Some time ago I read a powerful book that argues for the existence of a creator based on the tiny world of the cell. Years ago, scientists thought of the cell as a primitive and simple thing–a glob of protoplasm. But discoveries have since changed this view. To help explain these amazing findings, Dr. Stephen Meyer, a former geophysicist and college professor who leads the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, wrote Signature in the Cell. The book looks intimidating since it has over 500 pages of information, but it is an important book that many should read. Meyer focuses on the importance of the discovery in 1953 of the information-bearing capacities of the DNA molecule, what he calls the “signature in the cell.” For the next several blogs, I’d like to walk you through the book because it shows, on the molecular level, the incredible design so obvious in the universe today. This is a key way we can discuss our belief in the existence of God, based on the staggering amount of design all around us. Science is on our side.

His opening chapters define the scientific and philosophical issues at stake in the DNA enigma. Darwin had argued that the striking appearance of design in living organisms could be explained by natural selection working on random variations. But, thanks to Watson and Crick, scientists discovered the structure of DNA. They found that DNA stores information using a four-character chemical alphabet. This information is used to build crucial protein molecules and machines the cell needs to survive. This chemical alphabet functions like letters and a written language or symbols and a computer code. In fact, Bill Gates said, “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.” Of course, the key question is how the information in DNA arose. You have to have information before you can build the first living organism. In the mid-1980s a controversial book came out called The Mystery of Life’s Origin by Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, and Roger Olsen. These three scientists came to the conclusion that no theory had explained the origin of the first life. They suggested that the information in DNA might have originated from an intelligent source.

Next, Meyer describes the mystery surrounding DNA in more detail. He tells in depth the story of Watson and Crick as they set about to understand the structure of DNA. By the mid-1950s scientists soon realized that DNA could store an immense amount of information. Meyer ties this in with information about proteins — they build cellular machines and structures, they carry and deliver cellular materials, they allow chemical reactions necessary for the cell’s survival. To do all this, a typical cell uses thousands of different kinds of proteins, and each one has a distinctive shape related to its function. These proteins are made of smaller molecules called amino acids. The structure of proteins depends upon the specific arrangement of its amino acids, but the question was what determined the arrangement of the amino acids. It was Francis Crick who suggested it was the precise arrangement of the four-character chemical alphabet found in DNA that determined the arrangement of amino acids. Scientists soon found there were mechanisms in the cell to transcribe, transport, and translate the information in DNA so that amino-acid chains could be constructed at certain sites. Like a production facility at Ford, the cell uses digitally encoded information to direct the manufacture of the parts of its machines. You can see animation of this process at signatureinthecell.com or in the DVD called Unlocking the Mystery of Life.

Here’s a big mystery — it takes DNA to make proteins, but it also requires proteins to make DNA; so how did the whole thing get started? Which came first, the chicken (nucleic acids) or the egg (proteins)? The author says scientists must now explain the origin of three key features of life — DNA’s capacity to store digitally encoded information, the complexity of the information in DNA, and the cell’s ability to process the information.

More to follow in a later blog.

I have been covering for the last couple of blogs a discussion that has focused on the exclusivity claims of Christianity. Many people in our pluralistic society today object to the idea that one thing might be true while other things might be wrong, especially in the area of religion and morality. It’s frustrating to deal with such mushy thinking, but that’s the atmosphere in which we live today. So, here is one last look at this issue before moving on to other things.

The relativist who sees all religions as pretty much the same has a word picture that is sometimes used to describe a pluralistic view of religions today. This is the famous “all paths lead to God” idea in which God is at the top of the mountain and various roads (religions) go up the mountain where they converge at the top. So, even though the paths look different, the roads/religions all end up at the same place. What’s wrong with this picture? It’s the same problem as with the blind men and the elephant story – where is the person who is telling the story? He or she is above the mountain, looking down at all the people working their way to the top. But only God has that view, so the person who tells the story apparently has the same viewpoint as God. That seems pretty arrogant.

As  a final thought, consider the differences between Christianity and other religions. Think about all the religions around us today–Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Scientology, Mormonisn, etc.  In these belief systems, followers are urged to chase after God (or improve themselves if there is no God) through good deeds and appropriate behavior. Only Christianity says God chases after us, and there is nothing we can do to earn his favor. As a fallen individual who only grows more aware of my shortcomings as I get older, I see the entire human race as needing that special grace that God shows us.

So much for the idea that Christians are arrogant. How can I look down on another person when I know I have sinned and desperately need a savior? In fact, I readily admit a Hindu may be a better father than I am, an atheist may do a better job in the classroom than I do, a Mormon may be more sacrificial toward his wife than I am. I’m not better than they are. Christianity makes us see our shortcomings as we depend on God’s grace.

One final thought – we Christians were not the ones who came up with the claim of exclusivity. It was Jesus himself who said this, so those who are offended by this belief need to argue with Jesus, who is generally seen as an admirable person. It makes it tougher to argue with him than to argue with individual Christians.

I am continuing my blog on the negative reaction by some to Christianity as an exclusive faith. People today bristle at the idea that Christians claim Jesus is the only way to God. In the past two blogs I mentioned every faith is exclusive, not just Christianity. In fact, it is disrespectful to all religions to say they teach the same thing as all the others do. The story of the blind men and the elephant does not prove pluralism when it comes to religions (that all religions are ways to God) because it assumes the narrator has special insight not granted to all the people of the world. In addition, we discussed the fact that there are only three families of religion (Eastern, secularist, and Jewish/Christian/Islam), so it’s not an impossible task to try to distinguish between the major religious beliefs. In this blog I want to focus on some of the reasons people raise an objection to the exclusive claims of Christianity. I don’t think it’s because of the claims by Christians. There are, instead, psychological factors at work in their lives.

For example, many people simply prefer there not to be a God. Consider the famous author Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World, who said the following:

“I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. … For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.”

An interesting, honest comment here – Huxley started first with his desire that there be no God and then worked out reasons to support his desire. For him and his friends, it came down to sexual freedom and the pursuit of political power. So much for the idea that people rationally complain about the exclusivity of Christianity and the existence of God.

Then there’s Thomas Nagel, Professor of Philosophy and Law at New York University. He echoes Huxley’s sentiments:

“I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.”

Again, think about what he’s saying. He admits having a prejudice that colors his rational thoughts. Notice that it’s Christians who are charged with wishful thinking when it comes to the existence of God. But the atheist is the one who wants there to be a universe with no God for them to be accountable to.

So, those who comment about our exclusive faith as if that turns them off may have key motives for dismissing all religions. If there is no special way to God, maybe there’s no God at all. Then they can live however they like–no humbling of themselves, no surrender to a higher power, no submission to a superior being.

In the previous blog  I started talking about something that really disturbs people today–the exclusive claims of Christianity. Let’s continue discussing this today.

Of course, any time people discuss exclusive claims of religions, the famous parable of the blind men and the elephant comes up. The story involves several blind men who feel different parts of an elephant, trying to decide what sort of beast it is. One describes the trunk as a snake, another feels the tail and says the animal is a rope, while another grabs the leg and says the animal is a pillar. An observer who is sighted says they are all describing the same beast, just focusing on different parts of it. The point, of course, is that all religions are actually describing the same God  even though they only have a portion of the truth.

But there’s something wrong with this analogy. If religious humans are the blind men, who is the sighted observer? How did this person get to this position of authority and insight? How is it that he or she can see, but the rest of us cannot? For someone to claim that all religions are the same, her or she is actually being arrogant: “You may not be able to see it, but I have a privileged position that allows me to understand the big picture here.” How did this person get to play God here??

We may feel overwhelmed in trying to look at all the different religions that exist, but it’s not as difficult as it appears on the surface. There are, in fact, only three great families of religion. First, there is the Eastern view, in which God is seen as an impersonal being. Secondly, there is the secularist religion, which sees chance as ruler over all. Finally, there is the Jewish/Christian/Islam religions, which tell of a God who is both personal and infinite. So, these three represent the most important worldviews that religions hold. It’s less overwhelming to consider these three families than to think of tackling what appears to be a dizzying array of religions.

It strikes me that lazy people come up with stories like the blind men and the elephant to relieve themselves of investigating the conflicting claims of religions.  I have a talk that tells of ways we can distinguish between religions and judge which is worthy of our devotion. Take a look at my audio resources and listen to “Can We Test Religions?” OK, let’s continue this issue in a future blog.

Some time ago I took a DVD called Towards Belief to our apologetics class and went through various topics it covered. For the next few blogs I’d like to cover a key question it tried to answer–are Christians arrogant for claiming Jesus as the only way of salvation? This idea that Christianity has an exclusive element to it is wildly unpopular among those who have bought into the idea that relativism rules–all truth claims are equally valid and there are many roads to God. But this relativistic view has some holes in it.

First, the claim of truth by Christians is not unique to one faith. All believers in every faith believe they have the truth. So do atheists. That’s why people believe what they believe – because they think it’s correct. I’m not sure why it’s only Christians who are ridiculed for this point.

Secondly, the DVD looked at the differences between religions. People who have not thought very carefully about this assume that most religions agree on major things and just have minor differences. However, that’s not true. Religions disagree about who or what God is, where people came from, why we are here, what happens to us when we die, what’s important in life. These are not minor issues at all. In fact, it is disrespectful to religions to say they all teach the same doctrines. It shows the person who makes this claim has not really looked at the individual beliefs of any religion.

In addition, the DVD pointed out the amount of laziness when it comes to discussions of religion. People who wave their hands and claim that “all religions are the same, so why bother to distinguish between them” are mentally lazy. The truth is out there, the differences are real, and we can all explore those differences if we take the time to do so. For example, we can look at the founders of each faith to see what their lifestyle was really like – Mary Baker Eddy, Joseph Smith, Jesus Christ, Muhammad, Buddha. Yes, this will entail some work, but if our souls are on the line, it should be worth it.

We are facing a scourge in our society today–moral relativism. First, a definition. Relativists see no objective morality. Instead, moral opinions are like our tastes in ice cream–a personal preference. You like vanilla, I like chocolate. There are  no “oughts” out there.

This belief has had a huge negative impact on society today.  There is less emphasis on Western values (multiculturalism reigns–all cultures are equally valid and correct in their beliefs). It also suppresses free speech (don’t suggest one idea is better than another), creates mental laziness (no need to compare ideas), and leads to political correctness (don’t offend).

One type is cultural relativism, which says it’s society that determines moral beliefs, but there are  problems with it. Contrary to what it believes (that societies can’t agree on moral standards), there are shared beliefs among societies– rape is bad, it is noble to die for others, unjust killing is bad, it’s wrong to punish innocents. If  society determines morality, nothing is immoral. Think of slavery in 19th century. Also, if society determines morality, moral reformers are not heroes. That makes people like Corrie ten Boom, M. L. King, Gandhi, and Wilberforce immoral–seems crazy to believe that.

A second type, individual relativism, also has problems with it. For example, relativists can’t accuse others of wrongdoing (take child abuse–all they can say, “I don’t like it”). In addition, they can’t complain about the problem of evil. Here’s the problem C. S. Lewis encountered in his atheist days:

“My argument against God was that the universe  seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too–for the argument depended on saying that the world really was unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fantasies.”

One more problem for relativists–they can’t place blame or accept praise–why punish anyone? An additional problem has to do with using words like “unfair” or “unjust.” Those words have no meaning. Finally, they can’t promote an obligation of tolerance, since the term means to allow people to disagree. But disagreement indicates a difference of opinion in which someone may be right or wrong. These two terms don’t mean anything to a relativist.

This obviously only scratches the surface of moral relativism as a topic to be explored. I will touch on it again and again, I’m sure. People might want to read Greg Koukl’s excellent book on it–Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air.

I have been working on a new type of apologetics class for our church. We usually tackle specific topics during the spring and fall while taking the summer off. But I’d like to present a class I’m calling Apologetics 101 during the summer. This class, only four weeks long, would cover just the basics of apologetics for those who want the big picture–why we believe truth exists, what evidence there is for God, why we can trust the New Testament documents, who Jesus was and reasons to accept the fact that He really rose from the dead. I’ll be posting more info about the class soon.

I’m on a kick of finding interesting quotations. Here goes another batch on the resurrection of Jesus. Some good things . . .

Easter says you can put truth in a grave, but it won’t stay there.  – Clarence W. Hall

In truth, faith needs apologetics. It needs it to answer both the negative arguments of the resurrection and to construct positive arguments in favor of it. Apologetics will not create faith, but perhaps, for some, it will pave the way for it or make it possible. What is destructive of genuine Christian faith, in my opinion, is not apologetics, but unfounded beliefs, unjustified commitments. Unsound arguments are irrational leaps of faith. It is the aim of apologetics to prevent Christian faith from amounting to anything like that. – Stephen T. Davis

I know the resurrection is a fact, and Watergate proved it to me. How? Because 12 men testified they had seen Jesus raised from the dead, then they proclaimed that truth for 40 years, never once denying it. Every one was beaten, tortured, stoned and put in prison. They would not have endured that if it weren’t true. Watergate embroiled 12 of the most powerful men in the world-and they couldn’t keep a lie for three weeks. You’re telling me 12 apostles could keep a lie for 40 years? Absolutely impossible. – Charles Colson

The Gospels were written in such temporal and geographical proximity to the events they record that it would have been almost impossible to fabricate events. Anyone who cared to could have checked out the accuracy of what they reported. The fact that the disciples were able to proclaim the resurrection in Jerusalem in the face of their enemies a few weeks after the crucifixion shows that what they proclaimed was true, for they could never have proclaimed the resurrection under such circumstances had it not occurred. – William Lane Craig

The truth of the resurrection gives life to every other area of gospel truth. The resurrection is the pivot on which all of Christianity turns and without which none of the other truths would much matter. Without the resurrection, Christianity would be so much wishful thinking, taking its place alongside all other human philosophy and religious speculation. – John MacArthur

It will not do … to say that Jesus’ disciples were so stunned and shocked by his death, so unable to come to terms with it, that they projected their shattered hopes onto the screen of fantasy and invented the idea of Jesus’ ‘resurrection’ as a way of coping with a cruelly broken dream. That has an initial apparent psychological plausibility, but it won’t work as serious first-century history.

We know of lots of other messianic and similar movements in the Jewish world roughly contemporary with Jesus. In many cases the leader died a violent death at the hands of the authorities. In not one single case do we hear the slightest mention of the disappointed followers claiming that their hero had been raised from the dead. They knew better. ‘Resurrection’ was not a private event. It involved human bodies. There would have to be an empty tomb somewhere.

A Jewish revolutionary whose leader had been executed by the authorities, and who managed to escape arrest himself, had two options: give up the revolution, or find another leader. We have evidence of people doing both.

Claiming that the original leader was alive again was simply not an option. Unless, of course, he was. —N.T. Wright (from Who Was Jesus?)

Any position in which claims about Jesus or the resurrection are removed from the realm of historical reality and placed in a subjective realm of personal belief or some realm that is immune to human scrutiny does Jesus and the resurrection no service and no justice. It is a ploy of desperation to suggest that the Christian faith would be little affected if Jesus was not actually raised from the dead in space and time. – Ben Witherington III

Let us ban together to invent all the miracles and resurrection appearances which we never saw and le us carry the sham even to death! Why not die for nothing? Why dislike torture and whipping inflicted for no good reason? Let us go out to all nations and overthrow their institutions and denounce their gods! And even if we don’t convince anybody, at least we’ll have the satisfaction of drawing down on ourselves the punishment for out own deceit. – Eusebius

Either the men of Galilee were men of superlative wisdom, and extensive knowledge and experience, and of deeper skill in the arts of deception than any and all others, before them or after them, or they have truly stated astonishing things which they saw and heard. – Simon Greenleaf

It is of the very essence of Christianity to face suffering and death not because they are good, not because they have meaning, but because the resurrection of Jesus has robbed them of their meaning. ― Thomas Merton

The evidence for our Lord’s life and death and resurrection may be, and often has been, shown to be satisfactory; it is good according to the common rules for distinguishing good evidence from bad. Thousands and tens of thousands of persons have gone through it piece by piece as carefully as every judge summing upon a most important case. I have myself done it many times over, not to persuade others but to satisfy myself. I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead. – Thomas Arnold

I went to a psychologist friend and said if 500 people claimed to see Jesus after he died, it was just a hallucination. He said hallucinations are an individual event. If 500 people have the same hallucination, that’s a bigger miracle than the resurrection. – Lee Strobel

I love studying astronomy. The last few years have brought some comforting news in this field for theists (those who believe there’s a God).

Consider the beginning of the universe. All research points to the truth of the Big Bang as the starting point for everything–space, time, matter, and energy. First there was nothing–absolutely nothing. Then, the universe exploded into being. Doesn’t that suggest Genesis?

But I love the reaction of God-doubters. They now have to create a story that eliminates God from this picture. Here’s where Stephen Hawking, a brilliant physicist, enters the scene.

In a desperate attempt to explain how a finally tuned, infinitely complex universe with highly intelligent, mindfully self-aware human beings can “appear spontaneously from nothing,” Hawking latched on to something called “M-theory,” which argues that multiple universes are created out of nothing with many possible histories and many possible states of existence. In only a few of these states would life be possible, and in fewer still could something like humanity exist. In a recent speech, Hawking mentioned that he felt “fortunate to be living in this state of existence.”

This is also known as the “multiverse” theory. There are so many problems with this idea. First, there’s no proof for it–none, absolutely none. Secondly, there can’t be any proof since these other universes can’t be seen or detected from our universe. Third, even if the theory proved true, you haven’t solved the problem. What is throwing off these universes? the creator of all the universes still has to be beyond the physical, natural world. Let’s see . . . that makes the creator a part of (watch this) the supernatural world. Hmm . . . what have we been talking about over the last couple of thousand years as inhabiting the supernatural world? Oh yeah–God.

I love Christian apologetics, which has to do with rational defenses for Christianity. There has been a  tremendous outpouring of books on the topic, so it can tough to decide which ones should be on your shelf. Here are some of my favorites.

1. The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel
   All of Lee Strobel’s books are required reading for two reasons. First, they are good introductions to the subject and provide a good overview of the material from some of the best scholars in their fields. Second, the writing style is very accessible, taking you alongside a journalist in his investigation of the evidence for Christianity. In this particular title, Strobel focuses on the life and identity of Jesus.2. The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel
   This book is just as readable as The Case for Christ, but this one delves into the evidence for the Creator. Another thing that makes this good reading for the beginner is this: whatever areas you find particularly interesting can be pursued further by reading the sources interviewed in the book.

   3. The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel
   In The Case for Faith, Strobel moves from making a positive case for Christ and a Creator to defending Christianity from some common criticisms and objections. This one deals with the hard faith questions such as the problem of pain and suffering and issues of doubt. Again, all three of the Lee Strobel books are a great starting point for the beginner.

   4. Holman QuickSource Guide to Christian Apologetics by Doug Powell
   No doubt about it–this is a strangely-shaped book (tall and thin). This book, filled with tons of graphics,  will introduce you to the wide landscape of apologetics by outlining, diagramming, and illustrating all of the key arguments for the existence of God, the reliability of the Bible, the beliefs of other world views, and common objections. This is very helpful in providing visual categories for the content you are taking in.

   5. Love Your God With All Your Mind by J.P. Moreland
   Moreland is one of my favorites in the field. He’s thoughtful and clear–not always the case with deep thinkers. In this book you’ll be challenged to live a vibrant life of intellectual engagement with your faith. This is a classic book that every apologist should read, and that’s why it finds itself firmly in the foundational books recommended here.

   6. Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictionsby Greg Koukl
   Koukl is probably my favorite apologist, with a radio show and great live presentations. This book will train you not only to use apologetic content in everyday life, but it will also train you to be a better, more critical thinker. This is another “must read” book, and mastering its contents early in your apologetic studies will put feet to your faith.

   7. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesusby Mike Licona & Gary Habermas
   The resurrection of Jesus is central to Christianity. This book equips you to understand and defend the resurrection from an historical perspective. Not only does the book have useful diagrams, summaries, and an accessible style, but it also comes with a CD-ROM with interactive software for teaching you the material. This is an essential book for the apologist.

   8. Is God Just a Human Invention? And Seventeen Other Questions Raised by the New Atheists by Sean McDowell and Jonathan Morrow
   Now it’s time to look at some of the most common objections that have come against Christianity since the rise of the new atheism. There’s no better book at dealing with these in a concise yet dense way, while providing additional reading suggestions and introducing some of the key apologists that deal with these questions.

   9. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be An Atheist by Geisler & Turek
   Geisler and Turek have authored a great apologetics book that also takes a step-by-step approach to showing that Christianity is true—and it’s filled with lots of information. This gives the growing beginner a ton of good content, while strengthening the framework of a cumulative case for Christianity. This book will help to grow your overall general apologetic knowledge as well.

10. Cold-Case Christianity by Wallace
11. Warner Wallace, a former cold-case detective who has been featured on TV, does an excellent job investigating the claims of the gospels. He shows you how his skills play a huge role in deciding the case for Christianity is as convincing as any case he worked on as a detective.