Darwin's Dilemmas: Debating Descent--Day One

I recently began a discussion over email with an old friend concerning evolution. In case any of my readers might find the discussion edifying (all 0 of you?), I figured I'd reproduce the relevant points here at my blog. For the sake of anonymity, I'll call my friend "Joe." Joe, if I misquote you or misrepresent your position, please let me know. Do continue to respond via email, however, rather than in comments in response to this post; I think the discussion will be clearer as individual blog posts rather than as a ridiculously long thread of comments with limited formatting options.

To my readers, know that I reproduce this discussion at some risk. If it turns out my friend presents an argument I am as of yet unable to refute, your faith and mine might be a bit shaken (if you disbelieve in evolution as I do). On the other hand, I am confident in the truth of God's Word, and in the poor quality of evolutionary theory.

Besides, I am a seeker of truth, and do not wish to worship a "sacred cow," and I want to encourage you to have the same attitude. As such, we should approach this discussion seriously, open to the possibility that we are wrong. Join me as we debate descent with my old pal, won't you?

DAY ONE: EQUIVOCATION AND THE FAEROE ISLANDS HOUSE MOUSE

I posted the following statement on Facebook recently: "Looking back I laugh at myself for ever believing in so ludicrous and absurd a notion as evolution." This proved to be the catalyst for the discussion which I'll be reproducing here. My friend saw this comment and contacted me via email. Here is how he began:

[Joe] As far as Evolution I'm not sure where you find fault with the theory so I can't counter point yet. To start I can state that there have been recorded instances of speciation in recent history, as little as 250 years ago. The Faeroe Island house mouse has not, that I know of, been subjected to testing for inter-breadability with "parent stock" so is not a prime example. It is just one of the most recent instances and show how fast Natural Selection can work in the presence of isolation on an island.

Here was my response to him:

[Theopologetics] With all due respect, I believe you are committing the logical fallacy of equivocation. Namely, you are giving an example of “evolution” as defined as “speciation” in an attempt to prove “evolution” as colloquially understood to mean “descent from a single, simple common ancestor.” But “speciation” and “descent from a single, simple common ancestor” are not the same thing.

The taxonomic classification system is a human construct, and categories like species, genus and so forth are not objective properties of organisms, but are merely attempts made by humans to classify similar creatures together hierarchically. Species, by virtue of being the most narrowly defined category, is the easiest category to “jump,” as it were, over the course of generations. In order for a new species to be formed, all that is required is that there be sufficient change over time for scientists to decide that a creature is dissimilar enough from its ancestors that it should be classified slightly differently. In other words, all that is required is “change;” the nature or quality of the change is irrelevant and subject to human interpretation. Thus, “speciation” is equal to, simply, “change.”

On the other hand, in order for all life today to have descended from a single, simple common ancestor, a specific kind of change is required—and a whole lot of it. Namely, a change resulting from the addition of new genetic information not present in one’s parents. For example, the four-winged fruit fly, what used to be a so-called “icon” of evolution (I don’t know if it is used as such any longer since the publication of the book, Icons of Evolution), has undergone a seemingly significant “change” from its parents. Whereas the parents have one pair of wings, the four-winged mutant has two pair. Yet, this cannot serve as an example of evolution because this change results from a loss of genetic information. The “normal” fruit fly’s second pair of wings is caused by certain genetic information to stop growing early in development, enabling them to serve as “stabilizers” of sorts. The four-winged mutant, on the other hand, is missing the genetic information that arrests the growth of the second pair of wings. As a result, it appears quite different from its parents with its second pair of wings, but because it has lost genetic information, and not gained new genetic information never before seen, it cannot serve as an example of evolution (and is a hopeless cripple, incidentally).

Here’s my point: “Change” and “evolution” are, quite simply, not synonyms. If you wish to attempt to present me with observed examples of evolution, you need to present examples of organisms containing new genetic information not inherited from its parents or coopted from another organism. New genetic information that resulted solely from errors which took place during the transcription and translation of DNA. Changes in the color patterns of hair, cyclical changes in the shapes and sizes of beaks (Darwin’s famous finches) and so forth do not cut it. If you have such examples, let’s discuss them. My understanding, however, is that no such observations have been made. The only claim I’ve seen made is that certain examples of bacterial resistance are examples of this kind of change, but upon closer examination it is discovered that the resistance was not the result of new genetic information.

In response, Joe wrote,

The taxonomic classification system is a human construct...

[Joe] A point I, and those supporting evolution, will agree with you completely on. Or they should. Simply saying "see, they are different now. Why? Because I said so" has no bearing on evolution. So ultimately that part is of no help or hindrance to my argument. On a similar note, it seems that scientist love creating new terms so speciation, evolution, and natural selection get blurred. As I understand it natural selection is the driving force of evolution. The result of divergent evolution is speciation (speciation still being a human construct).

On the other hand, in order for all life today...

The big picture of evolution is that all life evolved from a simple common ancestor. From there complexity of an organism is driven primarily by natural selection. A better definition of evolution is: Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. Mutation does play a part, like with the fruit fly. The 4 winged fly is an example of how natural selection would never the genetic mutation prosper. It does not benefit the organism and will there for be removed from the gene pool. An example of beneficial mutation in the evolutionary process in an artificial environment is E. Coli. I will only give the brief version. Richard Lenski cultured over 60,000 generations of E. Coli using 1 group of common ancester. He had 12 populations that were identical to begin with in a set solution (glucose-limited medium that also contains citrate) for a set time before removing 10% from the expended solution to start the process for the new "generation". Aprox 30,000 generations in 2 random mutations had arose in one population at different times that allowed that one population to exploit citrate. http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899 The E. Coli had evolved to utilize citrate by random mutation and chance. After that had happened natural selection favored the new strain. This type of radical "jump" would be very uncommon. No new genetic information was added but the process of evolution happened right in front of them.

If you wish to attempt to present me with observed examples of evolution, you need to present examples of organisms containing new genetic information not inherited from its parents or coopted from another organism.

I think I see why you see evolution as absurd. I'm not sure what you mean by new genetic information. Genetic information will always be passed from parent to offspring in sexual reproduction. What genes are recieved greatly impacts the offspring's chances of survival and reproduction. Genes that are successful will usually spread through a population and less successful genes will sputter out.

Evolution is a very slow and methodical process. I think a good example, although long, is this:

If you were to take a female rabbit an line it up next to her mother and grand mother you would see minor differences, hair color, minor changes in dimentions, etc. Continue to do this for 1000 generations and the changes would from 1000 to 999 to 998 would be just as small. the same could be said for any 3 consecutive generations anywhere in the line. The difference between 1000 and 1 would be much more noticeable. Changes would be driven by natural selection. Not choosing what genes prosper directly but what animals survive to produce the most successful offspring to continue the genetic line.

Evolution does not have to mean a new species, just the improved success of a current one.

Even if you don't agree with the conclusion I think you will find the study of E. Coli interesting. Here is a short version

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=evolution-details-revealed-through-2009-10-18

I responded as follows:

As I understand it natural selection is the driving force of evolution. The result of divergent evolution is speciation (speciation still being a human construct).

[Theopologetics] You are asserting that Natural Selection --> Evolution --> Speciation. My point is that in that sequence, “Evolution” is being used as a synonym for change (that gets passed down to subsequent generations), but that’s not really how that word is used in the debate at hand. Creationist or otherwise, nobody denies the reality of the phenomenon that is natural selection, nor the change in future generations that it produces. While “evolution” can be used in several ways, I think it goes without saying that it is more typically understood to mean, as you put it, “all life evolved from a simple common ancestor.” It is this process which I deny, and we’ll get to why momentarily.

Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual.

You see, this is what I mean when I say you are equivocating. This is not a process any creationist denies. It’s missing a vital component…

An example of beneficial mutation in the evolutionary process in an artificial environment is E. Coli… No new genetic information was added but the process of evolution happened right in front of them.

…and there it is. A beneficial mutation does not in and of itself support the notion that “all life evolved from a simple common ancestor.” One can conceive of a virtually limitless number of possible mutations which benefit the organism, but which nevertheless involve the addition of no new genetic information. My example of a four-winged fruit fly was a bad one since, as you pointed out, its mutation won’t be handed down to future generations. However, as I pointed out, cases in which a strain of bacteria develops a resistance often involve the loss of genetic information, in which case a benefit results from, at best, genetic regression, not evolution (I say “at best” because the prefix “re” in “regression” presumes reverting to a previous state, which of course begs the question of evolution).

So what qualifies a change as supporting evolution—again, defined as “all life evolved from a simple common ancestor”—is not whether or not the change affords subsequent generations a survival benefit. What qualifies a change as supporting evolution is whether or not it results from “new genetic information.”

I'm not sure what you mean by new genetic information.

The question of “new genetic information” is of vital importance in this debate. Before I give you my humble definition as it pertains to this discussion, allow me to suggest that you read Stephen Meyer’s Signature in the Cell. If you’d like, I could mail you my copy (if you promise to read it and get it back to me J). Meyer is a Christian like me, but unlike me he is not a creationist. He believes in evolution (I think), but his treatment of information is a good one and, at minimum, presents a scientific case for the existence of an intelligent designer.

In any case, the information in DNA is analogous to any other kind of “information.” Let’s take written English, for example. For any given 2-letter sequence of English letters, there are a possible 676 combinations thereof (26*26). Of these 676, how many of them are English words? A liberal list of acceptable 2-letter words in Scrabble (http://www.yak.net/kablooey/scrabble/2letterwords.html) contains 101. The chances of producing a 2-letter word at random, then, is less than 1 in 6. Now just add one additional letter, and you have a possible 17,576 combinations, out of which around 1,014 are words (http://www.yak.net/kablooey/scrabble/3letterwords.html). The chances, then, of producing such a word at random is less than 1 in 17. Add a fourth letter and around 5,454 of 456,976 combinations are words (http://www.scrabble.org.au/words/fours.htm), giving you a chance of just over 1 in 100. As you add letters, the chances decrease (exponentially?) of producing a word at random. As you combine words to produce sentences, your chances decrease further.

Thus, information is identified when there are an enormous number of possibilities with only a tiny percentage of them being “functional” or “meaningful,” and yet you see those very ones. If you see Scrabble letters arranged on the board to spell “is,” it’s conceivable they were placed their at random. Less so, however, for “ice,” and still less so for “hard.” Now imagine if you saw the phrase, “ice is hard.” A rough estimate at the likelihood of this phrase being produced at random is 1/6 * 1/17 * 1/100, or 1 out of 10,200.

Another example is a gambler who repeatedly wins at roulette. If he places his bet on a color, he has a 50/50 chance of winning. That’s one “functional” or “meaningful” possibility out of two. A single win would not raise any red flags. Neither, perhaps, would three wins in a row (1 out of 8 chance of that happening). But what if he won twenty times in a row? The chances of that happening are 1 in 1,048,576. Out of over 1 million possible combinations, then, there is only one “functional” or “meaningful” one, and it just so happens this one is the one the gambler produces. It is obvious why this would raise suspicion on the part of the establishment.

DNA is the same. Here’s a quote from a post I did some time ago at my blog (http://theopologetics.blogspot.com/2009/12/darwins-dilemmas-essence-precedes_23.html):

Consider that a protein defined by a gene in DNA is comprised of a chain of amino acids. There are some 20 amino acids that form proteins, and on average a working protein is made up of some 150 amino acids. Further consider that only certain arrangements of amino acids will link and fold into a working protein.

Just as English words are comprised of sequences of 26 letters, so too are genes (“words”) comprised of sequences of 20 amino acids (“letters”). And just a small percentage of all possible sequences of letters are meaningful or functional, so too is a small percentage of all possible sequences of amino acids meaningful or functional. As I go on to say in my post,

This means we can determine the odds of random processes producing such a working protein, by calculating the ratio of the number of working proteins to the number of possible sequences. The chance of such a protein occuring at random is 1 out of 10 to the 74th power.

What does that number mean? Ten to the seventy-fourth power is a 1 followed by 74 zeroes. So for every working protein 150 amino acids long, there are 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (I had to insert a space just so the number would fit in the blog) other possible amino acid sequences. That's one hundred trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion possible combinations. The odds are staggering.

To help illustrate the gravity of this number, it helps to consider that astronomers estimate that there are only 10 to the 65th total atoms in our galaxy. This is an exponentially smaller number than the number of possible combinations of 150 amino acids. What this means is, you would have an exponentially better chance of selecting a desired atom out of the entire Milky Way, than you would have at producing an average protein by random.

Okay, so big deal. DNA contains genetic information akin to English words and repeated winning bets. So what? Well therein lies precisely the reason why on scientific grounds I deny evolution. You explain that we have observed numerous examples of change which get passed onto future generations, and yet none of them involve the production of new genetic information. In cases of eye and hair color, dominant and recessive genes were already present. You have no functional or meaningful genes that did not previously exist. We see cases in which genetic information is lost, but not where it is gained, which is exactly what is required to go from the theoretical simple, single-celled ancestor to the mind-boggling volume of genetic information stored in human DNA.

Put simply, and in a way which reduces the problem to a fraction of that which is really faced, the phrase “A week in Hawaii!” with which you opened this email thread has to be changed through solely naturalistic processes into the entire content of this email thread thus far. If one were to look at this email thread, they wouldn’t in their wildest dreams imagine that it was produced from “A week in Hawaii!” through the random selection of characters and formatting options.

Now, Meyer’s argument in Signature is not against evolution, it is against naturalistic abiogenesis. That is, the idea that the vast content of genetic information required of the first living cell came about through solely natural means. With all due respect to you (I saw you are a fan of the American Humanist Association; forgive me if my assumption that you are a materialist/naturalist/atheist is incorrect), this idea defies credulity. When we see information remotely approaching the scale of that required of even the simplest first organism, we as humans know we’re looking at the product of intelligence. Apart from our presumption that evolution can produce information in biology, we are aware of no conceivable natural process which can produce any other sort of information. Through the scientific process of inference to the best explanation, then, we must conclude that at least the first living organism is the product of intelligence.

Now, once said information was present, Meyer might surmise that random mutations operated upon by natural selection caused life to evolve (I don’t know for certain, I don’t recall him discussing it in his book). However, I think that would be conceding a point without warrant. Even given some amount of information with which to begin, functional changes thereof resulting from solely natural processes are ridiculously unlikely. I’ve posited that we’ve observed no information-increasing mutations (if I’m wrong let me know), but we’ve observed information-decreasing ones which are preserved through natural selection and handed down to subsequent generations. And nobody can logically justify that hypothetical information-increasing mutations are likely to be more beneficial than information-decreasing ones. Consider the implications if I’m right for a moment.

What this suggests is that even if one were to conceive of the rare information-increasing mutation, such changes occur far less often than equally beneficial information-decreasing ones. Do you see the problem? It is like a man spraying a garden hose up a waterfall. The process of change through random mutations operated upon by natural selection works against evolution! It actually suggests that the genetic information in DNA decreases over time. This is consistent with biblical theology, but it is certainly not compatible with naturalistic evolution.

Okay, with that I’ll hand the ball back to you. But just to sum up: I don’t deny the reality that is change produced through random mutations preserved by natural selection. I deny that this process can explain how “all life evolved from a simple common ancestor.” And I do so because the production of new information cannot be explained through natural processes.

So that's it, at least as of 9pm my time. If I get a response before midnight, I'll include it in my next post in this series.

My Lord and My God: Grasping Equality With God

In the most recent episode of Unbelievable on Premier Christian Radio, Dr. James White squared off against Sir Anthony Buzzard over the doctrine of the Trinity. The debate was concurrently both edifying and frustrating: the former because Dr. White is a powerful defender of the faith, and I always learn something from his appearances; the latter because, as I felt compelled to tweet in the midst of the show, "So frustrating listening to non-Trinitarians debate the Trinity, their arguments are so vapid!"

I highly encourage you to listen to the show, both in general and this episode in particular. You can listen at the link above, or subscribe to the podcast. I like to listen to the podcast on my way to and from work. I wish I was aware of something similar in the States so I could listen to these kinds of debates more often (and not quite so frequently fail to understand some of the cultural references; but I do enjoy the accents).

If you listen, you'll hear Dr. White and his opponent discuss the Septuagint's rendition of Psalm 102. You'll notice that the claim is made that whereas our Bibles, based on the Masoretic text, depict the psalmist as speaking to God in verses 23 and following, the Septuagint has the direction of speech reversed. Buzzard, denying the Trinity, claims this proves that God is calling someone else the eternal "Lord," a verse the author of Hebrews says was spoken of the Son. I felt compelled to email the host of the show, letting him know that Buzzard is wrong. If you're interested, check out my previous post in this series, "You, LORD, in the Beginning." (The host agreed to read my comments on the air next week--all the more reason for you to listen!)

Moving on, during the course of the debate Dr. White presented several texts which, I agree, prove that Jesus is God. These are pretty easy to present, and don't take a lot of time to write up. Since my blog posts have been fewer and farther between than in times past, I figured I'd try and bang out a few posts in an attempt to hold your interest--those few of you, if any, who read regularly :). Today, we're going to look at Philippians 2:3-9. In my preferred translation, this reads as follows:

(3) Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; (4) do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. (5) Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, (6) who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, (7) but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. (8) Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (9) For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name. (Philippians 2:3-9)

The View from the Fence: A Dichotomist's Journey to Uncertainty

As recently as a week ago, I held firmly and confidently to an understanding of the nature of man held by the vast majority of Christians throughout the history of the Church. Over the course of the past week or so, however, things have changed. I know sit atop the fence between this view and one seemingly held by very few Christians, and I thought I'd share with you my journey to the top of that fence and the view I now have therefrom. Additionally, I'll use this to introduce a new series, "O LORD What is Man?" (from Psalm 144:3).

Not all of my readers are as engaged in debates within the blogosphere as I am, and will be unfamiliar with some of the terms I'll use throughout this series. As such, let me start be defining some of these terms. I was once asked in a Bible study when I was going to start blogging in English. Well, I won't begin today. Instead, I'll give you a dictionary so you can speak the language yourself.

DEFINITIONS OF TERMS

"Anthropology," philosophically and theologically speaking, is "the study of the nature and essence of humankind." In a systematic theology, it is included alongside discussions of bibliology, theology proper and the like. For example, in Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology, part one is "The Doctrine of the Word of God" (bibliology), part two is "The Doctrine of God" (theology proper), and part three is "The Doctrine of Man" (anthropology). Our goal as Christians when it comes to anthropology is to understand what the Bible says about what it is to be human.

"Dichotomy," anthropologically speaking, is "The view that man is made up of two parts (body and soul/spirit)," as explained by Wayne Grudem. He writes that "spirit" and "soul" are "used interchangeably in Scripture to talk about the immaterial part of man, the part that lives on after our bodies die" (Systematic Theology, p. 472). Some philosophers also use the word "Dualism" to describe this view, and though I don't particularly object to its use, many do (as I've discovered), and so I will stick with their preferred term, dichotomy.

The dichotomy view of human nature is most commonly contrasted with "trichotomy." Grudem writes, "Some people believe that in addition to 'body' and 'soul' we have a third part, a 'spirit' that most directly relates to God." They would say that "a man's soul includes his intellect, his emotions and his will...a man's spirit is a higher faculty in man that comes alive when a person becomes a Christian" (p. 472). Throughout the history of the Church, the vast majority of Christians have held to one of these two views.

However, there is another view, one which I did not know until recently was held by any genuine Bible-believing Christians. Called "physicalism," "materialism" or "monism"--but only insofar as it pertains to human nature--this view holds that "man cannot exist at all apart from a physical body, and therefore there can be no separate existence for any 'soul' after the body dies (although this view can allow for the resurrection of the whole person at some future time)" (Grudem, p. 472). Theological novice that I am, though I was aware that Jehovah's Witnesses believed in something called "soul sleep," I was dumbfounded when I discovered that some Christians hold this view.

IGNORANCE IS BLISS

Dichotomists and trichotomists certainly disagree in a number of ways, but in my mind they stand together in opposition to physicalists in affirming an immaterial aspect of human nature. If one were to envision two camps within the Church separated by a fence, I was until very recently firmly on the dichotomist's side of that fence, blissfully unaware of the physicalist camp on the other side. For example, in "The Bible and the Dead: Do Ghosts Exist?" I wrote, "When a man dies, he goes to a place where the dead are utterly separate from the living, awaiting the final resurrection and judgment throne of God." Speaking of the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, I continued,

Jesus' parables were meant to reveal truth to His disciples, and if the pictures He painted were not rooted in reality, then how could one be assured of the truth of that which He intended to reveal? Therefore, we should probably assume that the story told is an accurate picture of the state of the dead.

Now, I was aware of non-Christians, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, who held to a position called "soul sleep," but I really didn't know that there were any genuine Christians who did. And I was utterly ignorant that those who hold to this position don't believe man has any immaterial aspect to their existence at all (the "soul" or "spirit"). Thus, during the course of my 8-years-or-so-long Christian walk, I had lived in a comfy-cozy bubble thinking that man's "spirit" remaining conscious in Sheol after death was simply the Christian view. Ignorance is bliss.

SAY HELLO TO GLENN PEOPLES

This was three weeks ago, and I had just begun listening to a podcast called "Say Hello to My Little Friend." I was very impressed by some of what I heard, and as Dee Dee Warren has noted, the host's New Zealand accent makes his arguments seem all the more compelling. I first enjoyed an episode in which he, Glenn Peoples, played a recording of a sermon he had recently given on preterism. Another episode--well, three of them actually--discussed Alvin Plantinga and presuppositional apologetics, a presentation which greatly edified me.

At some point, I learned of the physicalist view Glenn holds, and two days after my "ghost post" I wrote this:

The Preterist Podcast recently turned me on to an awesome podcast called "Say Hello to my Little Friend," otherwise known as the "Beretta Cast" (and corresponding blog). As a disclaimer, I don't agree with everything I've come across at the blog; for example, I don't believe in "soul sleep," but rather that the immortal spirit is in some sense conscious in Sheol awaiting the resurrection--primarily because I don't believe Jesus' parables were rooted in fantasy. Nevertheless, I've enjoyed what I've listened to so far.

For some reason, it hadn't struck me yet. Here I had assumed that all Christians recognized that humans have immaterial spirits which remain conscious after death. And yet, Glenn's arguments in other areas seemed so well reasoned, so biblically sound. The seeming inconsistency hadn't struck me, and I intially thought nothing of it. But then, about a week later, Glenn wrote a post at a blog at which I write as a guest author, at which point my world began to be rocked.

IN SEARCH OF THE SOUL

Glenn's post was called, "Philosophy of Mind and the Hyperpreterist Controversy," in which he explained that if his physicalist position is correct, it adds to the weight of the evidence opposing the heresy of hyperpreterism. For better or for worse, it sparked a firestorm of a debate, but not about hyperpreterism. Other guest authors and I immediately began questioning the validity of his view from a biblical perspective. I'll get back to that in a moment, but I bring it up because it was this post and the ensuing debate that led me to begin to listen to his five-part podcast series called, "In Search of the Soul."

In the first four episodes in the series, Glenn refutes some of the philosophical reasons people insist that humans have an immaterial spirit that lives on after death. These episodes are not for everybody; I spoke on the phone today with one fellow blogger and podcaster, who shall go unnamed, who confessed that these episodes went over his or her head. I, however, thoroughly enjoyed them, and was impressed by Glenn's reasoning. I said as much early on in the debate that resulted from his post.

In the fifth episode, he discusses what the Bible has to say when it comes to anthropology. It was this episode to which I had really looked forward. As I said in the debate,

I just finished your 4th episode and enjoyed it. I think you’re right that philosophical objections to physicalism fall flat. I suspect philosophical arguments against [the dichotomy view]...would likewise fall flat. They both seem plausible theories given the physical evidence, and ultimately we’ll need to go to Scripture to see which is valid. As such, I’m super excited to hear the 5th episode in your series. I appreciate how carefully you’ve handled the debate in the series thus far; I hope you continue to do so in the final one.

But by the time I pressed play on my Zune to listen to this final episode in the series, something was beginning to dawn on me. Despite the heated debate which followed Glenn's post, very little compelling biblical evidence against his view had been presented. I was still holding on to a few passages which seemed difficult to explain from a physicalist's point of view, but nothing like what one would expect to be found in the Bible in order for the dichotomy view to be so ubiquitous within the Church. As I said in the debate after listening to the episode,

what dawned on me as I was listening to episode 5 in a way that perhaps it didn’t before was that it seems to me to be terribly difficult to make a positive case for the [dichotomy view]...As I’ve said before in this thread, I think biblical evidence in support of the majority view is very scant.

HOLY COW TIPPING

You see, I'm not a big fan of Christian "holy cows." Otherwise known as a "sacred cow," a holy cow is "an object or practice which is considered immune from criticism, especially unreasonably so." In my short "career" as a Christian, I've seen a number of holy cows. These cherished beliefs are held uncritically by masses of Christians, and when these beliefs are challenged, the challenger is often met with disdain and disgust rather than with a reasoned argument.

I think the God of the Bible calls us to a higher standard. In human flesh He said to the woman at the well, "true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth" (John 4:23-24). As such, I've endeavored to make absolutely certain that my world view is deeply rooted in Scripture, rather than held to simply because of tradition. That's not to say I'm immune from HCS (Holy Cow Syndrome); I'm certain that there are positions I hold today uncritically. Nevertheless, I've aimed for something better, and as a result, I've changed my position in a number of areas because the Bible was my leading me somewhere different.

So as it began to dawn on me that there seemed to be no strong positive biblical case to be made for the view I had held, that humans were comprised of both a material nature and an immaterial one which survived death, I started hearing alarm bells--or rather, cow bells. I could not in good conscience hold a position without warrant. I refuse to worship a holy cow. As I said to Glenn in the debate,

I’m going to be honest with you. Early on in the episode I noticed I was increasingly drawing nearer to the proverbial fence, though not for any arguments you were giving. Rather, I think it was because something dawned on me before you said it–or at least before it registered that you had said it: had the biblical authors intended to communicate this view that the majority holds, they could have easily done so. And now, having finished listening, I’m squarely on the fence.

THE VIEW FROM THE FENCE

Having taken my seat atop the fence, I can tell you that the view is daunting. My transition to preterism was a bit scary; after all, it almost goes without saying that if you talk to a Christian about the end times, you're going to hear about how the rapture is around the corner, immediately following which the world will experience a great tribulation involving the antichrist and so on and so forth. In other words, preterism is most definitely the minority position.

But I think I'd be accurate in saying that the percentage of Christians who hold the physicalist position is considerably smaller than that of preterists. To someone who values the work of the proverbial giants of the past upon whose shoulders I stand, the thought of adopting a position that goes so contrary to theirs is almost anathema. Nevertheless, as I said, I refuse to worship a holy cow.

Making things worse, faced with the vertigo resulting from the thought of parting ways with the majority of Christians throughout history, the view from the fence seems to offer little solace for the formerly certain dichotomist. Instead of a serious treatment of the arguments the physicalist has to offer in favor of his position, what I saw was, basically, schoolyard bullying. I wholeheartedly agreed with Glenn when I read these words:

this is why it’s so hard to engage with you - this and your constant stream of attacks...It has been a very long time since I have encountered the kind of rudeness and lack of self control from someone who regards himself as a Christian.

Eventually, the "constant stream of attacks" became too much for Glenn to handle. One of the dichotomists debating him said, "I guess this means you can’t from a reasoned approach make sense of what the text explicitly states coupled with the view you are attempting to foist upon the readers." My heart sank when I read those words, and I was less than surprised when I saw Glenn quote those words in signing off from the debate.

THE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE

I could relate to Glenn's decision to bow out from the debate; I would have given up much sooner, I think. And then, in his absence, I tried to play the role of the devil's advocate, putting myself in the shoes of the physicalist, answering the objections my formerly-fellow dichotomists were stating. My brief walk in those shoes was jarring for two reasons.

First, what I discovered was that once one puts aside one's presupposition that humans have an immaterial spirit, one discovers that biblical passages thought to reference it no longer seem so obviously in favor of the dichotomist's position. That's not to say that physicalism seems obvious from the text; that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that in virtually every case, where the dichotomist clearly sees his position leaping from the text of Scripture, once one views those texts from a less biased position, one discovers that they are hardly the proof-texts they are thought to be. We'll get to these later as part of this series.

Second, in response to my meager attempts to present the physicalist argument, what I got was not serious attempts to address the position I was advocating, but circular arguments, bald assertions, unwarranted assumptions and an overall dismissive attitude. Arguably worse than that, I became the recipient of more subtle versions of the same kinds of attacks that caused Glenn to bow out of the debate. It was implied I was quoting from strange translation (I always quoted from the NASB). At one point I was told I was "not making any sense" and "straining credulity."

One dichotomist said to me that he was "positive the Dead Kennedy’s couldn’t get anyone to buy that, but there it is for all to see." For those as un-hip as I am, former Dead Kennedys member Jello Biafra apparently wrote a song called, "Those Dumb Punk Kids (Will Buy Anything)." The reference, then, must suggest that only "dumb punk kids" would "buy" the arguments I was making. Later, when I said I would try and dig up a physicalist's response to a difficult passage, the same dichotomist wrote, "Get ‘em, Chubby Checker," implying in advance that I was on a mission to twist the biblical text.

PRECARIOUSLY PERCHED

So, for someone who very recently firmly held to the dichotomy view of biblical anthropology, what is the view like from atop the fence between it and physicalism? Well, suffice it to say that my perch is a precarious one. Believe me, I want to believe what the majority of the Church has believed for the better part of two thousand years. I want to believe that every human is comprised of both a material body and an immaterial spirit that lives on in Sheol when the body dies.

But, like I said, I am not a fan of holy cows. My brief foray in the debate over biblical anthropology has left me unsatisfied with the majority view. If you were to ask me what evidence from Scripture I could marshal in defense of the dichotomy view, I'd with a certain amount of discomfort be able to proffer very little. On the other hand, if you were to ask me how the physicalist can explain any one of the typical arguments leveled against it, I suspect that it is likely I could capably give a defense.

On the other hand, the discomfort is tempered by a certain amount of excitement. Not long ago members of my then small group confessed that they found it somewhat difficult to do their Bible reading every week. I suggested that they look for controversy in the text, as that tends to get me interested. Well, this topic is fraught with controversy.

It is with some excitement, then, that I peer down precariously into the camps between which I am perched. I look forward to investigating this issue without presuming one position or the other. I have been freed from my bondage to a holy cow, and if I end up reaffirming the dichotomy view, it will be for the right reasons. On the other hand, if the Scripture leads me to adopt physicalism, I will be worshiping the Father in Truth. My request is that you, my readers, keep an open mind as we look at how the Bible answers the question, "O LORD What is Man?"

Breaking the Apocalypse Code: The Presumption of Persecution

In “The Corpse of Caiaphas” I reviewed the second so-called error listed in chapter 1 of Breaking the Apocalypse Code in which Hitchcock and Ice argue that Hank Hanegraaff is wrong when he claims Caiaphas and the council must have seen Jesus' coming in judgment upon Jerusalem in AD 70. We discovered that while Hanegraaff is indeed wrong, since Caiaphas and many of the council members were dead by then, Hitchcock and Ice miss the point. Jesus' promise that they would see Him "coming on the clouds" and "sitting at the right hand of power" is in no way a reference to His Second Advent. Rather, He promised them that "from [then] on" they would see the evidence and outworking of His ascension to the throne in heaven, which in fact they did.

Of the other six errors Hitchcock and Ice allege are made by Hanegraaff in The Apocalypse Code, one deserves special attention since it calls into question the dating of the book of Revelation. It should be noted that the last chapter of the book, "When Was Revelation Written," (which I reviewed in "The Dating Game" part one and part two) discusses the dating of Revelation, and so it seems a bit disingenuous to be discussing it in this first chapter some 150 pages earlier. Nevertheless, it is the authors' prerogative to do so. Let's take a look.

THE THIRD ERROR IN AC

"Hanegraaff notes that Revelation was written to the seven churches of Asia and says that these churches were 'seven historical churches in the province of Asia about to face the full fury of the ancient Roman Beast.' Hanegraaff relates Nero to the Beast and believes that the seven churches in Asia were about to face the great Neronic persecution...' However, there is almost universal agreement among scholars that Nero's persecution never reached beyond the city of Rome and its environs, much less all the way to Asia. This view argues strongly against a mid-sixties date for the writing of Revelation and favors the mid-nineties date when we know that some persecution by Roman authorities was occurring under the Roman Emperor Domitian." (p. 34-35)

This might seem on the surface to be devastating to the Preterist position. If John indicated that the seven churches of Asia were being persecuted by the Roman government, and if it wasn't until years after the destruction of Jerusalem that Christian persecution by the Roman government extended beyond Rome itself, then a mid-60's date for Revelation indeed seems problematic. Let's take a closer look at the evidence Hitchcock and Ice present in making their case.

SMYRNA AND ANTIPAS

"The internal testimony of Revelation indicates there was at least some degree of persecution against Christians in the province of Asia at the time it was written...the church at Smyrna was warned of imminent imprisonment, which indicates a more widespread and organized threat (Revelation 2:10). The death penalty was a real possibility because the believers at Smyrna were urged to be faithful to death. In fact, Antipas of Pergamum had already been martyred (Revelation 2:13)...the execution of Antipas must have been carried out by Romans since the right to...execute was reserved for Roman authorities alone." (p. 34-35)

One need only spend a few minutes investigating this argument in order to discover that the authors of Breaking are standing firmly in thin air. Hitchcock and Ice acknowledge that "One could argue that the persecution at Smyrna was instigated by Jews." Indeed, John is told to them that Jesus knows of "the blasphemy by those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan" (Revelation 2:9). They are also warned that "the devil is about to cast some of you into prison, so that you will be tested, and you will have tribulation for ten days" (Revelation 2:10), but Luke's account of the early church indicates that the local Roman authorities did not need to be actively persecuting the Church for Christians to be imprisoned.

THE PRESUMPTION OF (ROMAN) PERSECUTION

In the early days after Christ's ascension the high priest and the Sadducees are said to have put the disciples in public prison themselves (Acts 4:1-3; Acts 5:17-18). One might object, however, pointing out that this was done in Jerusalem, where perhaps the prison was run by the local Jewish authorities. That may be, but that wasn't the case in "Philippi, which is a leading city of the district of Macedonia, a Roman colony" (Acts 16:12). There, Paul and Silas arrive in Philippi and witness for several days without any opposition whatsoever. One day they cast the divining spirit from a woman whose masters, furious at the loss of their convenient source of income, drag Paul and Silas before the authorities and persuade the crowd against them. Responding to the desires of the townspeople, the authorities imprison them (Acts 16:13-23).

We see, then, that it does not take a present, active attitude of persecution on the part of the Roman government for local authorities to have Christians imprisoned. Its citizens can quickly and without precedent rise up against the local Christian community, to which the authorities may respond by imprisoning them. That Smyrna was warned of impending imprisonment in no way "indicates a more widespread and organized threat."

As for the claim that Antipas in Pergamum "must have been carried out by Romans" because only local Roman authorities have the right to perform executions, this is both false and meaningless. The claim is false because Stephen was stoned to death by the council without approval by the Roman government (Acts 7:58-60). The letter to Pergamum says nothing of Antipas was killed by execution performed by the state; like Stephen, he might have been killed without authority.

The claim is meaningless because, as was the case with imprisonment, the Roman government didn't need to be actively persecuting Christians to execute them at the whim of the townsfolk. When Jesus was condemned to death by Pilate, there was no active persecution against Christ or His disciples on the part of the Romans. Jesus was brought to Pilate, who could find no guilt in Him, and though he consented to punish Jesus he initially planned to release Him. The crowd wouldn't have that and insisted that Pilate execute Jesus, and eventually--hesitatingly--he gave in to their demand (Luke 23:13-25). Thus we see that local Roman authorities could quickly give in to the will of the townspeople.

JOHN ON PATMOS

If the warning to Smyrna and the martyrdom of Antipas in Pergamum are not evidence that the Roman government was actively persecuting Christians in Asia--which, as we've seen, they're not--what other evidence to Hitchcock and Ice present?

"John had been banished to Patmos for his faith in Christ (Revelation 1:9)...[this] must have been carried out by the Romans since the right to banish...was reserved for Roman authorities alone. So there was some degree of local persecution when John wrote Revelation. However, there is almost universal agreement among scholars that Nero's persecution never reached beyond the city of Rome and its environs, much less all the way to Asia." (p. 35)

If John was banished to Patmos, an island off the coast of Turkey near the seven churches of Asia, for his faith in Christ and evangelistic efforts, this would indeed suggest local persecution of Christians on the part of the Roman government. I pondered this issue at length and had originally intended to respond by saying that the lack of evidence of Neronic persecution beyond the borders of Rome isn't strong enough evidence to tip the scales in favor of a mid-90's date, given the variety of external and internal indicators that the book was written in the mid-60's. I still think this is true, but in my research I discovered an assumption made by most Christians engaged in the end times debate--including myself--that may not be warranted at all, and which demolishes Hitchcock's and Ice's claim regarding John and his banishment to Patmos.

THE PRESUMPTION OF BANISHMENT

Ask yourself this question: Why do I believe John was given his revelation while banished to Patmos? When I asked myself that question, I couldn't answer. I assumed John said so in his introduction to the book. Let's take a look at the text:

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John, who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near. John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace, from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne, and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood--and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father--to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen. BEHOLD, HE IS COMING WITH THE CLOUDS, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen. 'I am the Alpha and the Omega,' says the Lord God, 'who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.' I, John, your brother and fellow partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance which are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like the sound of a trumpet, saying, 'Write in a book what you see, and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea.'" (Revelation 1:1-11, emphasis mine)

I apologize for the long quote, but I wanted to include the context so there was no room for argument. Where in the text does John say he was banished to Patmos? It simply doesn't. Yes, John calls himself his readers' "brother and fellow partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance," but so what? Christians began experiencing the tribulation associated with the coming kingdom and learning perseverance from the very beginning of the Church.

The word for "tribulation" is the Greek θλῖψις (thlipsis) which is used in Acts 11:19 where we read that "those who were scattered because of the persecution [θλῖψις] that occurred in connection with Stephen made their way to Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to no one except to Jews alone." In his letter to the Romans, Paul writes that "we also exult in our tribulations [θλῖψις], knowing that tribulation [θλῖψις] brings about perseverance" (Romans 5:3). Apollos, or whoever it is that wrote the letter to the Hebrews, ties these together nicely:

"But remember the former days, when, after being enlightened, you endured a great conflict of sufferings, partly by being made a public spectacle through reproaches and tribulations [θλῖψις], and partly by becoming sharers with those who were so treated. For you showed sympathy to the prisoners and accepted joyfully the seizure of your property, knowing that you have for yourselves a better possession and a lasting one. Therefore, do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God, you may receive what was promised. FOR YET IN A VERY LITTLE WHILE, HE WHO IS COMING WILL COME, AND WILL NOT DELAY." (Hebrews 10:32-37, emphasis mine)

The fact that John calls himself his readers' "brother and fellow partaker in the tribulation" in no way suggests he was currently banished to Patmos. He was a "fellow partaker" with his readers simply by virtue of professing Christ at that time. Tribulation was not something one experienced only when actively persecuted by the Roman government; it was something all Christians experienced.

ON PATMOS BECAUSE OF THE WORD OF GOD

What of John's statement that he "was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus?" This in no way suggests that John was banished there. The Greek word rendered "because of" is διά (dia) and can simply mean John was there for the purpose of "the word of God and the testimony of Jesus," either to hear it (the most probable meaning, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia) or to spread it. Its use here is admittedly similar to Revelation 20:4 where John "saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God," and to Revelation 6:9 where he "saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained." However, those texts explicitly include the persecutive activity--beheading and killing--whereas here there is no such activity mentioned.

All John says is that he "came to be" on the isle of Patmos. The word "was" here is the Greek γίνομαι which means "to become, to come into existence" or "to be made." He doesn't say he was imprisoned, he doesn't say he was sent, he doesn't say he was enslaved; he simple "came to be" there. The question is, then, did John "come to be" on the isle of Patmos "for the purpose of" the gospel? Or was he "made to be" on the isle of Patmos "because of" persecution resulting from the gospel?

I don't think the text tells us one way or the other. It is tradition, not Scripture, which tells us John was given his apocalypse while in exile on Patmos. Interestingly, however, this tradition does not appear clearly in the writings of the Church Fathers until the late 3rd or early 4th centuries. Irenaeus, himself a disciple of John's disciple, Polycarp, wrote in the 2nd century, and though he mentioned the apocalypse of John in several places (in Against Heresies I.26, IV.14, IV.17, IV.18, IV.20, IV.21, IV.30, V.26, V.28, V.30, V.34, V.35, among others), I am unable to find a single mention anywhere of John's having been banished to Patmos. Clement of Alexandria also wrote in the 2nd century, and though he wrote that John returned to Ephesus from Patmos upon the death of "the tyrant" (Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved? XLII), he gives no indication that John was banished there, whether by order of said tyrant or otherwise.

Decades later in the 3rd century, Origen apparently pointed out that John did not say why he was at Patmos, but that tradition taught that he had been exiled there by the unnamed king of the Romans (http://users.sbuniv.edu/~hgallatin/ht3463aa06.html#pat). Then, 100 years or so after Clement and Irenaeus, authors like Victorinius, Eusebius and Jerome more explicitly attribute John's presence in Patmos to banishment there, in particular by Domitian (and not Nero). However, what this means, apparently, is that we have no mention of banishment to Patmos until at least 150 years after John wrote Revelation.

Why, then, did this tradition develop if it wasn't true? Here's what I think happened: John was, at best, ambiguous concerning the purpose of his presence at Patmos. A hundred years later (give or take), Irenaeus comments that John was seen toward the end of Domitian's reign, connecting it to the Apocalypse, and Clement of Alexandria says John returned to Ephesus from Patmos after the death of "the tyrant." Neither author indicates that John was banished to Patmos, but a tradition develops combining these details in perhaps an unintended way, concluding that Domitian had banished John to Patmos. With Irenaeus and Clement no longer alive, the tradition can neither be confirmed nor falsified, so the tradition goes unchecked. By the time of Eusebius some 100 years later, the tradition has firmly taken root.

STRONGLY AGAINST A MID-SIXTIES DATE

Hitchcock and Ice would have us believe that John's alleged banishment to Patmos and the imprisonment and killing of Christians "argues strongly against a mid-sixties date for the writing of Revelation and favors the mid-nineties date when we know that some persecution by Roman authorities was occurring under the Roman Emperor Domitian" (p. 35). But as we've seen, this is a tenuous claim lacking any real force, whatsoever.

I could be wrong, and perhaps John was, in fact, banished to Patmos by the Roman authorities. However, the Scripture certainly doesn't tell us this, and we don't see a tradition develop until 150 years later. I'm hesitant to say that all the internal and external evidence in support of a mid-60's date for the writing of Revelation should be ignored simply because of an ambiguous statement made by John and a tradition that formed a century and a half later. And as we've seen, the Roman government did not need to be actively persecuting Christians for local authorities to imprison or kill Christians.

I enjoy healthy debate over this and a multitude of other issues concerning preterism and the end times. But when critics of preterism such as Hitchcock and Ice resort to such desperate measures, clumsily clinging to flimsy, tenuous arguments which are utterly devoid of merit, it distracts from the real debate and makes critics of preterism look bad. Though some preterists might relish in this, I would rather Christians witness preterists and futurists debate the question meaningfully, giving onlookers the ability to make an informed decision.

Self-Defeating Science: The Irrationality of Evolutionary Naturalism

The Preterist Podcast recently turned me on to an awesome podcast called "Say Hello to my Little Friend," otherwise known as the "Beretta Cast" (and corresponding blog). As a disclaimer, I don't agree with everything I've come across at the blog; for example, I don't believe in "soul sleep," but rather that the immortal spirit is in some sense conscious in Sheol awaiting the resurrection--primarily because I don't believe Jesus' parables were rooted in fantasy. Nevertheless, I've enjoyed what I've listened to so far.

I was digging through the archive and came across a series of episodes explaining something called "presuppositional apologetics." I had heard of this style of apologetics before, but knew nothing about it, so I gave them a listen and was blown away. I highly recommend you listen to this series as it presents some powerful arguments for the existence of God. Episodes 11 through 13--go, listen, now.

I was particularly impressed with the third and final entry in the series discussing a Christian philosopher named Alvin Plantinga and his transcendental argument against evolutionary naturalism. Plantinga argues powerfully (and irrefutably, I think) that atheists who believe in evolution are utterly lacking in reason for believing that their beliefs are true. In fact, it is immeasurably more likely that any of their beliefs is false given their own world view. As such, evolutionary naturalism can only be described as irrational. I'll do my best to summarize Plantinga's argument.

THE PROBABILITY OF R

The question asked by this line of reasoning is as follows: How probable is it that our beliefs, assuming evolutionary naturalism, are reliably true? This is expressed as the p (probability) of r (reliably true) given ne (naturalism and evolution). So what is the probability of r? To some this may seem like an exercise in futility. How could we begin to answer such a question? The reality is, however, we can approximate an answer--and the answer might surprise you.

Let's frame the question more concretely. Let's assume for a moment that there is no God, and that the diversity of life we see today is the product of blind, random mutations taking place during reproduction, operated upon by natural selection, producing successively more complex organisms. This is evolutionary naturalism in a nutshell. According to this world view, our sensory organs (eyes, ears, noses, etc.) and the mechanisms by which information from those organs is transmitted, as well as our brains which process that information and our instinctive reactions to that information all developed over time through random mutations producing a survival advantage over one's peers.

According to this model, then, our beliefs are based on physiological structures and mental faculties which developed only because they made us more capable of surviving in our environment, without respect to whether or not those beliefs are true. Do you see the distinction? Undirected evolution through natural selection produces structures, faculties and beliefs which offer a survival advantage, whether those beliefs are true or not. The question remains, then: What is the probability of r?

A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT: BOB THE ALIEN

We humans do not often take part in the useful practice of thought experimentation, but let's do that for a moment. Imagine another world with a creature similar to a human--we'll call it Bob--which developed over millions of years through undirected evolution. Like us, Bob has developed sensory organs, transmission mechanisms and a brain by which he perceives his world, and has formed or had passed down to him beliefs about reality. Let's take a closer look at some of these.

Bob's eyes, optic nerves and brain have developed in a peculiar way. His species' primary predator is a terrible, tiger-like creature, but when Bob lays eyes on it he sees a giant, flashing sign with a message saying (in his language, of course), "Run fast in the other direction to experience great joy!" His endocrine system simultaneously developed to secrete a tremendous feeling of joy upon running sufficiently fast and sufficiently far in the opposite direction from the predator, providing him with the sense of great joy his eyes promised him.

Now, the peculiar way in which Bob sees this predator, and the way his body reacts when he runs fast and far enough away, have provided him with a survival advantage over his peers. But is he perceiving reality correctly? Of course not. There are a seemingly infinite number of ways in which Bob might perceive reality that give him an edge over his competitors, but which do not correspond to reality in an accurate way, and only one which is truly reflective of reality (which might not be advantageous, incidentally). Thus, the likelihood that anything he perceives is real is infinitesimally small.

The same is true of Bob's beliefs. Let's say that the surface of Bob's planet is riddled with pockets of dense, reddish mud. Bob has never touched the mud, and is not aware that it is thick and would so slow him down that any predator would easily catch him. He has had passed down to him, however, the belief that the mud is an acid that will eat away at his flesh. Therefore, he avoids it like the plague, which benefits him as he obeys the sign he saw, unknowingly running from the predator he incorrectly perceived.

Like his sense of vision, Bob's belief is wildly inaccurate and in no way reflects reality. Yet, it affords him a survival advantage in that it causes him to steer clear of obstacles which would slow him down and allow him to be caught by the predator chasing him (which he doesn't know exists). Again, innumerable possible false beliefs exist which would give Bob an advantage, and only one which is true. The likelihood that anything he believes is true is immeasurably tiny.

THE INESCAPABLE DILEMMA

Darwinists thus face an inescapable dilemma. Given evolutionary naturalism, what is the probability that one accurately perceives reality via one's senses? Little to none. Given atheism, what is the probability that one's beliefs correspond to reality? Little to none. The materialist is utterly devoid of justification for believing that anything he perceives, believes, or thinks he knows, is true. He exercises blind, warrantless faith that his senses accurately convey information, that his mind accurately interprets it, and that the beliefs he's formed and knowledge he's gained using those faculties are true.

Therefore, only if one believes there is a God is one justified in trusting in one's senses and beliefs. Indeed, one is justified in calling anything "knowledge" only if one believes a Creator made knowledge possible. Without a God, it is immeasurably unlikely that anything we sense, believe or think we know is trustworthy. But if a Designer fashioned the universe intending it to be able to be accurately perceived by its inhabitants, then we have reason to believe that knowledge is possible. True knowledge is only possible in a universe created by God.

The Bible and the Dead: Do Ghosts Exist?

In "Did the Disciples Fear Ghosts?" we discovered that when Jesus walked on the water, the disciples did not fear what they thought was a ghost, but what they thought was an appearance of the Lord, the likes of which meant certain death. But this particular event aside, what does the Bible say about the dead? And does it allow for the existence of ghosts? Do the disembodied spirits of the dead roam the earth?

As we will see, the answer to this question is unequivocally, "No." When a man dies, he goes to a place where the dead are utterly separate from the living, awaiting the final resurrection and judgment throne of God. While in this state, he has no access to the land of the living. He can neither appear here and interact with the living, nor does he have knowledge of their goings on. Only in a few rare, specific cases does God cause the dead to appear to the living.

THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS

Let's start this study by looking at the parable Jesus gives of Lazarus and the rich man:

"Now there was a rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, joyously living in splendor every day. And a poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores, and longing to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man's table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores. Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried. In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried out and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.' But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, so that those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us.' And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father's house--for I have five brothers--in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.' But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.' But he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!' But he said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.'" (Luke 16:19-31)

This parable is a veritable treasure trove of insight into the state of the dead. Despite being a parable, it is likely reflective of reality. Jesus' parables were meant to reveal truth to His disciples, and if the pictures He painted were not rooted in reality, then how could one be assured of the truth of that which He intended to reveal? Therefore, we should probably assume that the story told is an accurate picture of the state of the dead.

NO ACTIVITY IN SHEOL

Note first that when these men died they are taken to "Hades," and whereas the rich man awakens in torment, across a great chasm Lazarus is comforted in the bosom of Abraham. Some translations, including the NIV, call it "hell," though this is different from the place of eternal torment likened unto a lake of fire in Revelation. The word is ᾅδης (hades) which is how the translators of the Septuagint--a pre-Christ translation of the Hebrew text into Greek--rendered the word שאול (sheol).

Usually Sheol is referred to in the Old Testament simply as "the grave." Little, if any, activity is said to take place there. Solomon wrote, "Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might; for there is no activity or planning or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol where you are going" (Ecclesiastes 9:10). Whether or not there is consciousness in Sheol, it is evident from the context that he's speaking of activity on earth. Once we are dead, we no longer have the ability to act among the living.

Jesus' parable seems to confirm this. The rich man twice pleads with Abraham to let him warn his living brothers. Twice Abraham denies the request. Granted, there is a specific reason the rich man is told he cannot return to his father's house. Nevertheless, what is clear is that by default the dead have no access to the living. Only with special permission can the dead appear outside of Sheol on earth, and very few such occurrences are found within the pages of Scripture.

THE WITCH OF ENDOR

Saul was on the verge of being attacked by the Philistines, and he was scared. He asked the Lord for guidance, but God remained silent. So Saul sought out a medium in the hopes she could conjure Samuel up to advise him:

"Then the woman said, 'Whom shall I bring up for you?' And he said, 'Bring up Samuel for me.' When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out with a loud voice; and the woman spoke to Saul, saying, 'Why have you deceived me? For you are Saul.' The king said to her, 'Do not be afraid; but what do you see?' And the woman said to Saul, 'I see a divine being coming up out of the earth.' He said to her, 'What is his form?' And she said, 'An old man is coming up, and he is wrapped with a robe.' And Saul knew that it was Samuel, and he bowed with his face to the ground and did homage. Then Samuel said to Saul, 'Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?'" (1 Samuel 28:11-15)

Here is one case in which, apparently, the dead is allowed to interact with the living. The text does say, after all, that "Samuel [spoke] to Saul." However, it is worth noting that the woman appears to be shocked at the appearance of Samuel, for she "cried out with a loud voice." This has led many theologians to understand this as being unique, that she was not accustomed to actually interacting with the dead. As Chuck Smith writes,

"...this woman was shocked and surprised when Samuel came back. She expected to have a little conversation with her demon guide, and her demon spirit, and from him to get the information that Saul was seeking. But to her amazement this spirit actually came out of the earth, and she shrieked when she saw it."

You see, the woman is described as being a "medium," and the Hebrew reads בעלת־אוב, which literally means "mistress of a familiar spirit." Mediums, apparently, communicated with, or at least believed they communicated with, spirit beings, and a "familiar spirit" is a demon. These spiritists, then, if they had any real talent, did not actually interact with the dead; they interacted with demons who may have given them information about the dead.

In this case, however, the woman is surprised that, instead of simply communicating with her familiar spirit, she actually sees the spirit of Samuel coming up from the dead. Interaction with the dead, therefore, must not have been commonplace, even for a medium. Whether this interpretation is correct or not, it is evident that this was an exception to the rule that the dead do not interact with the living.

THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION

Another case in which the dead appear to the living is at Jesus' transfiguration:

"Six days later Jesus took with Him Peter and James and John his brother, and led them up on a high mountain by themselves. And He was transfigured before them; and His face shone like the sun, and His garments became as white as light. And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him. Peter said to Jesus, 'Lord, it is good for us to be here; if You wish, I will make three tabernacles here, one for You, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah.'" (Matthew 17:1-4)

There is some debate as to whether or not Elijah physically died. We know, however, that Moses died, for Scripture records it (Deuteronomy 34). Clearly, then, the spirit of Moses was permitted to appear in such a way as to be visible to Peter, James and John. However, like the spirit of Samuel's appearance to the woman at Endor, Moses' appearance before Jesus' apostles was a unique event, one with a particular purpose. As Peter wrote,

"For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, 'This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased'--and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. So we have the prophetic word made more sure..." (2 Peter 1:16-19)

The appearance of Moses and Elijah, then, was for the specific purpose of demonstrating the reality of His majesty to the disciples, so that as a result "the prophetic word [was] made more sure." Like the appearance of Samuel's spirit from the dead, the appearance of Moses and Elijah was unique, an exception to the rule. These are not normative, commonplace experiences. They are exceptions allowed in extremely rare circumstances for specific purposes.

A SPIRIT DOES NOT HAVE FLESH AND BONES

If the dead are utterly separate from the living, unable to interact with the living except in rare circumstances, what are the "spirits" referred to throughout Scripture? I happened upon a website which points to several passages its authors believe to be support for the existence of ghosts, such as Jesus' appearance in the upper room after His resurrection:

"While they were telling these things, [Jesus] Himself stood in their midst and said to them, 'Peace be to you.' But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit. And He said to them, 'Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.'" (Luke 24:36-39, emphasis mine)

The website I found claims, "Christ himself describes a ghost, 'a ghost does not have flesh and bones'...would not this indicate that ghosts do exist? Jesus could of easily said that something on the lines that there are no such things as ghost, but instead Jesus describes a ghost." This is not what happened at all. The disciples did not think they were seeing a ghost, they thought they were seeing a demon, an "unclean spirit," as we'll see from examining the original Greek.

The Greek word for "spirit" is πνεῦμα (pneuma) and most often refers to the Holy Spirit (Hebrews 10:15, 1 Corinthians 6:19). In some cases it refers to an attitude ("of quiet" 1 Peter 3:4) or purpose ("with you in spirit" Colossians 2:5). It often describes demons, "unclean spirits" (Matthew 8:16, Mark 5:8,12). While the word is sometimes used to refer to a person's spirit, "the vital principal by which the body is animated," it never speaks of a disembodied human spirit anywhere but in Hades. Let's look at where the word is used to refer to a person's spirit:

"Keep watching and praying that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit [πνεῦμα] is willing, but the flesh is weak." (Matthew 26:41, see also Mark 14:38)

"And Mary said:...'my spirit [πνεῦμα] has rejoiced in God my Savior." (Luke 1:46-47)

"Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit [πνεῦμα] was being provoked within him as he was observing the city full of idols." (Acts 17:16)

"For God, whom I serve in my spirit [πνεῦμα] in the preaching of the gospel of His Son, is my witness as to how unceasingly I make mention of you" (Romans 1:9)

"For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit [πνεῦμα] of the man which is in him?" (1 Corinthians 2:11)

Other passages that speak of the human spirit (arguably, in some cases) include: 1 Corinthians 7:34; 14:2, 14-16, 32; 16:18; 2 Corinthians 2:13; 7:1, 13; Galatians 6:18; 1 Thessalonians 5:23; 2 Timothy 4:22; Philemon 1:25; Hebrews 4:12; James 2:26; Hebrews 12:22-23; 1 Peter 3:18-20; Revelation 4:2; 17:3 and 21:10. But in every one of these cases, the human spirit is in one of two places: a living human body, or in the place of the dead apart from the living. There are only a few arguable cases:

"And her spirit [πνεῦμα] returned, and she got up immediately." (Luke 8:55)

"They went on stoning Stephen as he called on the Lord and said, 'Lord Jesus, receive my spirit [πνεῦμα]!'" (Acts 7:59)

In the former verse, the human spirit was absent and returns to animate the body, but there's nothing to suggest that this transition from the place of the dead to the reanimated body is anything but instantaneous. In Stephen's case, the living body is about to die and the spirit will leave, but Stephen's plea makes it clear that he expects his spirit to be received immediately, not left to wander the earth indefinitely. Finally:

"Beloved, do not believe every spirit [πνεῦμα], but test the spirits [πνεῦμα] to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit [πνεῦμα] that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit [πνεῦμα] that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world." (1 John 4:1-3)

In this case, if the spirits we're to test are those of humans (it is possible this is referring to demons), it is evident they are of living of humans, the "false prophets [who] have gone out into the world." We are not being told of ghosts roaming the earth trying to deceive people. So of the nearly 400 places in the New Testament in which πνεῦμα is used, fewer than 40 refer to human spirits and they're always either inside a living body or in the separate abode of the dead.

Nowhere is a disembodied human spirit manifested visibly. At Christ's transfiguration, we're told Moses and Elijah appeared visibly, but the word πνεῦμα (spirit) is not used; it is possible they were temporarily reunited with their bodies. The medium of Endor called up Samuel from Sheol, but the text doesn't say Saul saw him; he may have appeared only in a vision to the medium through whom he spoke. The point is, even in the few rare exceptions, there's no evidence that disembodied human spirits can appear visibly to the living.

A DEMON DOES NOT HAVE FLESH AND BONES

So, back to the passage at hand. What does it mean that the disciples were "frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit?" Many well-known theologians have assumed that "spirit" here does, in fact, refer to a disembodied human spirit, and that the disciples were startled by Jesus' appearing before them in this fashion. However, it is evident from Jesus' words that the disciples did not think it was truly Him: "See My hands and My feet, that it is I myself" (emphasis mine).

Jesus was not trying to prove to His disciples that He was physical, He was trying to prove to them that it was Him! They were not questioning the physicality of Jesus' resurrection body, they were questioning the identity of the "spirit" that was standing before them. And Jesus proves to them that He is not a "spirit" because a "spirit" does not have flesh and bones as He has.

What or whom, then, did the disciples fear they were seeing? We've seen that there's no biblical warrant for belief in disembodied human spirits manifesting visibly to the living, so it's unlikely that the disciples thought that's what had appeared to them. Of all the other definitions of the word πνεῦμα (spirit), the only remaining possibility is that they feared they were seeing a demon.

Biblical examples of demons manifesting visibly are admittedly lacking, at least given my meager volume of research. However, most Christians believe demons are "fallen" angels, those which followed Satan, also a former angel. And there are several examples of angels appearing visibly to humans, so it would stand to reason that, if allowed to by God, demons can likewise make themselves visible, even if it is uncommon. Therefore, I believe the most likely explanation is that Jesus' disciples were afraid they were in the presence of a demon until He proved to them it was Him.

GHOSTS AND THE BIBLE

What, then, is the answer to the question, "Do ghosts exist?" No, they do not, at least from a biblical perspective. The disembodied spirits of dead humans await resurrection in Sheol, wholly separate from the land of the living. They cannot interact in the land of the living whatsoever, except in extremely rare circumstances in which God has a specific purpose, and even then not as "spirits," but either in a vision or, so far as we can tell, physically.

When Jesus walked on the water, the disciples feared the kind of appearance by God that in the time of Moses would kill those who drew too near. When Jesus appeared to them in the upper room after His resurrection, they feared they were in the presence of a demon rather than the Lord. These are simply not examples of the dead appearing to the living, and we are left with no biblical warrant for believing in ghosts whatsoever.

In this day of sensational stories of supernatural terror, as Christians we needn't fear ghosts. I laugh at shows like Ghost Hunters and Ghost Adventures and the like, and hope my wife succeeds in getting me on as a guest along for one of their adventures. For while any dark place in the middle of the night will be a bit creepy, I think I would still find the experience rather laughable, bringing with me a biblical world view.