Evolution: Fact or Fiction?

       Pre-Charles Darwin, faith in a Creator went virtually unchallenged, the only disputes being those relating to Church doctrine and Bible interpretation. And for many years after HMS Beagle dropped anchor following its epic five-year journey, God remained in the ascendancy; even converts to evolution continued to believe He had triggered the entire process, sitting back on the sixth day to watch how life unfolded. 

       Times have changed. Over the last century, modern atheism has gradually but effectively used Darwin’s theory to try and eradicate the Almighty altogether, leaving all but the strongest faiths faltering with uncertainty. The British government has proved a powerful accessory to the secular cause by insisting on evolution being taught in all state-funded schools and universities. While still selling itself as a God-fearing nation, America too has its detractors, as atheists reject religious symbols, prayers and any practices which may indicate the existence of a Divine Being.       

       So is the world now sinking into complete Godlessness? Has the hand that parted the Red Sea been cut short? Have we relegated the Bible to the SciFi/Fantasy section of the library? 

      Scientists deal in facts. So let’s do that. Let’s examine a few facts which may redress the balance.

Precision

       Subject to physical laws and natural constants that seem uniquely tailored to support the planets, and contrary to Big Bang or Chaos theories suggesting it all just happened by accident, our Universe is so finely-tuned that even the slightest changes could destroy life on earth. Electromagnetism, gravity, strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force affect everything in the entire planetary system, working together in perfect harmony to keep whole galaxies in their place.

      Think about it: How could NASA chart a course for a rocket without the precision of the planets, allowing them to time their orbits to a millionth of a second? How else could astronomers predict the next eclipse or meteor shower? As it is, the sun, moon and stars have a set pattern to keep themselves and the earth rotating smoothly. Did they evolve, or is there a superior intelligence out there? 

      Many scientists agree with John Polkinghorne, previously a physicist at Cambridge University: “When you realize that the laws of nature must be incredibly finely tuned to produce the universe we see, that conspires to plant the idea that the universe did not just happen, but that there must be a purpose behind it.” **

      This view is supported by Australian physicist Paul Davies who says: “There is no doubt that many scientists are . . . scornful of the notion that there might exist a God, or even an impersonal creative principle.” He added: “Personally I do not share their scorn. . . . I cannot believe that our existence in this universe is a mere quirk of fate, . . . an incidental blip in the great cosmic drama.”

Complexity

      Of all the proofs put forward as evidence of design, this for me is perhaps the most telling. The sheer complexity of DNA, for instance, resulting from countless chemical reactions, shows the odds of it forming spontaneously are so small, it would be mathematically impossible. Yet every living organism is made up of countless complex parts, all dependent upon other complex parts for their existence.  

       Take a single human cell. Within its membrane walls, several components need to be in place for the cell to split and reproduce itself: 1) The nucleus or control centre; 2) The nucleolus, where ribosomes are formed; 3) Ribosomes where proteins are created; 4) Chromosomes which contain DNA, the genetic masterplan; and 5) Mitochondrion, the production centre for energy-supplying molecules. 

       Quite an assembly. Yet, without just one of the above components, the cell would simple wither and die. Which poses a dilemma for evolutionists. How can a cell grow into a human or any other species if it cannot divide? How can it divide unless all the components are in place at the same time? How, in fact, could a cell form with other cells to create a human being or any other species? 

       Even if it were possible for a human male to evolve, what are the chances of a female counterpart evolving at the same time in order for them to reproduce?  

The missing missing link

       What about the fossil record, to which many refer as proof of evolution? Where are the host of intermediate relics which link one species to another? The fact is, despite many hoaxes, there is still no definite proof and some scientists believe the current evidence for Darwin’s theory is weak.

       In his book Darwin’s Enigma, Aerospace engineer Luther D. Sutherland wrote: “The scientific evidence shows that whenever any basically different type of life first appeared on Earth, all the way from single-celled protozoa to man, it was complete and its organs and structures were complete and fully functional. The inescapable deduction to be drawn from this fact is that there was some sort of pre-existing intelligence before life first appeared on Earth.” 

       Donald E. Chittick, a physical chemist, says: “A direct look at the fossil record would lead one to conclude that animals reproduced after their kind as Genesis states. They did not change from one kind into another. The evidence now, as in Darwin’s day, is in agreement with the Genesis record of direct creation. Animals and plants continue to reproduce after their kind. In fact, the conflict between palaeontology (study of fossils) and Darwinism is so strong that some scientists are beginning to believe that the in-between forms will never be found.”

** If proof were needed, we only have to view the breakdown of our ecology, global warming, extreme weather, and the extinction of various species. #ecology

https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/science-and-the-bible/

(link: https://twitter.com/JacyBrean/status/1095274733439012864)

http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Enigma-Luther-Sunderland/dp/0890512361

'The Origin of Species'

How Darwin’s theory has influenced humankind

It was the ’must-have’ book of the Century. Everyone who was anyone felt duty-bound to buy, read and comment on this game-changing tome.

To say Charles Darwin’s ‘Origin of the Species’ rocked the earth is putting it mildly. Since its publication in November 1859, Darwin’s theory has been more fiercely debated than almost any other subject. Although creationists viewed the concept as blasphemous, evolution has rapidly become one of the world’s fastest growing belief systems.

But has its worldwide acceptance benefited mankind? Or could it actually have caused, or at the very least exacerbated, many of our problems?

Twenty-five years after the book hit the shelves, an illustrious group of European statesmen sat down together at the Conference of Berlin and systematically carved up Africa, with catastrophic effect. To what extent did Darwin’s theory influence this conference?*

Surely, the appalling arrogance of these men - who referred undiplomatically to their theme as the ‘Burden of Africa’ - was at best Imperialistic and at worst downright racist. The delegates held that, as Africans were ‘uncivilised’ by European standards, they were therefore inferior - an implicit assumption which Darwin’s book  -  “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” to give it its full title – did nothing to dispel.

The same assumption helped fuel the Holocaust, with Nazis viewing non-Arian minorities, such as Jews and Romanians, as sub-human - to such a degree that mass extermination of these groups could be carried out with no qualms whatsoever….all to further the Master Race!

At the other extreme, Stalin and his cronies found the godlessness of Darwin’s theory extremely useful. One of his first policies was to dismantle religion, that ‘opiate of the masses’, forcing Eastern Bloc residents to regard communism as the only acceptable way to think.

And, generally speaking, the ‘survival of the fittest’ concept has done little to make us nicer, kinder or less selfish. The ’Me’ generation flourished all the more in the belief that this life’s all there is - “Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die!” as the Stoics would say. Meanwhile, the absence of accountability to anyone but oneself and one’s own desires has led to casual relationships, unwanted children, broken families, gratuitous violence, greed, selfishness and pride.

Lack of belief in a Creator has also caused psychological problems. No matter how many refuse to accept it, every human has a spiritual need which we neglect at our peril.  When this need is unaddressed, people will do one of two things: Live for the moment, focusing purely on physical pleasures and goals, or search for some purpose and meaning to their lives, a search which can sometimes lead to occult practices, exploitation, religious fraud and unscrupulous cults.

With its poor track record, world religion, as a whole, has turned many sincere people away. But, like the Emperor’s New Clothes, evolution must also bear a heavy responsibility for the evils we face.

*http://www.africafederation.net/Berlin_1885.htm

Quotes from ‘The Origin of Species’ – Charles Darwin

“Whilst Man, however well-behaved,
At best is but a monkey shaved!” 

“One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.” 

“Man selects only for his own good: Nature only for that of the being which she tends.” 

A bird’s eye view - Hang-gliding in the Peak

"Suddenly, from out of the sky, 4 great shadows appeared, each with 10ft wings. One by one, they whooshed down from above, snatched the prey from the nunjas' claws & ascended sharply back into the air." (Extract from ‘Flight from Fernilee’)

Are they planes? Are they prehistoric birds? No, they’re hang-gliders, soaring into the skies like  brightly-coloured and highly adventurous eagles. Considered by enthusiasts to be the most demanding, yet exhilarating, of all free flight experiences, hang-gliding provides a wider scope than para-gliding, as pilots can climb faster and more freely in varying winds and weather conditions. Which no doubt explains why this thrilling activity is so popular in the Derbyshire Peak, where Pennines to the east and Welsh hills to the west create a climate as hard to predict as the next Derby winner.

Take a hike up Mam Tor near Castleton on a bright, breezy day and you’re likely to see hang-gliders preparing for flight - that’s if they’re not too out-of-breath from hauling their gear up to the summit! Quite often, these intrepid birdmen and women seem to spend ages not really doing very much, but they’re actually waiting for the ideal conditions in which to take off, no doubt gauging the weather by means of a wind sock. Pilots also need to assess any hazards in the area and ensure maximum safety for themselves and others.

       Accidents do happen, although these usually involve unqualified pilots who, having acquired the equipment, believe all they have to do is take a running jump from the nearest hilltop. Fortunately, most hang gliders have been thoroughly trained by a British Hang Gliding & Paragliding Association (BHPA) registered school, a course that normally takes about 10 days. Pupils learn how inspect their kit and assemble it safely, to assess the dangers, to read the weather, to take off and to land properly –ideally on their feet. However, in case landings go wrong, trainees also learn how to roll to minimise injuries.

       When learning to fly, some gliders are ‘aero towed’, or hitched by winches to microlights, which pull them into the air. According to Airways Airsports, this is the easiest way to get airborne as it cuts out all the hassle of hill-climbing over and over again just to gain a few seconds of flight. Airways Airsports’ professional team - including three-times World Champion Judy Leden MBE and World record holder Chris Dawes - provides tandem hang-gliding aerotow tuition for beginners, helping them spread their wings with 20-30 minutes in the air from their very first lesson.

       Whether they could swoop down and rescue four children and one hairy shot-putting Scotsman from the ground is open to debate but, for those who know what they’re doing, it’s an exhilarating experience like no other.

‘Flight from Fernilee’ by Jacy Brean is available from Amazon UK and US in both printed and digital formats

The most boring spectator sports in the world

      Some years ago, no doubt as an act of revenge for the Boston Tea Party, UK’s then prime minister David Cameron threatened to teach Barack Obama to play cricket during a visit to the States. As far as I know, the former POTUS didn’t take up the offer, for which Americans should be eternally grateful!
       Boring enough when you can actually SEE it, this strange public school ritual is regularly brought to an agonisingly mind-numbing low by BBC Radio 4 every summer - for weeks without end. I would describe cricket as being utterly pointless but for the fact that it seems to have more points than any other sport, awarded for no obvious reason and with a total lack of logic.
     Which set me musing on further boring spectator sports:
(1) Top of the list has already been mentioned, i.e. cricket in which the main excitement is two men walking from one set of sticks to another set of sticks, holding a large piece of willow used to bat a ball into oblivion or into the hands of a mid-off or whatever to deafening roars of approval from the crowd. And it doesn't even bounce! Bowl a maiden over? Not this one!
(2) Golf. At least in cricket you get to see somebody running occasionally -and I must admit the players look very fetching in their matching white outfits and shin pads. But tartan trews and little woolly jumpers? Sorry, in the fashion stakes, golfers just don't hack it - unless they end up in the bunker, which is fun!
(3) Hockey. Now I must declare an interest here. At high school, me and my jolly old hockey stick were assigned to one end of a very cold, very muddy field while the rest of the team bashed everyone else's legs to bits at the other end. Being in defence, I can't remember seeing the ball more than a couple of times in all my years at school, and even then I'd have to battle with my own team's goalie for possession - the only exercise we got and probably the only time the opposing team were in with a chance!
(4) Snooker. Not only do the players not run, they hardly move at all unless it's to lean over the table to hit a little white ball. The most exciting it gets is when the players sip their beer or whisky or whatever and one can at least start wondering how long they'll stay upright....which probably explains why they're always leaning over!
(5) Bowling. No, not the kind you do in bowling alleys, but the genteel kind which is normally played on a velvet smooth bowling green. Again, competitors don't seem to move very much (if at all) but then most of them do have the excuse of being well over 80. Teenagers at our local green have tried to sabotage the game by hammering broken bottles into the grass, but nothing stops the intrepid team from pursuing their favourite sport. What that generation lacks in speed is more than compensated by sheer endurance!
(6) Darts. No excuse here, as anyone over 18 (the legal UK limit for drinking) can join in what is perhaps the only sport where spectators actually look healthier than the players! The beauty of this activity is, like bowling and snooker, you can be a champion without ever having to don a tracksuit, go running at dawn or cut out the carbs and the extra pint. A couple of sit-ups once a week and a good pair of spectacles are all it takes to be a world-class darts master. It must surely rank alongside snail racing for its sheer exhilarating thrill factor!
(7) Curling. This was a new one on me until the 2008 Olympics (or was it the one before that?) when the Scottish team actually won a Gold! Very pleased about that, the only downside being that I felt compelled to watch them as they swept their way to victory - reminding me that I hadn't done the vacuuming that day. Definitely toe-curling!

Strive, Strive, Never Arrive!

       In our materialistic age, it’s hardly surprising that one of the best-known verses in the Bible is about money.

        What IS surprising is that “Money” is NOT, as has so often been misquoted, “the root of all evil.” On the contrary, without money no one in today’s world would be able to function. (2 Tim 6:9,10)

        No, the real problem is the “LOVE of money,” a love which, the verse goes on to explain, causes some to “stab themselves all over with many pains.” In contrast, the secret of a happy life is learning to be content, to want what you have – but try telling that to a wannabe 1 percenter!

        Those determined to be rich will never be satisfied, no matter how much money they acquire. And it’s not just the luxury lifestyle they crave. For many, it’s the thrill of the chase, the next big deal, the gamble that pays off, the battle for supremacy, the one-upmanship. The power.

       Obsessed with power, a well-known magnate built a temple on one of the islands he owned, or so the story goes. Here, he would spend hours communing with dubious deities, invoking their powers to make him stronger, cleverer and more powerful than his rivals. His family life was a mess, his first wife committed suicide, his second wife divorced him, his children died tragically, he couldn’t eat properly and his health was abysmal. His only ‘joy’ in life, if you can call it that, was his massive fortune and in knowing he owned a bigger yacht than anyone else on the planet! The demons did their job!

       Not all lovers of money splash out on luxuries, of course; some rich people are extremely miserly, like the zillionaire tycoon who couldn’t spot a small coin in the gutter without stooping to pick it up! Or like Jean Paul Getty who refused to pay a ransom when his grandson was kidnapped. At least he learned from his mistakes; two years before he died, he said: “Money doesn’t necessarily have any connection with happiness. Maybe with unhappiness.” 

         Then there was Henrietta Howland Green. At her death in 1916, this American woman was worth approximately $95,000,000. Yet, rather than pay for urgent medical treatment for her son, she wasted valuable time searching for a free clinic, a delay which undoubtedly cost the boy his leg. Henrietta was just as mean with her own wellbeing, virtually living on cold oatmeal (she felt heating it up was a waste of money!), and eventually dying of apoplexy after a heated argument over skimmed milk - possibly the nearest she ever came to any human warmth!

       In itself, money doesn’t make you mercenary. There are poor people who love money so much they’d kill for it and wealthy people who, viewing their fortune merely as a mere by-product of sheer hard work and talent, are glad to share it with others.

       Such people have no doubt come to realise what really matters. That, rich or poor, there’s more happiness in giving than receiving. And, that being content with what we have – family, friends, food on the table – is worth more than all the money in the world!

See also https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/g201509/

Mindfulness or mindlessness?

       An app that can calm children, soothe them to sleep and help them concentrate? Most parents I know would give their eye-teeth for such help. So why does this ‘Mindfulness’ app, along with the trend that inspired it, worry me so much?

       For me, the problem is that mindfulness techniques are based on meditation, a form of self-hypnosis currently embraced and wholeheartedly promoted by several high profile figures and mooted as a wonderful new route to mental health. Now there are special apps for children, including one for under-5s!

       “No harm in that,” some say. But there are various types of meditation, some of which are not beneficial and may even be downright dangerous. With this in view, let’s be mindful of what meditation actually is and which forms should be avoided at all costs.

What is meditation?

       Meditation is more than mere daydreaming. It involves deep, concentrated thinking by which we can review the past, ponder the present and consider the future – not just our own but that of others and the world in general. Successful meditation requires complete solitude with no distractions – no mobile devices or online games to interrupt the process.

       True meditation should be purposeful and focused, even resulting in amazing Eureka moments from celebrated thinkers such as the late Stephen Hawking must have enjoyed while contemplating the universe!

Good meditation

       To get the best from this practice, we need to look to the best possible examples, such as wise and spiritually-minded people mentioned in scripture. In fact, the Bible encourages meditation - not the sort that involves emptying the mind or muttering mindless mantras and empty repetition, but meditation that helps us dwell on wholesome and upbuilding topics, such as God’s qualities, standards and dealings with mankind.

       King David, for instance, often lay awake ‘in the watches of the night’ meditating on deep spiritual matters which provided him with inner depth and moral strength. (Psalm 63:6, Psalm 1:3) 

Harmful meditation

       Many forms of meditation have roots in ancient Eastern religions. In contrast to musing on profound scientific or spiritual truths, however, “The mind has to be empty to see clearly,” according to one exponent. These words reflect the view that emptying the mind while focusing (mindlessly) on certain words or images promotes inner peace, mental clarity and enlightenment.

       Another source describes a typical meditation as focusing fully attention on one’s breath as it flows in and out of the body. “Focusing on each breath in this way allows you to observe your thoughts as they arise in your mind and, little by little, to let go of struggling with them.”

       Although it may seem harmless, this technique which encourages you to let go and ‘empty the mind’ is not only employed by yoga practitioners but also by spiritualist mediums as they seek to contact their guides in the spirit world.  And you don’t need to be a practicing psychic to invoke the demons! Even though we may initially feel some benefit, emptying our mind leaves us open to some very nasty squatters! (Matthew 12:43-45)

       And it seems I’m not alone in worrying about this form of meditation:

       Dr Miguel Farias, a reader in cognitive and biological psychology and co-author of The Buddha Pill, is very concerned about the effects of what he describes as an entirely unregulated’ practice.  “Quite a lot of mindfulness teachers have no training whatsoever in mental health.” He also doubts the value of mindfulness apps.

       “They work like relaxation apps. Focusing on your breathing can usually make you relaxed – but for some it can also bring on a panic attack.’ There is a wealth of evidence to show that mindful exercises can have negative effects. While some people, find mindfulness unhelpful and dispiriting, for a significant number of others – and for reasons not yet completely understood – it can lead to anxiety, panic or even psychosis. – Can mindfulness be bad for you? Anne Moore, YOU magazine. https://www.you.co.uk/can-mindfulness-bad-one-writer-investigates/

        Claire initially found mindfulness relaxing, “but then I felt completely zoned out while doing it. Within two or three hours of later sessions, I was starting to really, really panic.” The sessions resurfaced memories of her traumatic childhood, and she experienced a series of panic attacks. “Somehow, the course triggered things I had previously got over,” Claire says. “I had a breakdown and spent three months in a psychiatric unit. It was a depressive breakdown with psychotic elements related to the trauma, and several dissociative episodes.” – Is Mindfulness making us ill?  Dawn Foster, The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/jan/23/is-mindfulness-making-us-ill

Popes, bishops, priests and other clergy. Are they scriptural?

 “Pope Francis is a humble man who believes he is infallible” – Professor Garry Wills

      Soon after the present Pontiff was elected, religious writer Professor Garry Wills claimed on BBC Radio 4 that there’s no scriptural basis for the Pope - or, for that matter, any Christian clergy.

       He should know what he’s talking about. As a Roman Catholic, educated by Jesuits, Garry once considered the priesthood himself, but settled instead for academia, eventually becoming Emeritus Professor of History at Northwestern University.  His controversial new book “Why Priests? A Failed Tradition” questions the supposed line of descent from the Apostle Peter whom many Catholics claim was the first Pope, quoting Matthew 16:18 as their basis:  “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church”.

       According to Vine’s Expository Dictionary, however, the term used for ‘a mass of rock’ is the Greek word ‘Pe’tra’ (feminine gender) which denotes a mass of rock rather than ‘Pe’tros’ (masculine gender) meaning a detached stone or boulder that can be thrown or easily removed:  “Here  the distinction between Petra, concerning the Lord Himself, and Pe'tros, the Apostle, is clear.”

       Another Bible commentator writes, “That the apostles did not understand Jesus’ statement to signify Peter was the rock-mass is evident from the fact that they later disputed about who seemed to be the greatest amongst them. (Mark 9:33-35) There would have been no basis for such disputing had Peter been given the primacy as the rock-mass on which the congregation was to be built.

       ‘The scriptures clearly show that as foundation stones, all the apostles are equal. All of them, including Peter, rest upon Christ Jesus as the foundation cornerstone. (Eph 2:19-22; Re 21:2, 9-14) Peter himself identified the rock-mass (pe’tra) on which the congregation is built as being Christ Jesus.” (1 Pe 2:4-8)

       Having originally believed Peter to be the ‘rock-mass, even ‘Saint’ Augustine (354-430 CE) later changed his view, saying: “The rock is not so named from Peter, but Peter from the rock (non enim a Petro petra, sed Petrus a petra), even as Christ is not so called after the Christian after Christ.  For the reason why the Lord says, ‘On this rock I will build my church,’ is that Peter had said: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On this rock which thou hast confessed, says he, I will build my church. For Christ was the rock (petra enim erat Christus), upon which also Peter himself was built; for other foundation can no man lay, than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” – Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Mt 16:18 ftn, p.296) Translated and edited by P. Schaff, 1976.

       A further line of argument against a clergy class, mentioned by Prof Wills, is that by giving his life ‘once for all time’ as the ultimate sacrifice (He 9:11-14) Jesus became the sole mediator between God and humans, abolishing the need for a priesthood to offer sacrifices for the people on a regular basis.

       But perhaps one of the most telling comments is by Jesus himself who, in Mt 23:6-10, puts himself at odds with many religious leaders, ancient and modern:

       “Do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the Heavenly One. Neither be called ’leaders,’ for your Leader is one, the Christ.”