Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘why’

Over the past decade or so, several scientists, authors, and speakers have joined forces to promote their observations that indicate life originated with a designer. Cells are just too complicated, they say, to have arisen by chance. Spontaneous generation, disproven centuries ago, remains the naturalist’s only option for the origin of biological life. Yet the odds against even a simple single-celled organism arising by chance are astronomical. The molecules have to line up all at once to form proteins, which have to line up quickly into the cells. DNA is a complex code for building life: made up of simple proteins, the series communicates a baffling level of information. Intelligent Design usually rests their case for an original designer at this point, picking back up after life has begun to debate Darwinism’s explanation for the variety of life we witness on earth.

But they could take the matter farther. Even if the remotest of far-fetched chances (this is before mutation or natural selection or heredity can have any impact on the process) came true and all the chemicals and molecules lined up, the language DNA writes still had to come from somewhere. It has no meaning without an Author. That age-old question, “Why?” asked by every two year old since humanity began, remains: both inside science and in the realm of philosophy.

According to the theory of evolution, mutations and natural selection account for increasing complexity and increasing variety among living creatures. (Evolutionists have precious little to explain the acquisition of new information in the DNA; all observable speciation, mutation, and variation consists of loss of information, reduced parameters for variety in future generations.) Evolutionists usually posit that all life arose from a single simple organism (which found sufficient nourishment, reproduced, and gave us the definition of life as we know it). Intelligent Design scientists point out that among the known species, there are many examples of features too complex, too perfectly adapted to be attributed to chance. The advent of each of these mechanisms would have been almost as miraculous as the first life, according to the mathematics. Take vision, wings, migration instinct, sex. Some creatures demonstrate irreducible complexity: all the new parts have to be present and perfect immediately to be functional. In some cases, the slightest difference means death for the creature in whom the feature was derived, and we know that dead creatures don’t pass their genes to future generations.

Complexity, information, and observed natural processes and their limitations are the data. Statistical probabilities are the analyses. Impossible is a logical conclusion. But life exists whether we can explain it or not. So some, purely on scientific grounds, conclude that there may be a designer. If we include this intelligence in the list of natural phenomenon; in other words, accept it as an observable* part of our world, humans can keep studying this marvelous, orderly world, drawing conclusions allowing for design and occasional if not constant intervention by a creative and powerful force.

*Scientists observe evidence for design in other fields (outside of ‘natural science’) all the time. Forensic science, for example, searches for clues that will tell an investigator whether a crime was committed. We not only judge whether there was intelligence, but degrees of intelligence using science. Consider archaeology. We may find a rustic clay pot, or a ziggurat aligned with constellations. Both represent intelligence, but of varying degrees.

Nor does it take a scientist to observe evidence for design. You are walking on the beach. Lying in the sand is a watch. With its gears and correspondence to what you call and measure as time, you conclude that the watch was designed, intelligently. Here most people explain our conclusions using a contrast with something “obviously” not designed, like the sand on the beach. The casual observer can see nothing about the form of the sand that stands out, that indicates someone intentionally smoothed it out and drew in ripples. In fact, we can even explain the tiny size of the particles, their smoothness, and the ripples by natural, consistent, observable events.

Here’s where I differ. Just as we have no explanation (using forces exclusive of a designer) for life, so science cannot explain the origin or structure of these tiny rocks. Under a microscope these crystals and substances reveal a mastery of molecular architecture. Each different rock is functional and unique from other kinds of rock. We’re taught that everything is composed of atoms, those busy bits whirling and attracting and repulsing with a reliability that we need every moment. What keeps the atoms together? What gives them weight? Why are there so many different substances? Even if “naturalists” are right, and the universe began with a big bang, what exploded, why and how? Where did the “what” come from, or the energy for the explosion? Why are there laws, and why are they repeatable? Taking our illustration of the sand, how did it get in the sea to be beaten into fragments, smoothed along a beach, and shaped by the waves breaking on the shore? Why do waves break, and how?

I argue that there is no such thing as naturalism without a designer, because every bit of nature is inexplicable without a designer. The laws of the universe represent order and harmony and intelligence. A cell may be more complex than a grain of sand, but only as the ziggurat is to a clay pot. Both are designed. And everything “natural” is so elegantly structured that its aesthetic far outweighs the clumsy pot made by man.

To God be all glory,
Lisa of Longbourn

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

What should parents of strong-willed children do? 

Understand yourself.  Are you strong-willed?  How do you make decisions?  How do you communicate and learn?  

 

Understand your child.  Love him unconditionally.  Be humble.  Rely on God.  Be willing to let Him be the ultimate authority in your child’s life. 

 

Until conversion from dead in sins, a child has two options: either he is subject to influence, in which case a parent has an easier time getting a child to obey, but risks producing a child who follows whichever prevailing influence, be it human, media, or substance.  Or the child is what is called strong-willed, which means he worships something.  No threats of punishment; no bribery of food, toys, privileges, or love will avail.  To such a child there is no question of comprehension (he knows what you mean) or the easy way out.  He doesn’t want the easy way.  He doesn’t want fun, or gentleness.  At least he might, but it is not his primary will. 

 

You can tell this child what to do.  Tell him what you expect.  Tell him consequences.  And follow through.  If you do not follow through on his expectations, he will see that what you tell him about rules are not facts, but manipulations.  This must not be a contest of wills, you against him.  Never punish any child for doing something you simply didn’t want him to do.  If you didn’t tell him it was a rule, he wasn’t disobeying you.  If you were displeased, simply tell him so, make a new rule if necessary, and move on. 

 

Facts are influential here.  The fifth commandment is repeated in the Bible several times, rephrased.  In one place it says, “Children obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.”  The last part is a statement of fact.  “This is right.”  Tell your child what is right and what is wrong.  He may still do what is wrong, but decisions are made on facts, and eventually the facts might bring him to change his mind.  Know that “because I said so,” won’t go a long way with him, though. 

 

If a strong-willed child asks you why, he is seeking more facts.  His decision-making faculties need more information.  Some parents see this as a challenge to authority.  From one light it is.  From the child’s perspective, authority is largely irrelevant.  He isn’t demanding you give him an answer or else he won’t obey you.  He is learning to make decisions of his own.  He will make his decisions on his own, and he will acquire his facts from you if he trusts you and you’re available, or from someone else, if you’re not.  Take his “why?” as a sign of trust and respect.  He considers you qualified to answer. 

 

You’ve no idea how many times I took tests and saw trick questions because there was insufficient information.  I wanted to interrogate the questioner, to get all the facts.  Unfortunately most of the authors of questions didn’t see things my way.  They were actually testing my ability to assume what they were asking.  True or false questions were the exception.  Those were my kind of challenges.  One word could be different or omitted, and the statement would change.  There was the place for trick questions to be detected. 

 

Tell him stories.  Don’t tell him allegories or fables.  Strong-willed children will see through these.  But tell him stories about noble characters.  Tell him Bible stories.  If your child remembers facts, this is a sign that he is going to be influenced in the same way. 

 

Don’t confuse an affinity for facts with a dismissal of concept.  If concepts are reality, they are facts as well, and your child will comprehend them.  My mother and sister learned math by memorizing formulae.  “It’s magic,” my mom’s geometry teacher taught her.  Math was a series of tools, a means to an end, but not a truth to her.  To me math is a reality.  I follow concepts.  When I was learning to reciprocal fractions in order to divide them, I could not understand because my mom/teacher gave me rules, but not facts.  The rule was to invert the second fraction, then multiply.  But the concept was as simple as the top number is divided by the bottom number.  Notice the difference in those statements.  One has the infinitive, “to invert,” implying a command or an action.  The second is a statement of fact indicated by “is.”  There is a third type of person, the creative, who sees outside the box.  I encountered my deficiency in geometry.  My mom memorized theorems.  I learned concepts, could anticipate theorems.  But doing proofs was incredibly hard, especially if it involved adding a fact (constructing one or more lines). 

 

For theology the same applies.  Don’t just teach simple facts.  You can teach concepts that are realities.  Just be ready for a lot of questions (don’t get worried about them; your child is not losing his faith, but owning it, allowing it to expound into his decision making). 

 To God be all glory, Lisa of Longbourn

Read Full Post »