any division.

It seems to me there are two criteria that can be plotted mentally in a way that helps clarify things.  On the one hand there is the matter of "what is important" or at the risk of driving postmoderns crazy, "what is foundational?".   Maybe a better way of stating it is "is this doctrinal idea something that other truths of the faith are built upon?   If we remove this stone from the wall, will the wall crumble?"

Penal Substitution and the Early Fathers

There has been a Lot of talk about the matter of "Penal Substitution" in recent years.   Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) is the view that the death of Christ on the cross paid a penalty of guilt on behalf of others – hence “penal” and “substitution”.  The gist of the objection to PSA is that it allegedly makes God look like some sort of monster, since the penalty is paid to God and the “wrath of God” is satisfied, a point sometimes expressed forcefully in revivalist settings and/or among the neo-Calvinists.  Steve Chalke and others have used the term "cosmic child abuse", since God pouring out wrath on his own Son seems offensive to modern sensibilities. 

(More)

Conservative Pundits vs Birthers

I was recently forced to sit through an extended segment at the health club where journalist extraordinaire Al Sharpton mocked Donald Trump's feud with Bill Maher - heavy stuff, I know.  It was all mockery and fluffed up controversy and not much substance.  Woulda preferred to turn it off.

This is way off topic an I'm wading into slimy waters here, post Obama's second election it probably doesn't matter at all.  But this post is not so much about where Barack Obama was born as it is about how the "birther" question has been handled by the conservative media.
More

News Flash: Legalized Gay Marriage Harms Society

One common argument made by proponets of gay marriage is the emotional appeal that no one will be hurt by legalized same-sex marriage and that those heterosexuals who wish to honor their marriages can still do so.  Apparently, in the UK, the argument has even been made that by opening up an official status of "married" to gay couples, marriage as an institution will be strengthened.   

That kind of argument has been forcefully answered by Dr. Patricia Morgan in her testimony before the House of Commons.  She argues, and support her view with statistics, that gay marriage will further erode the cultural commitment to the institution of marriage, and in fact, by decoupling marriage from the procreation and nurture of children, it will in fact harm society.

Her testimony is summarized at the Telegraph.
(More)

The Hidden Censorship of Scientism

I do read Uncommon Descent daily. Interesting article last week regarding Professor James Tour is listed as Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Rice University.

Tour has stated his opinion that no scientist alive really understands macroevolution.  His primary concern is with the mechanism of chemical evolution.  He "makes molecules" he says, and he knows how hard it is to get all the pieces to fit together, so the question of how it all happened in nature a long, long time ago leaves him with questions.  But the ugly secret is that behind the scenes he is not alone.  Here is his claim:

"Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science – with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public – because it’s a scary thing, if you say what I just said – I say, “Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?” Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go “Uh-uh. Nope.” These people are just so far off, on how to believe this stuff came together. I’ve sat with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. Sometimes I will say, “Do you understand this?”And if they’re afraid to say “Yes,” they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can’t sincerely do it."  More

Justin Lee and the Queen James Bible

It is my strong belief that the reason there is so much controversy over homosexuality in the church and culture is not because belligerent and rather disgusting figures like Fred Phelps have suddenly started persecuting gays.  It is not as though homosexuality is something new and the church has never dealt with the issue in the last 20 centuries.  Nor do I believe the primary issue is a lack of compassion for those who struggle with same-sex attraction, although certainly that common failure is worth noting.

The reason there is controversy is that a political movement has attempted to make homosexuality a civil rights issue and has aggressively and relentlessly forced that issue into public debate.

Conservatives have responded, of course, oftentimes inartfully.   And in true Alinskyite fashion, the reaction by conservatives has often been used by the political wing of the LGBT movement as a club to beat key targeted figures with, to use the emotion associated with perceived injustice as evidence of rampant injustice and sway the opinions of those who don't bother to think too deeply.

And of course the "sympathetic" figure always helps sell an idea.  (More)

C.S. Lewis on Scientism

I recently finished reading The Magician's Twin subtitled "C.S. Lewis on Science, Scientism and Society".   The book is edited by John G West.  It is a good read and it was fun to reengage with Professor Lewis' ideas once again. 

A few internet articles have made a bit of a point about Lewis' views of Darwin or Intelligent Design, but the central theme of The Magician's Twin is really not Lewis' view of Darwinism.  At the heart of the book is Lewis' view of scientism, his distrust of an overconfidence in the value of natural science to lead us to ultimate truth about the universe.  And more to the point, Lewis feared the manipulation of science by those in power.  (More)

A Conversion Story

Stunning article in CT called "My Train Wreck Conversion" the story of one Rosaria Champaign Butterfield.

The header for the article reads, "As a leftist lesbian professor, I despised Christians. Then I somehow became one." 

What was her worldview?  "As a professor of English and women's studies, on the track to becoming a tenured radical, I cared about morality, justice, and compassion. Fervent for the worldviews of Freud, Hegel, Marx, and Darwin, I strove to stand with the disempowered. I valued morality. And I probably could have stomached Jesus and his band of warriors if it weren't for how other cultural forces buttressed the Christian Right."  More

Tony Jones Slays a Unicorn (Updated)

Tony Jones posted last week on the question of whether Christian progressives have a moral foundation.  The discussion  was raised with a question from Steven Kurtz

Johathan Haidt’s new book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. He says that research has shown that Western and Educated people from Industrialized, Rich, Democratic countries (or WEIRD people) who self-identify as “progressive” (socially) use, almost exclusively two moral “foundations” as criteria for making moral judgments: Harm/care and Fairness/reciprocity. We progressive WEIRD people do not use the remaining 3 foundations: Ingroup/loyalty, Authority/respect, or Purity/sanctity – the 3 that conservatives do use, in addition to, and in a higher priority manner than Harm and Fairness.

But progressives then have a problem with the God of most traditional and especially Christian formulations – especially with retribution, punishments, curses, condemnations, as well as problems with the unfairness of the treatment of women, slaves, and other outsiders. This gives us a huge problem with the bible and the god it describes, which forces us to re-think everything. Thus our problem speaking much, or coherently about God. Where do we go for information? Obviously from the comments I’ve read, anywhere available to our tastes.

(More)

Ben Shapiro on Bullies

Not sure I relish all of Ben's recommendations or the notion we have to embrace tactics that lean toward "incivility", but there comes a point where self-defense requires a bit of force. Long video, but worth watching. Bright mind, brave soul.

Guns 3 - The Good, The Bad and the Progressives

Jim Wallis presented the progressive view of the NRA's Dangerous Theology over at "God's Politics".  He tries to respond to Wayne LaPierre's cute little formula "“the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” by suggesting LaPierre has a simplistic view of human nature where people are either good or bad.  I'm quite sure LaPierre understands that human beings are a bit more complex than white hats and black hats, but that is hardly the point.  At a given moment, if a guy who is very bad at that moment has a weapon, it is a good thing for a cop, a security guard, a soldier or a conscientious citizen to be able to stop him - if necessary with a weapon.

But the real howler of an argument Wallis proposes goes like this:

When we are good, we want to protect our children — not by having more guns than the bad people, but by making sure guns aren’t the first available thing to people when they’re being bad.

The utter absurdity of that argument is very simple.  Gun laws do not accomplish that goal.  Gun laws do not prevent mass murderers from having guns.   (More)

Roe V Wade at 40

40 years ago today, the phrase Roe v Wade became etched in the nation's conscience.  It remains, in my mind, the singular source of the polarization of the political landscape in this country for one simple reason:  The Supreme Court found a right in the constitution that simply was not there.

That singular ruling set off decades of debate about "original intent" of the founding fathers vs the notion of a "living constitution" that evolved with the times.   At stake was the simple question of whether law itself had meaning apart from the momentary whim of a judge, whether the written law could ever again be appealed to as a norm.

The Constitution did not mention abortion.  "Personhood" - that one was thought to have been settled in the debate over slavery, that the law could not declare a human being a non-person or partial person by the stroke of a legal pen. 

The crux of the Roe decision was the "right to privacy" which the court simply left undefined - privacy to do what?  Privacy with what limits?   Can any and every action be considered off limits to law if committed in private?

Trust Your Feelings - Steve Chalke on Inclusion

This  issue will not go away because the gay rights advocates will not let it.

Prominent British Evangelical Steve Chalke has come out in support of gay inclusion.  Of course this follows a predictable trajectory that has been documented on this blog for a number of years, not only in my short-lived experiment with Anglicanism, but also in the steady drift to the theological left of figures such as Brian McLaren and Tony Jones.  More

Guns 2

 The New York Times, hardly a right-wing handmaiden of the NRA lobby, published a surprisingly honest story on Obama's plans for gun control, plans that go "beyond mass shootings".  Ah.  So the plan is not limited to ending mass murder, but control of firearms that goes somewhere "beyond"...

Key quotes: 

"The semiautomatic rifle that Adam Lanza used to shoot 20 schoolchildren and 6 adults complied with Connecticut’s assault weapons ban, the police said, and he did not buy the gun himself." 

and "In 2011, 6,220 people were killed by handguns, and 323 by rifles"

and "Better background checks would have had little effect on several recent mass shootings"  (more)

Guns

The tragic shooting of schoolchildren in Connecticut has led to a significant call for more gun laws, including the absurd trial balloon floated by Joe Biden that president Obama can take some sort of action by Executive order.  Such a call shows contempt for the constitution these men are sworn to defend.

Once again, as has happened so often in the past, emotions are set forth as arguments while reason and principle are smothered.  (More)