“Seeing” is Believing

From the archives of Pressing On Magazine. Click Here 

“Seeing” Is Believing!

Charles Darwin, in The Origin of Species, admitted he struggled with this evidence. He said: “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest sense,” (1859, p. 170).

In this specific context, it can be said: Seeing Is Believing! Can the reality of human vision be attributed to a random process or natural selection even with mutations?

I delivered five sermons on evidences a few years ago. The series was geared toward young people and parents. Several mentioned how powerful just this single piece of evidence is. From the source indicated below, I read this:

The Human Eye

The human eye is enormously complicated – a perfect and interrelated system of about 40 individual subsystems, including the retina, pupil, iris, cornea, lens and optic nerve.

For instance, the retina has approximately 137 million special cells that respond to light and send messages to the brain. About 130 million of these cells look like rods and handle the black and white vision.

The other seven million are cone shaped and allow us to see in color. The retina cells receive light impressions, which are translated to electric pulses and sent to the brain via the optic nerve.

 A special section of the brain called the visual cortex interprets the pulses to color, contrast, depth, etc., which allows us to see “pictures” of our world. Incredibly, the eye, optic nerve and visual cortex are totally separate and distinct subsystems. Yet, together, they capture, deliver and interpret up to 1.5 million pulse messages a milli-second! It would take dozens of … supercomputers programmed perfectly and operating together flawlessly to even get close to performing this task.

Logically, it would be impossible for random processes, operating through gradual mechanisms of natural selection and genetic mutation, to create 40 separate subsystems when they provide no advantage to the whole until the very last state of development and interrelation. 

How did the lens, retina, optic nerve, and all the other parts in vertebrates that play a role in seeing suddenly come about? Because  natural selection cannot choose separately between the visual nerve and the retina.

The emergence of the lens has no meaning in the absence of a retina. The simultaneous development of all the structures for sight is unavoidable. Since parts that develop separately cannot be used, they will both be meaningless, and also perhaps disappear with time. At the same time, their development all together requires the coming together of unimaginably small probabilities. 

https://answersingenesis.org/human-body/eyes/the-seeing-eye/

Think of how powerful this evidence is … that we carry in our heads!

Truth Connection: “The hearing ear and the seeing eye, the Lord has made them both,” (Prov. 20:12)

“I see the fruit that increases to your credit.”

One of my Philippians Podcasts; you can access these at this link.

Philippians Podcasts #17

(Warren E. Berkley)

Phil. 4:14-17

Posted Sept.4

14 Yet it was kind of you to share my trouble. 15 And you Philippians yourselves know that in the beginning of the gospel, when I left Macedonia, no church entered into partnership with me in giving and receiving, except you only. 16 Even in Thessalonica you sent me help for my needs once and again. 17 Not that I seek the gift, but I seek the fruit that increases to your credit.

Recipients of kindness should express their gratitude. If you don’t want to be perceived in the image of a beggar or mooch – when someone is generous to you, express your sincere gratitude. Make certain they know how much you appreciate the gift.

The local church in Philippi had been long-term supporters of Paul, to the full extent of their ability. He couldn’t say enough about their kindness.

The support of the church at Philippi to Paul, had been singular!

“No church” entered into partnership with him except Philippi. Clearly, this was not a case where churches funneled money through the church at Philippi (common today: the sponsoring church arrangement). Paul was overjoyed to receive from the generosity and selfless dedication of the Christians in Philippi.

Even when Paul was in Thessalonica (and not having a pleasant experience), the Christians in Philippi came to his aid, “once and again.”

And, for the sake of clarity, Paul stresses: “Not that I seek the gift, but I seek the fruit that increases to your credit.”

Paul’s interest in and his commendation of their generosity was not simply that he wanted support. No. It was his interests in the blessings they received from their giving. Generosity helps the giver as much or more than the recipient.

Application: Churches today with the ability should carefully consider faithful men who preach the gospel and their needs. Faithful men who receive such support ought to be thankful to God, there are people making sacrifices for their need.

Christ and Critical Theory, by David King

CHRIST AND CRITICAL THEORY

by David King (via Facebook)

A nation collapses not because of politics or economics or military weakness, but because of philosophy–specifically, how its citizens choose to process information and make decisions, especially in their relations with each other. Historically our nation was founded on a Judeo-Christian view of reality. Over the last century or so, that foundation has been weakened by a series of philosophical challengers: first, modernism; then post-modernism; and now the newest academic fad, critical theory.

Critical theory seeks to “critique” all existing institutions and structures for hidden flaws and weaknesses, thus exposing the injustices that must be corrected. That sounds noble, but in all its various manifestations (critical social justice theory, critical gender theory, critical race theory, etc.), this philosophy is in direct conflict with a Biblical worldview.

All versions of critical theory share four key components:

– Human identity is defined exclusively by group affiliation rather than individual character. It is stereotyping on steroids, labeling everyone solely by their group connections.

– All interactions are viewed only in terms of power. Every difference and disagreement among groups is seen as a struggle in which only one side (i.e., one group) can emerge victorious. It is inherently divisive and chaotic.

– Belonging to a marginalized group bestows victim status on every member of that group. The more oppressed groups I belong to, the higher my “victim” status–and my “oppressors” need to confess their sin and pay up.

– The highest virtue is to achieve a state of “wokeness,” a condition where an individual is “awakened” to all these hidden imbalances and oppressions that lurk in every corner of society, and signs on to the struggle to eradicate them. Only the “woke” person is on the side of the good and right.

All four of these elements are antithetical to the spirit of Christianity. The Bible teaches that:

– God judges us as individuals, not groups. I am responsible for my own behavior, not others (Rom. 14:12).

– Differences are inevitable, but people with good hearts learn to live together in harmony and mutual respect (Rom. 12:18).

– Whatever our victim status, the mature way to respond to mistreatment is to rise above it with patience and forgiveness (1 Pet. 2:19-20).

– The highest virtue is love, a policy of unconditional kindness toward all…just as God has loved us (Col. 3:12-14).

Like all man-made philosophies, critical theory will someday burn out and fade away, leaving a lot of wreckage in its wake. Our job as the people of God in the current crisis is to continue to hold forth His Son as the beacon of light the world needs to find healing.

–David King

 

God’s Distinction (3 of 3)

planet earth close up photo
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

God’s Distinction: “male and female He created them.” Because of the systematic working of error in our culture, we have to talk about things we thought we would never have to bring up. I had no idea in my earlier years I would be addressing this peculiarity of our culture: the blending and blurring of gender differences! That distinction God built into nature is today denied, re-defined and perverted, to accommodate the culture (and ultimately, the perverse desires of individuals serving their own lusts). This is where we are in the culture of the 2000’s.

Sometimes we become aware of men who want to be women, and women who want to be men! There is such a powerful movement, rushing and running away from traditional “gender stereotypes” and roles. According to some who are given their voice by the media, it is no longer good to let the little girls play with dolls and let the little boys have trucks and learn to throw a ball. There is an agenda (subtle in some cases, but bold in others) and the purpose is to deny, confuse and blend the sexes.

Before the Bible is ever opened, the uniqueness of male and female is evidenced in nature. Men and women are different, and that is objectively discernable. Once you get away from the “softer sciences,” the evidence joins Biblical truth to confirm the obvious. There are differences in metabolism rate; in skeletal structure; in the circulatory system and certainly in the reproductive system. Forensic scientists can detect the differences between male and female years after the body and spirit have parted! In addition to biological differences, there are social, emotional and psychological differences – about which there was no debate, before the current gender neutral movement (sometimes called “unisex.”). {For an excellent study of these issues, see Florida College Annual Lectures, 1995 – In His Image: Male and Female In Nature, by Wayne T. Galloway, p.#151}.

Biblically, here is the case: “And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” God created man, in His own image, and the distinction is God’s: male and female. Sexual differentiation was not a result of social evolution; it was explicit in divine creation. The suitable partner for man was a woman (Gen. 2:18)!

Romans chapter one is describing the behaviors of a people who have forsaken God. This has always been the context of Romans 1 (long before current discussions that confuse the genders).

“For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.” (Rom. 1:26,27).

Paul uses the terms “natural” and “unnatural,” reflecting what is explicitly written in Genesis 1:27 – male and female. When men or women choose to ignore the gender distinction God ordained, they go against God, against nature, corrupt themselves, produce victims, contribute to the decay of their society and work against the purposes of Almighty God. And every work against the purposes of God will be defeated.

“We ought not fear the differences between men and women, rather we should fear a loss of that distinction. Does not nature itself teach us that men and women are different? And in agreement with these natural differences and building on them, the Scriptures clearly teach the proper role for men and women. These innate differences and these traditional gender roles have been so fundamental to mankind’s progress and happiness that we may have taken for granted their importance. But if we lose these distinctions it will be painfully clear how important they are.” (Thaxter Dickey, “Male and Female Created He Them” in the book, “A Tribute To Melvin Curry,” p.#87).

Conclusion:

The book of Genesis must continue to inform our faith. Do not be intimidated by any modern efforts to confuse or merge human science with divine revelation. In these early chapters of Genesis, there is truth given in simple terms, for us to digest and act upon today. If you think you have “grown” beyond the book of Genesis, you have deceived yourself and you have confused growth with apostasy.

Helpful Resources:

“In His Image,” The Implications of Creation; FC Annual Lectures, 1995.

“A Tribute To Melvin Curry,” see page #71: “Male and Female Created He Them” by Thaxter Dickey

God’s Image (2 of 3 parts)

planet earth close up photo
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

God’s Image: “God created man in His own image.” This word “image” in common discourse is suggestive of something visual. A camera captures an image, for looking; for observation with the physical eye. Pictures or graphics in computer format are often called “images.” So the word is often used for something visual; something that becomes the object of sight. Not in Genesis 1:27.

In dealing with the word in this context, we must move beyond simple visual similarity. This “image” is real, but not necessarily or primarily visual. The word “image” in Gen. 1:27 means “likeness, resemblance.” The previous verse reports God’s declaration: “Let us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness.”

We were made like God; according to His likeness. Now this cannot be understood as duplication; we are not clones of Deity (see Deut. 4:35). We are like God; we are not God. He made us in His image. We must not attempt to make Him in our image.

Of all God made, He made man unique, like Him. We have the capacity to think, to make choices, to love – unlike plants and animals. We can be good; we can choose good character, do good things, be good people. God never said to a tree, rock or insect, “Be holy, for I am holy,” but He says that to us, according to 1 Pet. 1:16. We were made in the image of God.

Sin stifles that resemblance, “defacing” the image of God. Sin keeps us from personally realizing the full extent of our resemblance to God and living in fellowship with Him. But in your response to Christ, sin is forgiven. And in your continued life of response to Christ, sin is conquered. This was the basis of what Paul said to the saints in Colossae. They had “put on the new self, who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him.” Romans 8:29 defines this process in these terms: “for whom he foreknew, He also predestined (to become) conformed to the image of His Son.” We were created by God, made in His image. Through the choice to sin, we fall into the bondage and guilt of sin (defacing the image). But in obeying the gospel, we are renewed and conformed to the image of His Son.

Tomorrow, God’s Distinction