New 'digital dementia' plaguing young tech users

Fox News, June 26, 2013

While dementia is a disease that typically plagues the elderly, a new type of cognitive condition is affecting younger individuals in their early 20s and teens—a disorder known as “digital dementia."

Digital dementia is characterized as the deterioration of brain function as a result of the overuse of digital technology, such as computers, smart phones and Internet use in general, Medical Daily reported. This excess use of technology leads to unbalanced brain development, as heavy users are more likely to overdevelop their left brains, leaving their right brains underdeveloped.

The left side of the brain is generally associated with rational thought, numerical computation and fact finding, while the right side of the brain is responsible for more creative skills and emotional thoughts. If the right brain remains underdeveloped in the long term, it can lead to the early onset of dementia.

"Ten to 15 percent of those with the mild cognitive disorders develop dementia," said psychiatrist Park Ki-Jeong.

Common symptoms of digital dementia include memory problems, shortened attention spans and emotional flattening.

According to experts, this disorder has become a significant problem in South Korea, which is home to the world’s largest population of Internet users. The World Bank found that 83.8 percent of South Koreans have Internet access, and The Wall Street Journal estimated that 85 percent of the country’s population will have smartphones by 2017.

Numerous clinics have been established in South Korea to address digital dementia, such as the Balance Brain Center in southern Seoul. Many experts have called for Internet addiction to be classified as a mental disorder and that it should be treated as a major public health issue.

Read More

The No-Show

By Anna Nemtsova, Foreign Policy, June 26, 2013

HAVANA—We’re waiting for you in Havana, Snowden. Are you on your way?

It’s still unclear what happened on Monday, June 24, the day after leaker Edward Snowden arrived in Moscow from Hong Kong. That day, Snowden was supposed to board a plane to Havana to then transfer to Ecuador, one of the very few places willing to shield him from the American officials who regard him as a traitor. He even had a boarding pass for the window seat in row F, in economy class. But he never showed up, and his seat stayed empty.

Was Snowden trapped in the transit zone of Moscow’s Sheremetyevo International Airport against his will by the Russian security service, curious to see the data he had in his computers? Or was he afraid of flying in a plane that could be grounded while passing over the United States, where American courts were waiting to lock him up in jail for over 30 years? Until the very moment the Aeroflot crew closed the plane’s door, it looked like he was coming: Russian police surrounded Gate 28, patrolling outside and inside the airplane. The crew members on the plane looked tense and upset, as if they were facing a horrible trial. We still don’t know what happened at the last moment, but in the end Snowden stayed in Moscow.

I was on that plane, waiting for him along with several dozen other journalists from international news agencies and TV channels, all of us eager to quiz him about his claims. I wanted to ask Snowden about the evidence he had to prove his claims that the U.S. and British intelligence agencies, despite their governments’ public advocacy for freedom of the Internet, had been spying and stealing tons of personal data from people in their home countries.

For a long time, after we took off, we still could not believe that Snowden was not among us: After all, who knew what disguise he might be using? (This might seem a bit less crazy when you consider that we just saw an American spy wearing a wig last month.) Trapped on the flight for 12 hours, journalists walked around the plane looking into every passenger’s face. Other reporters were already waiting to greet Snowden in Cuba. They looked for him inside and outside Havana’s airport, asking every young blond male if he was Snowden. I’m still hoping to meet up with Snowden here in Havana, though Ecuadorean diplomats now say it may take months to issue him political asylum.

There’s one very specific reason Snowden may be having trouble finding a way out of the Moscow airport’s transit lounge, where he apparently is right now: his papers. Right now the only travel document he has is one of dubious status issued by the Ecuadoreans. After the American authorities canceled his U.S. passport on Monday, no airline wants to sell him another plane ticket. (He apparently managed to buy his ticket for Havana while his passport was still valid.)

There are other theories. “He got frightened that Americans would bring him down on that plane," says Igor Bunin, a Moscow political analyst. “He’s a huge pain for the Kremlin, a Catch-22. Now that he’s turned into an anti-American government star, Russia can’t kick him out, but keeping him means even a bigger international scandal." I’d love to ask Snowden about his days and nights in Russia if I ever get the chance to meet him.

My friend Olga Bychkova, a host from radio Echo of Moscow, described a scene she witnessed in the airport’s transit zone on the day of Snowden’s arrival on Sunday. “I saw about 20 Russian officials, supposedly FSB [security service] agents in suits, crowding around somebody in a restricted area of the airport," Bychkova told me. “The Kremlin pretends they have nothing to do with him being stuck in Moscow, but in reality they’re all over him."

What’s up Mr. Snowden? Do you really hate reporters? If you’re “a free man," as President Vladimir Putin says, why hide from crowds of journalists waiting to talk to you in Sheremetyevo airport for three days? WikiLeaks claims that you—the biggest leaker in the history of the National Security Agency—are “in a safe place." If you’re safe and free, why didn’t you use your ticket last Monday? You would have had a great chance to explain the reasons for renouncing your wealthy life with a beautiful girlfriend. Just imagine: 12 hours in front of the world’s major networks on the flight to Cuba! Russian commentators think that you’re not as free as the Russian leader claims, that somebody did not allow you to fly Monday. “Snowden will fly out of Russia when the Kremlin decides he can go," says Moscow political analyst Dmitry Oreshkin. “He might not even be in the airport. The safest place would be a GRU [Russian military intelligence] apartment." That would also explain why no one has seen your face in Moscow yet.

Read More

A Harvard Economist's Simple Productivity Secret

By Chip Cutter, LinkedIn, June 27, 2013

ASPEN, Colo.—It’s one of the most common complaints in the professional world: Too little time.

Workers who log 60-plus hour weeks gripe that they don’t have enough room in their schedule to even tame their inboxes, much less think about big projects in some creative way.

But time isn’t the problem, says Harvard economist Sendhil Mullainathan. The ultimate barrier to success is a shortage of mental “bandwidth," or the ability to focus on a task in the moment.

Mullainathan’s research focuses on scarcity, and how humans respond when they have a shortage of something—be it money, food or time. He presented his findings Thursday at the annual Aspen Ideas Festival, along with his research partner, Princeton psychologist Eldar Shafir.

What they’ve discovered is that shortages lead people to make poor decisions. That’s because the brain can only process so much.

The problem extends across income levels. Busy professionals fail to schedule their time in efficient ways for the same reasons low-income people fall for predatory lending schemes. They’re distracted, Shafir says.

Take an example from your own life: If you’re thirsty, and desperately want water, it’s hard to think about anything else. If you’re low on money, budget concerns frequently pop into your thoughts.

The same is true in the professional world. A lack of time isn’t the issue; a lack of focus is.

Mullainathan’s own productivity breakthrough came when he dropped his cellphone in a toilet.

That night, he went to dinner with friends, and found he had a surprisingly fun time. His friends didn’t get more interesting. The food wasn’t better than usual. What changed was that he didn’t have his phone.

That meant he couldn’t receive potentially bothersome emails or text messages before or during the meal. “My bandwidth for those two hours was focused on the thing I wanted to be focused on," he says.

Since then, he’s made other changes. He no longer receives work email on his phone. Before a meeting, he tries not to get to check email, so he’s focused on the discussion ahead.

And he’s come to a realization.

"All those times that I thought I was using my time well—‘Hey, I’ve got five minutes, let me check my email’—I was actually using my bandwidth badly."

Mullainathan concluded by urging the audience to think back to Henry Ford.

The automaker famously discovered in the early 1900s that, by increasing his employees’ schedules to 60 hours a week, he could squeeze more productivity out of them. But that burst of productivity lasted only about four weeks. Over time, the workers putting in 60 hours a week began producing less than their counterparts who worked 40 hours.

The people working overtime lacked “not just the ability to work hard, but the ability to actually think hard about the problem," Mullainathan said.

The lesson for professionals: Having precious little time doesn’t matter. Spending quality time with it does.

Read More

An Inconvient Tooth- Fluoride Documentary

Read More

Os Evangelhos são verdadeiros?

http://y-jesus.org/portuguese/wwrj/4-evangelhos-verdadeiros/

Os Evangelhos do Novo Testamento são a testemunha ocular da verdadeira história de Jesus Cristo, ou a história pode ter sido mudada ao longo dos anos? Devemos simplesmente aceitar os relatos do Novo Testamento de Jesus pela fé, ou existem evidências de sua confiabilidade?

Peter Jennings, âncora do ABC News, esteve em Israel transmitindo um programa de TV especial sobre Jesus Cristo. Seu programa, “The Search for Jesus” (A Busca por Jesus), explorou a questão sobre se o Jesus do Novo Testamento tinha precisão histórica.

Jennings apresentou opiniões sobre os relatos do Evangelho do professor da DePaul University, John Dominic Crossan, de três colegas de Crossan do Seminário de Investigação sobre Jesus, e de dois outros estudiosos da Bíblia. (O Seminário de Investigação sobre Jesus é um grupo de estudiosos que debate as palavras e ações registradas de Jesus e, em seguida, utiliza as cores vermelha, rosa, cinza e preta para indicar a confiabilidade dos relatos do Evangelho, na opinião deles.)[1]

Alguns dos comentários foram impressionantes. No programa de TV nacional, o Dr. Crossan não apenas lançou dúvida sobre mais de 80% das declarações de Jesus como também negou a divindade, os milagres e a ressurreição atribuídos a Jesus. Jennings ficou claramente intrigado pela imagem de Jesus apresentada por Crossan.

A busca pela verdadeira história da Bíblia sempre é notícia, motivo pelo qual todo ano as revistas Time e Newsweek trazem uma matéria de capa sobre Maria, Jesus, Moisés e Abraão. Ou—quem sabe?—talvez a matéria deste ano seja “Bob: a história não contada do 13º discípulo desconhecido”.

Trata-se de entretenimento e, portanto, a investigação nunca terminará nem renderá respostas, pois isso acabaria com o assunto para o futuro. Em vez disso, pessoas com opiniões radicalmente diferentes são reunidas como em um episódio de Survivor, embaralhando a questão em vez de trazer mais clareza.

Mas o relatório de Jennings enfocou um aspecto que merece ser levado a sério. Crossan afirmou que os relatos originais de Jesus foram embelezados pela tradição oral e não haviam sido escritos até depois da morte dos apóstolos. Assim, eles seriam altamente não confiáveis e não poderiam nos oferecer uma imagem precisa do verdadeiro Jesus. Como saberemos se isso realmente é verdade?
Perdidos na tradução?

Então, o que as evidências mostram? Começamos com duas perguntas simples: Quando foram escritos os documentos originais do Novo Testamento? E quem os escreveu?

A importância dessas perguntas é óbvia. Se os relatos de Jesus foram escrito após a morte das testemunhas oculares, ninguém pôde confirmar sua precisão. Mas se os relatos do Novo Testamento foram sido escritos enquanto os apóstolos originais ainda estavam vivos, sua autenticidade poderia ser estabelecida. Pedro poderia se defender de uma falsa afirmação atribuída a ele dizendo, “Ei, não escrevi isso”. E Mateus, Marcos, Lucas e João poderiam responder a perguntas ou desafios relacionados aos seus relatos sobre Jesus.

Os autores do Novo Testamento afirmaram terem sido testemunhas oculares dos relatos de Jesus. O apóstolo Pedro declarou o seguinte em uma carta: “Porque não vos fizemos saber a virtude e a vinda de nosso Senhor Jesus Cristo, seguindo fábulas artificialmente compostas; mas nós mesmos vimos a sua majestade” (2 Pedro 1:16 NLT).

Uma grande parte do Novo Testamento é composta pelas 13 cartas de Paulo para jovens da igreja. As cartas de Paulo, datadas da metade dos anos 40 e da metade dos anos 60 (anos 12 a 33 depois de Cristo), constituem as primeiras testemunhas da vida e dos ensinamentos de Jesus. Will Durant escreveu sobre a histórica importância das cartas de Paulo: “A evidência cristã de Cristo começa com as cartas atribuídas a São Paulo. … Ninguém questionou a existência de Paulo, ou seus repetidos encontros com Pedro, Thiago e João; e Paulo admitia enciumadamente que esses homens haviam conhecido pessoalmente o Cristo.”[2]
Mas será que é verdade?

Em livros, revistas e documentários da TV, o Seminário de Investigação sobre Jesus sugere que os Evangelhos foram escritos entre os anos 130 a 150 d.C. por autores desconhecidos. Se essas datas estiverem corretas, haveria uma lacuna de aproximadamente 100 anos após a morte de Cristo (estudiosos situam a morte de Jesus entre os anos 30 e 33 d.C.). E, uma vez que todas as testemunhas oculares estariam mortas, os Evangelhos só poderiam ter sido escritos por autores desconhecidos, fraudulentos.

Portanto, quais evidências temos em relação a quando os relatos do Evangelho de Jesus foram realmente escritos? O consenso da maioria dos estudiosos é que os Evangelhos foram escritos por apóstolos durante primeiro século. Eles mencionam diversas razões que serão analisadas mais adiante neste artigo. Por enquanto, observe no entanto que três formas iniciais de evidência parecem criar uma base sólida para as conclusões deles:
documentos primitivos de hereges como Marcião e a escola de Valentino mencionando livros, temas e passagens do Novo Testamento (leia “O sorriso de Mona Lisa”)
numerosos escritos de fontes primitivas do Cristianismo, como do Clemente de Roma, Ignácio e Policarpo
descoberta de cópias de fragmentos do Evangelho com verificação de carbono datada de 117 d.C.

· O arqueólogo bíblico William Albright concluiu, na base de sua pesquisa, que todos os livros do Novo Testamento foram escritos enquanto a maioria dos apóstolos ainda estava viva. Segundo ele, “Já podemos afirmar enfaticamente que não existe mais nenhuma base sólida para atribuir a data de qualquer livro a depois de 80 d.C., ou seja, duas gerações inteiras antes da data entre 130 e 150 d.C., dada pelos críticos atuais mais radicais do Novo Testamento”.[4] Em outro ponto, Albright situa a escrita de todo o Novo Testamento “provavelmente entre 50 d.C. e 75 d.C.”[5]

· O estudioso John A. T. Robinson, notoriamente cético, atribui ao Novo Testamento uma data anterior àquela afirmada até mesmo pelos estudiosos mais conservadores. Em Redating the New Testament (A Redatação do Novo Testamento), Robinson afirma que a maior parte do Novo Testamento foi escrita entre 40 d.C. e 65 d.C. Isso significa que ele teria sido escrito sete anos após o período em que Cristo viveu.[6]Se isso for verdade, quaisquer erros históricos teriam sido imediatamente apontados tanto por testemunhas oculares como por inimigos do Cristianismo.

· Assim, vamos ver a trilha de pistas que nos leva dos documentos originais às nossas cópias atuais do Novo Testamento.
Quem precisa tirar cópias?

Os escritos originais dos apóstolos foram reverenciados. Eles foram estudados, compartilhados, cuidadosamente preservados e armazenados como um tesouro escondido pelas igrejas.

Mas, infelizmente, os confiscos romanos, a passagem de 2000 anos e a segunda lei da termodinâmica cobraram seu preço. Então, hoje, o que temos desses escritos originais? Nada. Os manuscritos originais se foram (embora, sem dúvida, toda semana estudiosos da Bíblia sintonizem no programa de TV Antiques Roadshow esperando que um manuscrito seja descoberto).

Ainda assim, o Novo Testamento não está sozinho nesse destino; nenhum outro documento comparável da história antiga continua existindo atualmente. Os historiadores não são incomodados pela falta de manuscritos originais, uma vez que têm cópias confiáveis para examinar. Mas existem cópias antigas do Novo Testamento disponíveis e, se existem, elas são fiéis aos originais?

Conforme o número de igrejas se multiplicava, centenas de cópias eram cuidadosamente feitas sob a supervisão dos líderes da igreja. Cada carta foi meticulosamente escrita à tinta em pergaminho ou papiro. E assim, atualmente, estudiosos podem examinar as cópias sobreviventes (e as cópias das cópias, e as cópias das cópias das cópias—você entendeu) para determinar a autenticidade e chegar muito perto dos documentos originais.

De fato, os acadêmicos que estudam literatura antiga desenvolveram a ciência da crítica textual para examinar documentos como A Odisseia, comparando-os a outros documentos antigos para determinar sua precisão. Mais recentemente, o historiador militar Charles Sanders ampliou a crítica textual desenvolvendo um teste dividido em três partes que analisa não apenas a fidelidade da cópia, mas também a credibilidade dos autores. Os testes são:

1. O teste bibliográfico

2. O teste da evidência interna

3. O teste da evidência externa[7]

Vamos ver o que acontece quando aplicamos esses testes aos primeiros manuscritos do Novo Testamento.
Teste bibliográfico

Este teste compara um documento a outros documentos históricos antigos do mesmo período. Ele questiona:
Quantas cópias do documento original existem?
Quanto tempo se passou entre os escritos originais e as primeiras cópias?
Como um documento se compara a outros documentos históricos antigos?

Imagine se tivéssemos apenas duas ou três cópias dos manuscritos originais do Novo Testamento. A amostragem seria tão pequena que não poderíamos confirmar sua precisão. Por outro lado, se temos centenas ou até mesmos milhares de cópias, podemos facilmente disseminar erros de documentos mal transmitidos.

Então, como o Novo Testamento se compara a outros escritos antigos considerando-se o número de cópias e o intervalo em relação aos originais? Atualmente, existem mais de 5000 manuscritos do Novo Testamento no idioma grego original. Quando contamos traduções para outros idiomas, o número é espantoso: 24.000 — datadas dos séculos II a IV.

Compare isso ao segundo manuscrito histórico antigo mais bem documentado, a Ilíada de Homero, com 643 cópias.[8] E lembre-se de que a maioria dos trabalhos históricos antigos têm muito menos cópias existentes do que esse (geralmente, menos de 10). O estudioso do Novo Testamento Bruce Metzger ressalta, “Em contraste com esses números [de outros manuscritos antigos], a crítica textual do Novo Testamento é atrapalhada pela integridade do material”.[9]
Intervalo de tempo

Não apenas o número de manuscritos é significativo, mas também o intervalo de tempo transcorrido entre quando o original foi escrito e a data da cópia. Ao longo de mil anos de cópias, não é possível dizer no quê um texto poderia se transformar. Mas quando se trata de cem anos, a história é diferente.

O crítico alemão Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792–1860) certa vez afirmou que o Evangelho de João não havia sido escrito por volta de 160 d.C. e, portanto, não poderia ter sido escrito por João. Isso, se for verdade, não questionaria apenas os escritos de João, mas também lançaria suspeita sobre todo o Novo Testamento. Mas então, quando um esconderijo dos fragmentos em papiro do Novo Testamento foi descoberto no Egito, no meio estava um fragmento do Evangelho de João (especificamente, P52: João 18:31-33) datado de aproximadamente 25 anos depois que João havia escrito o original.

Metzger explicou que, “assim como Robinson Crusoé, que viu uma única pegada na areia e concluiu que havia outro ser humano, com dois pés, presente na ilha junto com ele, o fragmento P52 prova a existência e o uso do Quarto Evangelho durante a primeira metade do século II em uma província ao longo do Nilo, muito afastada do local de escrita tradicional (Éfeso, na Ásia Menor).”[10]Achado após achado, a arqueologia desvendou cópias de grandes partes do Novo Testamento, datadas de até 150 anos após os originais.[11]

Muitos outros documentos antigos têm intervalos de 400 a 1400 anos. Por exemplo, a Poética de Aristóteles foi escrita por volta de 343 a.C., e a primeira cópia é datada de 1100 d.C., sendo que existem apenas cinco cópias. E, ainda assim, ninguém sai em busca do histórico Platão, afirmando que na verdade ele era um bombeiro, e não um filósofo.

De fato, existe um corpo quase completo da Bíblia chamado Codex Vaticanus, que foi escrito somente cerca de 250 a 300 anos depois da escrita original dos apóstolos. O corpo completo mais antigo conhecido do Novo Testamento em um manuscrito uncial antigo é chamado Codex Sinaiticus que, agora, está guardado no Museu Britânico.

Assim como o Codex Vaticanus, ele é datado do século IV. Voltando ao início da história cristã, o Vaticanus e o Sinaiticus são como outros manuscritos bíblicos no sentido em que diferem minimamente um do outro e nos oferecem uma imagem muito boa do que os documentos originais devem ter dito.

Até mesmo o crítico acadêmico John A. T. Robinson admitiu que “a integridade dos manuscritos e, acima de tudo, o curto intervalo entre a escrita original e as primeiras cópias existentes, tornam o Novo Testamento de longe o texto mais certificado de qualquer escrito antigo no mundo.”[12]O professor de Direito John Warwick Montgomery afirmou que “ser cético em relação ao texto resultante dos livros do Novo Testamento é permitir que toda a antiguidade clássica deslize para a obscuridade, já que nenhum documento do período antigo é tão bem confirmado bibliograficamente como o Novo Testamento.”[13]

A questão é: Se os registros do Novo Testamento foram feitos e circulados tão próximos aos eventos reais, é muito mais provável que o seu retrato de Jesus seja preciso. Mas a evidência externa não é a única forma de responder à dúvida sobre a confiabilidade; estudiosos também usam a evidência interna para responder a essa pergunta.
A descoberta do Codex Sinaiticus

Em 1844, o estudioso alemão Constantine Tischendorf estava procurando manuscritos do Novo Testamento. Acidentalmente, ele percebeu um cesto cheio de páginas velhas na biblioteca do monastério de Santa Catarina, no Monte Sinai. O estudioso alemão ficou eufórico e chocado. Ele nunca havia visto manuscritos gregos tão antigos. Tischendorf perguntou ao bibliotecário sobre os papéis e ficou surpreso ao descobrir que as páginas haviam sido descartadas para serem usadas como combustível. Dois cestos daqueles papéis já haviam sido queimados!

O entusiasmo de Tischendorf deixou os monges desconfiados, e eles não quiseram lhe mostrar outros manuscritos. No entanto, eles deixaram que Tischendorf levasse as 43 páginas que havia descoberto.

Quinze anos depois, Tischendorf voltou ao monastério de Sinai, desta vez com a ajuda do Czar russo Alexandre II. Uma vez lá, um monge levou Tischendorf até seu quarto e lhe mostrou um manuscrito envolto em tecido que havia sido armazenado em uma prateleira com xícaras e louças. Tischendorf imediatamente reconheceu as valorosas partes restantes dos manuscritos que havia visto anteriormente.

O monastério aceitou dar o manuscrito como presente ao czar russo, como protetor da igreja grega. Em 1933, a União Soviética vendeu o manuscrito ao Museu Britânico por £100.000.

O Codex Sinaiticus é um dos primeiros manuscritos completos do Novo Testamento que temos, e está entre os mais importantes. Alguns especulam que ele é uma das 50 Bíblias que o imperador Constantino encomendou para a preparação de Eusébio no início do século IV. O Codex Sinaiticus tem sido um enorme auxílio para os estudiosos na verificação da precisão do Novo Testamento.
Teste de evidência interna

Assim como bons detetives, os historiadores verificam a confiabilidade observando pistas internas. Essas pistas revelam as motivações dos autores e sua disponibilidade para revelar detalhes e outros aspectos que podem ser verificados. As principais pistas internas que esses estudiosos usam para testar a confiabilidade são:
consistência dos relatos das testemunhas oculares
detalhes dos nomes, locais e eventos
cartas para indivíduos ou grupos pequenos
aspectos embaraçosos para os autores
a presença de material irrelevante ou não produtivo
falta de material relevante[14]

Vamos usar como exemplo o filme Friday Night Lights. O filme é supostamente baseado em eventos históricos mas, assim como em muitos filmes livremente baseados em fatos reais, você fica constantemente perguntando “as coisas aconteceram assim mesmo?” Então, como você determinaria sua confiabilidade histórica?

Uma pista seria a presença de material irrelevante. No meio do filme, o técnico, sem motivo aparente, recebe uma chamada telefônica informando que sua mãe tem câncer no cérebro. O evento não tem relação com o enredo e nunca é mencionado novamente. A única explicação para a presença desse fato irrelevante seria que ele realmente ocorreu e que o diretor desejava ser historicamente preciso.

Outro exemplo do mesmo filme. Seguindo o fluxo dramático, queremos que o Permian Panthers vença o campeonato estadual. Mas eles não vencem. Isso parece não ser produtivo para o drama, e imediatamente descobrimos que o fato está lá porque, na vida real, o Permian perdeu o jogo. A presença de material não produtivo também é uma pista para a precisão histórica.

Por fim, o uso de cidades reais e pontos de referência familiares, como Houston Astrodome, nos leva a considerar como históricos esses elementos da história, porque eles são muito fáceis de corroborar ou de falsificar.

Existem poucos exemplos de como a evidência interna aproxima ou afasta a conclusão de que um documento é historicamente confiável. Analisaremos brevemente a evidência interna da historicidade do Novo Testamento.

Diversos aspectos do Novo Testamento nos ajudam a determinar sua historicidade com base em seu próprio conteúdo e qualidades.
Consistência

Documentos inexatos ou deixam de fora relatos de testemunhas oculares ou são inconsistentes. Por isso, claras contradições entre os Evangelhos provariam que eles contêm erros. Mas, ao mesmo tempo, se todo Evangelho dissesse exatamente a mesma coisa, isso levantaria suspeitas de conspiração. Seria como conspiradores tentando concordar em cada detalhe de um esquema. O excesso de consistência é tão duvidoso quanto a falta.

Testemunhas oculares de um crime ou incidente geralmente percebem corretamente os eventos significativos, mas os veem a partir de perspectivas diferentes. Da mesma forma, os quatro Evangelhos descrevem os eventos da vida de Jesus de diferentes perspectivas. Ainda assim, independentemente dessas perspectivas, estudiosos da Bíblia se surpreendem com a consistência dos relatos e com a clara imagem de Jesus e de seus ensinamentos que esses relatos complementares compõem.
Detalhes

Historiadores adoram detalhes em um documento porque eles facilitam a verificação da confiabilidade. As cartas de Paulo são repletas de detalhes. E os Evangelhos estão cheios deles. Por exemplo, tanto o Evangelho de Lucas como o seu Livro de Atos foram escritos para um nobre chamado Teófilo, que era sem dúvida um indivíduo muito conhecido na época.

Se esses escritos tivessem sido meras invenções dos apóstolos, a inexatidão de nomes, locais e eventos teria rapidamente sido apontada por seus inimigos, como os líderes judeus e romanos. Isso teria sido o escândalo de Watergate do século I. Além disso, muitos detalhes do Novo Testamento foram confirmados por verificações independentes. O historiador clássico Colin Hemer, por exemplo, “identifica 84 fatos nos últimos 16 capítulos dos Atos que foram confirmados por pesquisa arqueológica”.[15]

Nos séculos anteriores, estudiosos céticos da Bíblia questionaram a autoria de Lucas e sua datação, afirmando que os escritos eram do século II e de um autor desconhecido. O arqueólogo Sir William Ramsey estava convencido de que estavam certos e começou a investigar. Após uma extensa pesquisa, o arqueólogo mudou sua opinião. Ramsey cedeu, “Lucas é um historiador de primeira classe. … Este autor pode ser colocado entre os grandes historiadores. … A história de Lucas goza de respeito e confiabilidade insuperáveis”.[16]

Os Atos contam as viagens missionárias de Paulo, listando os locais que ele visitou, as pessoas que viu, as mensagens que transmitiu e a perseguição que sofreu. Seria possível falsificar todos esses detalhes? O historiador romano escreveu A. N. Sherwin-White que “a confirmação da historicidade dos Atos é claríssima. … A partir de agora, qualquer tentativa de rejeitar sua historicidade básica será um absurdo. Os historiadores romanos já haviam aceitado isso como fato há muito tempo”.[17]

Dos relatos do Evangelho até as cartas de Paulo, os autores do Novo Testamento descreveram abertamente detalhes, chegando a citar nomes de indivíduos que viveram na época. Os historiadores confirmaram pelo menos 30 desses nomes.[18]
Cartas para grupos pequenos

A maioria dos textos forjados é de documentos de natureza geral e pública, como este artigo de revista (sem dúvidas, incontáveis falsificações já estão circulando no mercado negro). O especialista em História Louis Gottschalk observa que cartas pessoais destinadas a públicos pequenos têm alta probabilidade de serem confiáveis.[19] Em qual categoria os documentos do Novo Testamento se encaixam?

Bem, alguns deles tinham claramente a finalidade de serem amplamente distribuídos. Ainda assim, grandes partes do Novo Testamento consistem em cartas pessoais escritas para pequenos grupos e indivíduos. Esses documentos, no mínimo, não seriam considerados grandes candidatos à falsificação.
Aspectos embaraçosos

A maioria dos escritores não quer ser constrangido em público. Por isso, os historiadores têm observado que documentos contendo revelações embaraçosas sobre os autores geralmente são confiáveis. O que os autores do Novo Testamento disseram sobre si mesmos?

Surpreendentemente, todos os autores do Novo Testamento se apresentavam como frequentemente tolos, covardes e descrentes. Por exemplo, considere a tripla negação de Pedro a Jesus ou a discussão dos discípulos sobre qual deles era o melhor—ambas as histórias registradas nos Evangelhos. Uma vez que o respeito aos apóstolos era crucial na igreja primitiva, a inclusão desse tipo de material não indica outra coisa, senão que os apóstolos eram verdadeiros em seus relatos.[20]

Em A História da Civilização, Will Durant escreveu sobre os apóstolos, “esses homens dificilmente eram do tipo que seria escolhido para remodelar o mundo. Os Evangelhos diferenciavam seus caracteres de forma realista, e expunha abertamente suas falhas”.[21]
Material não produtivo ou irrelevante

Os Evangelhos nos contam que a tumba vazia de Jesus foi descoberta por uma mulher embora, em Israel, o testemunho de mulheres fosse considerado praticamente sem valor e não fosse nem mesmo admitido em julgamentos. Existem registros de que a mãe e a família de Jesus acreditavam que ele havia perdido a razão. Diz-se que algumas das últimas palavras de Jesus na cruz foram “Deus meu, Deus meu, por que me desamparaste?” E por aí vai a lista de incidentes registrados no Novo Testamento que não seriam produtivos se a intenção do autor fosse algo diferente da transmissão precisa da vida e dos ensinamentos de Jesus Cristo.
Falta de material relevante

É irônico (e talvez lógico) que alguns dos maiores problemas enfrentados pela igreja do primeiro século—missões em gentios, dádivas espirituais, batismo, liderança—tenham sido abordados diretamente nas palavras registradas de Jesus. Se seus seguidores estivessem simplesmente gerando o material para incentivar o crescimento da igreja, não seria possível explicar por que eles não teriam forjado instruções de Jesus sobre essas questões. Em um caso, o apóstolo Paulo afirmou claramente sobre um determinado assunto “Sobre isto não temos ensinamento do Senhor”.
Teste de evidência externa

A terceira e última medida da confiabilidade de um documento é o teste de evidência externa, que questiona “os registros históricos externos ao Novo Testamento confirmam sua confiabilidade?” Portanto, o que os historiadores não cristãos dizem sobre Jesus Cristo?

“De forma geral, pelo menos 17 escritos não cristãos registram mais de 50 detalhes relacionados à vida, aos ensinamentos, à morte e à ressurreição de Jesus, além de detalhes relativos à igreja primitiva.”[22]Isso é impressionante, considerando a falta de outros dados históricos deste período. Jesus é mencionado por mais fontes do que as conquistas de César durante o mesmo período. O que impressiona ainda mais é o fato de que essas confirmações dos detalhes do Novo Testamento datam de 20 a 150 anos depois de Cristo, “o que é bastante cedo, considerando os padrões da historiografia antiga”.[23]

A confiabilidade do Novo Testamento é adicionalmente embasada por mais de 36 mil documentos cristão fora da Bíblia (citações de líderes da igreja dos primeiros três séculos) datados de 10 anos após o último escrito do Novo Testamento).[24] Se todas as cópias do Novo Testamento fossem perdidas, seria possível reproduzi-las a partir dessas outras cartas e documentos, com exceção de alguns poucos versos.[25]

O professor emérito da Boston University, Howard Clark Kee, conclui que “o resultado da avaliação das fontes externas ao Novo Testamento relacionadas… ao nosso conhecimento de Jesus confirma sua existência histórica, seus poderes incomuns, sua devoção aos seus seguidores, a continuação da existência do movimento após sua morte… e a penetração do Cristianismo na própria Roma no final do primeiro século”.[26]

Assim, o teste de evidência externa se soma às evidências fornecidas pelos outros testes. Apesar da suposição de alguns céticos radicais, o retrato que o Novo Testamento oferece do Jesus Cristo real é praticamente à prova de máculas. Embora haja alguns dissidentes, como o Seminário de Investigação sobre Jesus, o consenso dos especialistas, independentemente de suas crenças religiosas, confirma que o Novo Testamento que lemos hoje representa fielmente tanto as palavras como os eventos da vida de Jesus.

Clark Pinnock, professor de interpretação no McMaster Divinity College, resumiu bem ao dizer “não existe nenhum documento do mundo antigo testemunhado por um conjunto de depoimentos textuais e históricos tão excelentes. … Uma pessoa honesta não pode desconsiderar uma fonte desse tipo. O ceticismo relacionado às credenciais históricas do Cristianismo tem uma base irracional”.[27]
Jesus voltou mesmo dos mortos?

A grande questão do nosso tempo é “quem é o verdadeiro Jesus Cristo”? Ele foi somente um homem excepcional ou ele era mesmo Deus feito carne como Paulo, João e os outros discípulos acreditavam?

As testemunhas de Jesus Cristo realmente falaram e agiram como se acreditassem que ele fisicamente se ergueu dentre os mortos após sua crucificação. Se eles estivessem errados, o cristianismo teria se baseado em uma mentira. Mas se estivessem certos, tal milagre confirmaria tudo o que Jesus disse sobre Deus, sobre si mesmo e sobre nós.

Devemos aceitar a ressurreição de Jesus Cristo somente pela fé ou existe evidência histórica sólida? Muitos céticos começaram investigações sobre os registros históricos para provar que os registros da ressurreição são falsos. O que eles descobriram?

Clique aqui para ver as evidências da declaração mais fantástica feita—a ressurreição de Jesus Cristo!
Jesus disse o que acontece após a morte?

Se Jesus realmente voltou dos mortos, ele deve saber o que está do outro lado. O que Jesus disse sobre o significado da vida e sobre nosso futuro? Existem vários caminhos para Deus ou Jesus afirmou ser o único? Leia as respostas iniciais em “Por que Jesus?”

Clique aqui para ler “Por que Jesus?” e descobrir o que Jesus disse sobre a vida após a morte.
Jesus pode trazer significado para a vida?

“Por que Jesus?” aborda a questão de se Jesus é relevante nos dias de hoje. Jesus pode responder as grandes questões da vida: “Quem sou eu?” “Por que estou aqui?” E, “Para onde estou indo?” Catedrais vazias e crucifixos nos levam a pensar que Ele não nos pode responder, e que Jesus nos deixou a mercê de um mundo fora de controle. Mas Jesus fez afirmações acerca da vida e do propósito aqui na terra, que necessitam ser examinadas antes que se escreva algo que fale de alguma espécie de impotência da Sua parte. Este artigo examina o mistério do porquê de Jesus ter vindo à terra.



Clique aqui para descobrir como Jesus pode trazer significado para a vida.

Read More

Does DNA Point to a Designer?

http://www.y-origins.com/index.php?p=DNA1

THE LANGUAGE OF OUR CELLS

Was the language of DNA programmed by a designer–or by chance?

Consider for a moment the cathedral-like structure of a snowflake under a microscope. Look at the beauty. Look at the complexity. Look at the originality of each individual flake. Surely this is evidence for a grand designer in the universe.

Well, no, actually it’s not—no more so than the burned enchilada of a woman in Mexico that apparently revealed the image of Jesus (though in the photo it did kind of look like him).

Although crystalline forms of a snowflake are beautiful and impressive, designs of this type abound in nature, and natural processes can and do produce them.

Neo-Darwinists believe that natural selection and favorable mutations are the total explanation for the appearance of design in nature.

But what if complexity in nature is discovered that is not explainable by natural selection and chance mutations? What if, unlike our snowflake and enchilada examples, scientists discover a form of complexity that exceeds all human engineering and all sophisticated software programs? This raises an important question: How would we be able to detect intelligent design in nature if it actually exists?

OF CLOTHES DRYERS, MOUNT RUSHMORE, AND PRIME NUMBERS

The folks at SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) have done some thinking along the lines of what constitutes signs of intelligence. They are searching for extraterrestrial life, as opposed to God, but they have to deal with the same problem set. How would they recognize communication from outer space if they saw or heard it?

Some of their thinking is brought out in the movie Contact. In one scene, the character played by Jodie Foster spends the evening listening to her dryer (presumably Blockbuster was closed). But there is a method to her apparent madness. She is trying to train her ears so that she will be able to recognize intelligent radio signals from outer space, filtering out the zillion random signals produced by all manner of objects in the cosmos.

A clothes dryer produces a certain level of mechanical rhythm; its noise actually has a level of design, sort of like that of a snowflake. But that noise (especially when you have sneakers thumping around in there) represents a type of design that nonintelligence (that is, nature) can produce.

How can we tell the difference between design that occurs naturally and intelligent design?

Let’s say we’ve headed out to Vegas, and along the way, we come upon a bizarre rock formation. I say, “Hey, look at the erosion on that rock. It looks kind of like Richard Nixon when the Watergate tapes were made public.” You, on the other hand, think it looks like Vladimir Putin eating scrambled eggs. We agree to disagree, but we both note that the forces of erosion made something that looks a bit like a product of intelligent design.

Now, as we drive farther, we come to Mount Rushmore. Seeing it for the first time, I am amazed. I say, “Wow, look at the erosion on those rocks. It looks just like three presidents I recognize and some guy wearing glasses.” You rightly call me an idiot, not only because you know who Teddy Roosevelt is, but also because it is obvious by the way the stone is cut and the extraordinary degree of design that this is the product of intelligent craftsmen—ones who apparently have no fear of heights. But there must be a more scientific way to differentiate between these two levels of design: one that can be produced by nature and one that can’t.

Later on in the movie Contact, the scientists receive radio waves at the sequence of 1,126 beats and pauses. The sequence, they deduce, represents the prime numbers 2 through 101. It becomes doubtful that random radio waves could emit such a sequence, thus they presume they have made contact.

This is a more scientific way of differentiating between two different orders of design. It is commonly called CSI. This acronym has nothing to do with a popular TV show. It stands for “complex, specified information.”

CSI: THE UNIVERSE

Here is what you need to remember about CSI, or complex, specified information. Nature can generate information that is complex, and it can produce information that is specified, but it cannot do both.

The best way to understand this is to think of yourself as a computer programmer. (You might want to grab a large bag of potato chips and a six-pack of Coke to get into character.) I want you to write a program for the computer telling it to type random letters of the alphabet.

It should be fairly easy to write the program. Just instruct the computer to type keys at random and repeat the process infinitely. Now, occasionally the letters might make an interesting pattern, perhaps even type the word “Nixon” by accident, but it is clearly generating a design of complexity without any real specificity.

Now let’s switch it around. Let’s say I ask you to program the computer to type the word “the”. This is going to require specificity. You must specify, “Computer, type the letter ‘t,’ then ‘h,’ and then ‘e,’ and do this over and over again until your printer runs out of ink or your hard drive crashes.” This is specific, but it is not complex. You can program the computer in this case, like the previous one, with just a few lines of instructions.

Typing random letters or typing a simple word over and over is like the kind of design that natural processes can handle on their own.

Now let’s look at specified complexity. Let’s say I ask you to program the computer to write out a Harlequin romance novel and make the girl decide to dump the guy in the end. You would have to write a list of instructions for the computer larger than the book itself. You would have to specify, in the form of a command, every letter of every word.

Few people would have thought of Harlequin romances as specified complexity, but as you can see, they are. The commands to the computer are extremely complex and extremely specific. That’s the kind of detail we must demand if we are going to believe that there is intelligent design exhibited in the world.

PROBABLY INTELLIGENT

Seems simple enough, but at what point does something cross the threshold from the simple design found in nature to second-order design produced only by intelligence? Mathematician William Dembski illustrates the difference by having us visualize a rat trying to go through a maze.

In a simple maze, the rat can take one turn and escape from the maze. Even a dim-witted rat could take one turn and escape. But now imagine that the maze is extremely complex, possessing walls and requiring 100 precise turns to reach the point of escape. How likely is it that the little critter will quickly learn all the correct turns and escape? Impossible–unless we have one awfully bright rat.

So, when do we infer intelligence? According to mathematicians when the odds against an event occurring are 1 in 10150 or greater, it can’t be accidental.1 In order to grasp such an astronomical number, consider that the odds against winning a Power ball lottery with a single ticket is about 1 in 108. Or trying to pick a solitary atom from all the atoms in the universe would be 1 in 1080.

So, having cleared all that up, we come to the real question. Forgetting all the erosion and snowflake patterns, are there any examples of specified complexity found in nature pointing toward intelligent design? The short answer is yes. What follows, without getting into too much detail, is the longer answer. It uses the example of something each of us has heard something about: deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA.

A LITTLE STRAND CAN DO

DNA. That one complex molecule contains the complete blueprint for every cell in every living thing. In a sense DNA is like a recipe where common ingredients are used to make different dishes. Only, instead of tasty dishes, DNA instructs cells to make flowers, whales, chickens, or people. (Hmm…so chickens aren’t tasty dishes?)

The genius of DNA lies not only in its complex coded instructions for life but also in its incredibly well-designed architecture, which allows it to contain billions of detailed instructions within a microscopic molecule. The amount of DNA that would fit on a pinhead contains information equivalent to that of a stack of paperback books that would encircle the earth 5,000 times!2

Our complete blueprint is present in each of our thousand million million cells. Think of an enormous building with thousands upon thousands of rooms, where each room houses a complete set of blueprints for the entire structure. (If these analogies are getting a little sterile for you, then you might want to imagine a series of beach houses—and imagine yourself sitting in one.) However, instead of merely thousands of rooms, our bodies contain trillions of cells, each with a complete package of DNA instructions.3

Each strand of DNA in our bodies consists of three billion base pairs of genetic information. These base pairs form a chain, which constitutes the entire human genetic code. Today the entire human genome has been mapped out. Even though humans are closest to chimpanzees in DNA sequencing, there are still some 40 million differences. (Except maybe with my friend Bob.)4

YOUR CELLS ARE TALKING

But just what is DNA, and how does it work? Although scientists are only beginning to unravel its mysteries, they know that DNA works much like a coded language. Microsoft chairman Bill Gates (apparently sizing up the potential to patent it and make it a part of Windows) discloses, “DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.”5

When we think of sophisticated computer programs, we immediately realize that their coded software was intentionally designed. Materialists believe that DNA originated without any such intentional process. But is it possible that natural causes alone engineered DNA?

Prior to microbiologists’ discovery of the incredibly complex language of DNA, materialists had believed its origin was explainable by natural means. However, design theorists have now applied the mathematical discipline of CSI to the question of whether DNA is the result of intelligent design or was accidental in its origin.

Historian and philosopher Stephen C. Meyer comments on the intelligence required for coded languages: “Our experience with information-intensive systems (especially codes and languages) indicates that such systems always come from an intelligent source.”6

In other words, like a code or language, DNA operates with specifically organized instructions. This is the CSI (complex, specified information) discussed earlier as the watermark of intelligent design.

When DNA directs the cell to make proteins, it first gives instructions to make amino acids. Then twenty different amino acids must precisely link up into a chain, folding into an exacting, irregular three-dimensional protein. The amino acids are like letters; their arrangement spells out the specific protein being made.

Proteins are truly amazing. MIT-trained scientist Dr. Gerald Schroeder explains,

Other than sex and blood cells, every cell in your body is making approximately two thousand proteins every second. A protein is a combination of three hundred to over a thousand amino acids. An adult human body is made of approximately seventy-five trillion cells. Every second of every minute of every day, your body and every body is organizing on the order of 150 thousand thousand thousand thousand thousand thousand amino acids into carefully constructed chains of proteins. Every second; every minute; every day. The fabric from which we and all life are built is being continually rewoven at a most astoundingly rapid rate.7

LIFE IN A TEST TUBE?

In the 1950’s, Harold Urey, a professor at the University of Chicago challenged his students to create life in a test tube. One of his students who tried, Stanley Miller was jubilant, when after enormous efforts he produced a few amino acids…the building blocks of proteins.

It all appeared so promising, but what Miller didn’t understand then was that without DNA, those amino acids would never be able to form proteins…the stuff of life. The initial euphoria faded once further discoveries revealed life’s incredible complexity.

Professor J.P. Moreland compares laboratory results with the complexity required to generate life: “…if life can be likened to an encyclopedia in complexity and information, the best we have done is to synthesize a compound which carries the complexity and information of the word ME. The jump from ME to an encyclopedia is so far and speculative that the relevance of progress so far is questionable.”8

Meyer points out that the chemical codes directing the process attach themselves to the structure of the DNA molecule like letters on a chalkboard, but they do so without becoming organically involved with the board or the other letters. Therefore, he distinguishes the information content from the chemical bonding.

Furthermore, Meyer compares the sequencing of the amino acids to a language: “Amino acids alone do not make proteins, any more than letters alone make words, sentences or poetry.”9

The fact that the arrangement of the letters is not the result of chemical bonding has driven Meyer to conclude that, without intelligence, DNA would never be able to turn amino acids into proteins. He writes, “The chance of each amino acid finding the correct bond is one in twenty; the chance of one hundred amino acids hooking up to successfully make a functional protein is one in 1030.”10

And to survive, the protein chain must be contained within an intricate cellular architecture. That means that the odds against a protein being manufactured randomly are astronomical. It would be easier for a blindfolded person to find one special grain of sand hidden on one of the world’s beaches than to have a protein appear by chance.

WHERE DID IT COME FROM?

Such complexity is so improbable that Meyer believes the DNA code cannot be the product of undirected natural processes. Furthermore, he reasons that DNA coding exhibits creative intelligence beyond random chemical bonds.

Perhaps this is why every attempt to create life has failed. Cambridge Professor of Evolutionary Paleobiology, Simon Conway Morris remarks on biologists’ efforts to replicate life in a test tube: “And yet, something is clearly missing: life cannot be created in the laboratory, nor is there any clear prospect of it happening.”11

How did a molecule with such complex coded instructions originate? What natural process triggered a smattering of organic chemicals to come together and form the incredibly sophisticated double helix? Schroeder remarks, “And here’s that enigma. … It shows its head in a dozen different ways, the problem of how the entire process originally got started.”12

Dembski, Meyer, and Schroeder are part of a growing number of scientists and mathematicians who have concluded that the DNA molecule is so complex that it couldn’t have spontaneously assembled itself.

In Probability 1, mathematician and evolutionist Amir Aczel summarizes the DNA dilemma: “Having surveyed the discovery of the structure of DNA … and having seen how DNA stores and manipulates tremendous amounts of information (3 billion separate bits for a human being) and uses the information to control life, we are left with one big question: What created DNA?”13

An increasing number of scientists in other fields are also admitting that DNA’s complexity is not explainable by mere chance. Theoretical physicist Paul Davies affirms in The 5th Miracle,

The peculiarity of biological complexity makes genes seem almost like impossible objects. …

I have come to the conclusion that no familiar law of nature could produce such a structure from incoherent chemicals with the inevitability that some scientists assert.14

Biologist Michael Behe comments on the dilemma facing scientists who are wedded to a purely materialistic account of the origin of life, “In the face of the enormous complexity that modern biochemistry has uncovered in the cell, the scientific community is paralyzed.”15

Agnostic Sir Fred Hoyle, when considering the enormous information requirement of life writes, “Were a refined theory available for estimating the information content of DNA it would, in our opinion, be immediately apparent from its overwhelming content that life could never have arisen on a miniscule planet like on Earth. It would be seen that, to match the information content of even the simplest cell, nothing less than the resources of the entire Universe are needed.”16

DNA BY DESIGN?

Scientists have been stunned by the overwhelming probability against DNA forming by chance. It is one thing for intelligent scientists to manipulate chemicals under laboratory conditions, and it is quite another to attribute the origin of DNA to random action. Even the most ardent materialists do not claim to have explained DNA’s origin.

Amir Aczel questions his own materialistic belief by admitting that DNA is too complex to have arisen from natural processes. In a reflective mode he asks,

Are we witnessing here something so wondrous, so fantastically complex, that it could not be chemistry or random interactions of elements, but something far beyond our understanding?17

DNA’s co-discoverer Francis Crick also considers DNA to be too complex to have arisen in a warm pond on early Earth. This highly regarded Nobel Prize–winning biologist concludes, “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to almost be a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.”18

In spite of Crick’s assertion that DNA appears miraculous he remained a materialist and began looking to outer space for the origin of life. (panspermia).

Having acknowledged the impossibility of DNA to originate naturally, some scientists have shifted their focus to RNA. Several biologists believe that DNA emerged from RNA. However, microbiologists who have analyzed RNA now believe it too “could not have emerged straight from the prehistoric muck.”19

Not only is RNA prohibitively intricate, but it’s far more delicate than DNA, meaning it couldn’t cohere by itself even if it did come together by chance. Thus, the origin of life remains an unsolved riddle to scientists.

Aczel reasons that the complexity of DNA could not have arisen naturally on Earth, He asks, “Was it perhaps the power, thinking, and will of a supreme being that created this self-replicating basis of all life?”20 Like Crick, Aczel concludes that DNA must have arrived from outer space.

But according to Dembski, “Natural causes such as chance and law are incapable of producing CSI.”21 Since these laws apply throughout the universe, one shouldn’t hold his breath about finding Klingons on Planet Qo’noS in the Beta Quadrant–unless a designer made DNA based life elsewhere.

So how did life on Earth originate? Is intelligent design worthy of consideration? Not according to Dawkins, Eldridge, Mayr, and a host of other materialistic scientists who are convinced it is an enemy of science.

Yet other leading scientists are willing to objectively look at the evidence. And new scientific evidence has pushed intelligent design to the forefront of the debate on origins. Even many hardened atheists have considered the evidence and admit the implications of design.

Antony Flew is one materialist who led the charge against an intelligent designer. Recognized by many as the world’s leading atheist for the past fifty years, Flew wrote over thirty books arguing against a creator.

But this formidable atheist took an honest look at DNA, remarking,

What I think the DNA material has done is show that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements together. The enormous complexity by which the results were achieved look to me like the work of intelligence.22

Flew, who accepts Darwinian evolution, but doubts it can account for life’s origins, sees intelligent design as the best option to explain biological complexity. He made front page news when he renounced his atheism, remarking,

I think the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it…It now seems to me that the finding of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.23

Flew’s honesty is to be applauded, but materialists aren’t clapping. As the intelligent design movement gains momentum, many refuse to consider it as an option, dismissing it as “unscientific.” However, most thinking people want to hear the facts and draw their own conclusions. Like Flew, many who have honestly investigated the evidence, are in awe at what appears to be a super-intelligence behind life and all its intricate complexity.

ENDNOTES

1. William A. Dembski, The Design Revolution (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 85.

2. Werner Gitt, “Dazzling Designs in Miniature,” Creation Ex Nihilo, December 1997–February 1998, 6.

3. Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), 1.

4. Nicholas Wade, “In Chimpanzee DNA, Signs of Y Chromosome’s Evolution,” New York Times, Sept. 1, 2005, A13.

5. William A. Dembski and James M. Kushiner, eds., Signs of Intelligence (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos, 2001), 108.

6. Ibid., 115.

7. Gerald Schroeder, The Hidden Face of God (New York: Touchstone, 2001), 189.

8. Ibid.

9. J.P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City (Grand rapids: Baker Books, 2000), 221.

10. Larry Witham, By Design (San Francisco: Encounter, 2003), 147.

11. Simon Conway Morris, Life’s Solution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 46.

12. Schroeder, 192–193.

13. Amir D. Aczel, Probability 1 (New York: Harvest, 1998), 88.

14. Paul Davies, The 5th Miracle (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000), 20.

15. Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box (New York: Touchstone, 1996), 185.

16. Sir Fred Hoyle, “The Information Content of Life,” The Universe Unfolding(Oxford: Clarendon Press, eds. Sir Hermann Bondi & Miranda Weston-Smith, 1998), 8.

17. Aczel, 88.

18. Francis Crick, Life Itself (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981), 88.

19. Nell Boyce, “Triumph of the Helix,” U. S. News & World Report, February 24/March 3, 2003, 41.

20. Aczel, 88.

21. William A. Dembski, Intelligent Design: the Bridge between Science and Theology(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity), 1999.

22. Antony Flew, quoted in video, “Has Science Discovered God?” Roy Abraham Varghese’s Institute for Metascientific Research in Garland, Texas, December, 2004.



23. Quoted in Gary Habermas, “My Pilgrimage from Atheism to Theism”: Interview with Antony Flew, Philosophia Christi, (Winter, 2005).

Read More

Teaching Children to Say "Jesus Loves You"

Open Doors, Jun 27 2013

Hanna lives with her husband and two young daughters in Damascus. Working as a teacher, Hanna shares what daily life is like living and working in Syria:

It’s especially hard for the kids; the whole situation visibly affects them. In some parts of the country the schools are closed, but our schools in Damascus are still open. Last week one of the parents came to me crying about her boy. He used to be a good boy, but starting a month ago he began acting really nervous and aggressive towards others. We try so hard to be good parents but we see them change. Last week while being dropped off, one of the girls couldn’t stop crying. She was making horrifying noises; she really didn’t want to come to school. She didn’t want to leave her mother because she was afraid that she might never see her mother again. I tried to comfort her by telling her about the angels that protect us. Together we read Psalm 91. From that day on, she read the Psalm every day and she doesn’t cry anymore when she has to go to school.

Living with God really is the only way to cope with this war. I’m also afraid to bring my own daughters to school. When they are gone, my husband and I fast and pray until we see them return home safely. I hope and pray my daughters will survive the war. It breaks my heart to say that I can’t be sure of that. Danger is everywhere. I try to prepare them for the moment I hope will never come. I teach them one thing, the only thing they should do: to tell their killers: Jesus loves you.

A lot of men are forced to participate in the war on one side or the other. Gunmen come to the houses and say: if you don’t come and fight with us, we will kill your family. So they go. I cry with the women whose husbands have gone away. The church tries to help their families. By our actions we show them the love of Christ: it doesn’t matter if they are Christian or Muslim: God’s love is for every human being.

I feel blessed and touched by the fact that so many people around the world are praying for my country and my family. I’m happy to share with you that school is over now so my two young girls don’t have to go out of the house every day anymore. God protects them.

When people are fasting and praying He will show His glory. We believe in prayer and we know how powerful it is. We hope that the Syrians will see the love of Jesus. We hope that they will find the cross and will forgive each other. We hope that our children will remember to always tell others, even killers, that Jesus loves them. We pray that God will glorify His name upon this country and the whole world will know that God loves the Syrians.

*Hanna requested to use a pseudonym, to protect her identity.

Read More

Quotes- Scientists & God

http://www.y-origins.com/index.php?p=quotes

Fred Hoyle
(British astrophysicist)
“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

George Ellis
(British astrophysicist)
“Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word ‘miraculous’ without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word.”

Paul Davies
(British astrophysicist)
“There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe. The impression of design is overwhelming.”

Alan Sandage
(winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy)
“I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.”

John O'Keefe
(NASA astronomer)
“We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures. If the universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.”

George Greenstein
(astronomer)
“As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency—or, rather, Agency—must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?”

Arthur Eddington
(astrophysicist)
“The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory.”

Arno Penzias
(Nobel prize in physics)
“Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.”

Roger Penrose
(mathematician and author)
“I would say the universe has a purpose. It’s not there just somehow by chance.”

Tony Rothman
(physicist)
“When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it’s very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it.”

Vera Kistiakowsky
(MIT physicist)
“The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine.”

Stephen Hawking
(British astrophysicist)
“What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? …

Up to now, most scientists have been too occupied with the development of new theories that describe what the universe is to ask the question why?”

Alexander Polyakov
(Soviet mathematician)
“We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it.”

Ed Harrison
(cosmologist)
“Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God—the design argument of Paley—updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one. Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument.”

Edward Milne
(British cosmologist)
“As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God].”

Barry Parker
(cosmologist)
“Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed.”

Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel
(cosmologists)
“This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with ‘common wisdom’.”

Arthur L. Schawlow
(Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics)
“It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.”

Henry "Fritz" Schaefer
(computational quantum chemist)
“The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, ‘So that’s how God did it.’ My goal is to understand a little corner of God’s plan.”

Wernher von Braun
(Pioneer rocket engineer)
“I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.”

Read More

Christopher Hitchens Fine Tuning.

Read More

Are Science and Christianity Compatible?

Atheist Richard Dawkins from Oxford and leading geneticist Francis Collins debated the subject of God versus Science in a Time magazine feature article.[1] At issue was whether belief in Science and God are compatible.

Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, argues that belief in God has been made irrelevant by new scientific discoveries. Collins, a Christian who led 2400 scientists in mapping the human genetic blueprint, sees it differently, stating that belief in both God and science is totally reasonable.

Although the Bible clearly states that God created the universe, it reveals nothing about how He did it. Yet its message that God is rational and personal profoundly influenced scientists such as Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Pascal and Faraday. Their belief that the world was created by a reasonable God gave them confidence in scientific observation and experimentation.

As Christians, these scientists believed in an all powerful, all knowing Creator who, although not limited by natural laws, chose to use them in the universe. These brilliant men and women were fascinated with the world around us, and sought to discover the mysteries behind what they deemed as God’s creation.


Jesus and Creation

The eyewitnesses to Jesus tell us that he continually demonstrated creative power over nature’s laws. The New Testament tells us that before Jesus became a man, he eternally existed with his Father in heaven. In fact, the author of Hebrews as well as the apostles John and Paul write of Jesus as Creator. Paul tells the Colossians:

“Now Christ is the visible expression of the invisible God. He existed before creation began, for it was through him that everything was made, whether spiritual or material, seen or unseen….In fact, every single thing was created through and for him….Life from nothing began through him, and life from the dead began through him, and he is therefore justly called the Lord of all.” Colossians 1:15-17
J.B. Phillips

When Paul said that “life from nothing began through him [Jesus],” he was making a statement that had no scientific backing at the time. In fact, scientists were of the opinion that matter had always existed in one form or another.

Materialists reasoned that if matter has always existed, then there never had been a creation. This led atheist Carl Sagan to declare on international TV that “the cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.”[2]

Sagan’s materialistic worldview and the Christian worldview can’t both be right. The question is, “does science shed any light on our origins”? So, who are we to believe? That was the question facing seventeen year-old Jeff Smith.

Jeff was confused. At a camp he heard that Jesus Christ offers forgiveness of sins and eternal life. More than that, he discovered that Jesus designed us to have a life of meaning, purpose, and hope. For the first time in his life Jeff felt like he understood why he was here on earth. He wanted forgiveness of sins, and he wanted his life to have meaning and purpose.

But Jeff struggled intellectually. He wanted to believe Jesus is real, but he loved science. He wondered, “Is it possible to believe in both creation and science?”

For Jeff and others who want to believe in both God and science, there is good news. In the past few decades, an increasing number of leading scientists have publicly spoken of stunning new evidence that supports the biblical view of creation. And many of these scientists have no personal faith in God.

So, what is this evidence that has many scientists suddenly speaking of a Creator? To answer those questions we need to look at recent discoveries in astronomy and molecular biology, letting the evidence speak for itself. [For a more in-depth study, read the articles at www.y-Origins.com.]


One Time Beginning

Throughout human history man has gazed in awe at the stars, wondering what they are and how they got there. Although on a clear night we only see about 6,000 stars, trillions of them are spread out among billions of galaxies.

However, prior to the 20th century, most scientists believed our Milky Way galaxy was the entire universe, and that only about 100 million stars existed. The prevailing view even then was that our material universe had always existed.

But in the early 20th century, astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered the universe actually had a beginning. A beginning implies a “Beginner,” which the Bible had firmly revealed. Concerned materialists like Sir Fred Hoyle scoffed at the idea of a one-time beginning, sarcastically calling the explosion a “big bang.”

However, the evidence for a beginning kept mounting. Finally, in 1992, COBE satellite experiments proved that the universe really did have a one-time beginning.[3] Doubters were silenced by the overwhelming evidence. For lack of a better name, this beginning became known by Hoyle’s label of “the big bang.” (see “Back to the Beginning“)

Many scientists realized that this discovery coincided with the Genesis account of a beginning. Furthermore, they realized that prior to creation even matter and energy could not have existed. Therefore, after centuries of erroneous belief, science came around to agree with the Bible that everything came from nothing.

Some scientists had a major problem with this confirmation of the Bible, and sought other explanations. However, others like agnostic George Smoot, the Nobel Prize winning scientist in charge of the COBE experiment admits:

“There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.”[4]

The COBE experiments and Einstein’s theorems both confirm a one time creation of the universe, a position the Bible has maintained for 3500 years.


Finely-Tuned for Life

It was difficult enough for materialists to accept the evidence for a one-time creation event. But more startling discoveries about our universe were to follow.

Scientists calculated that for life to exist, each of nature’s laws had to be precisely fine-tuned. In other words, gravity and the other forces of nature had to measure within very narrow parameters or our universe couldn’t exist. Had the force that led to creation been weaker, gravity would have pulled all matter back into a “big crunch.” Had it been stronger, stars and galaxies couldn’t have formed.

Likewise, our solar system and planet also need to be just right for life to exist. For example, we all realize that without an atmosphere of oxygen, none of us would be able to breathe. And without oxygen, water couldn’t exist. Without water there would be no rainfall for our crops. Other elements such as hydrogen, nitrogen, sodium, carbon, calcium, and phosphorus are also essential for life.

The size and nature of our planet, sun, and moon also need to be just right. And there are dozens of other conditions that needed to be exquisitely fine-tuned or we wouldn’t be here to think about it.[5]

Those scientists who believed in God may have expected such fine-tuning, but those who had no faith were unable to explain the remarkable “coincidences.” Theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking, an agnostic, writes:

“The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.”[6]

Scientists evaluated the probability of whether such remarkable fine-tuning could have been accidental. Odds-makers know that even long-shots can eventually win at the racetrack. So, just how long are the odds against life existing by chance? According to most scientists, the odds of us being here by chance is impossible.

Cosmologists compared the odds against life occurring by accident with those of shooting an arrow from Earth at a small target on the planet Pluto and hitting the bullseye. Imagine the engineering required if such a feat were even possible. Such odds would be comparable with winning over a hundred Powerball lotteries after purchasing only one ticket for each. Impossible—unless the outcome was fixed by someone behind the scenes. And that is what many scientists are concluding—Someone behind the scenes designed and created the universe.

These incredible odds are far beyond anything mere chance and time could accomplish. This new understanding of our universe led scientists like astronomer George Greenstein to ask:

“Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon the scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being?”[7]

Some materialists have tried to explain away the fine-tuning of the universe as luck. However, others have been more open to realism. Sir Fred Hoyle, a committed agnostic, was stunned by the evidence for a Creator, remarking:

“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.”[8]

Einstein came to the same conclusion. Although he wasn’t religious, and didn’t believe in a personal God, Einstein pondered the genius behind the universe, calling it “an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.”[9]

It is not merely scientists who are perplexed by how all the forces of nature are so perfectly designed to make life possible The world’s leading atheists also struggle to explain why everything is so exquisitely fine-tuned. Leading atheist, Christopher Hitchens, who spent most of his life arguing against God, was perplexed by the fact that life couldn’t exist if things were different by just “one degree or one hair.[10]


[10] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDJ9BL38PrI

Scientists continue their quest for an explanation as to what was behind the creation of the universe. But the deeper they dig, the more in awe they are of the unexplainable origin of our universe and its remarkable fine-tuning.


DNA: The Language of Life

Although the Bible tells us that Jesus created all life, it says nothing about how He did it. However, some of the mysteries of creation are now being discovered.

For example, in the past half century, scientists have learned that a tiny molecule called DNA is the “brains” behind each cell in our bodies and every other living thing. Yet the more they discover about DNA, the more amazed they are at the brilliance behind it.

Although evolutionists believe that DNA evolved through natural selection, they have no idea how such an intricately complex molecule could ever have begun by mere chance. DNA’s intricate complexity caused its co-discoverer, Francis Crick, to believe that it could never have originated on earth naturally. Crick, an evolutionist who believed life is so complex it must have come from outer space, wrote,:

“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to almost be a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.”[11]

The coding behind DNA reveals such intelligence that it staggers the imagination. A mere pinhead of it contains information equivalent to a stack of paperback books that would encircle the earth 5,000 times. And DNA operates like a language with its own extremely complex software code. Microsoft founder Bill Gates says that the software of DNA is “far, far more complex than any software we have ever developed.”[13]

Although Flew is not a Christian, he now admits that the “software” behind DNA is too complex to have originated without a “designer.” And Flew is certainly not alone. The discovery of the incredible intelligence behind DNA has convinced many former agnostics and atheists that life in our universe is not an accident.


Fingerprints of a Designer

In summary, three recent scientific discoveries have convinced many scientists that an intelligent Designer both planned and created our universe:

1. The beginning of the universe and its laws

2. The remarkable fine-tuning of nature’s laws making life possible

3. The intricate complexity of DNA

So what are leading scientists saying about these remarkable discoveries? Stephen Hawking, recognized as one of the world’s leading theoretical physicists, asks,

What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe.[14]

Upon deeper reflection, Hawking states, “There must be religious overtones. But I think most scientists prefer to shy away from the religious side of it.”[15] And even though many scientists do shy away from the religious implications of these new discoveries, an increasing number are now admitting that a Designer’s fingerprints are coming into view. (See what leading scientists are saying: http://www.y-origins.com/index.php?p=quotes)

The fact that many scientists are now openly speaking of God doesn’t mean that all materialists like Flew are relinquishing their atheistic views. In fact, many like Richard Dawkins are becoming even more aggressive against faith in God. Yet, when one looks objectively at the evidence regarding the origin of the universe and the intricate complexity of DNA, even many non-Christian scientists admit that the evidence of a Designer’s “fingerprints” are coming into focus.

Dr. Robert Jastrow is one such scientist. Jastrow is a theoretical physicist who joined NASA when it was formed in 1958. Jastrow helped establish the scientific goals for the exploration of the moon during the Apollo lunar landings. He set up and directed NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which conducts research in astronomy and planetary science. Jastrow, an agnostic, wrote these thoughts, reflecting the view of many scientists:6″For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”[16]

As an agnostic, Jastrow has no Christian agenda behind his conclusions. He simply notes that the biblical view of a one-time beginning of the universe has finally been confirmed by science. And this “beginning” was not some happenstance explosion, but rather a precisely engineered event that made human life possible. This conclusion perfectly coincides with the biblical statement, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

If the Bible is right, and God does exist, how can we know what He is like? Has He communicated to us personally? The eyewitnesses of Jesus Christ tell us that he claimed to fully represent the one true God. And although many others have claimed they speak for God, Jesus’ followers tell us that he backed up his claim.

But did Jesus provide proof that he spoke for God? He reportedly performed miraculous deeds that required creative power. However, the most dramatic miracle of all was his resurrection from the dead. No other person in history had ever died, been buried for three days, and then returned to life. If true, Jesus Christ would have provided ample evidence that his words were truly the words of God





1. David Bjerklie and Alice Park/New York, Dan Cray/Los Angeles and Jeff Israely/Rome, Time, November 7, 2006.

2. Carl Sagan, Cosmos (New York: Ballantine Books, 1980), 1.

3. George Smoot and Keay Davidson, Wrinkles in Time (New York: Avon, 1993), 241.

4. Smoot and Davidson, 17.

5. Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos (3rd ed. (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2001), 224.

6. Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1990), 125.

7. George Greenstein, The Symbiotic Universe (New York: William Morrow, 1988), 27.

8. Fred Hoyle, “Let there be Light,” Engineering and Science (November 1981).

9. Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions—The World As I See It (New York: Bonanza, 1931), 40.

10. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDJ9BL38PrI

11. Francis Crick, Life Itself (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981), 88.

12. Quoted in William A. Dembski and James M. Kushiner, eds., Signs of Intelligence (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos, 2001), 108.

13. Quoted in Gary Habermas, “My Pilgrimage from Atheism to Theism”: Interview with Antony Flew, Philosophia Christi, (Winter, 2005).

14. Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, 174.

15. John Boslough, Stephen Hawking’s Universe (New York: Avon, 1989), 109.

16. Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (London: W.W. Norton & Co. Inc., 1992), 107.

Permission to reproduce this article: Publisher grants permission to reproduce this material without written approval, but only in its entirety and only for non-profit use. No part of this material may be altered or used out of context without publisher’s written permission. Printed copies of this article and Y-Origins and Y-Jesus magazine may be ordered at: http://jesusonlineministries.com/resources/products/



© 2012 JesusOnline Ministries. This article is a supplement to Y-Jesus magazine by Bright Media Foundation & B&L Publications: Larry Chapman, Chief Editor.

Read More