Chapter 3 - The Scientific Jesus
10/06/2008 ©Charles Germany

 

"We live on an island surrounded by a sea of ignorance. As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance. " (Princeton Astrophysicist John A. Wheeler)

Newton, Tesla and Einstein might have envied these times we live in. We enjoy the benefits of our technology - computers, the internet, longer lives, better medicine, more comfort, communications, entertainment; though not always the risks - WMDs, bio-chemical warfare, global warming and animal and plant extinctions. Yet at the peak of our technological brilliance, can all the information on the internet and in the libraries of the world begin to compare to what is revealed in a single strand of RNA from the smallest virus?

As a species we have been inventive and resourceful, yet among all our glorious machinations nothing we have produced from scratch compares in its complexity to the intricacy of a mosquito or a dust mite or a strand of DNA. Spacecraft and aircraft carriers are grandiose endeavors to design and construct, none could argue otherwise. Yet we have found it easier to put a man on the moon than to engineer and create a single living cell from inanimate, non-living material.

What is it that makes life such an arduous task? Why is it so difficult to engineer that which is capable of turning raw elements to flesh or photosynthesizing light into living substance? Life can be cloned and copied, reverse-engineered and modified - but we must admit that this as an outright plagiarism - life from living things manipulated by intelligent beings. We have not created life from nothing. When we take complex organic compounds and building blocks as a "given", making assumptions that take many variables for granted, we employ not our own rules, but someone else's. Whose?

Dr. Robert Jastrow, a brilliant astronomer, physicist, cosmologist and the founder and director for the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA, made the world a poorer place with his passing on February 8, 2008. Thankfully, he left behind some of his magnificent thoughts in the book “God and the Astronomers”:

“Strange developments are going on in astronomy. They are fascinating partly because of their theological implications, and partly because of the peculiar reactions of scientists… The scientist has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. ” (Robert Jastrow. God and the Astronomers, 2nd edition. W. W. Norton & Company. 2000.)

The Grudge that Never Was

This generation has been placed under the impression that science and God are diametrically opposed. The truth is while science and religion may have been at odds, science and God have no such quarrel. God does not vanish in a poof of logic, should we dare begin to contemplate the universe. 

The perception that God and science are mortal enemies goes back for centuries, and probably started with Copernicus. What happened? In the 12th century a group of deeply religious charlatans masquerading as "The Official Church" departed from the teachings of Christ and began introducing their own dogma as though it were from Christ himself. Ironically, they slandered the name of Jesus more than any of their branded "heretics" ever could.

What were the "true" teachings that were forsaken? Christ taught his followers to love one another (John 13:34-35), to be as gentle as doves (Matthew 10:16), to love their enemies and to turn the other cheek rather than engage in violent acts of retaliation (Luke 6:27-31). He taught them to be merciful in extremely clear terms using explicit language (Matthew 5:7, Matthew 18:33-35 and Matthew 23:23). He taught them to be kind and forgive offenses (Matthew 6:14-15 and Matthew 18:21-22). These statements weren't isolated oddities - they formed the core of Christ's message.

Yet these self-imposed leaders of "The Official Church" hijacked Jesus' message and reversed it into a tool of hatred, aggression and prejudice called the Inquisition. These deceitful opportunists then used their tool to oppress, imprison, torture and murder anyone who got in their way by branding them a "heretic". Countless numbers of those who sought to follow Christ's original teachings were slaughtered. Untold numbers of Jews and people of other faiths were killed. Kings, nobles and bishops used it as a tool to destroy their political opponents and personal adversaries.  It was used as a weapon against science as well, and here is where the perceived enmity begins.

In the 1500's the early Catholic Church taught geocentricity - that is to say they believed Ptolemy, that the earth was the center of the universe. Copernicus, an astronomer born in Krakow, Poland, deduced that the mechanics of the solar system were quite different. He advocated heliocentricity - that the planets, including the earth, orbited the sun as the center of our solar system. The church branded him a heretic, and for a time he was in danger of being burned to death if he did not "recant" his beliefs. Today we know that Copernicus was right - he stands vindicated and the inquisitors are exposed as buffoons. However, in the 15th century, it was a different story. Why at that time did the early church believe in geocentricity?

In addition to following the teachings of early astronomers like Ptolemy, the church believed that the earth must be at the physical center of the universe as they reasoned that God's plans revolved around men. It was very anthropocentric thinking based on an unfounded assumption, but as a corrupt religious organization, they sought the means to push their narrow-minded opinions on others rather than investigate the truth of the matter. For this they found several scriptures on which to base their assumptions:

Psalm 93:1 states that "The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty; the LORD is robed in majesty and is armed with strength. The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved". This language is both figurative and poetic -  it implies that the earth is stable rather than that it is stationary. But this gave Copernicus' opponents the illusion that "God" was on their side - so surely, they reasoned, they had every right to burn him at the stake. Also, Psalm 19:5-6 says that "In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun, which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his pavilion, like a champion rejoicing to run his course. It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is hidden from its heat". Of course this is an allegory as well, the language is symbolic. Even so, religion used this to manipulate and cajole into ignorance anyone who might venture out to discover the truth. Those early church officials had no basis on which to call Copernicus a heretic, nor does the Bible place God at odds with science. (Not withstanding this observation, religion will still remain dogmatic and go about the business of condemning heretics, and atheists will still maintain that this is proof positive that God is out to get them and therefore must be a fairy tale. Two sides - same coin.)

To further extrapolate this idea, in addition to the verses mentioned above, the Bible also states that rivers clap their hands and mountains sing (Ps. 98:8), trees clap their hands and mountains and hills burst into song (Isa. 55:12) and that the stars sing (Job 38:7). These are merely other examples of the Bible using metaphorical and symbolic language. Perhaps the early church was so desperate to prove geocentricity that they were grasping at straws.

In a similar fashion, there were those who tried to use the Bible to prove the world was flat when it made an allusion to the "four corners" of the earth (Isa. 11:12; Ezek. 7:2; Rev. 7:1; 20:8) or the "four winds" (Jer. 49:36; Ezek. 37:9; Dan. 7:2; 8:8; Zech. 2:6; Matt. 24:31). Of course these were symbolic of four planar directions - north, south, east and west, not the flatness of the earth. Yet the Bible states that the earth was spherical (Proverbs 8:27). This is another example of how language can be figurative, rather than literal.

Copernicus was not really as controversial as 15th century Inquisitors and modern militant atheists portray him. He was neither an enemy of God nor the poster child of agnosticism. He did not challenge the concept of God or an intelligent universe, only society’s faulty interpretation of celestial mechanics. The fanatically religious sought to imprison, torture and possibly kill anyone who challenged geocentricity. Perhaps they saw it as a threat to their power system. Perhaps they believed it was their "calling" and purpose in life to torture, maim and kill for God. Throughout history there are always those who do. Jesus' original teachings were so ignored and distorted by this early 1500's church that, as Christ previously predicted, a time would come when “men would kill other men in the name of God, supposing it were a service” (John 16:2).

Today educated skeptics rally around Copernicus as a call to arms against the absurdity of religion, and rightly so when religion degenerates into an ignorant, hate-crazed mob that wants to burn anyone outside its current belief system. But to be fair, Copernicus believed in a Creator God, he merely sought to overturn the fallacy of our primitive understanding of the solar system. He was not at war with God.

Once again, we must make a distinction between Christ and religion. Religion could not tolerate Christ, so he was condemned. For the most part, atheists can't stomach his ideas either. We have two victims here, Jesus hijacked by religion and Copernicus hijacked by secularism - neither in opposition to the other, yet both misused to fuel the flames of a grudge that never existed.

Spiritual Machines

Years ago I read an interesting book by the phenomenal scientist and inventor Ray Kurzweil called "The Age of Spiritual Machines". In this book, Kurzweil predicts that human and artificial intelligence will merge, and machines may one day achieve consciousness. This begs the question, does this mean that machines will have a "soul"? What is a soul - an element of free will and self-awareness, a divine spark? I correlate this to another work in a completely different field of study. Dr. James Kennedy wrote his last work, "The Presence of a Hidden God", before passing away in 2007. In it he asks the question, "Are machines more spiritual than we are?" (Dr. James Kennedy. The Presence of a Hidden God. 2008. p. 33) Though they might not agree, I believe Kurzweil and Kennedy are looking for the same thing - "truth". 

As human beings, we were capable of creating a supercomputer like Deep Blue, and by design it beat Kasparov's human brain - a mind trained as a master chess player. But Deep Blue could not have designed itself. It was a product of human genius and intellect. It was engineered and designed and built to specifications. How did the minds that designed Deep Blue, living flesh-and-blood computers infinitely more complex, engineer themselves?

Let's compare Deep Blue and Kasparov. Deep Blue could calculate, but it was not what we call "sentient". It could win a game of chess, even one played against the best chess-trained brain humanity could produce. But Deep Blue did not comprehend its victory nor enjoy it. It was poorly equipped to make the innumerable minute decisions and affective responses necessary to experience what we call "winning".

It is unclear whether what we call "life" may become possible for combinations of machinery and software some day. There are many interesting projects taking place that explore artificial intelligence, and it just may be within the realm of possibility to produce a sophisticated AI. If so, wouldn't we owe it the respect we owe all living things? If it became sentient, should we enslave it or give it "free will" - a soul?

It seems that, if we could create a consciousness, an accompanying set of ethics ensues - a prefabricated collection of the innate rules of engagement. Who made those rules? Living things that are self-aware - beings that are conscious and sentient automatically seek certain freedoms and require certain rights and privileges or they will perceive themselves as oppressed. Here in the midst of this vast technological revolution we find our history repeating itself. Like the ancient Romans we seek transcendence - truth. We think of machines as created things, why do we find it so difficult to think of the most complex machinery, life, as a created thing? It is far more intricate and complex in design than any thing we have yet contrived.

We came into existence on this great ball of life, surging with liquid water and delicately balanced in its rotation and distance from the sun so as to be the priceless pearl of our solar system. The earth is not the center of our universe as the ancients believed, yet it is no less the center of life and a garden of Eden in a solar system of hostile, dead worlds. And so we have to ask, "How did it get here?" and "What does it all mean?" How did every law of quantum structure and energy combine to allow this existence?

The Perspective Of Purpose

Professor Dr. Brandon Carter is a Cambridge astrophysicist who worked with Stephen Hawking and Werner Israel defining the properties of black holes according to general relativity.  In collaboration with Hawking and Israel, he is famous for providing proof of the "no-hair theorem", affectionately given its title by Princeton astrophysicist John A. Wheeler. This theory maintains that in general relativity, all solutions of the Einstein-Maxwell equations of gravitation and electromagnetism applied to black holes may only be characterized by mass, electric charge and angular momentum.    

In 1973 Carter read a paper at the 500^th anniversary of Copernicus’s discovery of heliocentricity. The subject of the paper was difficult to stomach for atheists and skeptics who despise the teleological perspective – meaning that all things are viewed according to their purpose. Carter’s findings were strangely supportive of a teleological view of the cosmos. They led to the uncomfortable conclusion that the entire universe had been constructed for the development of intelligent life on planet earth. Carter brought up topics like the consistent symmetry for the mathematical equation for gravity and that if a proton’s mass were a fraction larger or smaller, the atomic structure of the cosmos would collapse. He called this the “Anthropic Principle” – that the universe appears to have been designed for mankind.

For example, water seems simple enough - two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom. Yet it is an oddity. Unlike other matter which transitions from a lower density to a higher density as it cools and changes phase, water becomes heavier as a liquid than when solid. Therefore ice floats.  It phases into a liquid state between 32 degrees Fahrenheit and 212 degrees Fahrenheit, making it an ideal solvent system for life.

Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards in their book “The Privileged Planet”, write about the Anthropic Principle and how the earth has been positioned perfectly to sustain life and that the universe is a vast, precise mechanical masterpiece that allows our solar system to exist. The moon is the perfect size and distance from earth to produce tides that clean the oceans and mix oxygen into the water and atmosphere. Earth's atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, which when mixed with most elements is toxic to animals yet necessary for plants. Conveniently, it lies inert in the atmosphere, harmless to animals, until 100,000 lightning strikes per day mix it into the soil for all the plants that need it to survive. In addition, just the right amount of dust, ozone and water vapor in our atmosphere blocks and scatters longer wavelengths of light, such as ultraviolet rays, yet allows shorter wavelengths that are necessary for photosynthesis and life.

Earth's size is perfect for living things - if it were 10% larger or smaller, life as we take it for granted, would not be possible. Since many skeptics consider the teleological argument to be a fairy tale, lets make an analogy that they will be pleased with. In the story "Goldilocks and the three Bears", there were three bowls of porridge. We might compare these to our solar system. Our fairy tale is symbolic - Goldilocks represents "life" and the three bowls of porridge are the three terrestrial planets that have an atmosphere in our inner solar system (Mercury has no atmosphere).

Venus is the porridge that was too "hot". Earth and Venus are comparable in size, gravity and mass - but that is where the similarity ends. At a distance of 67 million miles from the Sun, Venus has a runaway greenhouse effect with crushing pressures 92 times the earth's atmospheric pressure, surface temperatures of almost 900 degrees Fahrenheit and a constant rain of sulfuric acid. Unlike Earth, the planet lacks an internally generated magnetic field.

Mars is the porridge that was too "cold". It's radius is only half that of the earth (or, if you prefer, twice as large as earth's moon) and its mass only 11%. It is less dense and therefore has a volume that amounts to only 15% of the Earth's. Mars orbits farther away from the Sun than Earth, at a distance of 141 million miles. Therefore it can get as cold as -220 degrees Fahrenheit in a Martian winter. These low temperatures are also due to Mar's extremely thin atmosphere - approximately 1/100th that of Earth's. At such low pressure, in addition to the cold or lack of oxygen, most of Earth's organisms would die from nitrogen bubbles in their blood and embolisms as their fluids were ripped from their bodies and began to evaporate in the low pressure. In addition, since Mars's atmosphere is so thin, coupled with the fact that it has no ozone layer nor a magnetic field, it provides little radiation shielding. Any living thing that existed on Mars would have to hide underground or in caves - out in the open it would constantly be bombarded by lethal DNA-shredding particles. Mars lacks the abundant water that covers three fourth's of the earth, and it is believed that it lost most of its atmosphere to space due to its lack of a magnetic field and its lower-than-earth gravity.

Earth is the porridge that was "just right". Its distance from the sun is 93 million miles. In addition to the solar distance, the tilt of earth’s axis at 23 degrees allows it even heating around the equator and towards the poles. Its enormous and powerful magnetic field, created by a spinning core of molten iron, shields all life on its surface from deadly radiation that showers the planet night and day. This field also protects Earth's atmosphere - without it the particles of the solar wind would simply blow it away. In addition, the field provides a means of navigation for many animals and human beings, without which, it is doubtful our ancestors could have circumnavigated the globe. Its atmosphere is the perfect combination of pressure, elements, gases, dust, water vapor, and ozone and liquid water flows everywhere. Abundant life explodes, filling every nook and cranny of ocean and land on a thin layer of the planet's crust. This life, existing in the "sweet spot", is oblivious to the molten magma beneath it and the deadly, radioactive vacuum of space above it.

Pursuing the Anthropic Principle, we need the gas giants of the outer solar system as well. Enormous planets like Jupiter vacuum up loose asteroids and comets due to their enormous gravitational attraction. This means that many asteroids, comets and meteors that might otherwise collide with earth are instead pulled into the more massive gravity wells of these large planets.

Probability

Occam's Razor states that, given multiple explanations for an observable phenomena, the simplest conclusion that makes the fewest assumptions is the correct one. Recently, scientists have come close to creating a cell. They carefully combined the ingredients of life in a carefully controlled environment. This does not mean that one gets something from nothing. These scientists are intelligent, they are not random forces acting on indiscriminate matter. They are biological engineers with purpose and understanding, attempting to create life. Yet some advocate, on the other hand, that life came about without intelligence, as a random combination of actions and matter. No one doubts in their mind when they see a machine of great complexity that it has an engineer. We merely take that for granted – not to do so would be illogical.

The director of the Center for Probability Research in Biology in California, Dr. James Coppedge, applied the laws of probability to the possibility of a single cell coming into existence by chance. To begin, he programmed the starting point as an environment to give life the maximum advantage for creating itself. Every atom on the earth’s crust and in the oceans was made available. This starting point is significant. This means that he took for granted and did not factor into the calculations the amount of time it would take for the creation of the entire universe by chance. His calculations ignored the improbability of separating matter and energy, of structuring atoms and stars and planets in an “unintelligent” universe.

In his model an unintelligent universe was simply "given" the laws of gravity, electromagnetism and nuclear forces necessary to allow the simplest quantum particles and atoms to exist and interact. This unintelligence then built mathematical laws and constants and invented celestial mechanics that would combine exquisitely to create a perfect environment known as earth - a planet conducive to the generation of organic compounds by it perfect size, distance from the sun, rotation, tilt on its axis, protective magnetic field, ozone, liquid water, thick atmosphere, combination of gases and heavier elements.

Taking all this for granted, as a given in the postulate, Coppedge begins with the amino acids already formed and randomly combining to form a single protein molecule. The results are that it would take 10²⁶² years to accomplish this monumental feat by chance. To get the simplest cell known to man, the Mycoplasma Hominus (H 39) would take 10^119,841 years to produce by chance. This number is so large that, if one were to try to write it out with all its zeros on paper, that paper would fill the entire known universe.  10 multiplied by itself 119,841 times. French probability expert Emil Borel points out that an event with a probability ratio of more than 10⁵⁰ to 1 will never happen. Therefore at such odds as 10^119,841 to 1, the simplest living cell arising by chance is impossible!

To place this into scope, according to Coppedge, the length of time it would take for chance to produce one usable gene, let alone life, would be greater than the amount of time it would take for an amoeba to move every atom in the entire universe across the estimated length of the universe, which is 30 billion light years. And the velocity of that amoeba would have to be reduced to moving only one angstrom unit (the width of a hydrogen atom) every 15 billion years. In addition, once the job were complete, the amoeba would have to repeat the process at the same slow velocity more times than the entire population of earth could count if every human being counted 24 hours a day as quickly as possible for the next 5,000 years. (Coppedge. Evolution. Chapter 6.)

This mind-boggling amount of time puts things into perspective. The age of our entire universe is only estimated to be 13.7 billion years or so. The universe isn’t old enough for the amoeba to complete the job one time, let alone the near infinite amount of repetitions of its monumental task that would be required to produce a gene by chance. One must wonder how evolutionists have succeeded in convincing the world that their hypothesis is the only explanation for the origin of life. According to the theory of evolution, not only did the first living cell evolve, but every living thing we see on earth came to be from inanimate primordial ooze within only the last 2 billion years.  

If you were to think mathematically regarding the odds of random probability, the entire life span of innumerable universes like ours would not be enough for living, sentient beings to evolve from basic hydrogen. Even for this, you must allow basic atomic particles and the forces of gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force as though they always existed and were a "given" to a geometry postulate. Yet the universe offers no such "givens". There was no distinction between matter and energy before what we call the "Big Bang". None of the forces that shape our universe existed as we now know them. Concerning these forces, the astronomer, physicist and mathematician Sir James Hopwood Jeans once said, “The more I study the universe, the more it seems to be one gigantic thought of a great mathematician. It has meaning, symmetry and reason.” (John G. Jackson. Man, God and Civilization. New York. Citadel Press. 1983. p. 151.)

To allow even the simplest element to exist, it appears a great deal of planning and organization had to take place. We have to stretch the imagination further to imagine that the first complex molecules, then organic compounds and then DNA developed by chance. It is yet a further stretch of probability to imagine that cells maintained homeostasis, the state of chemical balance necessary for them to survive, for the hundreds of millions of years it took to develop the organelles with which they needed to maintain that homeostasis.

Think about the intricacies of life for a moment. Animal cells need ribosomes to translate DNA and mitochondria for energy. They require a finicky semipermeable membrane to allow specific food molecules in and waste molecules out. They require a cell nucleus with an enormous amount of complex behavioral programming compressed into helical strands of DNA. Plant cells require highly specialized chloroplasts to achieve photosynthesis, and this turns them into living solar cells.

How did these cells survive long enough to "evolve" the complex structures necessary for them to achieve the delicate balance of chemicals and processes known as "life"? The life of the simplest single-celled organism is comprised of a very complex and temperamental state of existence.  There are millions of minute variables that have to be taken into account in order for a single-cell organism to achieve the state of being alive. As we approach multi-cellular organisms where living cells develop a high degree of specialization, the number of variables that have to be in perfect balance increases exponentially.

For mitosis we need DNA, yet for DNA's propagation we need mitosis. So which came first, the chicken or the egg? We are at an impasse, at some point we need a "given", and call it what you will, that is design. To place this in perspective, when we say that DNA - let alone multi-cellular organisms, are the results of chance, we are saying that sophisticated complexity "just happens". In other words, if life is possible by chance, it is therefore even more likely that if we left a pile of sand and raw elements sitting on a rock and waited for millions of years (and of course we are still taking the design and structure of the universe, "silicon", "raw elements", particles and the "rock" as a given for this postulate), that these components would somehow rearrange themselves into a laptop with all of its precise circuitry, voltage variances in amplitude and frequency and intricate components.

When we look at a computer, we realize that the complexity of the object itself offers proof of its design. Someone had to engineer the chips, dope them with different substances and perform precise nanoimprint lithography with acids, ultraviolet light, lasers and enzymes on tiny layers of silicon compounds to control the flow of electrons across those layers. If any of the components are not constructed to precise specifications, the machine will not function. Yet a single strand of DNA is more complex than that. Is it really that difficult to believe that life had a designer?

Athanasius Kircher, a 17th century astronomer, inventor and scholar, constructed a complex model of the solar system where the planets would rotate in orbit around the sun. A friend, who happened to be an atheist,  remarked while visiting about how beautiful the model was and asked Athanasius who made it. “No one”, he replied. His atheist friend replied, “That’s absurd! You don’t expect me to believe that, do you?” Kircher replied, “No, I don’t. But what’s more absurd is that’s what you believe about the real solar system, which is vastly more complex than this simple model.” (Dr. James Kennedy. The Presence of a Hidden God. 2008.)

The laws of Probability indicate that our existence by chance is impossible. Whether or not we apply this evidence to our examination, an unintelligent universe fails the test of Occam’s Razor. Saying that everything came from nothing is not the simplest explanation we can come up with. It makes far more assumptions than alternative theories regarding the phenomena of existence. Rather than an elegant solution, drawing the conclusion that the universe is unintelligent is a complicated, tangled and self-contradicting complexity.

The book “Cosmos, Bios, Theos” contains contributions from 60 notable scientists, of which 24 are Noble Prize winners, and of which one of the editors, Yale physicist Henry Margenau, writes: “There is only one convincing answer for the intricate laws existing in nature… creation by an omnipotent-omniscient God. " (Henry Margenau and Roy Abraham Varghese.eds. Cosmos, Bios, Theos: Scientists Reflect on Science, God and the Origins of the Universe, Life, and Homo Sapiens. La Salle, IL. Open Court. 1992.)

Thermodynamics

Questions of causality aside, probability alone is not the only thing to consider on our quest for the truth. In physics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics expresses the universal law of increasing entropy (energy no longer able to do work). It states that "the entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium (balance) will increase over time until its maximum value is attained at equilibrium ". In any system, a measure of the organization and structure of that system consists of the differences between its components. Atoms are organized by the differences between sub-atomic particles like quarks, gravitons, leptons, bosons and muons. Molecules are organized by the differences between atoms. Matter is organized by the differences between molecules. The entire universe is organized by the differences between matter and energy and defined by their interrelationship as discovered by Einstein (E=mc²). Matter further organizes itself by vast differences in the concentration of mass - dust, planets, stars. Energy is organized by differences in its concentration - low-level cosmic background radiation vs. the varying heat and radiation of stars, quasars, pulsars and the accretion disks of black holes.

The dominant theory of the origin of the universe is the Big Bang. This theory states that before any forces existed, before space or time or a distinction between energy and matter, there was a singularity of infinite heat and density. What existed before this singularity we do not know, nor where it came from, but for whatever reason it exploded. What compressed the singularity? If we attribute it to gravitational collapse, we must remember that space and time did not yet exist. Where did the matter and energy come from to achieve near infinite levels of energy and density? Cosmologically, we get into a game of cat and mouse as we answer each question with another. At this level, the most devout atheist, the most faithful agnostic is forced to accept many un-provable variables, constants and theories based on belief in a hypothesis due to the lack of absolute empirical evidence and the limitations of the human intellect. Let's blow up this singularity and create a universe!

Before we proceed, let's engage in  a quick review. In the state of its birth, our universe was not governed by the beautiful, mathematically balanced four forces that we know to govern our existence: gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear force. We take these four forces for granted on a daily basis. Without these forces in delicate balance, there would be no stars, no planets, no universe, and no people to ponder their own existence.

In the super-massive infinitely-small singularity before the "Big Bang", there was no distinction or organization between matter and energy. Let's clarify things a bit further. There was no hydrogen, the simplest element consisting of one electron and one proton. No protons. No neutrons. No electrons. Even at the quantum level there was chaos. No quarks with irresolute spins or stable sub-atomic states necessary to build the parts of atoms. There was no space-time, either as a function of relativistic geometry, or as a manifestation of the particles and super strings of quantum mechanics. Do we dare venture to say that the universe during its first four seconds of existence could violate everything we have observed to be true in logic and physics? Are we going to say that an unintelligent universe organized itself from a state of complete chaos into a mathematically precise and balanced state of order?

Continuing our discussion of the Big Bang: Somehow from this single event all matter, energy, space, time and the forces of physics formed. Eventually subatomic particles organized themselves, then atoms, then the simplest element - hydrogen with one proton and one electron. From this heavier elements formed, then stars, then planets, then galaxies, then galactic super-clusters that may still be observed to be receding away from each other at high velocities due to the red shift of the Doppler Effect. Believing that all of this "just happened" requires a measure of tremendous faith in many unproven theories.

At one time, astrophysicists held to an Oscillating Universe theory. This theory states that the universe blew itself up into existence from the Big Bang and that it will continue to expand until its velocity slows to the point where the gravity of all the mass in the universe pulls everything back into a singularity. This never really explained the origin of the singularity or where it came from, but it answered the question of the universe's origin by never asking it. This theory simply stated that it was always destroying and creating itself, over and over for eternity. This is modern mysticism and a type of "God" answer to the universe's origin. Even if the theory turns out to be true, it skirts the issues of cause and effect. What do the experts think?

Astronomers Dr. Allan Sandage (California Institute of Technology) and Dr. James Gunn (Princeton), after 15 years of observing remote galaxies, announced: “The universe will continue to expand forever.”  (Allan Sandage. Personal Website) They note that galaxies are not decelerating in their expanse from each other, rather they are accelerating their outward movements made noticeable by an increasing red shift in the wavelength of light that they emit. They estimate the universe to be approximately 13.7 billion light years across and it is expanding at an accelerating velocity that is constantly increasing. These current discoveries in physics and astronomy indicate that the momentum of galaxies is speeding up rather than slowing down, and that there is not enough matter, as far as we know, to pull the universe back together again by gravitational attraction. This dilemma continues to exist even as physicists debate whether or not the gravitational mass of controversial dark matter may prevent this eternal expansion.

We must look at the life cycles of stars. Stars coalesce from clouds of dust, and when there is enough mass fusion begins. Fusion in a star creates a delicate balance between the explosive force generated from matter conversion moving energy outward from the heart of the star and the crushing force of gravity compressing the star's matter inward on itself. Stars the size of our sun will live and die quietly. As the sun fuses all of its hydrogen to helium and then heavier elements, the balance between fusion and gravity will falter and it will swell to a Red Giant and engulf the inner solar system. It will then decrease in size until it becomes a dim, burnt out cinder - a white dwarf, having the mass of a star compressed to the density of an object no larger than earth.

Stars two to three times as large as our sun will have a different fate. Once they exhaust their hydrogen and begin to fuse heavier elements, gravity will crush them down into a small clump of neutrons 10 to 12 miles across. Called "neutron stars", theses celestial objects rotate rapidly and exert enormous gravitational forces. Stars larger than these will produce black holes after they supernova, collapsing into a singularity as there is nothing to counteract the gravitational attraction of their mass. Throughout these processes, stars are born, live and die. New stars are born from the stellar remains and planets coalesce from the heavier elements fused within the fiery hearts of stars that lived and died eons before. We also take this for granted. It will not always be so.

As our universe enlarges, matter is dispersed and energy is radiated outwards at the speed of light, away from areas of higher concentration towards areas of lower concentration. Eventually the universe will reach equilibrium - all matter and energy will be equally dispersed. There will be progressively less and less energy and matter available to make new stars until it will eventually become impossible. Many billions of years from now there will be only equilibrium, only darkness. This is referred to as the universe's heat death. 

It is interesting to note that Dr. Sandage, when once asked if someone can be both a scientist and a Christian, replied "Yes. As I said before, the world is too complicated in all its parts and interconnections to be due to chance alone" (Allan Sandage. Personal Website). He also said "The most amazing thing to me is existence itself. How is it that inanimate matter can organize itself to contemplate itself?" (Lee Strobel. The Case for Faith. p. 92)

The significance of Sandage and Gunn's findings are that they make this universe a closed system. Entropy is always increasing - we can't stop it. Eventually all energy will be converted to an irreclaimable form. This means we started in a state of organization (order) and are decaying slowly into a state equilibrium (chaos). If there is no engineer, if there were no intelligence to act upon matter and energy and order them to exact specifications, our universe could not exist - to do so would break the laws of physics and the chain of cause and effect as we understand them. It appears the "pump" had to be primed.

If the universe had a beginning, this implicates the existence of a "Beginner". This is unappetizing for those who dislike teleological arguments, and their reaction is best embodied by the atheistic astronomer Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington who said “The notion of a beginning is repugnant.”

In response to this distasteful conclusion, some have suggested a theory in which the universe exists in a "multiverse" contained in eleven dimensions. This theory came about due to the differences of opinion concerning the way gravity functions in our universe. Einstein's theory of relativity states that gravity is a function of spatial geometry. According to this theory, the more massive an object is the greater its indentation in the sheet of spacetime it occupies, and therefore the deeper and steeper the gravity well is that attracts objects to it.

General Relativity has been proven by observing the shift in position that star light makes when passing by a massive object (such as a star) as the object's mass warps space-time to such a degree that it bends the stream of photons (particles of light) traveling across it. Relativity therefore maintains that the attractive force of gravity is a function of spatial geometry. The problem with the relativistic theory is that it contradicts elements of the theory of gravitation in Quantum Mechanics. For this reason Einstein found Quantum Mechanics revolting. Quantum theory postulates that the attractive force of gravity is the exchange of particles between objects known as gravitons, rather than viewing it as a function of spatial geometry. The problem with these contradictions is that both theories seem to be proven right at times.

Due to these contradicting assumptions, a Grand Unified Theory (GUT) is needed to combine the perspectives of quantum mechanics and relativity. This GUT incorporates the concept of an infinite number of parallel universes existing as "bubbles" on a bed of hyper-dimensional cosmic strings that vibrate on an eternal membrane. Whether or not this theory will stand the test of time is irrelevant. It merely delays the ultimate question. If it answers the question of the universe's origin, it begins the question of the membrane's origin, and therefore its structure.

A system in a lower energy state does not "evolve" into a system in a higher energy state. The universe does not reclaim what has been lost to entropy. Thermodynamics and probability still continue to agitate the postulation that we can exist without a creator, whichever theory of origin we may embrace.  

Pierre Simon Laplace, a French astronomer and mathematician who once wrote a 4 volume series on celestial mechanics, said:

“It is infinitely more probable that a set of writing instruments thrown promiscuously against a huge parchment would produce Homer’s Iliad than that the creation originated by any cause other than God... The proof in favor of an intelligent God as the author of creation stands as infinity to unity against any other hypothesis of ultimate causation”. (Pierre Simon Laplace. Mécanique céleste, 4 vols, Boston. 1829-1839.)  and (Pierre-Simon de Laplace. Evidences of Revelation. 7.)

Conclusion

Are we to believe that somehow the universe invented itself in such a fashion as to allow subatomic particles? That then it arranges these into the building blocks of the simplest element of matter, hydrogen? Even something this simple staggers the mind, and we haven't gotten near the intricacies, balances and forces necessary to form stars and planets, then water, then amino acids, then RNA, then DNA, then a virus, then a cell, then a multi-cellular organism, and then eventually complex beings with large brains capable of sitting around and pondering how the devil we got here in first place!

One of the greatest and most intelligent astronomers of our time, Carl Sagan, once said, "We are the universe, trying to understand itself". Sagan was an agnostic. I find this manifestation of our consciousness both profound and disturbing, yet true. Stephen Hawking makes similar observations in "A Brief History of Time". In spite of our pondering, God does not vanish in a poof of logic when we start talking about the universe. It takes the willful suspension of disbelief and a lot of faith in things that can't be directly proven to deny God's existence.

We are all entitled to our opinions of how things came to be, but it is a fallacy to state one's opinion as though it were objective fact when it is an unfounded belief. Religion and secularism are both guilty of wishful thinking. We are not ridiculing the atheist's faith if against all odds they choose to believe in nothingness. Why then should atheists scoff at those who believe in a logical, elegant explanation of how things came to be?

It is a logical and sane observation to make the assumption that an intelligent Engineer created the universe, and that all the laws of physics that govern reality were put into place by a Master Architect. Unlike religion, God is not afraid of tough, honest questions. He has never been opposed to scientific inquiry. Some of humanity's most brilliant scientists have come, through nothing more than a careful observation or an accidental discovery, to the conclusion that there exists a Great Intelligence in the universe - an ordering and organizing force beyond our current understanding. Albert Einstein was an agnostic and did not believe in a personal god, yet with careful observation he knew there must be some unseen intelligence in the Cosmos. Some of his more famous quotes on the subject are:

"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man." (Authenticated letter written by Albert Einstein to the philosopher Eric Gutkind. January 1954.)

"The most beautiful and most profound experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness." (Albert Einstein - The Merging of Spirit and Science)

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views." (Albert Einstein, quoted by Ronald W. Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times, New York: World Publishing Company, 1971, p. 425)

 

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind." (Einstein)

 

"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details." (Einstein)

"I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice." (Einstein)

"God is subtle but he is not malicious." (Einstein)

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." (Einstein)

Steven Hawking entertains the possibility of this hidden Intelligence in "A Brief History of Time":

“The whole history of science has been the gradual realization that events do not happen in an arbitrary manner, but that they reflect a certain underlying order, which may or may not be divinely inspired.” (Steven W. Hawking. A Brief History of Time. 1988.)

"Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?" (Steven W. Hawking. A Brief History of Time. 1988.)

 

"As we shall see, the concept of time has no meaning before the beginning of the universe. This was first pointed out by St. Augustine. When asked: What did God do before he created the universe? Augustine didn't reply: He was preparing Hell for people who asked such questions. Instead, he said that time was a property of the universe that God created, and that time did not exist before the beginning of the universe." (Steven W. Hawking. A Brief History of Time. 1988.)

The father of the scientific method, Sir Francis Bacon, referred to the evidence one finds in the universe for a designer-engineer as “the Book of Nature”. The stars and planets above us declare their maker. The fabric of our universe reveals an embedded intelligence - an unseen power.

"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handywork." ( Psalm 19)

Astonishingly, the Apostle Paul came to the same conclusion as these scientists over 2,000 years ago. He seemed to have foreknowledge that eventually man's hypothesis of his own origin would come full circle. It fills me with a sense of awe that long before our modern understanding of physics, probability, astronomy, technology and biology even existed he wrote in his letter to the Romans:

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools..." (Romans 1:20-22)

A modern day contemporary writes: “Therefore, men who reject or ignore God do so, not because science or reason requires them too, but purely and simply because they want to.” (Dr. H. M. Morris).

Fiction, Fact and Frankenstein

The book of Daniel was written in Hebrew and Aramaic during the Babylonian Captivity of the Jews in approximately 597 B.C. In Daniel 12:4 the Jewish prophet states that "men will travel to and fro across the earth and knowledge shall increase."  In the field of electronics and computation there is a concept revealed by Gordon E. Moore, one of the founders of Intel, known as "Moore's Law".

It literally states that integrated circuits will double in performance every 18 months because the number of components that can be etched into them will increase exponentially. However, since these "components" are tiny nodes etched in wafers of silicon and not bulky and expensive electronics, sophisticated devices can be manufactured easier, cheaper and smaller every time chips are redesigned. This makes technology cheaper, more powerful and faster in a self-perpetuating cycle. Figuratively, Moore's Law describes the state of exponential growth technology and society is now experiencing.

The truly amazing thing is that somehow Daniel arrived at this same conclusion over 2,500 years ago. There were no computers, no integrated circuits and no technology - at least by today's standards. Yet somehow it seems as if Daniel looked into the future and foresaw that Moore's Law would come to pass - "knowledge shall increase". What are some of these increases? Only in the last sixty years have we known as a species such exponential growth in our knowledge. What was only science fiction a few years ago is now common fare. Let's examine the evidence of only a few events that have occurred in six decades. 

We mastered fission and split the atom, producing the first atomic weapons and using them. On August 6, 1945 we dropped the first atomic weapon ever used, Little Boy, on Hiroshima obliterating over 140,000 people instantly. On August 9, 1945 we dropped the last atomic weapon ever used on a live population, Fat Man, on Nagasaki killing approximately 80,000 from the heat and blast. Unknown hundreds of thousands more died from the radiation as it caused cancer, death and disease over time. Einstein's theory of relativity explained the relationship between energy and matter, but it took an army of scientists and officials known as The Manhattan Project years to achieve this feat. Upon completion, one of the project scientists, Robert Oppenheimer quoted from the Hindu sacred text, the "Bhagavad Gita":

"If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky, that would be like the splendor of the mighty one. Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

Some might consider Oppenheimer's statements megalomaniacal, but we must remember that mankind had never commanded the forces of matter and energy before. In the Cold War that ensued, the Soviet Union and America amassed enough nuclear weaponry to annihilate all life on earth several times over, producing weapons thousands of times as powerful as those used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Never before had a species on earth wielded such power - to be a destroyer of worlds. Until this point in history, humanity fought its wars with crude devices and for the most part the other species on the planet were oblivious to its skirmishes and disagreements. Splitting the atom changed everything.

In six decades we have traveled to the moon and back and sent probes to almost every planet in our solar system and its many moons. We have built stations in space and explored the deepest depths of the oceans. Computers have evolved from science fiction to devices that assist us with everything - traveling, shopping, medicine, memory, learning, entertainment and business. Robotics has revolutionized our factories and many developers and engineers are now working on taking basic robots further and pushing the envelope. There are androids, robot pets, and robotic companions that may assist us in the near future. Here are links to some interesting developments in this field:

In this age, we have mapped the human genome. We can artificially blend the genes of one species into another using transgenic technology. We can create chimeras, hybrids of two or more species that produce a new form of life. What follows may seem as if it were pulled from the pages of science fiction and Frankenstein, but it offers merely another example of how Moore's Law and Daniel's prediction of increasing knowledge are beginning to affect our daily lives. Let's take a walk on the wild side and look at a few modern discoveries and scientific achievements in the past few years. The lines are blurring between what used to be science fiction and what now is science fact.

In 2000, genetic researchers created potatoes that phosphoresce when they need water by splicing them with a few genes from jelly fish. (CNN news. December 18, 2000. CNN.com: New Potato Glows Green To Ask For Water).  Geneticists have created a jellyfish-monkey chimera, successfully mixing the DNA of these two species (CNN news. January 18^th 2001. CNN.com: Genetically Modified Monkey Could Be Key to Curing Some Diseases). There are now genetically engineered plants and fish for pets and food (L.L. Wolfenbarger. Science Magazine. December 15, 2000. The Ecological Risks and Benefits of Genetically Engineered Plants.) We have cloned animals - Dolly the sheep was the most famous "true clone", created July 5th, 1996. (Wikipedia: Dolly (sheep)). We have created mice with functioning human brain cells (National Geographic. December 14, 2005. National Geographic News: Mice With Human Brain Cells Created). We have created pigs with human blood and organs and sheep with human hearts and livers (MSNBC. Rick Weiss. Washington Post.  November 20, 2004. Web: Of Mice, Men and In-between). Cows have been cloned and engineered that produce human antibodies and blood products (Nature Biotechnology. 2002.10.1038/nbt727) and (Newscientist. August 12, 2002. Web: Cloned Cows Produce Human Antibodies.). These are only a few of the mind-bending things science has brought us in the last few decades. And now for a macabre little tidbit of history ripped from the pages of "Frankenstein" and made reality.

In the sixties and seventies, a great deal of competition existed between American and Soviet scientists. As with the space race, there was a lesser-known “transplant race” between scientists in both nations. Participating in this competition in the 1970’s, the Russians experimented on dogs. The researchers developed techniques for keeping canine brains “alive” or sensate in various states of consciousness for varying lengths of time while the subject's head was separated from its body. They achieved this by using machinery to oxygenate the brain and head and supply it with blood once it was dismembered. They also experimented with implanting the heads of puppies onto adult dogs. 

On both the American and Soviet sides, it was believed the unusual cruelty to the animal subjects in these tests was justified by the enormous amount of medical knowledge gained through the experimentation. At the time relatively little was known about transplantation, at least by today's standards. One of Russia’s key scientists in these experiments was Vladimir Demikhov. He perfected the organ transplantation of hearts and eventually entire heads in canines. You may view a video in Russian of his gruesome experiments. It is not for the timid but it does provide documentation of the experiments that took place: DEMIKHOV. Here is an article in Time magazine: Transplanted Head.

The United States was not about to be outdone by the Soviets. Dr. Robert J. White was America’s answer to the “transplant race”. Rather than dogs, White worked with rhesus monkeys. After many failures, he successfully performed a “head transplant” using two monkeys. He took the head from one monkey and attached it to another monkey’s body. He kept the monkey head "alive" by cooling the brain to near hypoxia and maintaining blood and oxygen to the brain as long as possible until the entire head was detached from one body and quickly re-attached to another.  To do this, he developed a technique of severing the head where the arteries and veins were left intact to circulate blood until all the surrounding tissue and spinal cord were cut away first. This minimized the amount of time the brain would have to go without blood flow once it was disconnected and the head reattached to the new body.

In the first experiment, the monkey only lived a few days. In later experiments, the monkeys could be made to endure indefinitely until euthanized. They kept one test subject alive in this condition for 8 days until mercifully ending its existence. Throughout this experiment, Dr. White developed revolutionary surgical techniques for transplantation. The limitation was, he could not at that time regenerate the severed spinal cord connections, so each victim, or “test subject”, was permanently paralyzed from the neck down. (Times Higher Education. Tim Cornwell. October 9, 1999. Your Head in His Hands.).

In the last few years, however, significant progress has been made in regenerating spinal cord tissue using stem cells. In a recent experiment with Johns Hopkins University researchers, human stem cells were injected into damaged rat spinal cords, in some cases repairing and regenerating them (John Hopkins Medicine. Media Relations and Public Affairs, contact Audrey Huang. February 13, 2007. Human Stem Cell Transplants Repair Rat Spinal Cords ). In other promising experiments, rat’s spinal cords were severed and a chunk removed, thus paralyzing them. These rats were then given a matrix seeded with stem cells that was placed against the missing section of spine. The rats were able to regain some of their mobility. (LiveScience. Lauran Neergaard. Associated Press. June 21, 2006. Stem Cells Help Repair Rat's Paralysis.).

The potential breakthroughs of these experiments are obvious. Incurable diseases could be cured and life prolonged against aging by moving one’s head to a new body. We can transplant hearts, lungs, and kidneys – just about any organ in the human body. We regularly replace defective human heart valves with pig heart valves that may last up to 15 years before requiring replacement (Wikipedia: Artificial Heart Valve). We can now transplant entire hands from one body to another, and there were 27 known hand transplants, from 2000 to 2005. There have even been several arm transplants in the last few years, with German surgeons performing a double arm transplant on a farmer early this year on August 2, 2008. (Wikipedia: Hand Transplantation). Surgeons have conducted several human face transplants (Wikipedia: Face Transplant), perhaps the most famous patient being a woman who received a new face in Paris in 2006 (MSNBC. Associated Press. January 18, 2006. Recipient of New Face Doing Well, Doctor Says).  

Even human reproductive organs have been transplanted, such as ovaries (MSNBC. Ovary Transplant), in which case a woman conceived and bore children with her sister’s ovarian tissue and eggs. New transplant options include the human uterus (MSNBC. Associated Press. January 15, 2007. Hospital Plans to Offer First Uterus Transplant).  Late in 2006 Chinese surgeons performed the first successful "penis transplant". The recipient had lost his reproductive organs in a severe accident. The surgery was successful yet rejected by the patient after two weeks due to psychological complications (MSNBC. London. September 19, 2006. First Penis Transplant Reversed After Two Weeks).

Perhaps the most incredible feat mentioned yet in our scientific "circus of the bizarre", recently California chief executive of the corporation "Stemagen" Samuel H. Wood created clones of himself using DNA extracted from his skin and then injected into a human egg cell from which the female donor's DNA was removed. This repeated an experiment among British researchers in 2005 where human embryos were cloned to the blastocyst stage. He later destroyed the embryos he created from himself and harvested their stem cells (Washington Post. Rick Weiss. January 18, 2008. Mature Human Embryos Created From Adult Skin Cells).

What is the point I am making in relating all of this? Science can now do, on a daily basis, remarkable things only imagined of in science fiction novels like “Frankenstein” and “The Island of Dr. Moreau”. Many of the fictitious gadgets we marveled at while watching Star Trek decades ago we now carry around in our pockets and use in our daily lives. Moore's Law is at work in us, every day ever-increasing knowledge is re-defining reality for humanity as a species. It staggers the mind to think what we are now capable of.

We now have the ability to change ourselves at a genetic level: to remake our bodies and minds. It is within our grasp to alter the physical and mental features of our children. It is possible to mix our genes with other species, taking from them those attributes we like. What will we do with all this power? Who will guide us? How will we define right and wrong as our knowledge increases exponentially? The issue is more complicated than it seems.

Some people may cry out “abomination!” at the mention of cloning, or the creation of a new species or of hybrids through transgenics. Some may be appalled at the manipulation and creation of “super humans” through gene sequencing and mixing. But how do we define an “abomination”? We accept as perfectly normal a myriad of changes that might have been called an "abomination" a century ago.

Imagine, if you will, that you have a time machine. You step into it and travel back through time, two hundred years or so and arrive in the year 1808 in the middle of New York City. You step out of your time machine and meet someone walking down the street. You strike up a conversation with them. You tell them that, in the future, it will be possible to replace a person’s heart, liver or lungs. You then proceed to explain the typical transplant procedure where, organs, such as a heart, are extracted from a donated corpse that has recently died, placed on a bed of frozen CO₂, put into a flying machine and whisked somewhere half-way around the world at near the speed of sound. The recipient - a living person, is then connected to a machine that keeps them alive while their living, beating heart is cut out of them and removed. Then the heart from the corpse is delivered, sewn into their now heartless body and made to beat again. Subsequently, they are revived and may expect to live for decades with that corpse’s transplanted heart beating in their chest.

Once you finally finished talking to you 1808 companion, you would receive one of several possible reactions. The first might be disbelief and skepticism. “Such things are not possible!” your new acquaintance exclaims, “That’s completely ridiculous! A fairy tale!”. Another possibility, if somehow they could believe your story were true, would be, “That is an abomination in the eyes of God!”.  Others might respond, “They’re playing God! They’re creating a monster!”. 

Yet here we are, circa 2008 A.D., and no one thinks that organ transplants are an abomination, or that the procedure is in the least bit immoral. (We are not including the exceptional circumstances, such as where transplant organs might be sold on the black market or harvested from executed political prisoners in China.) We are simply saying that in general, today, we do not believe these procedures to be unethical.

If society deems these things acceptable today, try to imagine only 50 years into our future. Just like organ transplants - cloning, trangenics and genetic engineering will not be considered “abominations”, they will be accepted by society. They will be commonplace, everyday occurrences to which people will give little thought or reaction other than when the services of such sciences are required.

Technology has opened a Pandora’s Box of new ethical issues that simply did not exist before. Where will we stand on these issues? Is there a moral compass, a sense of right and wrong in these uncharted waters? What would the real Jesus do?

Chapter 2 - The Historical Jesus | Chapter 4 - The Prophetic Jesus  |  Bibliography

10/06/2008 ©Charles Germany