You hold my world in your hands
Friday, September 16, 2016
Thursday, September 15, 2016
Aguente Firme
http://anchor.tfionline.com/pt/post/aguente-firme/
“Por isso, não abram mão da confiança que vocês têm; ela será ricamente recompensada. Vocês precisam perseverar, de modo que, quando tiverem feito a vontade de Deus, recebam o que ele prometeu.”[1] Que versÃculo mais maravilhoso! É um dos meus favoritos. Você tem que ter paciência para poder, depois de fazer a vontade de Deus, receber a promessa. Você vai recebê-la.
“Mas o justo viverá pela fé. E, se retroceder, não me agradarei dele. Nós, porém, não somos dos que retrocedem e são destruÃdos, mas dos que creem e são salvos.”[2]
Quero chamar a sua atenção especialmente para essas palavras, “não abram mão da confiança que vocês têm.” Grande é a recompensa, porque Deus não vai falhar. Ele não pode falhar, se você continuar confiando e simplesmente não abrindo mão. Pense só em alguém desistindo e abrindo mão de sua confiança bem quando Deus está se preparando para responder a oração!
Se buscar na Palavra de Deus escrita verá que Ele menciona várias vezes esta palavra “confiança”. Tenho me impressionado com a quantidade de vezes que esta palavra consta na Palavra de Deus.
Recentemente, alguém escreveu, dizendo: “A oração não mudou as coisas para mim. Eu orei algumas vezes, mas não demorou muito e desisti.” Mais tarde fiquei sabendo que esta pessoa sequer deu a Deus muito tempo. Pelo que ela me disse depois, ela não aguentou firme nem um pouco. Ela simplesmente abriu mão da confiança quando não recebeu uma resposta à sua oração imediatamente.
Quando penso nas pessoas que aguentam firmes por tantos anos! Ouvi um testemunho dos mais maravilhosos sobre um homem que tinha sido condenado por anos. É uma história impressionante da graça de Deus—30 anos viciado em drogas, 17 anos na prisão, 3 anos e meio na solitária. Mas ele agora está pregando e tão cheio do EspÃrito do Senhor. Faz um trabalho maravilhoso e está totalmente curado do seu velho hábito e livre daquela vida de pecado, e tem sido usado por Deus.
Sua esposa testemunhou e disse: “Sabe, eu aguentei firme durante anos sem fim.” Pense nisto: aguentar firme por 30 anos! Ela disse, “Eu não sabia quanto tempo seria preciso para operar isso na vida dele, mas estava contente em acreditar e esperar, e eu sabia que Deus ia responder minha oração. Teve muitos anos que foram uma provação para a minha alma, e à s vezes eu questionava por que Deus não respondia logo, mas eu me determinei a aguentar firme até ver a resposta.” Ele escreveu um livro sobre esse tema, e li essas palavras neste livro, de como aquela pequena mulher aguentou firme.
Você está aguentando firme por alguém? Em algum amado que ainda não se entregou? “Durante todos os anos que ele esteve na prisão,” ela disse, “eu orei por ele e o sustentei em oração, ensinei aos meus filhos a respeitá-lo, e sabia que Deus iria ao nosso encontro.” Ora, isso leva tempo. Leva tempo para Deus fazer muitas coisas.
Eu lhes disse certa vez que leva tempo para Deus crescer um carvalho e até mesmo fazer florescer uma rosa, e certamente o mesmo é verdadeiro com relação à oração. Há muitas razões por que a oração não pode ser respondida imediatamente. Sei que é difÃcil de entender—um dia entenderemos!
Mas uma coisa sei com certeza: Muitas vezes as orações teriam sido atendidas se vocês fizessem como esta mulher, simplesmente perseverado e sem “abrir mão de sua confiança.” Se você não permitiu que o desencorajamento o fizesse desistir antes de orar até obter a vitória, estará vivendo na alegria da oração respondida hoje.
Não é que Deus tenha Se recusado a responder, mas sim que você desistiu antes de receber a resposta. Como A. B. Simpson disse: “A fé verdadeira tem uma determinação fixa que passa pela prova da espera.” Tem aqueles como Jacó de outrora que dizem, “Não te deixarei ir, se não me abençoares.”[3] E eles simplesmente lutam em oração e buscam seu próprio coração para ver se estão satisfazendo as condições de Deus de modo que possam receber a resposta à s suas orações.
Eles buscam a Palavra escrita até sua fé ser fortalecida. Eles aguentam firmes e seguem adiante com uma determinação imbatÃvel e não aceitam uma negativa, não importa quais sejam os obstáculos. Eles não atentam para o desencorajamento, nem o cansaço, apenas seguem lutando, e confiam que Deus vai lhes responder.
É esta determinação, amados, e o fato de não abrirem mão de sua confiança que faz a diferença em como alguns recebem as respostas à s suas orações e outros não. É este espÃrito de grande confiança de que Deus vai nos atender se acreditarmos nEle e confiarmos e simplesmente lutarmos apesar das aparências ou das vozes de desencorajamento ao nosso redor.
Não é que a batalha dessas pessoas tenha sido menos severa do que de outras, mas elas simplesmente não pararam de lutar; simplesmente não desistiram. O Duque de Wellington, que conquistou Napoleão na Batalha de Waterloo, disse que não foi porque os soldados britânicos eram mais corajosos do que os franceses, mas eles simplesmente não desistiram; lutaram até o fim. A vitória foi determinada pela perseverança deles.
Qualquer coisa maravilhosa pode acontecer naquele breve momento em que você não desiste, mas continua acreditando e continua orando. Deus responde à oração. Deus ouve. E talvez seja naquele breve momento em que você aguenta firme que Deus vai ao seu encontro e responde.
“Por isso, não abram mão da confiança que vocês têm; ela será ricamente recompensada.”[4]
De uma transcrição de uma transmissão de Meditation Moments, adaptado. Publicado no Âncora em junho de 2016.
[1] Hebreus 10:35–36.
[2] Hebreus 10:38–39.
[3] Gênesis 32:26.
[4] Hebreus 10:35.
A Rational Faith
http://anchor.tfionline.com/post/rational-faith/
As an impressionable college freshman sitting in my first class of Western literature, I watched my favorite professor, Mrs. Chang, reading the story of Abraham and Isaac. The uniqueness of the Genesis story, with its typically bare Jewish narrative that couches profound stories like the one about the God who gives a childless couple a son, commands the father to murder his son a few years later, and then changes His mind as the deed is about to be done, confused my fellow freshmen. It was just not what most of us fantasize about when we think of that lovely word mythology, for that was what my professor said those stories were. A myth.
She looked up from the weighty volume, smiled sympathetically at her baffled students and said, “That is why I am not a Christian. The God of the Hebrew Bible does not make sense to me. Faith is irrational.”
“And please,” she continued, “if there are any Christians in this class, don’t try to argue with me. We are studying literature, not religion.” I submissively held my burning tongue.
According to her, faith, the cornerstone of my life from the time I knew how to sing “Jesus Loves Me” with childish gusto, was a ridiculous notion too bizarre to bother trying to understand. Faith got you into strange predicaments with a fallible and erratic God who just puts you through torturous experiments for his own satisfaction. Certainly not for brilliant scholars like herself to believe in.
It wasn’t the first time that I had heard a comment like that. From an early age, regular experience in personal evangelism made me grow accustomed to the incredulous stares and guffaws of those who I was trying to convince to accept the message of salvation. Now, when the person who I admired so much said the same thing, it set off a pile of questions in my mind: Why is faith so hard to grasp? If it is so important to our eternal destinies and our present happiness, why should it be so strange, even repulsive? Why didn’t God make the Bible a little less cryptic and more like those self-help articles on the Internet that break down every important value of living well to three main points, complete with clear summaries and highlights?
Worse yet, her words rang uncomfortably true with my own spiritual experience. So many times the ways of God seemed beyond reason and led to paths of pain and struggle. Sometimes the purpose behind the uncertainty would become clear, but many other times I would come through an ordeal with unanswered questions. Was it worth holding on to a faith that so many people said was nonsense and that actually added uncertainty to my life?
Suddenly, to my own surprise, a quote I had read as a high school student in my biology textbook popped into my head:
“If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn’t.”1
The brain was beyond understanding not because it was a botched project that wasn’t worth our attention; it was simply more marvelous, more astoundingly complex, than our human minds were capable of analyzing and processing. The fact that humans couldn’t understand the brain was not a reason for Watson to give up on biology and declare science a bunch of baloney; rather, those unsolved mysteries of the human mind made it all the more fascinating to him, and made it worth devoting his life to discovering its secrets.
Lyall Watson’s calm acceptance of the unsolvable complexity of the human brain got me thinking about the upsides of believing in a faith that I cannot always explain to the satisfaction of nonbelievers. Abraham could trust God to fulfill His promise of multiplying Abraham’s seed because he knew and loved the God that was behind the outrageous command. When I face issues in my relationship with God and I just can’t accept the way God seems to be leading, the only thing that will give me the strength to go through with what I am being asked is the love that holds us—God and humanity—together. Love triumphs where reason and logic fail to sustain. From this perspective, obedience out of love is the right thing to do, and thus the rational thing.
Furthermore, if I could find a way to explain away every incident in the Bible and could attach documents of proof to every one of Christianity’s spiritual claims, there would not be any reason to rely on God’s strength and invest in coming to know Him deeply and to involve Him in every part of my life. I would have all the answers and there would be no place for God. It is not that I have to content myself with groping in the dark forever. Jesus has the answers, so the questions keep me going back to Jesus at every step of my Christian walk, seeking Him and yearning for His spirit. Every time I come up against something I don’t have an easy answer for, I am reminded of the imperfection inherent in my human existence and my need for salvation.
I came to understand that I could hang on to my faith with Christ-empowered confidence because the difficulty of having faith actually testifies to its value. There is no need for faith if every aspect of a value system is mechanical, symmetrical, and provable through the scientific method. Such a value system would certainly be rational, but it would be limited to the rationality of finite human minds. Christianity does not claim to be able to present believers with succinct values and doctrines that fit neatly into preconceived ideas. Rather, it offers entry to a world beyond what I currently consider rational. As theologian Peter Kreeft says, “Only in a world where faith is difficult can faith exist.” If faith in God was made easy by being changed to appeal to our five senses, it would not be able to lead us to the One whose ways are higher than our ways.2
1 Attributed to Lyall Watson.
2 Isaiah 55:8: For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.
Militia Seizes Libyan Oil Terminals in Challenge to Government
BERLIN–Fighting erupted in Libya’s oil crescent on Sunday when forces loyal to the dominant militia commander in eastern Libya attacked and seized as many as three major oil terminals, military and civilian officials said.
The sudden offensive from the commander, Gen. Khalifa Hifter, adds a new layer to Libya’s multifaceted civil war, and presents a fresh challenge to the authority of the already weak unity government backed by the United Nations.
General Hifter’s forces attacked the oil ports of Ras Lanuf, Es Sider and Zueitina early Sunday, said Ahmed al-Mismari, a spokesman for General Hifter’s Libyan National Army. Since 2013, the ports have been held by a smaller militia known as the Petroleum Facilities Guard, led by Ibrahim Jathran.
In July, Mr. Jathran signed an agreement with the unity government to resume oil exports from Libya, ending a three-year-old embargo. But on Sunday, his soldiers had been expelled from Ras Lanuf and Es Sider, though there were reports of continuing fighting at Zueitina.
General Hifter’s military gambit puts him on a collision course with the unity government even as international scrutiny of Libya intensifies. The contested oil region lies 50 miles east of Surt, the coastal city where Western-allied militias backed by American airstrikes are laying siege to the main Islamic State base in Libya.
Oil, Libya’s main source of wealth, has always been a central factor in the complex civil conflict that erupted after the ouster of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi in 2011.
The country’s central bank reserves, drawn from oil income, have rapidly been depleted this year, causing a plunge in the Libyan currency and economic pain. But political and factional rivalries have thwarted efforts to resume oil production.
General Hifter, who is based in the eastern city of Benghazi, has long resisted joining the unity government that established itself in Tripoli in March. He has also opposed efforts by other groups to resume oil exports.
Record new U.S. military aid deal for Israel to be signed in days
The United States and Israel have reached final agreement on a record new package of at least $38 billion in U.S. military aid and the 10-year pact is expected to be signed within days, sources close to the matter told Reuters on Tuesday.
The deal will represent the biggest pledge of U.S. military assistance ever made to any country but also includes major concessions granted by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, according to officials on both sides.
Those include Israel’s agreement not to seek additional funds from Congress beyond what will be guaranteed annually in the new package, and also to phase out a special arrangement that has allowed Israel to spend part of its U.S. aid on its own defense industry instead of on American-made weapons, the officials said.
Drawn-out aid negotiations have underscored continuing friction between U.S. President Barack Obama and Netanyahu over last year’s U.S.-led nuclear deal with Iran, Israel’s arch-foe. The United States and Israel have also been at odds over the Palestinians.
But the right-wing Israeli leader decided it would be best to forge a new arrangement with Obama, who leaves office in January, rather than hoping for better terms from the next U.S. administration, according to officials on both sides.
A deal now allows him to avoid uncertainties surrounding the next president, whether Democrat Hillary Clinton or Republican Donald Trump, and to give Israel’s defense establishment the ability to plan ahead.
Obama’s aides want a new deal before his presidency ends, seeing it as an important part of his legacy. Republican critics accuse him of not being attentive enough to Israel’s security, which the White House strongly denies.
The deal, known as a memorandum of understanding, or MOU, calls for at least $3.8 billion a year in aid, up from $3.1 billion annually under the current pact, which expires in 2018, officials say. Netanyahu had originally sought upwards of $4.5 billion a year.
The new package for the first time will incorporate money for Israeli missile defense, which until now has been funded ad hoc by Congress. U.S. lawmakers have in recent years given Israel up to $600 million in annual discretionary funds for this purpose.
Officials say Israel has agreed not to lobby Congress for additional missile defense funds during the life of the new MOU, a pledge expected to be made in a side letter or annex to the agreement. But the wording is likely to be flexible enough to allow exceptions in case of a war or other major crisis.
Barring a last-minute snag, the new agreement is expected to be officially rolled out within days, possibly as early as this week, one source close to the matter said.
Another source familiar with the negotiations confirmed that the signing would be “in the coming days”.
It will not be signed by Obama and Netanyahu, who have had a fraught relationship, but instead by lower-ranking officials, in keeping with the way the two governments have formally sealed previous deals of this type.
The sugar industry funded one of the biggest misconceptions in modern nutrition
New research reveals that a dangerous cornerstone of American nutrition in the 20th century was funded by the sugar industry.
The sugar industry worked with scientists in the 1950s and 1960s to downplay sucrose’s role in causing coronary heart disease and other nutritional risks, according to a paper by UC San Francisco researchers published in JAMA Internal Medicine on Monday.
In other words, the move to single out fat and cholesterol as the biggest problems in American diets was a coordinated effort by trade association Sugar Research Foundation, intended to increase the consumption of sucrose.
The crux of the new research is a 1965 paper that played a major role in making low-fat diets the nutritional norm in the US. The Sugar Research Foundation paid the modern equivalent of $50,000 to fund the project, which argued cholesterol–not sucrose–was the sole relevant factor in studying and preventing coronary heart disease.
However, this funding was not disclosed when the literature review was published in 1967, despite the fact that the sugar industry set the review’s objective, contributed articles, and read drafts prior to publication.
“The literature review helped shape not only public opinion on what causes heart problems but also the scientific community’s view of how to evaluate dietary risk factors for heart disease,” lead author Cristin Kearns said in a statement.
UCSF researchers concluded that the sugar industry had a hand in guiding researchers to recommend low-fat diets after analyzing more than 340 documents between the sugar industry and two scientists, Roger Adams and D. Mark Hegsted.
Last year, it was revealed that the Sugar Research Foundation similarly downplayed the role of sugar in cavity prevention and tooth decay.
As the low-fat diet trend took hold of the US, the sugar industry thrived. Food makers began replacing fat with sugar–which is exactly what the industry had wanted.
“This change would mean an increase in the per capita consumption of sugar more than a third with tremendous improvement in general health,” Sugar Research Foundation president Henry Hass said in 1954, addressing nutritional research that could encourage Americans to eat less fat.
Coca-Cola has been similarly accused of funding research that downplays the role of sugar-sweetened drinks in the modern obesity crisis.
However, the research that condemned fat while ignoring the role of sugar is now widely seen as misguided.
Americans consume 30% more sugar daily now than three decades ago, according to the Obesity Society. American children eat three times as much added sugar as they should.
While the paper studied the sugar industry’s influence on nutritional research in the 1950s and 60s, concerns that food makers still play an oversized role in scientific research remains today.
“We have to ask ourselves how many lives and dollars could have been saved, and how different today’s health picture would be, if the industry were not manipulating science in this way,” Jim Krieger, executive director of Health Food America, said in a comment about the paper. “Only 50 years later are we waking up to the true harm from sugar. Yet industry continues to use its time-honored tactics of creating doubt about valid science they deem damaging to its bottom line and deflecting blame from their products.”
Wednesday, September 14, 2016
How 'Information' Disproves Atheism and Evolution
Dr Werner Gitt, now retired, was a director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, as well as being Head of the Department of Information Technology. In order for the German Ministerium to award the title ‘Director and Professor’ at a German research institute, there has to be a recommendation of the Praesidium. The person concerned must always be:
* A scientist. for this is clearly an academic title.
* One who has published a significant number of original research papers in the technical literature.
* One who has headed a department in his area of expertise, in which several working scientists are employed.
Dr Gitt often lectures on the subject of the information in the universe. By the application of the laws of science alone he reveals that there is no sensible alternative to the belief in an all-powerful God, for 'information' is clearly divine in origin.
I have, for quite some while, considered why it is that in their arguments with evolutionists, creationists don't talk much more about 'information.' Why do I ask this? Simply because it is generally known and understood that information is not part of matter and this would seem to be an area in which the Christian Creationist holds several trump cards.
Evolutionists have developed some smart views on what matter is and it's potentialities (although they always assume it's presence at the beginning of time and will never be able to tell you where it came from), but many of them will agree, yes even now, that information and consciousness are not really part of matter. Yet, truthfully, they will tend to avoid the subject. The subject is a little tricky for them for they must assume that there is no God nor superior intelligence in the universe, yet 'information' obviously exists. Evolutionary astronomers, for instance, will want to say that at the time of the so-called 'big bang' there was only mass and energy - nothing else, but we are going to see that they cannot possibly be correct and we will arrive at that conclusion, and other conclusions, through using scientific laws alone.
Think about 'information' in this way: Suppose you had a super new computer but, for some reason, no operating system has been installed. So it has nothing like Windows or Linux which can render it useable for the average person. You would not be able to do much with that. But now let us assume that you go out and purchase a Windows operating system. You install that so the computer now has a program, or, 'intelligence' which effectively 'tells it' how to perform various tasks for you. So now it is supremely useable. A Windows O.S. is very large. I think that XP was about 3 gigabytes - that's big! I mean, that's a lot of information. But Vista is much bigger, I think that Vista Premium is closer to 15 gigabytes! I think they have made the very new Windows Seven a bit smaller. But those are huge programs of information. But if you weigh your computer after installing Windows XP or Vista, it won't even be a tiny bit heavier (as long as you remember to take out the CD after installation)! You have just installed a huge amount of information which, as we have noted, is very large in measure, yet you can't record any weight for it on the weighing scale. Ever wondered about that? Moreover, if after a week you delete the entire operating system program, you will not be able to make your computer even the tiniest bit lighter, it will still be the same weight. Why is this? It is because information itself is not matter and therefore it has no weight. No evolutionary scientist has an entirely adequate explanation for how 'information' arrives on the scene, or even for just what it is. Don't forget: these people must work within a 'closed' materialistic universe without any God, or superior intelligence, therefore 'information' is problematic for them. A very clever German scientist/geneticist, who is also a Christian creationist, Dr Werner Gitt, has explained much about 'information' for the purposes of Christians in a series of lectures. Since I know by experience that most Christians will not sit down and watch a series of lectures, in this article I plan to bring you the gist of Dr Gitt's explanation, although I certainly do not claim that my understanding of the subject goes to the depth of this brilliant German geneticist. I intend to simplify this in order to furnish Christians with a tool which can be used against macro-evolution.
1. Fundamentals in Science
We all know some of the basic laws of science even if we could not write their mathematical formulations down on paper. For instance, we all know that you will never find a river, or a stream, which flows uphill for a few miles before descending in a waterfall. Okay, the waterfall is no problem, we all know about those, but you could not have a river running uphill for several miles in order to reach that point. Why? Because it breaks the law of gravity! Rivers, all on their own, don't run uphill, you would need some sort of pumping system. Commonly a river will rise in a mountainous area and will gradually meander it's way down to the sea, so it works with the law of gravity.
We all know some of the basic laws of science even if we could not write their mathematical formulations down on paper. For instance, we all know that you will never find a river, or a stream, which flows uphill for a few miles before descending in a waterfall. Okay, the waterfall is no problem, we all know about those, but you could not have a river running uphill for several miles in order to reach that point. Why? Because it breaks the law of gravity! Rivers, all on their own, don't run uphill, you would need some sort of pumping system. Commonly a river will rise in a mountainous area and will gradually meander it's way down to the sea, so it works with the law of gravity.
To say that Man has evolved through a gradual process of evolution is incorrect because a law of science is being violated (just as 'the law of gravity' was violated in our river running uphill model), we will see the connection later.
We must remember that science only works through theories, speculations and hypotheses. You can always test these against the laws of nature where that is possible.
In our world, there are three realities for scientists to ponder over. They are:
1. Life.
2. Matter.
3. Information.
To take the second of those first, the laws of matter are well understood, but the understanding on information is very very new. Little has been written by evolutionists because they are always struggling not to acknowledge a superior intelligence in the universe. So there is much which is not understood by scientists. Regarding 'life,' the only law of nature here which we are aware of is this: Life can only come from life. Nobody doubts that, it is a well-established law. To digress for just one moment, the evolutionist is just as aware of that law as anybody else; they fully agree that life can only come from life. Despite this, because of the materialist foundation of evolution, they will nevertheless insist that - right at the beginning - life did come from non-life. It's amazing really to consider that fact.
If, for a moment, you can imagine somebody constructing a walking robot, it would have to have some clever working parts; legs, for instance, which could move back and forth and which could bend, maybe you could even make it clever enough to climb a few steps all on it's own. But it would need a small computer with it's 'walking program' to be installed on it. With a good program it might work fine, after a certain fashion. But if you deleted the program on the walking robot's mini computer it could not move any more. Again, after deleting the information on the program, the walking robot would be no lighter in weight - you have deleted information, not matter. But if you stumbled over it as you went to make a cup of coffee and broke one of it's legs and you then decide to throw the 'leg' away until you make a new one, you will reduce it's weight since the 'leg' is matter. So it will then be lighter in weight.
In like manner, if you could delete a person's DNA, it is doubtful you would even make that person a few ounces lighter because the DNA is just solid information, yet there is so much of it that if unraveled it, it could stretch from earth to the moon! So it always helps to keep the distinction between matter and information clear. Again, science pretty much understands matter but it has very little understanding on 'information,' because evolution restricts it to a material, godless universe.
When Dr Werner Gitt discusses information and the Creation, he also demonstrates his point with the walking stick insect. That too is a walking machine with a program installed - no program and there can be no walking. Thus we see the affect of information on matter. The development of a human embryo is probably the most complex information system of all.
If you are wondering where we are going with this, just 'hang in there,' and you will soon see.
2. Laws of Nature
We now need to say something about the laws of nature. There are two kinds of laws of nature:
a. Material Entities.
Energy, power, electricity.
b. Non-material Entities.
Consciousness, information.
Laws of Nature are universally valid, whether in Europe, America, Africa or on the moon - it makes no difference where you are.
Laws of Nature do not vary in time.
Laws of Nature are simple.
There are no exceptions.
Laws of Nature help us to determine beforehand whether a process is, or is not, possible. This is why, when we look again at our earlier suggestion that a river could run uphill for several miles, we see that it is impossible because these laws of nature are 'constants.'
3. Searching for a Scientific Definition of Information
"Information is information; neither matter nor energy." (Norbert Wiener). That's fine, as far as it goes, but Wiener does not tell us what it is. Okay, now let us see what it is.
Imagine this: You are looking at a chart of hieroglyphic symbols before the discovery of the Rosetta Stone. You would have had no interpretation, you would be hopelessly confused. In fact, this was the way it was until the 1799 discovery of the Rosetta Stone. The discovery of that stone tablet enabled us to be able to interpret hieroglyphics. But before then if we were shown a chart of those symbols we would not know whether or not that chart was 'information.' Since that point we can now say that it is information, causing us to interpret a previously hidden language. Before then, you would be unsure, one might apply a very loose label of 'information' to it but it would not be information in the sense of imparting real understanding regarding what the writer of those ancient symbols had in mind.
Any definition in science must be very precise and very clear. It must have sharp, distinct borders that includes the subjects of the definition and excludes everything else. For example the definition of energy in physics is stated very carefully. In the same manner, information is carefully defined in science.
Within natural law, information includes five levels:
a. Statistics (signal, number of symbols).
b. Syntax (set of symbols, grammar).
c. Semantics (meaning).
d. Pragmatics (action).
e. Apobetics (purpose, result, the highest level of information).
With Apobetics, full understanding has been imparted from the information sender to the information recipient.
If you have those five points then you have an entire information system.
If we find all these five levels in an unknown system (as with the Rosetta Stone illumination of Egyptian hieroglyphics), then we can be absolutely sure that this is a true information system. This is then no longer a matter of speculation but the case is proved. When 'information' is established, intelligence comes with it; that is the bit that evolutionists don't like, and worry about, of course.
There are other, lesser, definitions of information but this is the strongest one.
Some people may look at the stars and say that looking through a strong telescope at the Milky Way, for example, gives us "much information." but according to our high definition standard it gives us no real information at all. This high standard of the definition of 'information' demands real letters and real syntax accompanied by understanding. If it passes this strict test, then it is information indeed, no further debate being necessary.
4. The Laws of Nature About Information
So there are ten laws of nature about information:
a. Anything material, such as physical processes, cannot create anything non-material.
b. Information is a non-material fundamental entity and not a property of matter.
(The idea is creeping into many books that information is a part of matter but that is totally incorrect, it is completely separate from matter).
c. Information requires a material medium for storage and transmission.
(Your mind, 'spirit,' intellect and consciousness need your brain).
d. Information cannot originate in statistical processes.
e. There can be no information without a code.
f. All codes result from an intentional choice and agreement between sender and recipient.
g. The determination of meaning for and from a set of symbols is a mental process that requires information.
h. There can be no new information without an intelligent, purposeful sender.
i. Any given chain of information can be traced back to an intelligent source.
(Interestingly, in most cases we cannot see the information sender. In a library you will see thousands of books but not the writers of those books! When you listen to music, you do not see the composer).
j. Information comprises the non-material foundation for all technological systems, works of art or biological systems.
There are, of course, other definitions of information. Some say that "there is information in everything." Hmmm. That is really very vague and 'information' is not defined. Shannon has said that information is simply "systems with a code." Not bad, but Shannon is not interested in the meaning of the code. This only works within 'statistics' - it cannot take you further. Demski has written of information as "specified complexity." Problem is there are no strong conclusions possible from this and no clear definition of the domain of the information. So creationist lecturer Dr Werner Gitt, defends the Law of Nature Theory of Information. It is strong and sound. Certainly, no mathematical formulations are possible from this and yet strong conclusions may still be drawn.
5. Searching for Information in Biological Systems
Does the code found within DNA fit into the definition domain of information? Yes, in quite a major way, unfortunately, much of the detail here would be to enter a realm which can only be properly accessed by the highly-studied biologist/geneticist so we will not attempt to include it in this general article. Suffice to say, to state that our human DNA is rich in information cannot be anything but a huge understatement: in fact, it is the highest density of information which it is ever possible to find anywhere on earth, and - as already suggested - if unravelled, a person's human DNA would stretch right the way to the moon. This is the 'information system' which every single human being has - without it, we could not 'work' or function in any way. (Do you want to go a little deeper in how we know that DNA is a language? Go here.)
6. Drawing Seven Strong Conclusions.
Let us remind ourselves of where we are:
Definition Domain:
All Five Levels of Information Must be Present:
a. Statistics (signal, number of symbols).
b. Syntax (set of symbols, grammar).
c. Semantics (meaning).
d. Pragmatics (action).
e. Apobetics (purpose, result, the highest level of information).
Again, these are scientific laws. From this we can draw not weak, but strong conclusions!
1. There Must be a Sender.
Since the DNA code of all life forms is clearly within the definition domain of information, we conclude that there must be a sender! If somebody should claim that life comes without a sender, we can say that this is a totally wrong idea! Conclusion? Atheism is a wrong idea. Again, the law of nature is the highest level of science!
From the conclusions about the laws of nature and about information, what can we say about the sender? Psalm 14:1.
2. The Sender is Omniscient.
Since the density and complexity of the dna information is billions of times greater than man's present technology, we must conclude that the sender is supremely intelligent and has all knowledge. John 16:30.
3. The Sender Must be Purposeful and All-Powerful (Omnipotent).
Since the sender must have:
a. encoded (stored) the information into the DNA molecules,
b. constructed the molecular bio machines required for the encoding, decoding and synthesising processes, and,
c. designed all the features for the original life forms, then we can say that the sender must be purposeful and omnipotent. This isn't negotiable - it is obvious! Revelation 1:8.
4. The Sender Must be Eternal.
That supreme sender must have infinite information. He knows everything at the moment, but He must also know everything about the past and the future too. So He must be eternal in existence. Psalm 90:2.
5. The Sender Must be a Spirit Being.
Since information is a non-material fundamental entity and cannot originate from the material, the Sender must be a Spirit. John 4:24.
Let us again remind ourselves that we have arrived at this point by using scientific laws! Who is the Sender? Science can reveal God but cannot go beyond that, but the Bible does. Ten times it says, 'And God said...' in Genesis 1. Also see Psalm 33:9. John 1:1,3.
We can now use the laws of nature to go further:
6. The 'Mass and Energy Alone' Theories About the Origin of the Universe Must Be Wrong!
Since information is a Non-Material Entity, we must conclude that the universe itself is not composed solely of mass and energy! From this we can say that the 'big bang' model is erroneous. They say that at the beginning there was only matter and energy. That cannot be correct. Energy and matter are only material entities, and the laws of nature state that matter cannot create a non-material entity. This world is full of information, just consider the millions of books which have been written, but matter cannot produce information (as we have seen), so the idea that there was only matter and energy at the beginning is bound to be a flawed idea, there must also have been a non-material source of information! This is a very quick and scientific way to refute the 'big bang' model.
7. All Theories and Concepts About Biological and Chemical Macro-Evolution Are Erroneous!
Since biological information originates only from an Intelligent Sender, and all theories of biological and chemical evolution require that the information must originate solely from mass and energy, it therefore follows that all theories or concepts of biolological and chemical evolution are incorrect!
Evolution is an impossible process because well-established laws of nature must be broken in order for it to happen. We can state this from the highest level of science. It is for the evolutionist to falsify us by proving the initial origin of information from the non-material. It cannot be done!
So all concepts of chemical and biological evolution are refuted - yes, refuted - by the laws of nature on information and these same laws uphold the belief that the universe and all life has an origin through a Creator God! So all purely materialistic concepts about life and the universe are falsified by the Laws of Nature about information. Interestingly the five levels of information from syntax to apobetics (which we considered earlier) are clearly depicted in Acts 8:27-39. It would be an interesting exercise to read the account carefully.
In conclusion, I am much indebted to Dr Werner Gitt for the masterly way in which he demonstrates that both atheism and macro-evolution are false ideas which violate well-established laws of science. This article is constructed with much reliance upon the good Doctor's approach to the plainly divine origin of information.
Robin A. Brace, January 10th, 2010. But much indebted to the work of Dr Werner Gitt.
