A Shared Sense of History

To some social commentators, it seems that in America the social fabric is a little frayed at the seams. Perhaps the reversal of the ever increase trajectory of prosperity has exposed an underlying weakness. Writers have written that there is a malaise in the land. The idea of living in a small village where people are connected with each other and support each other has an almost universal appeal. I would like to suggest the source of this appeal is, in part, that ther

e is a lack of a shared sense of history in our more modern society. A diverse and pluralistic society brings a vitality of energy and ideas but how do we retain a shared sense of history and destiny and why is that even important? Michael Creighton, the popular author, is quoted as saying “If you don’t now [your family’s] history, then you don’t know anything. You are a leaf that doesn’t know it is part of the tree.” So what is the importance of the leaf knowing it is part of the tree. Here are four reasons.

1. First it give us solid place to stand. Unlike the a Canadian birling competition (seen on the right photo), a (metaphorically) solid place to stand gives us the balance to meet the unpredictability of life. We less likely to be “blown over” with the storms of life.

2. When we are connected to the past and future, we are connected with certain expectations of living. We have an identity which we tend to live out. We have a calling which we live up to.

3. Sense of trust is more easily built when there is a shared sense of history. Indeed, trust is only built over time. These days our social communication seems as though we are speaking past each other. Without trust, communication is strained and awkward. Built on a history of trust, communication become effortless.

4. We can better understand life itself. Soren Kierkegaard, the 19th century Danish gadfly, writes “life must be lived forward but can only be understood backward”. Life will then feel less chaotic.

To anyone who feels their life to be drifting, I encourage you to consider the fellowship found within the Christian church. From the outside there does not appear to be anything appealing but within this community you will be welcomed. You will be connected to a shared history of thousands of years and a shared destiny. In this way, life can be better understood without leaving the modern day world but rather living in it. You will have a firm place to stand. As John Calvin writes, "In this way our [destiny] rests on a foundation so firm and sure, that though the whole fabric of the world were to give way, it could not be destroyed." You will know that you are " part of the tree" and are planted firmly in good earth.

Not a Chance

With this blog entry, I am concluding the long series which puts forth evidence to the question, “How did we get here?”. As anyone can see, I am providing evidence for the existence of a designer for our world. In this respect, I am on the opposite side of the fence of most who would believe our world, and indeed ourselves, is the result of purely natural processes, that is, by chance. However the evidence I have presented in this blog is pointing to a different conclusion. In the past blogs, I have provided evidence from a variety of sources and viewpoints as follows:

Evidence from mathematics
Evidence from astronomy, the Universe
Evidence from astronomy, the Earth
Evidence from Physics
Evidence from the fossil record
Evidence from biology
Evidence from biological information

The cumulative evidence from all these areas points to a designer. Each of these blog entries provides links for those who want to investigate further. One can read The Blind Watchmaker (Dawkins) or the Grand Designer (Hawking) that argue for the appearance of design but the world, in fact, is a result of chance + time. I have responded to Hawking’s new book in another blog entry. While the evidence for a designer will not convince everybody, no one can say that there is no scientific evidence for a designer. That is, no one can say this unless they refuse to consider this evidence which is a response of the will and not the intellect. So let the debate begin - at least in those forums where opposing opinions are not silenced.

What is the significance of this information? The significance is that the big questions in life relate to origins, meaning, morality and destiny. Any credible world view must provide a coherent response to these four questions. That is, one’s view of origins must be coherent to one’s view of morality, meaning and destiny. Without this coherency, a specific world view is not intellectually significant. In this respect, the questions of origins is very important. As this series comes to a conclusion, I will move on to discuss these other questions.

The Origin of Us

Where did we come from? It is not a question we think about during the course of our days which are filled with more practical matters. Given that is the question even important at all? I get to that question is a later blog. For now I want to explore the science of origins - the origin of life itself. In the 19th century, it was assumed that creating life would be rather easy. The intricacies of cell biology were unknown. Biologists tends to see the cell (in Haekel’s words) as a “homogeneous globule of protoplasm”. The thought in those days was that all the was necessary was to mix some basics ingredients into a “soup” add time and life emerges. It was only in the 1930s that scientist began to see the the cell was quite complex. Scientists repeatedly underestimated the cells complexity. It was only in the 1950s that the true complexity of the cell was starting to revealed as the structure of DNA was beginning to be understood. What we now know today is the enormous amount of information which is encoded in DNA. Not just biology but information theory must be studied. The cell has information but it is specified information, that is, it specifies functionality. It is not just random information but highly specific information. Therefore any origin of life theory must explain how the “software” programming” of the cell came to be. We now know that this type of specified complexity is beyond the reach of chance (refer to Scientific American, “The Constraints of Chance”, Jan 1996). Even a short 100 amino acid chain has a random probability of form which a chance of 1 in 1060 which is vanishingly small as there are only 1065 atoms in the universe. Other speculative theories have arisen that deal with self-organizational scenarios but all have come up short in explain how the information in even the simplest cell could arise. There is no naturalistic explanation at the current time. The only theory which has any credibility as this time is the argument from intelligent design. This is not an argument from ignorance but rather an argument from the evidence. This background information and the case of the intelligent design inference is now well documented. For those who want a detailed, long but readable article on these matters, refer to Dr. S.C Meyers article “DNA and the Origin of Life: Information, Specification and Explanation".