Pesky Details: Essays for "Left Brain" Christians

  Chapter 20 of Deuteronomy established the rules of warfare. According to the Law of Moses, the ancient Israelites were not allowed to cut down any trees that produced food and use them to erect siege works during times of war. Verse 20:

  You may destroy only the trees that you know do not produce food; you may cut them down for use in building siege works against the town that makes war with you, until it falls.

  Note that even to gain strategic advantages during war, God did not allow the people to remove food bearing trees. They could use other trees to help besiege a town that made war with them, but even that activity must cease once the town fell. The conservation of some renewable natural resources for future use was therefore deemed by God to be important in ancient Israel.

  The Law of Moses also addressed the taking of a wildlife surplus and the protection of the reproductive segments of wild bird populations. Deuteronomy 22:6-7 allowed the Hebrews to take wild baby birds and eggs from nests but prohibited the take of the incubating adult. Because birds that lose eggs/young often nest again the same year and nest in following years, this prohibition provided a controlled harvest and the long-term protection of wild bird populations.

  God Prohibited "Clean Farming"

  "Clean farming" is the practice of cultivating and harvesting as much of the land as is physically possible. "Clean farming" is a common practice on large corporate farms where farmers bring into cultivation all lands that have potential to produce crops. Under clean farming practices, farmers frequently reclaim wetlands and wooded areas along field boundaries to maximize harvest and profits. Such practices often destroy valuable habitats needed by waterfowl and other wildlife.

  "Clean farming" is a euphemism that suggests moral action against social depravity because the other alternative is "dirty farming" and associated wastefulness. Oddly enough the law of God in Leviticus 19:9 decreed a measure of "dirty" farming or at least, inefficient harvesting and wastefulness by the "tenants and aliens" on God's land:

  When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very edges of your field, or gather the gleanings of your harvest. You shall not strip your vineyard bare, or gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the alien; I am the Lord your God.

  It is obvious that in ancient Israel, cleanliness was not "next to godliness." Godliness not only allowed but required an element of inefficient farming/harvesting in ancient Israel. That is the biblical vision for farming. Such inefficient harvesting not only benefited the "poor and the alien" but also provided food and cover for wildlife species.

  Of course, the "poor and the alien" could only glean produce from the fields if they were allowed access to those fields. Obviously, the public had access to God's land regardless of who "owned" the fields. Again, we see Americanized concepts of private property rights out of sync with the old biblical laws and regulations.

  After a thousand years of practice, the old Mosaic laws that prohibited "clean farming" and allowed trespass on privately owned fields were still in use in the times of Jesus. Matthew 12:1-2 says:

  At that time Jesus went through the grain fields on the Sabbath; his disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. When the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, "Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.

  Note that the Pharisees, who were anxious to catch Jesus breaking Jewish laws and traditions, did not chide him for trespass or stealing grain but condemned him for harvesting grain on the wrong day of the week.

  Heavenly Earth

  In his suffering, Job realized that God will care for mankind on the heavenly earth. Job 5: 22-23 explains that under God's administration, mankind will experience completeness and harmony with the earth:

  At destruction and famine you shall laugh, and shall not fear the wild animals of the earth. For you shall be in league with the stones of the field, and the wild animals shall be at peace with you.

  As a result of God's care, man need not fear destruction or famine or wild animals because man will be in harmony with the earth and the animals. Note that one does not obtain harmony and peace by controlling the earth or eliminating species of animals. Rather, God's intervention leads to a kind of Messianic Age on the earth where there is peace and harmony between mankind and nature. Back to Eden.

  The book of Isaiah has a lot to say about the Jewish Messiah and the Messianic age. Isaiah 40:3-5 describes the forerunner who will announce and prepare the way for Messiah and Isaiah 50:4-9 predicts Messiah's Gethsemane experience (see Matthew 26:36-46). Isaiah 53 describes Messiah's sufferings in graphic detail and Isaiah 7:14 states that a virgin will give birth to Messiah.

  Isaiah 7:21-25 appears to describe the Messianic Age after Messiah returns to Jerusalem. Human populations will be below the carrying capacity of the land and persons that remain on the land will live well with:

  ...a young cow and two sheep, and will eat curds because of the abundance of milk that they give; for everyone that is left in the land shall eat curds and honey.

  In this agrarian age, the relatively low human population will thrive while briars and thorns reclaim formally cultivated fields. The vegetated fields and hills will be used for livestock grazing and people will enter these areas reclaimed from cultivation "with bow and arrows" for protection of livestock and/or to hunt. The remnant of people left will be people of the land (Isaiah 7:23-25).

  Isaiah 41:17-20 describes what may be a reference to the Messianic Age. But whether these passages refer to that time period or not, they do assure Israel that the future holds hope for good times. Increased moisture conditions are to prevail in the future:

  I will open rivers on the bare heights, and fountains in the midst of the valleys; I will make the wilderness a pool of water and the dry land springs of water. I will put in the wilderness the cedar, the acacia, the myrtle, and the olive; I will set in the desert the cypress, the plane and the pine together, so that all may see and know, all may consider and understand that the hand of the Lord has done this, the Holy One of Israel has created it.

  The "plane" tree is the sycamore. This genus in the southwest United States grows in rocky areas along creeks and rivers with significant subterranean moisture. The only places I have seen sycamore trees and pine species growing together are in riparian corridors. These observations suggest Isaiah predicted a future Israel with annual precipitation of around 18 - 30 inches, increased subterranean moisture, and riparian corridors.

  Another promise of increased moisture and wetlands for Israel follow Messianic intervention on the earth (Isaiah 35:4-10). Isaiah 35:4 -6a describes the kinds of miracles that Jesus performed:

  Here is your God... He will come and save you... Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped; then the lame shall leap like a deer, and the tongue of the speechless sing for joy.

  It is biblical to view wetlands as a blessing in the reign of Messiah. Verses 6b - 10 in Isaiah 35 verify the blessings and intent of God's intervention - to provide abundant moisture and wetlands:

  For waters shall break forth in the wilderness and streams in the desert; the burning sand shall become a pool, and the thirsty ground springs of water; the haunt of jackals shall become a swamp, the grass shall become reeds and rushes.

  Ezekiel 47 describes another idealistic vision of "heaven on earth". It may well be a picture of the time when Messiah rules out of Jerusalem. God shows Ezekiel a spring that runs out of the Temple and flows southeast toward a body of saltwater, the Mediterranean Sea. Verse 7 notes that the river goes down "into the Arabah" and that its banks are lined with a lot of trees. The "Arabah" is the wadi or wash that follows the Jordan Rift Valley from the Sea of Galilee to the Dead Sea and on to the Gulf of Agaba and the Red Sea. It is biblical to think of a riparian corridor as a blessing from God.

  Concerning the productivity of this new river, Ezekiel 47:12 and 9-10, respectively, state:

  On the b
anks, on both sides of the river, there will grow all kinds of trees for food. Their leaves will not wither nor their fruit fail, but they will bear fresh fruit every month, because the water for them flows from the sanctuary. Their fruit will be for food, and their leaves for healing.

  Wherever the river goes, every living creature that swarms will live, and there will be very many fish... People will stand fishing beside the sea from En-gedi to En-eglaim; it will be a place for the spreading of nets; its fish will be of a great many kinds, like the fish of the Great Sea.

  We observe that God's intent will be to create a new river and riparian corridor and to bless Israel with an abundance of fishing opportunity and high diversity of fish species. It is biblical to think of riparian corridors and high diversity of fish species as important blessings from God. But what constitutes good urban planning on the heavenly earth?

  New Jerusalem will be the administrative capital of heaven on earth. The Messiah will reign from the newly constructed temple in the inner city (Ezekiel 48:35b). The inner city will cover around 1.8 square miles or 1,150 acres (Ezekiel 48:17-18). An exurban area of open space and scattered homes, covering some 11 square miles (7,000+ acres) will encompass the inner city (Ezekiel 48:15). Thus, we see God will provide open space and green belts for the enjoyment and use by future urban and exurban dwellers of New Jerusalem.

  Earthly Heaven

  Will we see "Fido" and "Puff" again; that is, will we see our pets in heaven? What I commonly heard when I was a child growing up in a Christian home was that animals do not have "souls" and that they therefore do not go to heaven. I did not hear this at home but at church. I loved my pets, which were varied and numerous, and felt sad when they died because I suspected that I would not be able to relate to them ever again as individuals. And, for the most part, that is how I related to them on this planet, not only as representatives of their class but as individuals.

  My pets and those I shared with my two siblings included a raccoon, two ring-tailed cats, a fox squirrel, a series of opossums, armadillos, a pony, a goat, a sea gull, a Harris hawk, red-tailed hawk, an alligator, hamsters, and hunting and cur dogs, house cats, wild and domestic rabbits and hares, bantam chickens, ducks, and numerous wild and domestic fishes. Some of these animals were beautiful and/or affectionate. They all fascinated me and I loved them all, some more than others. I questioned the idea that they did not have "souls" and therefore simply disappeared when they died.

  As I grew older and attended the public schools, a wonderful thing happened - I learned to read. When I read the Bible, I noted some things that conflicted with what I sometimes heard at my church. Because I loved nature, some of the scripture I read fascinated me. For example, John 1:1-4 said that Messiah was the representative of God and was God who created the physical universe. Likewise, Colossians 1:15-16 revealed that Messiah was God's agent of creation:

  He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created...all things have been created through him and for him.

  This idea shed a new light on who Jesus is and on his power and on his interests. Messiah was no longer the figure with the big Italian eyes looking up toward the heavenly and spiritual heaven in the heavenly skies. He was, rather, the God who personally put together the biological information and cellular complexity that produced and continued to produce armadillos and insects and prickly pears and cottonwood trees. He personally planned and put together all those parts of nature that fascinated me and that I personally loved.

  In addition, all things created were created "for him," which said that the purpose of creation was to please Messiah. Therefore, the purpose of created things is to give great pleasure to the Creator. The same things that fascinate Messiah, fascinate me. Thus, in a particular sense, I was made in his image.

  I further noted in the scripture, in Romans 8:19-23 in particular:

  For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of glory of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labor pains until now; and not only creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies.

  Indeed, that will be a heaven worth waiting for! It will be tactile and will include a sense of the physical that is real to us now. It will be familiar because heaven will include nature as we know it on earth, only it will be in perfect harmony and we will occupy redeemed bodies to enjoy and love it. Will "Fido" and "Puff" be there as individuals? I do not know but my hypothesis is that they or representatives of them will be.

  One wonders why so much of the Christian community fails to emphasize the importance of nature to God. I suggest that we fail to do so because we believe that God is not great or big enough to love us and the other parts of his creation at the same time. We are jealous of God's having ever had any other loves or interests beyond us. Also, I suggest that we ignore some aspects of God's character because we want to justify the unsustainable use and abuse of natural resources for short term, personal gain. Such ideas are not biblical.

  Literature Cited

  Anonymous. 1993. Webster's encyclopedic unabridged dictionary of the English language. Gramercy Books. New York. 2230 pp.

  Holy Bible, New Revised Standard Version. Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1989. Grand Rapids, MI. 1085 pp.

  Rohde, D. L., S. Olson, and J.T. Chang. 2004. Modelling the recent common ancestry of all living humans. Nature. 431(7008): 562-566.

  Stanley, S.M. 1998. Macro-evolution. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, MD. 332 pp.

  Strobel, L. 2004. The case for a creator. Zondervan. Grand Rapids, MI. 341 pp.

  The Nature of Belief

  In this essay, we will briefly compare philosophical materialist (see Definitions/Notes at the end of this essay) assumptions and faith. We will note that sound science is neutral toward religious or philosophical convictions and toward scientific assumptions about the nature of the physical world. We will see that the materialist assumptions that free will is an illusion and that God does not exist are often based on faith and illogic and that palpable individual experience often underlies religious belief. We will see that, in effect, everyone lives by a measure of faith and often by willful distortion or spin of evidence. The just live by faith and the philosophical materialists live by faith in assumption.

  Comparison of Faith and Assumption

  Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary (Anonymous 1993) has nine definitions for "faith". The first definition for faith is "confidence or trust in a person or thing." Other definitions address beliefs in God, in systems of ethics and doctrines, and beliefs without proof. Certainly, the materialist philosophy that assumes there is no God and that free will is an illusion, falls within the realm of faith or assumptions that lack proof.

  Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary (1993) has seven definitions for the word "assumption". The first definition for "assumption" is "something taken for granted; a supposition." The second definition is "the act of taking for granted or supposing" and the rest of the definitions deal with the assumption of the Virgin Mary, arrogance and presumption, the assumption of power, etc. Thus, when we compare first uses of the words "faith" and "assumption," we find difficulty in telling the difference between the two.

  Faith

  In the early 19th century, Emanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason effectively changed the direction of philosophical thought from faith in reason to formation of ideological models of "reality." Kant created a black hole in the foundation of materialist beliefs. Gone forever were the basic assumptions of materialist faith that nothing exists beyond what we can sense and measure or explain with mathematical applications. Gone was the faith that everyt
hing that exists can be measured and explained and that free will is an illusion. See Addendum at the end of this book for more on Kant's logic and an example of faulty assumptions based on cause-effect observations.

  Notwithstanding Kant's difficult-to-decipher use of language, intellectual leaders across the globe recognized and acknowledged that his logic and conclusions were/are irrefutable. The people who disagreed with Kant's conclusions because they did not like them had only one choice: be illogical and cling to the old assumptions. Pre-Kantian dogmatism still hangs on today in the assumptions and beliefs and writings of certain philosophical materialists, some of which are scientists and educators. It is an interesting faith representing an old, illogical metaphysic.

  Others who still wanted to express their intelligent ideas on how things were, assumed Kant to be correct and used his logic as a springboard to launch their own various concocted +worldviews to set the "true" and best courses for the individual and/or society as a whole to pursue. Philosophical thought moved from the idea that reason and science can explain everything to ideological explanations for the meaning of life. The latter philosophers included Fichte, Schopenhauer, Comte, Mill, Marx, Nietzsche, and Kierkegaard (Aiken 1963). From their writings emerged ideas that affected hundreds of millions of persons as names were provided political persuasions: communism, national socialism; pragmatism and democracy. Of course, logical positivism and philosophical materialism were still in the mix; but only as the few in a crowd of wannabe solutions.

  So that I will not be thought/caught simply as a name-dropper, I wish to say a bit more about the last fellow mentioned, Soren Kierkegaard. Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) was the father of existentialism. Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) was the existentialist who left God out of his worldview and in lieu of God, substituted the "superman" or "ubermensch" of humanism. Nietzsche proposed, like Plato, that the intellectual giants in society were the ones who should rule the world. By contrast, Kierkegaard's existentialism was at its roots, Christian.

  Kierkegaard reasoned that, as per Kant, reason and science and math often have practical application but are no longer complete guides in the realm of personal experience/reality. They are simply tools one uses in life. He argued that ultimately, the only truth one could be sure of is personal, subjective experience. Thus, if one experiences God in one's life; no one can logically argue with that experience. Others may argue that they do not experience God, but they cannot argue with the personal experience of Soren Kierkegaard. The logic is infallible:

  ...for existence itself is fantastic, and can only be reached subjectively by the paradoxes of inner reflection and self-consciousness (Aiken 1963).

  Christianity has embraced the existential, personal relationship with God through Christ for 2,000 years. Christians often express this personal experience with God as "being born of the Spirit" (John 3). Thus, faith is not blind faith but relationship based on personal experience.

  Materialist Assumptions at the Crossroads

  Prior to Einstein, we assumed Newton's laws to be infallible. In fact, the application of Newtonian physics gave birth to the Industrial Revolution. Subsequently, Einstein's laws of relativity invalidated Newton's laws in some ways or at least rendered them inadequate (D'souza 2007). Newtonian physicists slowly gave up their assumptions about Newton's laws because the mathematical evidence for error was overwhelming. In addition, Einstein's theories did not threaten basic materialist assumptions about the origin of the material universe.

  By contrast, paleontological studies, "Big Bang" explanations, the fine tuning of the universe, evidence of biochemical complexity, and inexplicable origins of biological information continue to challenge materialist assumptions about the origin of the universe and of the life it supports (Strobel 2004)

  Insofar as evolutionary theory is concerned, the general pattern for the appearance of new species is that species, as per the geological record, appear and disappear abruptly without evidence of intermediate steps (Johnson, 1998). In addition, species morphology, with the exception of some species changing in size, remains unchanged for the life of the species (Stanley 1998). Mammalian species typically exist for a million or two million years and those species show no morphological change, with the exception mentioned above. Thus, the fossil evidence shows that over the life of the species, natural selection had no power to change the bone structure of species. The only assumptions left from the Darwinian gradualism model for the origin of species is that species give rise to other species and the process is strictly a natural process without involvement of God or intelligent design. The latter assumption is a matter of faith/assumption held with religious tenacity by all those who cling to the hope that there is no God, or if he does exist, that he got things started, quickly lost interest and went away.

  The "Big Bang" explanation for the origin of the universe has proven an embarrassment to many philosophical materialists. Cosmologists currently conclude that the universe had a beginning and developed from a point, which by definition has no dimensions. That is, the universe developed from nothing. This explanation harmonizes with the biblical view that intelligence created the universe from nothing.

  Another cosmological bane to materialism was the discovery that the physical constants necessary for life to exist in the universe; e.g., the strong nuclear force, the gravitational constant, Planck's constant, the ratio of neutron mass to the proton mass, the exact magnitude of the black hole Sagittarius A in our Milky Way galaxy, and the expansion rate of the universe are finely coordinated in a specified, highly calibrated manner required for life to exist. Cosmologists have designated this fine-tuning enigma the "Anthropic Principle" or "Weak Anthropic Principle." The probability that all those fine-tuned physical constants and resultant conditions appeared by fortuitous chance and/or physicochemical necessity is "infinitely" small. Thus, given the competing hypotheses and our personal experiences of the willful action of the human mind, the assertion that Mind arranged it all is a reasonable abduction.

  To hold on to the wholly materialist view, some cosmologists hypothesized that there must be a near-infinity of other universes out there somewhere with a near-infinity of different sets of physical constants. We in our universe just happen to be, well, lucky...beyond belief. Unfortunately, if there are other universes out there, there is no evidence for any of them nor will there ever be because they are and will remain beyond observability (Ellis 2011). The existence of other universes is not, in the scientific sense, a hypothesis because there is no way to test it; to disprove it. Of course, neither can one disprove the existence of God. Perhaps the multiverse hope falls into the realm of religious hope?

  For detailed accounts of the irreducible complexity of the biochemical world and the enigma of information in the cell, read Behe (1996) and Meyer (2009). If you search the scientific literature on evolution, and if you focus your search on how molecular machines developed or on the evolution of information in macromolecules, you will find silence.

  Indeed, intelligent design is apparent in the origin of information in the cell. The chance of 150 amino acids lining themselves up to produce a "simple" short functional protein by chance are one in 1074. Steven Meyer (2009:219) further observed:

  ...of course, the odds of producing the suite of proteins necessary to service a minimally complex cell by chance alone are almost unimaginably smaller. Indeed, the improbability of that event - calculated conservatively...at 1 chance in 1041,000 - completely dwarfs the probabilistic resources of the whole universe.

  For an effective critique of the hypothesis for cellular "self-organization and biochemical predestination," see Meyer (2009: 229-252). Like the probabilities arising by chance, physicochemical necessity is unable to account for the origin of life.

  At present and in the future, thoughtful students with less personal investment in the materialist philosophy, will find their old professors' faith in materialism questionable. However, the picture these enlightened students will form of the
Mind behind our existence remains to be seen, for humanism is arrogant and jealous of its own right to power and position. The image of an absentee and/or evil God is likely to emerge.

  Definitions/Notes

  Abduction: A process of reasoning that attempts to select the best among competing hypotheses to explain extant evidences of past events, based on known processes. Historical scientists in the fields of geology, evolutionary biology, paleontology, cosmology, archeology, and forensic science study existing evidence, processes, and conditions to select the best hypotheses among competing explanations, to hypothesize about past events and conditions. The goal of abduction, unlike experimental science, is to explain past events, not to derive natural laws that have predictive value.

  Deduction: A process of reasoning from the general to the specific. The logician holds a particular fact to be generally accepted as true. Given the first fact or premise as true, the resultant premise or subclass of the first premise must also be true. For example: "All mammals have hair; humans are mammals; therefore humans have hair." If the first two premises are held to be true, the deduced conclusion must also be true. The format of the argument just illustrated is known as a syllogism.

  Existentialism: A philosophical belief that subjective, personal experience is the test for reality and meaning in life. The world of logic and reason and science are only tools one uses to help make meaningful decisions at the personal level.

  Humanism: A secular belief that man, as a social being, shall determine all values and meaning for the human race. As the Greek Protagoras (490 BC - 420 BC) observed: "Man is the measure of all things."

  Logical positivism: The purpose of this belief was to substitute a universal language, based on verifiable scientific findings, in the place of all words in all languages. Every word in the new language was to be a symbol of sensory experience, mathematically verified. Any words that symbolize unverifiable concepts were to be replaced because they are unscientific and therefore meaningless. Logical positivism was an example of applied philosophical materialism.

  Philosophical materialism/materialism: The belief/assumption that the arrangement and interactions of basic "particles" (detections of "excitations" or "ripples" in a force field, which "fills space like an invisible liquid" [Kuhlmann 2013]) determine all existence/events. Because the arrangements and interactions of tiny particles fully determine all existence, free will is an illusion. Because there is no free will, nor spirit, nor mind, God does not exist.

  Literature Cited

  Aiken, H.D. 1963. The age of ideology. The New American Library of World Literature, Inc. New York. 283 pp.

  Anonymous. 1993. Webster's encyclopedic unabridged dictionary of the English language. Gramercy Books. New York. 2230 pp.

  Behe, M.J. 1996. Darwin's black box. Touchstone. New York. 307 pp.

  D'souza, D. 2007. What's so great about Christianity. Regnery Publishing, Inc. Washington, D.C. 348 pp.

  Ellis, G.F.R. 2011. Does the multiverse really exist? Scientific American. 305(2):38-43.

  Johnson, P.E. 1998. Darwin on trial. Inter Varsity Press. Downers Grove, Illinois. 220 pp.

  Kuhlmann, K. 2013. What is real? Scientific American. 309(2): 40-47.

  Meyer, S.C. 2009. Signature in the cell: DNA and the evidence for intelligent design. HarperCollins Publishers. New York. 611 pp.

  Stanley, S.M. 1998. Macro-evolution. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, Maryland. 332 pp.

  The Selfishness of Virtue?

  The purpose of this essay is to analyze what scientific observation and philosophical materialism have to say about why people help or cooperate with each other. We will then compare those materialist views/observations/assumptions with the Judeo-Christian view as presented in the Bible. Are we just selfish brutes as suggested by the philosophical materialists and some scientific observations? Or is there reason to support the existence of an absolute ethic, in which people can choose to participate? If so, where did that ethic come from? Can there be any right or wrong action without an absolute standard?

  We discussed some obvious problems with the application of materialist views in the essay The Nature of Belief above. In this essay we will look at additional logical problems with the basic assumptions of philosophical materialism; in particular, the problem of ethics.

  Logical Problems of Philosophical Materialism

  According to the philosophical materialist, free will is an illusion because the arrangement of and interactions of tiny "particles" fully determine all existence/events. The physicochemical composition of the observer determines his/her conclusions, not a priori, patterns of logic. Thus, given materialist assumptions, the materialist philosophy at the start logically invalidates itself. That is, philosophical materialism is, logically, an illogical belief. In the philosophical materialist view, the only realities are matter or energy, things man can measure, evaluate, and repeatedly verify. Thus, nothing exists if man, who has no free will to/but to evaluate alternatives, is unable to quantify it.

  Without free will, there is no valid basis for ethics. This is not to say that philosophical materialists do not have ethics because most of them believe, contrary to their personal philosophy, that there are things people ought and ought not to do. But philosophical materialists, notwithstanding what they by their actions espouse, mentally assert that the physical conditions of a person totally determine that individual's every thought and action. Therefore neither good nor evil exists and the judicial system is a determined farce. The philosophical materialist believes he/she has no choice but to believe everything that he/she advocates or believes.

  Because computer-like arrangements of parts not only determine but also comprise every thought, self-awareness is nothing more than the interaction of small particles. Thus, if mankind builds a computer with enough power, the machine with all its programmed reactions will become a sentient, self-aware being like a person. This is the case because man has no mind but only a brain that functions like a determined machine. Notwithstanding the obvious and often inexplicable origins and complexities of biological life, life and the inanimate world are nothing more than the arrangements of tiny particles and the interactions of those particles. If you pitched a large book of the complete works of Shakespeare upon the beach, the philosophical materialist would conclude that there was no difference between the ripples in the sand or the ink and paper that comprise the book and the ideas in the book. Ideas/information and ripples in the sand and paper and ink merely reflect the mechanically determined arrangements and interactions of the same small particles, the same stuff.

  In addition, the philosophical materialist believes all existence is measurable and repeatedly verifiable. Thus, the existence of everything depends upon the ability of the researcher to observe and measure it and or the capacity of equipment to record all new forms of reality.

  Ironically, the role of sound science is to obtain reliable information. However, philosophical materialism is unable to encompass the concept of ideas, the mysterious stuff that comprises information. The philosophical materialists have, in a word, been unable to delve below the concept of symbol to reveal the maybe, perhaps "info-particle".

  The Role of Information

  As noted by Meyer (2009:15), information, which originates from thought/intelligence:

  ...doesn't have mass or charge or length in millimeters... A blank magnetic tape, for example, weighs just as much as one 'loaded' with new software - or with the entire sequence of the human genome.

  Thus, the something that information is, is in a domain separate from matter or energy. The philosophical materialists must therefore assume that information comprises small particles that have no mass nor energy and therefore are not composed of bosons (particles with mass) nor fermions (particles with energy). As noted above, perhaps philosophical materialists will posit the existence of a new particle, the info-particle that requires a new mechanical dimension? Throw it into the dimension gap. Or compulsively ignore
it. If it isn't energy or matter, it doesn't matter. Information is no exception.

  Thus, until the philosophical materialist finds the info-particle, which has neither mass nor charge, he/she must conclude that information is non-existent. Never mind the fact that the chief goal of sound science is the pursuit of and validation of factual information. For the sake of reason, let's skip the contradictory fanaticism of philosophical materialism for now and talk about methodological materialism.

  Methodological Materialism

  Approximately half of American scientists are theists and therefore not philosophical materialists but methodological materialists. The methodological materialist believes that we should follow scientific investigations as far as they can take us. After all, we observe that much of the physicochemical world runs on dependable and observable cause-effect relationships. The more we know, the better prepared we are to face future events and to willfully steer them in ways that support our values. In addition, under the umbrella of methodological materialism, we do not experience the contradictory need to swallow the illogical conditions tied to the metaphysic of philosophical materialism; for example, denial of logical operations, validity of information, and ethical behavior. In fact, all philosophical materialists are in practice and actions methodological materialists. How else would one speak with authority, believing his/her words were merely random or determined responses to his/her physicochemical composition? Thus, we are all of "necessity" methodological materialists, regardless of metaphysical assumptions and orientation.

  Being a methodological materialist, I think it highly fortuitous to find that nature acts with considerable regularity. I love "facts" and on a regular basis run my beliefs through the sieve of my concepts of physical reality and reason. I trust sound science as far as it goes and logic and reason more than feelings. I recognize that philosophical materialism is a metaphysical belief that does not merit reasonable allegiance, notwithstanding the advocacy of National Geographic, Nature, The Smithsonian, and Scientific American.

  I think mind matters and matter and energy matter. I think reality is not just in my brain and that though I am real, there are probably realities beyond my conception of them. It would seem foolishly egocentric to think otherwise. I love the idea of using science and math to find out as much as possible about the universe and ourselves. But then, I am a theist, a biblical Christian theist, and a methodological materialist. I reason that I am logical, have varying degrees of choice, and that I am a reasonable human being, presently.

  In light of those thoughts, I want to compare scientific observations and philosophical materialist assumptions about the exercise of virtue with some biblical views on that same topic. I suggest the two views are often complementary, and that the former is simply incomplete or presumptuous. Science, though a fun enquiry/journey, can only go so far. In practice, we in our self-awareness know this.

  Philosophical Materialism Investigates "Virtue"

  As noted above, philosophical materialism is the belief that every event is the result of the determined arrangements of tiny particles/excitements in an invisible force field. Determined events include human consciousness and thought, which are not simply caused by arrangements of matter and energy but are particle arrangements and particle interactions. Some scientists are pure determinists/ physicalists/ reductionists. To these pure philosophical materialists, "virtue" is merely a display of selfish behavior in the context of the human community.

  Because, a person is virtuous only in relation to other persons or beings, a study of behavior in social contexts should uncover the roots of "good" and "bad" behavior. Recently, I read an article in Scientific American by Martin A. Nowak (2012) called Why We Help. In his article, Dr. Nowak summarized findings to date that explain from scientific studies why organisms in social contexts assist one another. Because of its clarity and research references, I selected Dr. Nowak's review and work to compare the scientific materialist and biblical views of virtue, or why we cooperate and help each other.

  Dr. Nowak, writing for Scientific American, approached the problem as a philosophical materialist. His assumption was that evolution through natural selection has programmed every organism, including mankind, to act in a fashion to assure the individual's survival or that of its genes in near relatives. Dr. Nowak's review and research included studies under categories of social interactions: direct reciprocity, indirect reciprocity, spacial selection, group selection, and kin selection. I will summarize the research and materialist assumptions and then compare those findings and assumptions with biblically relevant materials. My assumptions are that the research is correct, that materialist assumptions can be incorrect, and that the Bible is correct. From thesis to antithesis to synthesis. What a surprise it would be to find the two worldviews are not always antithetic but often complementary.

  Direct Reciprocity

  Dr. Nowak cited a study of interactions among vampire bats to illustrate direct reciprocity. Vampire bats return to the same roost every night and therefore associate with the same individuals repeatedly. Studies indicate that the bats are familiar with and recognize the other vampire bats at their roosts as individuals. If one vampire bat returns to the roost sated with a blood meal and another, who has not fed is at the roost, the latter will beg for food and the former will often regurgitate blood into the hungry bat's mouth. On future occasions, the previously generous bat, now hungry, is likely to receive a meal from the same bat it fed in the past. These vampire bats apparently know each other and remember who was good to them in the past. This behavior fits the concept of: "Scratch my back, and then, I'll scratch yours."

  Dr. Novak also programmed some computer simulations that indicated that the practice of direct reciprocity encourages "forgiveness" for occasional defection from the patterns of this social behavior. Dr. Novak stated that he had found evidence for the evolution of forgiveness, though his observation was that forgiveness within the spacial group can benefit the group. This kind of "forgiveness" over time enhanced the survival of group members. His computer simulations, programmed by himself and colleagues with what was assumed to be valid information, showed that "forgiveness" within the group was not selfless and therefore apparently not particularly virtuous.

  Critique/Summary

  Simply stated, organisms help and "forgive" others because others will help and forgive them in the future, enhancing the individual's and the group's likelihood of survival and successful reproduction.

  Indirect Reciprocity

  As noted above, direct reciprocity involves helping another individual who will remember you and your "righteous" deeds and will therefore reciprocate on your behalf in the future when you need help. In a similar manner, indirect reciprocity applies to helps by the group on behalf of the individual who previously assisted one or more members valued by the group. Among primates, other than mankind, indirect reciprocity pays higher dividends for helps given those with high status in the group.

  A particularly good investment in self-interest is to associate with and/or assist the noteworthy and powerful in the group. Nowak cited studies of Japanese macaques. Among these monkeys, low-ranking monkeys that groomed high-ranking members of the group increased the likelihood being groomed by others.

  Critique/Summary

  We are benevolent toward those in our group who are needy and toward our leaders and the rich and famous because such helps and associations can increase our status in society. Social status is perceived to be directly correlated with group protection/care and improved access to limited natural resources. Group protection and improved control of natural resources are perceived to increase the individual's likelihood of survival and successful reproduction.

  Spacial Selection

  This category of cooperation can appear among organisms that experience repeated interaction, normally because the individuals live in close proximity to one another. In the case of humans, spacial selection operates among persons or neighbors in the sa
me social network. Spacial selection is also observed among lower life forms that are close enough in location to interact.

  Among populations of yeast cells, clumps of cooperative cells develop. At a personal cost of energy, these clumps of cooperative yeast cells produce an enzyme used to digest sugar. Within the clump of cooperatives, the sharing of enzyme enhances survivability of the interactive clump. Adjacent to the cooperative clumps of yeast cells are defector yeast that use enzymes produced by the cooperatives without contributing to the cost of enzyme production. Though undisturbed clumps of cooperatives benefit, researchers found that the theft of enzymes by defector cells provided them a reproductive advantage in well-mixed populations of yeast cells.

  Critique/Summary

  The philosophical materialist assumption is that humans are like yeast cells.

  Group Selection

  Cooperation and sacrifice for the greater good improves the reproductive potential of the group. Nowak (2012) stated:

  Mathematical modeling by researchers, including me, however, has helped show that selection can operate at multiple levels, from individual genes to groups of related individuals to entire species.

  Critique/Summary

  The individual cooperates and assists others within the group (species) always to improve his/her ability to survive or successfully reproduce? Can "group selection" explain all cooperation among humans by noting that "people help people because they are people?" That idea is not new, but do we always help others because so doing insures our personal survival or reproductive success or is there in mankind a sense of right and wrong and a desire to be truly noble? Tying the word "selection" to the word "group" provides no measure of validity to materialist assumptions.

  Kin Selection

  Cooperation among genetically related individuals is the basis for kin selection. Individuals assist other individuals in direct proportion to the numbers of genes they have in common. The philosophical materialist believes that the principle reason for struggle is self-preservation and secondly for the survival of offspring. The "love" we feel is selfish and we cooperate with others to assure the survival of our genes in ourselves and to a proportionally reduced extent in our offspring and other near-kin.

  Critique

  Numerous actions question the generalized application of kin selection to the behavior of Homo sapiens; for example, anonymous self-sacrifice, self-sacrifice for unpopular values/causes, abortion of offspring, adoption of unrelated children, intermarriage among different races, guilt and self-loathing, and suicide.

  Tragedy of the Commons

  People face a dilemma in public goods games. Each member in the group benefits when all members cooperate. However, the individual who defects from the arrangement has the opportunity to increase his personal benefits, at least in the short term. In the case of using natural resources available to everyone, defectors benefit themselves but reduce the ability of basic resources to support their own needs and that of others in the future.

  Ecologist Garrett Hardin (1968) described the classic example of abuse of communal resources by defecting users. He called the abuse of communal resources "The Tragedy of the Commons". Hardin observed that livestock farmers who shared communal pastures inevitably overgrazed those shared lands instead of protecting them for future use.

  Education on the values of conservation and the wise use of natural resources can help some people change their views about defection for short-term, personal profits. In addition to the influences of education on personal decisions, Nowak noted that people were more likely to sacrifice short term, personal gains or defer gratification if others witnessed their expressions of generosity.

  Not of this World - the Judeo-Christian View

  Jesus said (John 18:36): "...My kingdom is not of this world..." He also stated that "God is love." Thus, the biblical view is that the God of love created the universe, that God's people will have values not of this world; that love and justice and an absolute ethic exist, and that these ideas ought to govern relationships among people. However, in the application of love, justice, and ethics, the Bible concurs with many of the findings of science.

  Direct and Indirect Reciprocity

  We note, for example, that the successful operations of both direct and indirect reciprocity require that the helper must be individually identified for reciprocation of assistance. However, the Bible states that gifts/helps must be given anonymously. Anonymous assistance negates the possible operation of direct and indirect reciprocity. Note scriptural citation below:

  Matthew 6:2-4: So whenever you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogue and in the streets, so that they may be praised by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your alms may be done in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

  The Bible also states that we must honor all members of the group equally regardless of their social status and associate with group members that have low status. That is, the Scripture assumes that favoring or helping others for the sake of reciprocation is wrong/sinful/hypocritical. Christians are to respect all people equally and therefore no benefits are gained by favoring those with status in society (see Indirect Reciprocity above). In a word, the Bible supports scientific findings that verify direct and indirect reciprocity. The Word tells us that we eliminate the possibility of reciprocal benefits to be ethical and to please God. See scriptural references below that undermine indirect reciprocity and thereby also confirm its validity.

  1 Corinthians 12: 22-23: On the contrary, the members of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and those members of the body that we think less honorable we clothe with greater honor, and our less respectable members are treated with greater respect; whereas our more respectable members do not need this.

  Romans 12:16: Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly...

  Spacial and Group Selection

  Studies by Gore et al. (2009) showed that spacially grouped yeast cells benefited themselves by sharing an enzyme that digests sugar. It is likely that self-interest also inspires humans who live in near proximity to cooperate with one another. Thus, though helping our nearby neighbors or others in our social network appears kindly, we may be no more ethical in so doing than a yeast cell.

  At a higher level, humans in a group may be inspired to cooperation or self-sacrifice for the group. The philosophical materialist concludes that people in a group or tribe or social network use teamwork to improve survivability and thereby the reproductive potential of group members.

  The studies of spacial selection appear to be in the realm of fact for yeast cells and speculations about self-interest tied to many human group functions are reasonable. In addition, the Bible supports the idea that selfishness and self-interests are tied to natural socialization processes that knit people together in human society. Scripture does not deny the values of self-preservation and socialization. On the other hand, Scripture goes well beyond group values and natural responses and demands a lot more of Christians.

  What actions would reach beyond the pale of the measurable, the expected, the natural: loving your enemy...and looking to the interests, survivability and reproductive advantages of those not in your group. The "enemy" of course, is the individual or group of individuals who compete for the same resources, who strive to reduce survivability and reproductive advantage of competing forces. Contrarily, Christians are to be not of that world:

  Matthew 5:44: But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven...

  Matthew 5:46-47: For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?

  Leviticus 19:33-34: When an alien resides with you i
n your land, you shall not oppress the alien. The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself...

  Kin Selection

  According to the Bible, God retained certain bloodlines (the genetics) of specific persons. God separated out, in particular, the genes of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to form the Hebrew nation. His repeated promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was that their offspring would be abundant and that through the Hebrew bloodline, all the nations of the world would be blessed:

  Genesis 12:1-2: Now the Lord said to Abram, "Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing."

  Genesis 22:17-18: I will indeed bless you, and I will make your offspring as numerous as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of their enemies, and by your offspring shall all the nations of the earth gain blessing for themselves, because you have obeyed my voice.

  Genesis 28:13-14: ...I am the Lord, the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac; the land on which you lie I will give to you and to your offspring; and your offspring shall be like the dust of the earth, and you shall spread abroad to the west and to the east and to the north and to the south; and all the families of the earth shall be blessed in you and in your offspring.

  Numerous modern day Jews interpret God's promise to mean that the contributions of Jewish inventers, scientists, educators, entertainers, and artists would enrich the lives of the species. By contrast, Christians believe God's promise heralded the coming of the Jewish Messiah, the spiritual savior of those who trust in him regardless of bloodlines or ethnicity.

  One wonders whether the Jews or the Christians are correct in their interpretations of the blessings brought to the species by God's kin selection for the Hebrew nation. Few would question the contributions made by the Jewish community over the years. In like fashion, few would question the contributions made by those who are not Jewish. For example, D'Souza (2007:97) provided:

  ...a partial list of leading scientists who were Christian: Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Brahe, Descartes, Boyle, Newton, Leibniz, Gassendi, Pascal, Mersenne, Cuvier, Harvey, Dalton, Faraday, Herschel, Joule, Lyell, Lasvoisier, Priestley, Kelvin, Ohm, Ampere, Steno, Pasteur, Maxwell, Planck, Mendel.

  Obviously, numerous national, ethnic, and religious groups have made and continue to provide creative leaps in the sciences and arts. It is therefore reasonable to believe that the coming of Emanuel (god with us) through the Hebrew nation was the planned blessing through Abraham's seed rather than cultural or scientific contributions made by members of any particular ethnic group. God's plan was to bless the world with himself; not with just television, health care, and the atomic bomb.

  God chose Abraham and his descendants to bless the world with himself because God trusted the character of Abraham. The philosophical materialist would say that God was loving his own genes in his offspring. However, because God is a spiritual being and has no DNA, it would appear that God loved particular people because they shared his values or had the potential to do so. God knew those specific individuals could and would fit into his plan to bless all the families of mankind. And, indeed, God did work through the Hebrew lineage to bless all mankind with himself, with Emmanuel, the Messiah:

  Isaiah 9:2: The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who lived in a land of deep darkness - on them light has shined.

  Isaiah 9:6: For a child has been born for us, a son given to us; authority rests upon his shoulders; and he is named Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

  Scripture is clear on the importance of shared spiritual values over the value of bloodlines. The following quotes provide additional support for the messianic purpose of the Hebrew nation:

  Isaiah 42:6: I am the Lord, I have called you in righteousness, I have taken you by the hand and kept you; I have given you as a covenant to the people, a light to the nations, to open the eyes that are blind, to bring out the prisoner from the dungeon, from the prison those who sit in darkness.

  Isaiah 11:10: On that day the root of Jesse shall stand as a signal to the peoples; the nations shall inquire of him, and his dwelling shall be glorious.

  Tragedy of the Commons

  Many who are Christian and politically on the right today embrace the exploitation of common resources for individual short-term profit. Most on the right support supply-side economics and deregulation of environmental laws now aimed at protecting the public's air, water, land, and wildlife, and ignore public needs for maintenance of infrastructure. All that negative feeling revolves around the rights of the individual to pursue property, personal happiness and freedom without responsibilities toward society and governing authority. In a word, nature is good only insofar as its exploitation provides immediate benefits for those individuals who stand to benefit most in the present.

  My first essay in this collection, A Biblical View of Nature, addressed what I believe to be the philosophical roots and non-biblical basis of this social phenomenon. I suspect that Nowak's review of the "Tragedy" is undeniable and paints a sorry picture of the selfish nature of many members of our species. The unbiblical embrace and elevation of "Tragedy" economics to biblical status by some segments of the Christian community is remarkable in that it is not biblical, though thought so. This is not to say that many good Christians are not politically conservative, but rather, that political conservatism is not particularly biblical.

  The Fine Line

  Though I find that materialist assumptions that explain every human action in terms of particle arrangement, self-preservation and reproductive advantage unfounded, I do think the philosophical materialist view is often correct and that distinguishing ethical action from self-aggrandizement is frequently difficult if not impossible. How can one know the difference? Often one cannot. The apostle Paul acknowledged that he did not fully trust his own motives:

  Romans 7:14-15: For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am of the flesh, sold into slavery under sin. I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.

  1 Corinthians 4:3b: I do not even judge myself. I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart.

  Definitions/Notes

  Particles and force fields: Elementary particles are not tiny objects like billiard balls but are small ripples or excitations in a force field. Particles are merely quantized/measured parts of universally distributed force fields, which fill the universe like some form of liquid. Thus, the distinctions between a particle and a force field are arbitrary: "...particles of quantum field theory do not have well-defined locations: a particle inside your body is not strictly inside your body. An observer attempting to measure its position has a small but nonzero probability of detecting it in the most remote places of the universe" (Kuhlmann 2013: 43-44).

  The presence or absence of particles in a vacuum depends upon whether the observer is accelerating or not through the area. I often thought there had to be something, maybe just relationships among particles, in space for there to be any validity to the concept of space-time. How could time, or rate of change, change anything in empty space unless the space had something in it subject to change or something that altered or influenced ripples in a force field? So, that is the ethereal nature of elementary "particles" and of the assumed, invisible force fields that apparently enable them to appear. Ergo, the basis of philosophical materialism is the nature and location of ripples or excitations in an assumed, invisible force field - the exact/same excitations/ripples that may be detected simultaneously in different locations in the universe.
>
  Physicochemical: Refers to the use of the laws of physics and chemistry to explain the nature of matter and energy.

  Reductionism: A facet of philosophical materialism that insists that the whole of any form of matter or energy is comprised of the combined, individual properties of its constituent, elemental particles. Contrary to the reductionist view, Kuhlmann (2013:43) explained: "But quantum physics allows objects to become entangled, operating as a unit despite no obvious material links among them. In that case, the putative particles no longer have definite properties; only the system as a whole does."

  Literature Cited

  D'Souza, D. 2007. What's so great about Christianity? Regnery Publishing, Inc. Washington, DC. 348 pp.

  Gore, J., H. Youk, and A. van Oudenaarden. 2009. Snowdrift game dynamics and facultative cheating in yeast. Nature. 459:253-256.

  Harden, G. 1968. Tragedy of the commons. Science. 162 (3859): 1243-1248.

  Kuhlmann, K. 2013. What is real? Scientific American. 309(2): 40-47.

  McDowell, J. 1972. Evidence that demands a verdict. Vol. I. Thomas Nelson Publishers, Atlanta, GA. 387 pp.

  Nowak, M.A. 2012. Why we help. Scientific American. 307(1):34-39.

  The Holy Bible - New Revised Standard Version. Zondervan Bible Publishers. Grand Rapids, MI. 1085 pp.

  It's a Miracle!

  So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. Genesis 1:27

  In what aspects are we the image of God? By definition, God is eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-wise, present everywhere, and perfect in love, mercy, and justice. He is Sovereign. But we are none of those things. And because God is not a physical being, aside from his incarnation as Jesus on the earth, how can we possibly be in the image of our creator? I suggest that we are like God or potentially like the Father in all those areas mentioned above but less so in measurements of magnitude. God is forever and we are a moment; God is all-powerful and we are weak though some of us accumulate more power than others during our abbreviated lives (I have enough power to willfully reach for the salt shaker). God is all-knowing and all-wise and perfect and just and merciful. By contrast, we are much less so and are subject to error constantly.

  Like God, we have minds to weigh and consider the consequences of our choices. Like God, who is creative in the making of good and perfect things, we have a measure of conscious will and freedom and creative ability. Of course, God is limited to being Godly, which we are not, but like God, within the limits of who we are, we have a measure of free will.

  Does Free Will Exist?

  The basic assumption of philosophical materialism is that there is a measurable reason for everything; that antecedent causes determine every event and these causes and their effects follow unerringly the laws of nature; that is, the laws of physics and chemistry. This belief that the laws of nature determine every event is called determinism or philosophical materialism, with other related metaphysical categories; for example, metaphysical naturalism, physicalism, reductionism, and positivism. If determinism guides all processes of cause and effect, there is no free will and "free will" is an illusion.

  Some philosophers of science believe that man is basically a complex machine and that when, not if, technology builds a good enough computer, that machine will become sentient like a person and have a sense of self-awareness. This materialist belief is founded on the concept that a person is nothing more than the sum of his/her physiology and chemistry operating through predetermined neural responses.

  Rather, I suggest no man-made computer will ever be sentient and that self-awareness, though self-evident to the person, will remain inexplicable. When I willfully reach for the salt shaker, and I sometimes purposefully do that just to prove I can and to see if I can observe the cause and processes of my willful behavior, the process of initiation and carrying out my purpose leaves me dumbfounded. Of course, I know that sparks spawned by chemical reactions leap by the hundreds of thousands across synapses and that information flows like floods of a tsunami over millions of nerve cells. I know there are physical mechanisms involved in the specific shuttling about of all that information and in innumerable calculations. But I also am aware that, within the limits of my power, the "I" that I am is willfully initiating many of the observed processes. I am aware that information itself is in the realm of mind and that ideas and symbols that point to mind reach beyond the material bases of their expression. When it comes to ideas and information and their expressions, scientific descriptions can be helpful but they always fall short.

  On the other hand, it is reasonable to pursue scientific investigations and results as far as we can. That is true because science is a tool to learn as much about our environment and the limits of ourselves as we can. But to assume that nothing exists except those things and relationships that are measurable and understandable by man is logically invalid. When we encounter round pegs, the philosophical materialist insists that they do not exist unless they fit square holes. Indeed, to be a materialist philosophically is to wear blinders and ignore the obvious.

  Perhaps the most obvious problem with the materialist/determinist stand is that it does not allow for logical or rational conclusions. Every determinist/materialist scientist and/or philosopher must ignore or leave his/her role as a materialist in order to derive logical conclusions. That is true because the materialist philosophy a priori concludes that the investigator's findings only reflect his/her physicochemical physiology rather than the rigors and set patterns of logical thought. In a word, scientific investigation requires a certain freedom of thought that lies outside the physical world of material causality.

  Nevertheless, materialists have and will continue to ignore the obvious and will willfully push the logic of their having no choice nor say in the reasonableness of their cause. For example, a patron saint of philosophical materialism, Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) believed that natural law and the mechanics of the body determined and comprised human thought. Then he had the audacity to write his "Ethics" to help people make the right choices. Perhaps he had no choice but to help others exercise their illusions of free will? Logically, it is impossible to argue for or against the existence of free will unless free will exists. But what is the reach of that freedom?

  Freedom of thought readily carries over to freedom of choice. Within obvious limits, we all believe in free will. The atheist Emmanuel Kant (1724-1804) observed that we have a judicial system that punishes. Our society also rewards persons, showing that we believe most people are responsible for their actions. Kant did not, however, realize the implication of embracing the free will argument. Had he been a biologist, he might have wondered how the world that was assumed to be wholly determined gave rise to the power of choice. He might have observed that to will and to act is to change the orders of causes and effects in an otherwise determined system. He might have wondered how a materialist would be forced to believe that the determined system determined that thought will not be determined but free. What is the source of that appearance of freedom in an otherwise determined universe? How could determinism determine that free will develop to alter the determined chains of causes and effects?

  Free Will Is a Miracle

  Some folk search for the miraculous to prove the existence of some special power in the universe. Others scoff at the idea of miracles because they hope/insist that God does not exist. In the first case, some miracle chasers long for the great power of the universe to prove himself, and in the second case, the miracle debunker fears God might show up in the complexes of the common. Could it be that the miraculous, purposefully ignored by the materialist and totally unrecognized by the would-be faithful, is obvious and all about us and a vital part of our everyday lives?

  Perhaps, the first thing to do, when thinking about an idea, like the idea "miracle," is to define it so we will know what we are talking about. The first definition for "miracle" in Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary (1996) is:
/>
  ...an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.

  That definition limits the actions of God to rare events that are beyond natural explanation. That is, only God does miracles, God only does miracles, and everything else; God does not do. If the event or observation happens frequently enough, then the happening is common and not miraculous and God is therefore not the cause. But that leaves us with lots of things that the religious believe God does that are not "miraculous" and that the materialists assumes to be under the umbrella of "scientific law". Frequently, the latter category encompasses any recurrent event whether it can be readily measured, evaluated, and scientifically explained or not. Often, to both the religious and to the materialist, God is not responsible for everyday events. In contrast, for Isaac Newton:

  ...natural laws were God's ordinary or regular ways of acting in the world. Miracles were God's extraordinary or irregular ways of doing so (Gonzalez and Richards 2004:242-243).

  To avoid the tautological nature of extant definitions for the miraculous, I am going to redefine "miracle" as:

  An event or action that apparently contradicts known scientific laws...and is hence thought to be due to supernatural causes, especially to an act of God.

  I think that was what my old collegiate dictionary of vintage 1960 said. It provided a more workable definition of the word. Under my old collegiate definition of "miracle", any intervention that breaks or alters the chains of causes and effects as determined by the laws of physics and chemistry would be a miracle, and of course, inexplicable.

  Any act of free will is a miracle because the laws of nature may set limits but they do not absolutely control or determine that act. An act of free will, in contrast to a natural event, acts upon the chains of causes and effects and reorders them to suit its own motives, desires, and goals. Of interest, according to the theory of human evolution, man improved his chances for survival and progressively developed a larger brain by acting upon and altering the events ordered by deterministic laws and thereby changed their outcomes/consequences to his own advantage. Thus, the theory of Darwinian evolution at a critical point, that of human evolution, contains within its proposed processes, a fundamental contradiction of materialist principles - that freedom of choice trumps absolute determinism. Life itself is a contradiction of efforts to explain away its origins as mindless.

  Fingerprint of God

  Men and women have and exercise free will, at least within the framework of their limited powers. This being the case, the question arises: where did that power to select between alternatives, to create new alternatives, to imagine possibilities; to alter chains of determined causes and effects come from? As noted above, mindless determinism could not have established a situation in which the antecedent events, which are all determined, determine that the succeeding events shall be decided rather than determined. In a word, what is the source of decision, of the power of choice, of free will that by definition cannot be wholly determined?

  The presence of mind that allows us to evaluate and weigh the possible consequences of differing choices, including analysis of our own motives, and to choose between alternative actions all fall outside the realm of the materialist philosophy.

  Free will exists. Therefore, free will, of logical necessity, was injected into the determined, physical universe from outside the system. The "system" in this case is the universe as governed by universal laws of chemistry and physics as we know and measure them.

  Willful mind outside the physicochemical universe, and not contingent upon it, has ever so methodically and slyly placed his fingerprint upon the universe. That "fingerprint" is life and the presence of willful minds that we use and experience every day. This "fingerprint" of God is in the forms of all living things because all life is the prototype of man and represents the unfolding plan and design to create beings with free will. Even an earth worm can learn certain things and can enhance its survival by selection between alternatives offered it. The earth worm just does not have enough knowledge nor ego and hubris/arrogance to presume itself to be the top life form in the universe.

  Miracles Prove God

  The religious often discredit the miraculous all about us and in us because they assume, as do the materialists, that the common is explicable and understandable. I disagree. To both of these groups, the miraculous has the definition that it is an obvious act of God and therefore proves the existence of God because only God does miracles. I agree; the will and power to decide and to act falls into the realm of the miraculous and both proves the existence of God and shows how we mirror our Creator in a relatively small degree by our exercise of free will.

  Of course, God is more powerful than we are. We exercise free will within boundaries, often within the boundaries of the laws of chemistry and physics. God, on the other hand, can change the rules/laws. This idea is in concert with the hypothesis of certain cosmologists who argue that there have to be an infinite number of other universes beyond our own with infinite arrangements of differing sets of physical laws governing each.

  The concept of other universes with different physical laws governing them is a popular but non-falsifiable hypothesis some theoretical physicists propose. An infinite number of universes and unlimited varying sets of physical constants would help some cosmologists theoretically skirt around the improbable fine-tuning of numerous constants required for life to exist in our universe. But aside from that non-falsifiable hypothesis, both the religious and the materialists assume natural laws need not be constant. Thank God, however, those operations are usually dependable. For the dependability of physical and chemical laws enables us to willfully manipulate and change their orders of operation and thereby produce and identify the everyday miracles in our lives.

  Literature Cited

  Guillermo, G., and J. W. Richards. 2004. The privileged planet. Regnery Publishing,

  Inc., Washington, DC. 443 pp.

  The Holy Bible - New Revised Standard Version. Zondervan Bible Publishers, Grand

  Rapids, Michigan. 1085 pp.

  Webster's encyclopedic unabridged dictionary of the English language. 1994.

  Gramercy Books, New York. 2230 pp.

  The Gay Lifestyle - a Christian View

  This essay provides "A Christian View" of the gay lifestyle rather than the Christian view. The reason for my use of "a" rather than "the" is because I address my personal assessment of this controversial subject rather than the view held by many Christians. My view, in concert with my other essays in this collection, may appear anomalous to the current worldview embraced by most persons. Worldviews over time shift this way and that and consequently, today's anomalies could evolve into tomorrow's paradigm. But regardless of what one thinks, there are so many people in the world that one's thoughts are sure to find company.

  Speaking of good company, I know several gay men whom I love and respect. Because I am heterosexual and because of my biblical beliefs, I do not love them homosexually. These men are, for the most part, moral, respectful, and kind. One out of six remains somewhat hostile though I do not know what he is angry about. Because I do not fear my gay friends, I suppose I would not be considered "homophobic," the typical brand for those who think homosexuality represents a perversion of the natural sex drive. On the other hand, though I do not fear gay men, I continue to fear for my gay friends. I suggest that my fear for my friends is valid.

  In this essay, I will cover the confirmed dangers of the gay lifestyle, the questions of nature vs. nurture, and the biblical perspective on homosexuality. Most of my statements on the dangers of the gay lifestyle and the nature or nurture question will be based on data provided by scientific studies, including reports from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In discussions of research studies and the biblical view of the gay lifestyle, I have attempted to present the pros and cons of both sides of the issue. As in my other essays, I found
the details of this study fascinating and the anomalous view often surprisingly reasonable and therefore believable.

  Dangers of the Gay Lifestyle

  Since the epidemic began in the early 1980s through 2007, AIDS killed 636,000 people in the US. That is more Americans than were killed during WW II and about eleven times as many Americans as died during the Vietnam War. Every year more than 18,000 people die from AIDS in the US and an estimated 50,000 Americans become newly infected with HIV annually. The CDC estimates that 1,148,200 persons aged 13 years and older in the U.S. are living with HIV infection. That estimate includes 18.1%, some 207,000 persons, who are unaware of their infection (CDC 2010a). "AIDS" merely refers to the later stages of HIV infection.

  Men who have sex with men (MSM) account for 63% of new HIV infections in the US and heterosexual transmission is responsible for 25% of new HIV cases in the US each year (CDC 2013). In the latter case, women most often get the disease from infected bisexual males. If women infect men with HIV, they most often do so because bisexual men infected those women with the virus. There are virtually no records of lesbians infecting each other with HIV. HIV infection spread by shared needles among drug users represents only 8% of new infections annually, therefore, in the US, MSM are the ultimate cause for most HIV transmissions and therefore most AIDS related deaths in our nation. Logic suggests therefore that MSM are most often the victims of AIDS related illnesses and mortalities in our country as well. If anyone should be homophobic, it should be gay and bisexual men and the women who have sex with bisexual men.

  Percentages of MSM Infected with HIV

  In a study of gay HIV rates, Steven Goodreau and Matthew R. Golden (Reinberg 2007) of the University of Washington, Seattle reported:

  We found that even if gay men behave the same way heterosexuals do - in terms of sexual partner numbers - gay men would still have a huge HIV epidemic. One reason HIV remains epidemic among gay men is that anal sex is much more conducive to the transmission of HIV transmission than is vaginal sex. That puts gay men at much higher risk overall.

  In addition, HIV is more easily transmitted through the penis than via the vagina or the anus. Heterosexuals tend to maintain the same role (insertive vs. receptive), while gay men can switch roles - making the transmission of HIV more likely. So, for gay men and straight men who have the same number of partners and have unprotected sex, gay men are more likely to transmit and receive HIV...that's why you can get huge epidemics among gay men and virtually none among heterosexual men.

  The study estimated that as many as one in five gay men living in cities may be HIV-positive. The 20% of MSM in urban having HIV, as estimated by the researchers above, seems high. However, the CDC Abstract 1441 (2012) stated that: "In all, two-thirds (67%) of MSM who met sex partners over the Internet were HIV positive."

  Number of Partners among MSM

  Diggs (2002) reported:

  Prior to the AIDS epidemic, a 1978 study found that 75 percent of white gay males claimed to have had more than 100 lifetime male sex partners: 15 percent claimed 100-249 partners; 17 percent claimed 250-499; 15 percent claimed 500-999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1000 lifetime male sex partners. Levels of promiscuity subsequently declined, but some observers are concerned that promiscuity is again approaching the levels of the 1970s. The medical consequences of this promiscuity is that gays have a greatly increased likelihood of contracting HIV/AIDS, syphilis and other STDs... (sexually transmitted diseases).

  In another study reported by the CDC (2001), prevention outreach workers conducted two kinds of surveys, "HITS" and "MOS", at gay bars in the cities of New Orleans, Baton Rouge, and Monroe, Louisiana. For the survey "HITS," participants had to be at least 18 years of age, had sex at least once over the last 12 months with another man, and been a resident of Louisiana for at least 1 year. "MOS" was a self-administered survey of MSM in gay bars.

  According to both surveys, most of MSM had 3 or more sex partners during the last 12 months (HITS, 54% had 4 or more; MOS, 57% had 3 or more). According to the HITS survey, 75% of MSM reported having had at least 1 casual or non-primary sex partner over the previous 12 months.

  Let us put together several bits of data from the studies mentioned above to estimate the probability the average active gay man has for exposure to HIV infection. On average, about 20% of men in urban gay bars and 67% of gay men who find partners through the Internet are HIV infected. If sexually active gay men in these categories have on average 3 or more partners per year, their chances of having sex with an HIV-infected man over a 2-year period is 100% or greater. Ignoring the math is unwise.

  Association of HIV/AIDS Infections with Other Diseases

  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2011) reported:

  Individuals who are infected with STDs are at least two to five times more likely than uninfected individuals to acquire HIV infection if they are exposed to the virus through sexual contact...STDs also appear to increase the risk of an HIV-infected person transmitting the virus to his or her sex partners. Studies have shown that HIV-infected individuals who are also infected with other STDs are particularly likely to shed HIV in their genital secretions.

  Syphilis

  The Syphilis - CDC Fact Sheet reported that the bacterium Treponema pallidum causes syphilis. They noted:

  Syphilis is passed from person to person through direct contact with a syphilis sore. Sores occur mainly in the external genitals, vagina, anus, or in the rectum. Sores also can occur on the lips and the mouth. Transmission of the organism occurs during vaginal, anal, or oral sex...Syphilis cannot be spread through contact with toilet seats, doorknobs, swimming pools, hot tubs, bathtubs, shared clothing, or eating utensils.

  The number of reported cases of this STD increased 11.8 percent during the time period 2005-2006. The syphilis rates increased in males each year between 2000 and 2006 from 2.6 to 5.7 percent. MSM accounted for 64% of reported syphilis cases in 2006.

  CDC (Abstract 1220, 2002) reported that among Boston MSM, being HIV-positive was the "most significant predictor of a new syphilis diagnoses in 2002." In like manner, CDC researchers led by Dr. James Heffelfinger (Abstract 1222, 2002) estimated that the proportion of all syphilis cases among MSM increased from 5 % to 60 % between 1999 and 2003. Similarly, CDC researchers (CDC, 2001) reported an outbreak of syphilis in southern California in 2000 among MSM. The proportion of primary and secondary syphilis cases among MSM climbed from 26% in 1999 to 51% in 2000. The CDC report stated:

  These data suggest that concern about HIV infection may be declining among MSM and emphasize the importance of strengthening efforts to prevent HIV infection in this population in the United States.

  MSM with syphilis are more susceptible to HIV/AIDS transmission because of open sores associated with syphilis infections. Fortunately, antibiotics; e.g. penicillin G, effectively treat syphilis infections. Nevertheless, Wikipedia, on-line encyclopedia, reported:

  In the developed world, syphilis infections were in decline until the 1980s and 1990s due to widespread use of antibiotics. Since the year 2000, rates of syphilis have been increasing in the USA, UK, Australia and Europe primarily among men who have sex with men.

  Prior to 1940 and the discovery of antibiotic treatments, about 20 percent of untreated persons with syphilis died of the disease. Boskey (2009) reported that congenital syphilis, passed from mother to unborn child, when untreated, killed up to 40% of infected developing infants and newborns. Bisexual men may provide a linkage of syphilis infections between gay men and congenital cases?

  Gonorrhea

  Gonorrhea (Neisseria gonorrhoeae) is a bacterium commonly spread through sexual contact. If untreated, the disease can cause infertility in both females and males. When spread to the blood or joints, gonorrhea can be life threatening. Formerly, antibiotics successfully treated the disease in adolescents and adults, however, drug-resistant strains increasingly appear and successful treatments are becoming more difficult.

  CDC (1997) rese
archers reported significant and disproportionate increases of gonorrhea infections among MSM in San Francisco, Seattle, and Portland. Incidence of gonorrhea among MSM generally doubled in a 2 to 3-year period in the mid-1990s. The report stated:

  The findings in this report indicate that, despite a continuing decline in overall rates of GC (gonorrhea) in the United States, the incidence of GC in MSM may be increasing in several U.S. cities. This increase cannot be explained by such factors as improved case ascertainment or increased screening in this population. This report also documented increases in rectal GC in several clinics, an indicator of unprotected anal intercourse. Although complete data were unavailable, preliminary observations from Portland, San Francisco, and Seattle linked GC cases in MSM with attendance at certain local clubs and other places frequented by MSM. Observations from Seattle further implicated sexual activities with anonymous partners and the use of illicit drugs and alcohol on the increase in GC cases among MSM.

  CDC (2011) further noted:

  Men who are infected with both gonorrhea and HIV are more than twice as likely to have HIV in their genital secretions than are those who are infected only with HIV. Moreover, the median concentration of HIV in semen is as much as 10 times higher in men who are infected with both gonorrhea and HIV than in men infected only with HIV. The higher the concentration of HIV in semen or genital fluids, the more likely it is that HIV will be transmitted to a sex partner.

  Viral hepatitis

  Viruses most often cause hepatitis (inflammation of the liver). The common types of viral hepatitis are Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, and Hepatitis C. Hepatitis A appears only as a new infection that usually lasts for about 6 months. Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C sometimes begin as acute infections but they can also produce lifelong infections. According to CDC (June, 2010) 15%-25% of patients with chronic hepatitis over time develop serious liver conditions; e.g., liver damage, cirrhosis, liver failure, and liver cancer.

  MSM are vulnerable to infections of Hepatitis A and Hepatitis B because the former is spread when a person ingests microscopic amounts of fecal matter from a carrier and the latter by exchange of body fluids; i.e. semen and blood. Hepatitis B is 50-100 times more infectious than HIV. Sexual activity renders the transmission of Hepatitis B easy.

  Hepatitis C was largely unknown 25 years ago. However, today it is the most common cause of liver cancer and in the U.S. more people now die of this disease than from AIDs (Gorman 2014). Contact with the blood of an infected person allows the transmission of Hepatitis C virus. CDC (June, 2010b) stated:

  Having a sexually transmitted disease or HIV, sex with multiple partners, or rough sex appears to increase a person's risk for Hepatitis C...Symptoms of chronic viral hepatitis can take up to 30 years to develop. Damage to the liver can silently occur during this time. When symptoms do appear, they often are a sign of advanced liver disease.

  Cancer

  Stengel (2011:20) reported that gay men are 95% more likely to receive a cancer diagnosis than are straight men. That is, gay men are almost twice as likely as straight men to receive a cancer diagnosis. The data were based on a survey of 120,000 Californians.

  Tuberculosis

  New multidrug-resistant groups of the TB microbe Mycobaterium tuberculosis have appeared in recent immigrants and some HIV patients (Lehrman 2013). These TB microbes are called the Beijing group because the highest concentrations of cases were found in the Chinese capital. Infection by the Beijing group proceeds to full-blown TB rapidly and transmission to uninfected persons can be "lightning-fast." Lehr reported:

  HIV and TB seemed to be acting synergistically in their attacks on people's immune systems...Not just HIV but also diabetes seems to interact synergistically with the organism to manipulate the immune response in ways that facilitate transmission and activation.

  As noted above, approximately 20% of active gay men in American cities and 67% of gay men who find partners through the Internet are HIV positive. Note that HIV infection does not have to progress to the level of AIDS to significantly impair the immune system. Thus, gay men who are HIV positive are especially susceptible to new drug-resistant and highly contagious forms of TB. Unsavory details have overtones of being socially and politically incorrect but that does not render them false.

  Changes in HIV/AIDS Infection Rates

  Paddock (2008) reported that HIV infection at the time of his investigation increased at a rate of 12% per year among 13-24 year-old American MSM.

  Percentages of MSM among Adult Male Populations

  A study by Lieb et al. (2009) estimated that the percentages of MSM in the US South among the adult male populations in rural, suburban, and urban areas were 1%, 4%, and 9%, respectively. In Washington, District of Columbia, 17.4% of adult males were MSM.

  Nature or Nurture?

  Most/many of us believe humans often exercise their abilities to make choices among alternatives. That is, we think most of us regularly exercise various degrees of free will. For example, a person of strong will who was brought up in an environment that promoted homosexuality or heterosexuality, can still choose to rebel and act against his/her natural and/or environmental influences. Such actions over time may well reorient the human brain against one's original, cultural or inherited orientation. Thus, parents nor society are always responsible for the choices and behaviors of their children/citizens. Rather, research of various outcomes merely shows us what most people historically have done under given conditions.

  Numerous individuals have conducted research to determine if the predominate cause of homosexuality is inheritance or environment. Some conclude that sexual preference is the result of some combination of both. Most liberals want to believe that sexual orientation is biological in origin and most conservatives believe social orientation to be the causative factor. With the given research findings, both sides claim that science supports their different views. It would appear that some of the research and interpretation of the data on the origin of homosexual behaviors has involved "cherry picking" and other forms of bias.

  I have attempted to present the best known and most often cited studies on the question of sexual orientation. At the end of each brief of research findings, I have written pros and cons statements that support and denigrate, respectively, the research. May the truth, be it oftentimes illusive, prevail.

  Brain Response to Pheromones in Homosexual Men

  Studies have showed that homosexual men respond to certain pheromones in men's sweat in a manner similar to that of heterosexual women. The testosterone derivative 4,16-androstadien-3-one (AND), detected in male sweat, is a candidate compound for human pheromones. Savic et.al. (2005) stated:

  In contrast to heterosexual men, and in congruence with heterosexual woman, homosexual men displayed hypothalamic activation in response to AND. Maximal activation was observed in the medial preoptic area/anterior hypothalamus, which according to animal studies, is highly involved in sexual behavior.

  Pro-gay lifestyle

  This study showed that gay sensory behavior is rooted in the brain.

  Con-gay lifestyle

  Addictive sexual behaviors initiated by choice and/or socialization transform neuron connections in the brain. Nestler (2011) described several research studies that showed how parental behaviors and drugs physically altered the brains of rats. Similarly, a 10-year study of orphaned Romanian children showed that those remaining institutionalized lost ten IQ points on average and developed smaller brains compared with randomly selected orphans placed into foster care at the beginning of the study (Nelson et al. 2013). These studies showed that the quality of care-giving produced significant, physical changes in the brains of rats and human beings after birth.

  Cerebral Asymmetry and Functional Connectivity Different in Homo- and Heterosexuals

  Savic and Lindstrom (2008) used PET and MRI on 90 volunteers to show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual men and women. They tested 20 homosexual m
en, 20 homosexual women, 25 heterosexual men, and 25 heterosexual women. They found that heterosexual men and homosexual women had significantly asymmetrical hemispheric volumes with the right hemisphere being larger for both classes. In contrast, the researchers found no significant asymmetry in volumes of right and left brain lobes for heterosexual women or homosexual men.

  Tests for functional connectivity within the brain showed that heterosexual women had more widespread connections from the left amygdala and heterosexual men from the right amygdala. In addition, connections from the amygdala tended to connect different parts of the brain for men than for women. The researchers stated: "The connectivity pattern in homosexual subjects was almost reciprocal in relation to the same-sex controls."

  Pro-gay lifestyle

  This research showed that the brain determines sexual orientation.

  Con-gay lifestyle

  Numerous studies have confirmed the changing physical state of the brain. For example, subjection of children to 100 hours of intensive instruction on reading caused the brains of the subjects to physically rewire themselves and to create new white matter that improves communication within the brain (Keller and Just, 2009).

  Another example. The bases of addiction for drugs and behaviors like compulsive gambling entail rewiring of neuron connections in the brain. Rerouting pathways for the release of orexin that creates cravings and of dopamine that provides a sense of well-being (Borgland et.al. 2006) are tied to changes in environmental stimuli.

  New research studies in the field of epigenetics continue to explore environmental influences on gene expression. Nestler (2011) provided several examples of how experiences can remove epigenetic marks on chromosomes that control behavior. For example, researchers have shown that maternal behavior affected gene expression in the offspring of rats without altering germ cells. Rat pups are born with methyl marks on particular genes. These methyl marks, which increase sensitivity to stress, diminish in number if the pups have a relaxed and nurturing mother. However, pups with a nervous and less attentive mother tend to retain the methyl marks and will grow up to repeat the poor mothering performance of their parent. The mother rat's behavior physically altered gene expression in the offspring, thereby programming to a considerable degree their behaviors as adults.

  Furthermore, jumping genes (retrotransposons) during early development migrate about the cell, copy themselves, and insert their DNA sequences within the genome of the cell (Gage and Muotri 2012). These retrotransposons in brain cells may activate nearby genes and thereby influence brain function. Researchers found that exercise increased retrotransposition in mice. The investigators speculated that the degree of retrotransposition in the individual mouse may reflect environmental conditions.

  Insofar as asymmetry between the brain lobes of heterosexual men and homosexual women or symmetry between the brain lobes of heterosexual women and homosexual men, I suggest the hypothesis that just as compulsive behaviors change the circuitry of the brain and social orientation increases the white matter in the brain, social sexual orientation can change the volume and circuitry of the brain. Such neural, physical changes over time would explain the difficulty persons have with altering compulsive behaviors rooted in altered brains.

  Ratio between the Length of the Forefinger and the Fourth Finger

  Williams et al. (2000) reported:

  In women, the index finger (2D, second digit) is almost the same length as the fourth digit (4D), although it may be slightly longer or shorter; in men, the index finger is more often shorter than the fourth.

  These researchers found that homosexual women tend to have significantly greater differences in the lengths of the second and fourth digits of the right hand (more of the masculine pattern) than do heterosexual women. The authors noted that the differential lengths of the second and fourth digits do not develop in female children until the second year. However, because the pattern of finger lengths are sensitive to androgens (male hormones), the authors postulated that androgenic steroids acting before birth might influence sexual orientation.

  The researchers did not find any significant differences in the second-digit: fourth-digit ratio between heterosexual and homosexual men for either hand (P>0.09). They did report, in reference to another study:

  The ratio was significantly more masculine in men with two or more older brothers than in men with no older brothers...and men with more than one older brother, who are more likely than first-born males to be homosexual in adulthood, are exposed to more prenatal androgen than eldest sons.

  Thus, the researchers concluded that the presence of additional testosterone and androsterone, which promote male characteristics, perhaps accounted for the increased incidence of homosexuality in younger brothers with several older brothers. The authors recognized the problem of any correlation between homosexuality and increased male hormones:

  Although hyper-androgenization of homosexual men might not fit some cultural expectations, homosexual men display several hyper-masculine characteristics, including a greater mean number of sexual partners in a lifetime than heterosexual men.

  Pro-gay lifestyle

  Men who have several older brothers display the male pattern of greater differences between the 2D and 4D more so than do their older brothers. Correlated with this observation is the fact that the more older brothers a boy has, the more likely he is to be homosexual.

  Williams et al. (2000) found that:

  The right-hand 2D:4D ratio of homosexual women was significantly more masculine... than that of heterosexual women, and did not differ significantly from that of heterosexual men.

  This finding showed that exposure to more prenatal androgen (testosterone and androsterone) could explain at least in part the origin of homosexuality in women.

  Con-gay lifestyle

  The researchers above found no significant differences between homosexual and heterosexual men in the male pattern ratios for digits 2 and 4. It seemed odd that they searched for additional evidence from other studies (boys with older brothers are more likely to be homosexual than their brothers or boys with fewer brothers) in an attempt to negate their principal finding of no significant differences between 2D:4D ratios for homosexual and heterosexual men.

  Contrary to the findings described above, Frisch and Hviid (2006) found that the presence of older siblings increased the probability of heterosexual marriage. These researchers interviewed 2 million Danes for their data.

  Most women who are lesbian were abused as children by men (McMillen and Stern, 2000: 92). We offer the hypothesis that association in the early parts of their lives with males who abused them had a profound effect on the wiring of and molding of their brains and the subsequent 2D:4D masculine ratios of the right hand that appear in lesbian women. Otherwise we would have to assume that prenatal conditions either assumed or encouraged the victims' subsequent abuse.

  Furthermore, research by Nestler (2011) showed that patterns of mothering by laboratory rats affected methyl markers on the chromosomes of their offspring, controlling gene expression and reactions to stress as the rat pups matured. Similarly, parental and cultural orientation of human babies may epigenetically alter gene expression in human offspring.

  Twin Studies

  A caveat exists concerning the validity of "twin studies". Researchers have assumed for decades that because identical twins have the same DNA, differences between them register environmental influences. It is true that identical twins have the same DNA but recent studies have indicated that varying epigenetic effects after birth can influence gene expression without altering the information in genes. Gage and Muotri (2012), who studied laboratory rats, reported that retrotransposons (jumping genes) copy themselves and insert their sequences into brain cells as well as the cells of other organs. Retrotransposons can influence the expression of nearby genes in the cell. In the brain these "jumping genes" can create differences in brain function and may account for differences in behavior between identical twin
s. According to Gage and Muotri (2012) retrotransposition occurred in the brain after birth and during early development of the rat pup. In addition, studies of mice have shown that novelty and challenge in the environment increased neurogenesis. Thus, let us review the results of "twin studies" discussed below with the aegis of informed reservation.

  Bailey and Pillard (1991) determined from a study of twins that when one identical twin was gay, the probability of the other twin being gay was 52%. In the same study, fraternal twins and adopted brothers with gay brothers were less likely to be gay, 22% and 11%, respectively. However, Bailey et al. (2000) used the Australian twin registry to sample 4,900 twins. Based on that larger sample, the researchers found twin concordance for identical twins for homosexuality was only 30%. That is, an identical twin with a gay twin brother and the same genes as his gay brother had a 70% chance of remaining heterosexual. What could explain why one identical twin brother was gay and the other remained straight 70% of the time? Genetics do not explain the difference.

  In another twin study, Langstrom et.al. (2010) used data from a population-based 2005-2006 survey of all adult twins (20-46 years) in Sweden. They sampled 3,826 pairs of identical and fraternal twins. They concluded that for men, genetic effects explained 34% - 39% and the individual-specific environment explained 61% - 66% of the reasons for same-sexual behavior. For women, genetic effects explained 18% - 19% and environment accounted for 64% - 66% of same-sex behavior.

  Langstrom et al. (2010) and Bailey and Pillard (1991) reported that twin concordance for homosexuality was greater for identical twins than for fraternal twins and even less between natural and adopted brothers. The hypothesis has prevailed that genetics explain the differential rates of same-sex behaviors.

  Pro-gay lifestyle

  Whether nature or socialization determines homosexuality, the individual has no choice and his/her sexual orientation is immutable.

  Con-gay lifestyle

  The researchers above assumed that degree of genetic affinity explained greater concordance of sexual orientation for identical than for fraternal same-sex twins. From this observation the researchers assumed that a genetic propensity for homosexuality explained a percentage of homosexual orientation.

  Based on the same observation of higher concordance for homosexuality for identical than for fraternal twins, we suggest another hypothesis: We suggest that the closer the genetic affinities, the more likely the individual is to have a similar response to like socialization pressures.

  We also propose a hypothesis to account for discordance in sexual orientation between identical twin brothers. In the case of identical twins, which are genetically identical, individual identity is acquired not by physical traits but by sometimes adopting radically different and individualized behaviors. A competing personality as part of an identical twin pair could at an early age diverge from his twin brother's developing male orientation and into the feminine world to secure a distinct identity. This is, of course, just a hypothesis but at this point, that is all we have and until adequately tested, one reasonable assumption/hypothesis/guess is as valid as another. The differences between a hypothesis and an assumption is that the former is stated with an open mind while the latter is likely to remain untested and assumed to be true. Genetic sameness and sibling rivalry, not genetic sexual orientation, could explain the occasional discordance in sexual orientation between identical twins.

  Effects of Prenatal Hormones

  Spong (1986) reported:

  ...research consistently seems to support the assertion that sexual orientation is not a matter of choice; that it is not related to any environmental influence...

  Spong specifically referred to endocrinological work by German researcher Gunter Dorner. Dorner controlled output of testosterone and other hormones normally released by the hypothalamus of rat brains during the fetal development of those animals. Dorner found that varying the amount of sex hormones available during fetal development affected the sexual orientation of the experimental animals in adulthood. From these observations Dorner concluded that the availability of sex hormones from the mother to the fetus could determine sexual orientation in humans as well.

  In addition, recent studies confirmed Dorner's previous investigations. Panzica et al. (1995) found that differences in sexual behavior depend upon neonatal exposure to gonadal steroids. Fetal hormones are one of the primary influences that cause sexual differentiation of the brain and sex organs. Brain and sex organ differentiation can occur at different times and rarely, the brain and the sex organs may have different sex orientations, creating transsexualism in the individual (Garcia-Falgueras and Swaab 2010).

  Pro-gay lifestyle

  The exposure of varying amounts of sex hormones during fetal development can explain the inherited and immutable physical conditions of homosexuality and transsexualism.

  Con-gay lifestyle

  To account for current rates of adult homosexuality, the incongruous release of or blockage of testosterone would have to occur in about 1 in 20 cases of human fetal development. There are no data that show this phenomenon occurs during human gestation. Certainly, if a researcher alters exposure to estrogen or testosterone in any mammal, regardless of age, those hormones or a reduction of them will affect the animal physiologically and likely behaviorally. No surprise. Whether or not such alterations occur with any regularity in the development of human fetuses is another question.

  Research on environmental correlates for human homosexuality appear to contradict conclusions by Dorner and Panzica et al (1995). With a sampling of some 5,000 twins in Australia, Bailey et al. (2000) found that twin concordance for identical twins for homosexuality was only 30%. That is, when one identical twin is gay, the chances are 70% that his brother will mature to be heterosexual. Are we to assume that under the conditions noted above, identical twins in the uterus received significantly different doses of sex hormones from their mother's hypothalamus?

  Incredibly, Garcia-Falgueras and Swaab (2010), the authors cited above, stated that "There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation." This statement illustrates the biased assumptions some researchers carry with them into their research on the origins of sexual orientation. Findings of strong environmental correlates for homosexuality are readily available; e.g., Frisch and Hviid (2006), and Langstrom et al. (2010).

  Gender Non-conformity - the Process

  Studies have found that the best way to predict homosexuality in adults is to observe gender non-conformity in children (Bailey and Zucker 1995, Rieger et al. 2008). Examples of non-conformity in children would be the boy who consistently adopts girl activities and the girl who consistently adopts boy behaviors and activities. The gender non-conforming boy will wear jewelry and play with dolls and the gender non-conforming girl will take the heads off his dolls.

  Bem (2000) hypothesized that children who rebel against the cultural roles set for their sex feel an affinity with the opposite sex and different from same-sex individuals. He further speculated that the feeling of being different from members of the same sex may develop later in life to sexual arousal.

  Pro-gay lifestyle

  These studies show that homosexual tendencies appear in early childhood, suggesting inheritance as the source of sexual orientation.

  Con-gay lifestyle

  Because cultural and parental values rather than genetic inheritance most often determine sexual roles in society, gender non-conformity represents rebellion against parental values or a hiding place from parental rejection; the place where one is less likely to fail.

  Hermaphroditism

  Hermaphroditism and pseudohermaphroditism are physical conditions in which the individual possesses both testicular and ovarian tissue. Hermaphroditism is rare with only 500 recognized cases. Various studies have estimated the occurrences of male and female pseudohermaphroditism to be 3 to 15 per 100,000 people and 1 to 8 per 100,000 people, respectively (Fall
on, 2002). These physical anomalies reflect recognized enzyme deficiencies and the resultant aberrations of several chromosomes.

  Pro-gay lifestyle

  The presence of pseudohermaphrodites in society proves that confusion of sexual orientations can be genetic.

  Con-gay lifestyle

  The incidence of pseudohermaphroditism at the level of 1 to 15 per 100,000 people shows how rarely genetic aberration explains homosexual orientation.

  Natural Selection within the Species

  Although natural selection has not been shown to create new species, the process certainly affects the gene pools of species. The production of domestic varieties of plants and animals attests to the power of man's selection in deriving useful or favorable varieties of dogs, cattle, grains, and vegetables. From the standpoint of genetics, selection can only operate to retain those characters that are beneficial and are reproduced or are linked to beneficial characters that are reproduced. It begs the question to ask what is the beneficial reproductive value to homosexual "genes" of not duplicating themselves?

  In addition, seeing that gay men do not reproduce and that promiscuity, which is prevalent among the class, is tied to the prevalence of several serious STDs, how did nature retain such a deleterious genetic condition in the gene pool over a million generations? The genetics of homosexuality does not fit logical theory. Possibly, the bisexual participants of the MSM class have retained not only their genes for bisexuality but also the genes for homosexuality? Homosexual men and women do not have gay fathers.

  Pro-gay lifestyle

  Current humanitarian values do not encompass Darwinian principles of survival of the fittest, which modern civilization deems objectionable and irrelevant.

  Con-gay lifestyle

  The question before us is not value-based but a scientific question of the mechanics of selective pressures against the likelihood of maintaining genes that have no means of maintaining themselves through the process of reproduction.

  Rural vs. Urban Environments

  Lieb et.al. (2009) reported that MSM in the US South constituted 1% of adult males in rural areas, 4% in suburban, and 9% of adult males in urban areas. Frisch and Hviid (2006) reported similar findings with their survey of 2 million Danes. Their study found that people born in rural areas were more likely to marry a member of the opposite sex than people born in urban areas. Same-sex marriages are legal in Denmark.

  Pro-gay lifestyle

  Gays migrate from rural areas to large urban centers because they feel more accepted by urban society. Because rural areas tend to be more conservative, gays will be less likely to report their sexual orientation. Thus, false reporting biases the rates of reported homosexuality downward in rural areas.

  Con-gay lifestyle

  Are we to assume that 8 of every 9 MSM in rural areas migrate to urban areas? Because only 20% of the US population is rural, the migration of MSM from rural areas could not account for the relatively high percentages of 4% MSM in suburban and 9% MSM in urban areas. Aside from the obvious math, the research by Frisch and Hviid (2006) cited above confirmed that people born in rural areas were more likely to marry persons of the opposite sex than were those born in urban areas.

  Rural areas tend to be more conservative religiously, which means that those environments tend to support traditional, biblical roles of heterosexuality. In that environment, higher percentages of males grow up to be heterosexual. The stats show that the person born in the city is 9 times more likely to be homosexual than the person born on the farm.

  Gay Men Display Maleness in their Sexuality - a Hypothesis

  Williams et al. (2000) suggested that hyper-androgenization (excessive male hormones) explains why:

  ...homosexual men display several hyper-masculine characteristics, including a greater mean number of sexual partners in a lifetime than heterosexual men...and ...that adult homosexual men have more circulating androgens, larger genitalia and more 'masculine' auditory evoked potentials than heterosexual men.

  Aside from anecdotal information, I know little about the "hyper-masculine" homosexual. However, it appears to me that gay men are males sexually because they display aggressive behaviors aimed primarily at the goal of orgasm. Typically, females require comparatively more commitment, more assurances, more persuasion, more courting, and more foreplay than do males before sexual intercourse. In contrast to men, women deal with a range of hormones that influence their moods and that determine their availability for sex. Generally, women want more than sex; they want love and security as well. Men want love too but they more often will settle simply for sex. I therefore suggest that gay men with altered/rewired brains remain fundamentally males physiologically, sexually; behaviorally. If so, it is not inheritance that makes them different but early social experiences/orientation (see Social Orientation below).

  Pro-gay lifestyle

  Whether nature or nurture, homosexuality is hard-wired in the brain and is therefore the physical identity and the core of the person. Under these conditions, homosexuality should be accepted and promoted as a natural condition, not a perversion.

  Con-gay lifestyle

  MSM are still males in their sexual behaviors. The only thing different is that their male behaviors involve having sex with other males. They do this because past experience with women in their early years have rendered them impotent toward women and/or because a passive or absent father failed to induct them into the male gender role. In the latter case, the gay man is seeking male acceptance/approval his father failed to provide.

  Gay Sexual Roles Show Preferences for Feminine Behaviors - a Hypothesis

  Many gay men find the display of feminine/effeminate behaviors in other gay men sexually attractive. I suggest that such men long for sex with the opposite sex but emotionally find it much easier to relate to a readily available man acting like a woman than with the complications of a woman being a woman.

  Pro-gay lifestyle

  Some gay men have high levels of androgens, which places them in a class of "super-males". Often gay men during a singular encounter switch roles from that of the passive receptor to that of the male aggressor.

  Con-gay lifestyle

  Thus, the gay role is either male or "female" as long as the other party is not a woman. It appears therefore that gay behavior can mimic either sex as long as a male plays the "male" or "female" sex role. This role playing appears to incorporate a psychological block against what a physical woman represents rather than rejection of a representative safe "woman" who physically remains a man.

  Gay Men Who Produce Children?

  This concept is at best a misnomer. Bisexual men could produce children but how does a man have a child or several children and then over time discover that he is really gay? Subsequently he continues after his revelation to live the rest of his life as a gay man? Notwithstanding the possibility of artificial insemination, "gay" men produce children because they experience orgasm with a woman. At a stage in their lives, they find a woman sexually exciting and then their physiology/genetics change them into a gay man?

  Pro-gay lifestyle

  People are genetically programmed to change gender preferences over time.

  Con-gay lifestyle

  "The Devil made me do it?" Words like morality, free-choice, commitment, character, perseverance, sacrifice, and love have meaning to those with a biblical orientation. Others pursue the wind ...and reap the whirlwind.

  Homosexual Sex in Prison

  McMillen and Sern (2000:93-94) reported:

  When tempted, some otherwise heterosexual men try out homosexual sex. Among prison inmates, about 30% practice homosexuality of their own free will. Immediately on release from prison, however, almost all of them return to exclusive heterosexuality. For these men, homosexual intercourse is merely an optional way for sexual release. This illustrates that homosexuality describes what someone does, not what someone is.

  Pro-gay lifestyle

  Homosexuality exists in m
ost of us, just more so in some than in others.

  Con-gay lifestyle

  My wife and I have 4 dogs that illustrate, I think, the point about an "optimal way for sexual release". Our 4 dogs consist of an Australian sheep dog, which is a spaded adult female, a lab-mix adult male that is castrated, an adult male English pointer, and a male 4-month old English pointer. Periodically, the adult male English pointer tries to mount the adult, spaded Australian sheepdog female and the old lab-mix neutered male dog tries to mount the 4-month old male English pointer. Would anyone conclude that any of the three male dogs we own were created by God to be homosexual? No doubt Kinsey (Bullough, 2006) could provide another invalid report; this time on sexual preferences among incarcerated American dogs?

  Social Orientation

  A number of studies have shown that homosexuality in males develops from homes where the mother is controlling/smothering and the father is distant/unaffectionate or over-controlling (Bieber and Gundlach et al., 1962, Braaten and Darling, 1965, Lung and Shu, 2007, Nicolosi, 1991, McMillen and Stern, 2000, Satinover, 1996; Seutter and Rovers, 2004). McMillen and Stern (2000:94-95) stated that most lesbians as children were abused by men and that the presence or absence and behavior of fathers determined sexual orientation:

  For both boys and girls, fathers are the most important factor in sexual orientation. More than 80 percent of gay men (but only 18 percent of straight men) have emotionally distant fathers...A smothering mother who is also a spiteful wife may influence homosexual tendencies...These mothers often baby and restrict their boys by discouraging sports, preventing dates, and forcing them into girlish activities - such as knitting, sewing, and bubble baths.

  Bearman and Bruckner (2002) found that males with a female twin, but no older brother, were twice as likely to express same-sex attraction. Their findings supported the hypothesis that less gendered socialization in early childhood and preadolescence explained same-sex interest in some males. These researchers found that, if present, the older brother of the male twin provided a male role model and altered the feminization of boys with a fraternal female twin. Their research suggested that parents of opposite-sex twins are more likely than other parents to provide unisex treatment.

  Frisch and Hviid (2006), following interviews of 2 million Danes, found that men who did not know who their fathers were, whose fathers were distant or often absent, who lived with both parents for a relatively short period, and who were from broken homes were less likely to marry heterosexually than were children raised in intact families. Homosexual marriage rates were higher for women whose parents were married for a short time and whose mothers were absent or whose mothers abandoned them during the child's teen years.

  The researchers above found that the probability of heterosexual marriage, as opposed to homosexual marriage in Denmark, increased 1.6% among sons and 1.0% for daughters for each additional year one's parents stayed married.

  Thus, single parent homes can contribute to the development of homosexuality among offspring. Increased rates of homosexuality are to be expected with increases in out-of-wedlock births in America. Mundy (2012:33) reported that the percentages of children born to unmarried mothers for all ethnic groups in America were 5% in 1960 and 41% in 2010. Obviously, cultural values and parental influences or the lack thereof, which are associated with sexual orientation, have changed in America.

  Recent studies by Nestler (2011) involving laboratory rats showed that maternal behavior and exposure to addictive substances affect chemical mechanisms (epigenetic tags) that control gene expression in the offspring. Thus parental behavior and other environmental conditions during the development of human infants are likely to alter gene expression and behavior later in life. These studies suggest possible mechanisms to explain how poor parenting can physically alter the brains of infants.

  A corroborative study revealed the psychic and physical scars tied to early years spent without loving, responsive caregivers. Nelson et al. (2013) selected 136 children aged from 6 to 31 months from Romanian orphanages. These children, which were examined and judged to be free of birth defects, were randomly divided into two groups. One group remained institutionalized and the other children were placed into foster care. The scientists also monitored children never institutionalized as a control.

  The researchers found that all the children who were institutionalized had smaller brain volumes and lower IQ scores than those raised in foster care. After 2.5 to 4 years into the study, the average IQ of the institutionalized group was in the low to middle 70s, whereas it was about 10 points higher for children in foster care. The IQ for children never institutionalized was above 100 and for institutionalized children was below 80. Institutionalized children suffered higher levels of anxiety disorders; e.g., attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, than did children who had never been institutionalized. Levels of anxiety and depression for children in foster care were about half of that suffered by those who remained institutionalized. This study showed how poor parenting/care giving physically affects the brains, levels of anxiety and depression, and behaviors of children. It is therefore reasonable to hypothesize that cultural promotion and poor parenting generate homosexuality in children.

  In primitive cultures where children are not institutionalized and competition for male roles is minimized, homosexuality is relatively rare (Baron, 1993). This information shows the importance of environment to sexual orientation.

  Obviously, cultural promotion makes a big difference. Same-sex relations between men and boys were promoted and accepted in ancient Greece, illustrating the influence of cultural acceptance on the prevalence of homosexual relations. In America, as societal acceptance and social environments that promote homosexuality increase, individuals will be more likely to try homosexual lifestyles.

  Pro-gay lifestyle

  Physical differences in the brains of homosexual men and straight men show that being gay has a physical basis.

  Con-gay lifestyle

  We concur with McMillin and Stern (2000), Bearman and Buckner (2002), Frisch and Hviid (2006), and Nestler (2011). Environmental/social conditions largely determine homosexual orientation in the individual. Of course, within limits, human beings have and exercise free choice. Thus, some people from healthy family backgrounds will choose to cross the line and experiment with dangerous gay lifestyles, particularly with the rise of cultural promotion.

  The Biblical Perspective

  Dan O. Via and Robert A. J. Gagnon (2003) provided two different views on homosexuality. Via presented the liberal view that homosexuality is acceptable to God and Gagnon expressed his view that the Bible condemns homosexuality. Both authors claimed to use the Bible to support their opposite views. In one area, both authors were in agreement. Via stated in response to Gagnon (Via and Gagnon, 2003:93):

  Professor Gagnon and I are in substantial agreement that the biblical texts that deal specifically with homosexual practice condemn it unconditionally.

  Via explained that one must interpret the Bible in light of current scientific knowledge and extant cultures. Via believes that God made some people to be homosexual and therefore expression of homosexual behaviors cannot be sin. Also, some homosexual couples live fruitful and peaceful lives, which shows that homosexual behaviors are acceptable. Via believes that homosexual couples in committed relationships can/do live the "abundant life" described in John 10:10b: "I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly."

  By contrast Gagnon did not have to turn the Bible on its head to support his view that homosexuality is wrong. Listed below are some key Bible verses that address homosexuality and different interpretations made by those pro and those con.

  Genesis 19:1-9a

  The two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of Sodom. When Lot saw them he rose to meet them, and bowed down with his face to the ground. He said, "Please, my lords, turn aside to your servant's house and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you can rise e
arly and go on your way." They said, "No; we will spend the night in the square." But he urged them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; and they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we many know them." Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, and said, "I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof." But they replied, "Stand back!" and they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and he would play the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them."

  Pro-gay lifestyle

  The evil of Sodom was not that males were having sex with males but that males were going to gang-rape unwilling males.

  Con-gay lifestyle

  Homosexual practices, which were considered sin by the Jews, are what made the proposed actions of the Sodomites abominable to God. See references below from both the Old and New Testaments.

  Ezekiel 16:49-50

  This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it.

  Pro-gay lifestyle

  God destroyed Sodom because the city had abundance but did not help/support the poor and needy.

  Con-gay lifestyle

  According to Gagnon (2003: 58), God destroyed Sodom because they ignored the needs of the poor in their midst and because they committed abominable acts such as male-male intercourse:

  ...Ezekiel read the Sodom story in the light of the Levitical prohibitions of male-male intercourse; that is, he interpreted male-male intercourse per se as an abomination.

  Leviticus 18:22

  You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

  Pro-gay lifestyle

  This citation represents one of the old Levitical laws put in place to assure hygiene and ritual purity. Homosexual acts by committed couples do not separate the individual from God. Homosexuality is increasingly accepted in our culture and is therefore, though considered "unclean" in Bible times, not an absolute sin against God. For example, in context, the text also prohibited (Leviticus 18:19) having sex with one's wife during her menstrual period. Certainly, no priest, pastor, or rabbi now believes the latter prohibition still has merit worth mentioning.

  Con-gay lifestyle

  The text Leviticus 18:20-23 also prohibits the sacrifice of children to the god Molech, incest, and bestiality. If those promoting homosexuality want to throw out this part of the Scripture, then they must also conclude that, in view of our enlightened culture, God approves of the sacrifice of our children to the god Molech, abortion, and our having sex with animals and immediate family members. That is the company of condemned actions associated with homosexual acts in the Bible.

  Leviticus 20:13

  If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.

  Pro-gay lifestyle

  This verse addressed physical and ritual uncleanness; not intentional sin that would separate a person from God. Likewise, note that the punishment for breaking the Sabbath was death (Exodus 35:2). Who today in our enlightened world would vote for capital punishment for those who have to work on the Sabbath? In like manner, who in our world and time and level of knowledge, would deny the abundant life for dedicated homosexual couples because of ancient purity customs found in the old Mosaic Law?

  Con-gay lifestyle

  The New Testament reaffirms the Old Testament condemnation of homosexual acts (see New Testament references in this text) and specifically abrogates/minimizes the Mosaic demands concerning the keeping of the Sabbath (see Romans 14:5 and Colossians 2:16-19). Note that Leviticus 20:8-16 required capital punishment also for cursing one's parents, adultery, "incest" with in-laws, and bestiality. Inclusion of these sins along with homosexual acts shows that the latter was more than just a matter of outdated Jewish purity rites.

  Romans 1:26-27

  For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

  Pro-gay lifestyle

  Via (Via and Gagnon, 2003: 14) stated:

  Given what we now know about the genetic, social, and psychological causes of homosexuality, and the graciousness of God's creative intention, it is difficult to accept Paul's view that universal human rebellion and God's wrath, in their mutual interaction, are the primary cause of homosexuality.

  Helminiak (1995:71-72) stated that Paul's condemnation of homosexuality in Romans was not because it was a sin against God but because it represented an impurity associated with the culture of the idolatrous Gentiles.

  Con-gay lifestyle

  Gagnon (Via and Gagnon, 2003:42) rebutted:

  If the authority of Scripture means anything, those who seek to overturn its core values must meet an extraordinary burden of proof. The evidence must be strong and unambiguous that it not only makes the witness of Scripture pale by comparison but also directly refutes the reasons for the Bible's position. For example, it would not be enough to prove that (1) the only models for homosexual behavior in antiquity were exploitative, or (2) modern science has demonstrated that homosexuality is congenital and fixed. One would also have to prove that the Bible condemned homosexual practice (3) primarily on the grounds that it was exploitative (e.g., because it abused boys), or (4) on the grounds that all participants in homosexual behavior experienced desires for the opposite sex...none of these points can be substantiated.

  1 Timothy 1: 9-11

  This means understanding that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me

  Pro-gay lifestyle

  According to Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (1996), "sodomy" means 1) anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex; 2) copulation with a member of the same sex; 3) bestiality. One cannot take these verses literally without concluding that oral sex between Christian husband and wife is sin and that heterosexual intercourse outside the bounds of marriage as readily accepted in modern culture, is sin.

  Con-gay lifestyle

  "Sodomy" in the scriptural context referred to homosexual intercourse and was not a reference to oral sex. In fact, Proverbs 5:15-20 admonished the husband-lover to "drink from your own well", to reserve your "springs" for "the wife of your youth," and allow "her breasts (to) satisfy you at all times..." These biblical metaphors appear to be direct references to the proper contexts for oral sex and heterosexual intercourse within the framework of marital love-making.

  In this scriptural text, however, homosexual behavior appears to have equal negative standing with heterosexual intercourse outside marriage. The popular acceptance of fornication and adultery as currently displayed throughout entertainment media illustrates how out of sync America is with the Bible. In like manner, the will to bend the Scripture to embrace homosexual behavior is no surprise.

  Note the grouping of homosexual acts in 1 Timothy 1 with the sins of matricide and patricide, murder, fornication, slave trading, lying, and perjury.

  Jude 7

/>   Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

  Pro-gay lifestyle

  "Sexual immorality" and "unnatural lust" in this case do not refer to homosexual acts but to the intended gang rape of angels (unnatural flesh) reported in Genesis 19.

  Con-gay lifestyle

  "Unnatural lust" refers directly to same sex eroticism. The Sodomites did not know that the unfamiliar men at Lot's home were angelic; thus, they could not have knowingly lusted for angelic flesh.

  Conclusions on the Biblical Perspective

  I reviewed Spong (1984), Helminiak (1995), and Via and Gagnon (2003) to see what some religious scholars had to say about biblical support for homosexual behaviors. I found the logic of theologians who support homosexuality to be weak and narrow and strained. In short...not biblical. By contrast, I found the writings and logic of Robert A. J. Gagnon sound and in obvious concert with the Bible. I think Gagnon proved repeatedly that the Bible supports heterosexuality and that:

  Every narrative that has anything to do with human sexuality (in the Bible) presumes the sole legitimacy of opposite-sex unions (Via and Gagnon, 2003:75).

  Why the Bible Condemns Homosexuality

  I have several hypotheses on this topic but I do not know for certain why the Bible considers homosexuality wrong:

  Because God said so

  According to Scripture (Matthew 19:4-5), God's plan included heterosexuality, not homosexuality:

  Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife...?"

  God divided mankind into male and female sexes so they could be joined in body and spirit through the institution of marriage.

  Procreation

  Because the Bible has no accounts of children being reared by same-sex couples and because the Bible prohibits homosexual relations, we may assume God intended that children be reared by heterosexual couples within the bounds of marriage.

  Disease

  As noted above, gay men who are sexually active are subject to a number of dangerous diseases. Rural environments and families with positive male role models have relatively low incidences of homosexuality. Societies would be wise to foster those specific values and conditions to prevent STD's and increased risks of cancer and tuberculosis that are tied to the gay male lifestyle.

  Judge?

  The Scripture (1 Corinthians 5:11-13) states:

  But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister who is sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber. Do not even eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging those outside? Is it not those who are inside that you are to judge? God will judge those outside...

  Thus, beyond our duty to vote in the secular world, the only people we as the church are allowed to judge as wrong are those inside the church who practice homosexuality, greed, gluttony, adultery, bestiality, fornication, wrongful divorce; etc. Practicing homosexuals in the church must work on changing toward a heterosexual lifestyle, remain celibate, or leave the congregation. Scripture does not allow us to judge those outside the church.

  The Christian community has several problems regarding its stand on those believers who pursue same-sex eroticism. One is that the Bible condemns homosexual practices. Another is that the social environment and rebellious choice largely determine at an early age who becomes homosexual. Thus, homosexual orientation begins early in child development when people are too immature to make wise choices. That is, learned and/or adopted behaviors during early childhood influence the wiring of the brain and its neural connections.

  When we review the social correlates tied to homosexuality, we find them prevalent in the church: divorce and broken homes, distant and/or over-bearing (unloving) fathers, smothering/domineering mothers who disrespect their husbands, and parents who abandon their children. At present, the church appears powerless to effectively address the flawed heterosexual relationships in its midst that produce sexual perversion. In other words, the church has become an extension of the world and its values. Therefore the church should not be surprised at secular society's acceptance of the symptoms those flawed relationships continue to produce. As Pogo observed: "We have met the enemy...and he is us."

  As the church, our only hope is that, in opposition to the prevailing global culture, we must teach young men how be good husbands and fathers and we must teach young women how to be good wives and mothers. The upside of the problem of homosexuality, is that because the condition's primarily cause is environmental, we are only one generation away from healing solutions.

  Alternatives for the Christian Homosexual

  In human history, only 500 cases of hermaphroditism have been confirmed and the rate for pseudohermaphroditism is only about 1 per 10,000 population. If one finds himself or herself in one of these relatively rare categories, I suggest he/she pick his/her favorite sex, have the appropriate physical changes made, take the right sex hormones, and stick faithfully to the preferred sex. Being gay is a different matter.

  Disease and death stalk the active gay male lifestyle. Therefore, homophobia and celibacy constitute a reasonable fear and practice, respectively, for the Christian who is gay. Because environmental correlates have rewired the brains of gay men, altering same-sex addictions is as difficult as re-wiring the brains of heroin and nicotine addicts, alcoholics, or compulsive gamblers.

  On the other hand, we might receive inspiration from heterosexual males in our prison systems who often find sex release through same-sex relations. My hypothesis is that a gay Christian male who is a part of the church may, with the combinations of strong sexual urges and a strong sense of biblical morality, successfully re-wire his brain over time and find sex release through heterosexual marriage in the Christian context. Remaining faithful to his wife would take dedication to the Word, but then, married heterosexual Christians obviously find that marital faithfulness requires a lot of willful dedication to God's Word too. "Obviously" is apropos because half of Christian marriages end in divorce.

  At the very least, I suggest the Christian gay man who cannot control his sexual urges masturbate in order to remain physically celibate. That way, one need not fear the spread of STDs and he will retain a clear conscience toward society.

  Lesbian couples are more likely to remain monogamous than gay men and are a lot less likely to have or to spread STDs. To date, the CDC confirms no incidence of HIV spread between lesbians. On the other hand, lesbian couples should not attempt to parent children because good/loving fathers and intact families are key environmental correlates for the development of heterosexual adults. Only a good male role model can usher a boy into manhood (Eldredge 2001).

  Definitions/Notes

  CDC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

  HIV/AIDS: HIV is the acronym for human immunodeficiency virus. The virus damages the immune system and thereby interferes with the body's ability to fight disease. AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome) refers to the late stages of HIV.

  MSM: Men who have sex with men, including both gay and bisexual men.

  Literature Cited

  Bailey, J. M., and R. C. Pillard. 1991. A genetic study of male sexual orientation. Archives of General Psychiatry. 48(12):1089-1096.

  Baily, J. M., M. P. Dunne, and N. G. Martin. 2000. Genetic and environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 78(3):524-536.

  Bailey, J. M., and K. J. Zucker. 1995. Childhood sex-typed behavior and sexual orientation: A conceptual analysis and quantitative review. Developmental Psychology. 31(1):43-55.

  Bearman, P. S., and H. Bruckner. 2002. Opposite-sex and adolescent same-sex attraction. American Journal
of Sociology. 107(5):1179-1205.

  Bem, D. 2000. Exotic becomes erotic: Interpreting the biological correlates of sexual orientation. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 29(6):531-547.

  Bieber, T. B., H.J. Dain, P. R. Dince, M. G. Drellich, H. G. Grand, R.R. Gundlach, M. W. Kremer, A.H. Rifkin, and C. B. Wilber. 1962. Homosexuality - a psychoanalytic study of male homosexuality. Basic Books, Inc. New York. 358 pp.

  Borgland, S. L., S. A. Tdaha, F. Sarti, H. L. Fields, and A. Bonci. 2006. Orexin A in the VTA is critical for the induction of synaptic plasticity and behavioral sensitization to cocaine. Neuron 49(4):589-601.

  Boskey, E. 2009. What is congenital syphilis? Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs). Online site: About.com

  Braaten, L. J., and C.D. Darling. 1965. Overt and covert homosexual problems among male college students. Genetic Psychology Monographs. 71:269-330.

  Bullough, V. L. 2006. The Kinsey biographies. Sexuality & Culture. 10(1): 15-22.

  CDC. 1997. Gonorrhea among men who have sex with men - selected sexually transmitted diseases clinics, 1993-1996. MMWR, Weekly. 46(38):889-892.

  CDC. 2001. Outbreak of syphilis among men who have sex with men—Southern California, 2000. MMWR, Weekly. 50(07):117-120.

  CDC Abstract 1220. 2002. STD trends among MSM at the largest health center caring for gay men in New England, 1997-2002; Poster. CDC. 2012 National STD Prevention Conference.

  CDC Abstract 1222. 2002. Estimates of the number of cases of primary and secondary syphilis occurring among men who have sex with men in the United States, 1999-2002; Poster. CDC. 2012 National STD Prevention Conference.

  CDC Abstract 1441. 2012. The internet is a significant factor in the MSM syphilis epidemic. Summaries of Highlighted Research. 2012 National STD Prevention Conference.

  CDC. 2010a. Monitoring selected national HIV prevention and care objectives by using HIV surveillance data - United States and 6 U.S. dependent areas. HIV Surveillance Supplemental Report 2012:17(3), part A.

  CDC. 2010b. Viral hepatitis-information for gay/bisexual men. www.cdc.gov/hepatitis

  CDC. 2011. The role of STD detection and treatment in HIV prevention - CDC Fact Sheet. www.cdc.gov/std/hiv/STDFact-STD-HIV.htm

  CDC. 2013. HIV/AIDS. Basic statistics. How does HIV affect different groups of people? Available online September 2013.

  Eldredge, J. 2001. Wild at heart. Thomas Nelson, Inc. Nashville, Tenn. 241 pp.

  Fisher, M.A. 2009. Why women are leaving men for other women. CNN Living.

  Internet site: articles.cnn.com/2009-04-23/living/o.women.leave.menfor.women

  Frisch, M., and A. Hviid. 2006. Childhood family correlates of heterosexual and homosexual marriages: A national cohort study of two million Danes. Archives of Sexual Behavior 35(5):533-47.

  Gage, F. H., and A. R. Muotri. 2012. What makes each brain unique? Scientific American. 303(3):26-31.

  Garcia-Falgueras, A, and D. F. Swaab. 2010. Sexual hormones and the brain: An essential alliance for sexual identity and sexual orientation. Endocrine Development. 17:22-35.

  Gorman, C. 2014. A new shot against hepatitis C. Scientific American. 310(4):56-57.

  Helminiak, D.A. 1995. What the Bible really says about homosexuality. Alamo Square Press. San Francisco, CA. 119 pp.

  Keller, T. A., and M.A. Just. 2009. Altering cortical connectivity: remediation-induced changes in the white matter of poor readers. Neuron 64(5):624-631.

  Lehrman, S. 2013. The diabolical genius of an ancient scourge. Scientific American. 309(1):80-85.

  Lieb, S., D. R. Thompson, S. Misra, G. J. Gates, W. A. Duffus, S. J. Fallon, T. M.

  Liberti, E. M. Foust, and R. M. Malow. 2009. Estimating populations of men who have sex with men in the southern United States. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine. Published online: 13 November.

  Lung, F. W., and B.C. Shu. 2007. Father-son attachment and sexual partner orientation in Taiwan. Comprehensive Psychiatry. 48:20-26.

  Lowry, R. 2012. Just not the marrying kind - a deepening trend in out-of-wedlock births shouldn't be impossible to reverse. Time Magazine. 179(9):13.

  Mundy, L. 2012. Woman, money and power. Time Magazine. 179(12):28-34.

  McMillen, S. I., and D. E. Stern. 2000. None of these diseases. Fleming H. Revell, a Division of Baker Book House Co. Grand Rapids, MI. 285 pp.

  Nelson, C.A., III, N.A. Fox, and C.H. Zeanah, Jr. 2013. Anguish of the abandoned child. Scientific American. 308 (4):62-67.

  Nicolosi, J. 1991. Reparative therapy of male homosexuality: A new clinical approach.

  Northvale, Jason. Aronson, New Jersey. 361 pp.

  Panzica, G. C., N. Aste, C. Viglietti-Panzica, and M.A. Ottinger. 1995. Structural sex differences in the brain: Influence of gonadal steroids and behavior correlates. J.

  Endocrinology. 18:232-252.

  Reinberg, S. 2007. Number of partners doesn't explain gay HIV rate. Online site: Health Day News. Thursday, September 13. The Washington Post.

  Rieger, G., J. A. Linsenmeier, L Gygax, and J. M Bailey. 2008. Sexual orientation and childhood gender nonconformity: Evidence from home videos. Developmental Psychology. 44(1):46-58.

  Satinover, J. 1996. Homosexuality and the politics of truth. Baker Books. Grand Rapids, MI. 336 pp.

  Seutter, R. A., and M. Rovers. 2004. Emotionally absent fathers: Furthering the understanding of homosexuality. Journal of Psychology and Theology. 32:43-49.

  Slavic, I., H. Berglund, and P. Lindstrom. 2005. Brain response to putative pheromones in homosexual men. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the Untied States of America. 102(20):7356-7361.

  Slavic, I., and P. Lindstom. 2008. PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects. Stockholm Brain Institute, Dept. of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute. Stockholm, Sweden. 6 p.

  Spong, J. S. 1984. Living in sin? HarperCollins Publishers, New York. 256 pp.

  Stengel, R. (Managing Editor). 2011. Health & Science. Time Magazine. 177(21):20.

  Via, D.O., and R. A. J. Gagnon. 2003. Homosexuality and the Bible. Fortress Press, Minneapolis, MI. 117 pp.

  Williams, T. J., M. E. Pepitone, S. E. Christesen, B. M. Cooke, A. D. Huberman, N. J. Breedlove, T. J. Breedlove, C. L. Jordan, and S. M. Breedlove. 2000. Finger-length ratios and sexual orientation. Nature. 404:455-456.

  Mutable Rates of Radioactive Decay

  Use of the Decay Rates of Radioactive Elements to Date Rocks and other Materials

  Geophysicists, paleontologists, and archeologists use the rates of radioactive decay to estimate the age of materials in the earth's crust; e.g., rock strata, bones, fossils, and archeological sites. Scientists can monitor the disintegration rates of various radioactive elements and determine the amount of time it takes for half of the atoms of each to degrade into daughter elements. The amount of time required for half of the atoms of a radioactive element to decay into daughter elements is designated the "half-life" of the radioactive element. For example, at current rates of gamma ray emission, it takes about 704 million years for half of the atoms of uranium-235 to decay into daughter elements. The final product of the uranium-235 chain is lead-207, which is stable. The ratio of uranium-235: lead-207 atoms in a rock sample therefore provides an estimate of how much time elapsed since the encapsulation of the uranium sample within the rock. With a half-life of 704 million years for uranium-235, the oldest Earth rock was estimated to be 4.03 billion years old (Zimmer 2001:91). But what assurance do we have that the rates of radioactive decay are constant?

  Uniformitarianism

  Most scientists assume and insist that the decay rates of radioactive elements are constant/consistent. That is in part true because most scientists embrace the assumptions of Lyell's uniformitarianism. Charles Lyell (1797-1875) was the British lawyer and geologist who authored Principles of Geology. In his book Lyell popularized James Hutton's concept that all the forces that shaped the earth in the past were the same slow processes we o
bserve today. That is, the relatively constant and slow weathering and erosion and deposition of Earth materials by wind and water and land upheavals and subsidence were responsible for most of the geologic formations we observe today. Such slow processes requiring millions or hundreds of millions of years explained the lay of the land rather than catastrophic worldwide events such as massive floods and extraterrestrial events.

  The idea that Earth was millions or even billions of years old fit well with materialist explanations for the origin of species through slow natural processes. Thus, the assumption that rates of weathering and erosion have remained dependably constant and the vision of an old Earth transferred to other observed phenomena such as the speed of light and radioactive decay rates.

  Speed of Light

  Physicists measure the speed of light by the parameter known as the "fine structure constant" or "alpha". Alpha is a measurement of the strength of the electromagnetic force. Alpha equals the charge of an electron squared divided by Planck's constant times the speed of light. Therefore, a change in alpha is viewed to represent a change in the speed of light. Some physicists have gathered data that show the speed of light is variable.

  Steve Lamoreaux of Los Alamos National Lab in Los Alamos, New Mexico and colleague Justin Torgerson analyzed the energies of neutrons in the natural nuclear reactor of Oklo in Gabon, West Africa (Meshik 2005). The Oklo data in this analysis showed that alpha decreased by more than 4.5 parts in 108 since the Oklo natural reactor started up and was operative for a few hundred thousand years, about two billion years ago. These two researchers posited that alpha varied significantly in the past. Thus, the speed of light increased during the active life of the Oklo natural reactor two billion years ago. Possibly the charge of electrons produced by the fission of uranium ore at Oklo over its radioactive life differed "significantly" from those of today?

  Of course, if the speed of light as a constant could fall into question, can we be absolutely sure the rates of radioactive decay have remained constant?

  Inconsistent Radioactive Decay Rates

  Inconsistencies Relative to Earth's Position with the Sun and Solar Activity

  Daily email from Stanford University News reported on "The strange case of solar flares and radioactive elements" (Stober 2010). Author Dan Stober reported that researchers from Stanford and Purdue University confirmed changes in the decay rates of radioactive elements on Earth relative to the Earth's position with the Sun. The researchers speculated that neutrino particles or some other mystery particles from the Sun produced the observed changes in the decay rates of radioactive elements.

  These observations conflicted with what is taught to students in the classroom that the decay rate of a specific radioactive element is a constant. The reliability of such a "constant" is important, for example, when archeologists use decay rates of carbon-14 to estimate the age of ancient artifacts or when geophysicists use the decay rates of uranium-235 to estimate the age of rocks.

  Inconsistencies Tied to the Plasma/Ionized State of Radioactive Elements

  Wang et al. (2006) reported similar but more extreme examples of changes in radioactive decay rates. These researchers reported a difference in the half-life of beryllium of 0.9% relative to location of that element in metallic or insulating environments. More drastic were the half-life changes in rhenium-187 when atoms were fully ionized (bare nuclei) in the plasma state. The half-life of rhenium transformed into osmium dropped from 41.6 billion years to 33 years (Bosch et al. 1996). Geophysicists have used the rhenium-osmium method as an isotopic clock to date rocks.

  One may ask how common is the plasma state of elements, that ionizing phase that apparently has a profound effect on the decay rates of some or perhaps all radioactive elements. The fact of the matter is that by far the most common phase of matter in the solar system and in the universe is the plasma or ionized state; that is, 99.9% of the universe is plasma. The Sun and other stars are plasma and the matter in interplanetary and interstellar space is largely plasma. On Earth the plasma state of matter occurs wherever matter is super-heated; e.g., most flames, lightning, and nuclear reactions. But we must ask if the long-lived radioactive elements used to age Earth rocks; for example, thorium and uranium, were ever subject to the plasma or ionized state during their tenure beneath or on the Earth's crust. To answer that question, we must investigate the development of the zircon crystal.

  Zircons, which are the oldest known materials on Earth, are hard crystals of zirconium silicate. The zircon crystal's chemical make-up and structure resist normal weathering events, which renders them a useful dating tool. Because zircons, during their formation, readily incorporate radioactive elements into their crystalline structures, geophysicists commonly compare the ratios of parent radioactive elements to daughter elements found in zircons to estimate the age of the crystals.

  As stated earlier in this essay, geophysicists used the ratio of 235U:107Pb found in a zircon from Australia and determined its age to be 4.03 billion years. Thus, that particular zircon is the oldest known Earth rock. But what are the chances that the zircon in question captured that particular uranium series/nuclides in the solid state intact after it was exposed to or while it was exposed to ionization events in the Earth's mantle? Such events could have increased rates of radioactive decay, rendering the zircon and its contents much younger than they appear. A little library research and logic can help us derive hypotheses about that question.

  Research by some geophysicists supports the possibility of parent and radioactive daughter elements (nuclides) remaining in situ/in closed systems/in the solid state while under high pressure and temperature conditions. Beattie (1993) noted that annealing of alpha decay damage was more rapid than the time scale of decay of radioactive nuclides at high temperatures, thermal conditions that also reduced alpha-recoil. Alpha-recoil, which fractionalizes the nuclides from one another, is the result of radioactivity. My interpretation of those observations is that decay events among parent and daughter radioactive elements diminish in severity in high temperature environments; for example, in igneous intrusions/hot plumes from the Earth's core. Such intrusions formed the Hawaiian Islands and the Mid-Atlantic ridge. That is, the U-Pb sample found in the world's oldest known zircon may have experienced millennia of solid state exposure to ionization events prior to its incorporation by the zircon in Earth's mantle. The mantle itself exists in a viscous state of both solid and liquid materials.

  The 235U-107Pb sample found in the oldest known zircon may have been held together over time in a closed system by enormous pressures and temperatures, long before rising in the mantle and being encompassed by the developing zircon. The origin of the sample may have been deep in the earth's mantle or Earth's outer core. Heavy elements like uranium are believed to occur in such locations where ionizing conditions may exist.

  Theory suggests that ionizing conditions may exist where Earth's liquid outer core meets the planet's solid inner core. In the outer core, charged iron ions circulate and create electric currents that produce Earth's geomagnetic field. Stokstad (1996) estimated that the boundary between the solid inner core and the fluid outer core produced a flow of electric currents of about a billion amps. A billion amps may be sufficient to shake the electrons off atoms in the boundary area between the Earth's core and mantle.

  In addition, geophysicists estimate that temperatures in Earth's core reach about 5,4300 C to 6,0000 C. Given that plasma conditions exist on the surface of the Sun at an estimated 5, 5000 C, the tremendous pressures in the earth's mantle and core, electric currents generated in the outer core, and/or possibly an ionizing nuclear-breeder reactor in the core-mantle boundary region (De Meijer and van Westrenen 2008) or in the center of the core itself, one would expect to find plasma environments within or below the earth's mantle.

  Aside from those possibilities, there are a number of researchers who believe that the Earth's core, like that of the Sun, is composed of plasma (He et al. 2010). As noted above, cluste
rs of radioactive parent and daughter elements in the solid state or closed systems may have experienced ionizing events prior to capture by crystallizing zircons in the Earth's mantle and prior to their transport in hot plumes or igneous intrusions from deep in the mantle, through the crust and to or near the Earth's surface.

  But zircons at Earth's surface could also have experienced long periods of ionization in the past through exposure to cosmic radiation and solar events. Cosmic radiation from outside the solar system and "solar wind" from our Sun have bombarded the Earth with energetic, charged particles since the appearance of the planet. At present, the Earth's magnetic field and atmosphere protect the surface of the plant from extreme ionization events. However, molecular oxygen and ozone that protect the earth from extreme ultraviolet radiation have only been a part of Earth's atmosphere for some 400 million years out of a possible 4.2 billion years. In addition, periodic reversals of Earth's magnetic field in the past, such as the Laschamp event some 41,000 years ago, could have reduced the strength of that protective shield to 5% of its current strength. Cosmic radiation during the Laschamp event was strong enough to increase the radioactive isotopes beryllium-10 and carbon-14. Thus, there can be little doubt that zircons at Earth's surface were exposed to ionizing conditions during previous reversals of Earth's magnetic field and prior to the development of molecular oxygen and ozone in the planet's atmosphere.

  Aside from the oldest known Earth rocks, there is the question of dating the oldest chrondrites that fall to earth as meteorites. A.E. Rubin (2013) reported that radioisotope dating shows some of these chondrites to be 4.5 billion years old. However, there can be no doubt that all chondrite samples since their formation and prior to their fall to Earth, were subject to the ionizing effects of cosmic radiation from stars and "solar wind" produced by our Sun (Stahler 2013:49). Because ionization can affect the rates of decay of some, maybe all, radioactive elements, geophysicists and astrophysicists, who use radiometric techniques to date chondrites, may be incorrect.

  Thus, should not geophysicists consider the real possibility that the uranium series housed by the oldest known zircon crystals on Earth, or the oldest chrondrites may well have been ionized for long periods of time before their discovery? What if geophysicists dated zircon crystals based on the decay rates of radioactive isotopes in the ionized state, what would we all conclude about the age of oldest known zircons or the age of the planet? The findings might be factually correct though politically and culturally unacceptable?

  Inconsistencies Related to Ultrasonic Cavitation

  Cavitation occurs under natural conditions; e.g., rapid wave action of water and river water cascading over rocks. The water pressure against the rocks creates low pressure bubbles. Vapor gases evaporate into the bubbles that disfigure and collapse, creating high temperatures to 10,0000 C and pressures equivalent to several hundred atmospheres. The release of energy creates a shock wave and a visible bluish light. Extreme cavitation such as that produced by water purification devices can breakdown organic molecules and produce plasma-based mechanisms of energy.

  The power of cavitation to break molecular bonds and to create plasma-based mechanisms of energy may explain its influence on the decay rate of thorium-228. Cardone et al. (2009) found that cavitation of thorium-228 dispersed in water increased the radioactive decay rate of that element 10,000 times greater than the standard "constant" rate. Skepticism of Cardone's recent findings are appropriate at this time, pending validation. However, extreme cavitation can produce temperatures hotter than the surface of the sun and shock waves that tear electrons from the surrounding fluids, rendering heat and pressure conditions favorable for thermonuclear fusion (Xu and Butt 2005).

  It is reasonable to hypothesize that most radioactive materials weathered and eroded by water experienced cavitation and increased rates of radioactive decay. The abundance of soil, much of it the product of the weathering of rock and erosion by water, shows that cavitation could be a continual process operative at Earth's surface.

  Inconsistencies with Carbon-14 Dating

  In 1949, Dr. Willard Libby and his colleagues at the University of Chicago developed radiocarbon dating to determine the age of carbonaceous materials/organic remains. The radioisotope carbon 14 (14C) exists in the atmosphere in what are assumed to be consistent quantities. When plants photosynthesize atmospheric carbon dioxide in the presence of sunlight to produce organic material, they incorporate 14C approximately in proportion to the relative abundance of that radioactive element in the atmosphere. When the plant dies or is eaten, it no longer takes in 14C and the radioisotope declines exponentially with a half-life of around 5,500 years. A comparison of the ratio of 14C in a sample to the percent of 14C naturally occurring in the atmosphere therefore provides an estimate of the age of organic remains. Radiometric dating with carbon-14 is not considered appropriate for dating materials over 60,000 years old because that isotope in the sample is much reduced in volume after ten half-lives of about 5,500 years each.

  Unlike other radiometric dating methods; for example, potassium-argon, uranium-lead, or rubidium-strontium dating, radiocarbon dating allowed for a few control tests. Dr. Libby successfully carbon dated the wood from an ancient Egyptian royal barge, the age of which was verified from historical documents. Comparison of tree ring counts of bristle cone pine trees, some individuals aged to 4,800 years, with radiocarbon dating of the same individuals provided another cross check. Thus, radiocarbon dating has proved to be a fairly accurate method for dating organic/carbonaceous materials.

  Though anomalies do exist, modern methods of carbon dating are accurate with even minute samples. Investigators now use laser mass spectroscopy to accelerate charged atomic particles to high velocities and then count the 14C atoms as they separate from the sample. The method is often accurate but contamination problems are common in exposed samples.

  Contamination problems, however, may not explain all apparent anomalies. An organization of doubters has appeared. The "Paleo Group" (2013) claim to be a group of "consultants in geology, paleontology, chemistry, engineering, and education who perform research on fossils." This private sector group performed multiple radiocarbon tests on such items as marble, ancient coal deposits, amber, diamonds, and dinosaur bones. They used the most modern techniques, including laser mass spectroscopy, to age their samples. Surely, contamination was not an issue in radiocarbon dating diamond, amber, and marble samples? These investigators discovered that of all those materials, assumed to be multi-millions of years old based on potassium-argon, uranium-lead, and rubidium-strontium radiometric methods, contained 14C. Radiocarbon dating of the same samples showed each to be a few thousand carbon-14 years old.

  The Paleo Group researchers acknowledged one hypothesis that could account for the presence of 14C in samples previously thought to be millions or billions of years old. Possibly, ordinary carbon was synthesized to 14C by strong radiation from radioactive materials or by other ionization events? As noted above, reversal of Earth's magnetic field during the Laschcamp event some 41,000 years ago allowed cosmic radiation and solar wind to synthesize 14C on Earth.

  Notwithstanding reluctance to publish negative findings, the scientific community must, in order to retain a sense of integrity, explore the reasons 14C is prevalent in dinosaur bones, diamonds, marble, amber, and "ancient" coal deposits. Such investigations are needed to put to rest with sound science, the seemingly surprising claims of the "Paleo Group".

  I suggest researchers radiocarbon date the soft tissue recently reported by Schweitzer (2010) to exist in the bones of dinosaurs. After all, how does soft tissue persist for 67 million years in the remains of any creature? One would think that observation in itself would raise a red flag, or at least a questioning eyebrow. Just an "anomaly"? The word "anomaly" does not explain process; it simply means with a shrug of the shoulders: "We don't know, care, or want to know."

  I also recommend geophysicists research the decay rates of radioactive materials
in the plasma state and use those decay rates to estimate the age of zircons. This request seems reasonable because Earth's long-lived radioactive elements in the solid state may well have passed through ionizing environments prior to cooling at or near the earth's surface. And, those same materials at or near Earth's' surface may also have experienced millions of years of exposure to cavitation, solar wind, and cosmic radiation.

  Another reason to research the decay rates of radioactive elements in the plasma state would be to explore the possibility of storing radioactive wastes in ionizing environments. In ionized environments, the radioactivity of some, maybe all, of those materials would neutralize over relatively short periods of time. For example, the half-life of rhenium transformed to osmium diminishes from 42 billion years to 33 years when fully ionized (Bosch et al. 1996). Under fully ionized conditions, a ton of rhenium-187 would diminish by half in 33 years and to 16 pounds in 230 years.

  Literature Cited

  Beattie, P. D. 1993. The generation of uranium series disequilibria by partial melting of spinel peridotite; constraints from partitioning studies. Earth Planet Sci. Lett. 117:379-391.

  Bosch, R., T. Faestermann, J. Friese, F. Heine, E.Wefers, K. Zeitlhack, K. Beckert, B. Franzke, O. Klepper, C. Kozhuharov, G. Menzel, R. Moshammer, F. Nolden, H. Reich, B. Schlitt, M. Steck, T. Stohlker, T.Winkler, and K. Takashashi. 1996. Observation of bound-state B-decay of fully ionized 187Re: 187Re-187Os Cosmo chronometry. Phys. Rev. Lett. 77(26):5190-5193.

  Cardone, F., R. Mignani, and A. Petrucci. 2009. Piezonuclear decay of thorium. Physics Letters A, 373(22):1956-1958.

  De Meijer, R. J., and W. van Westrenen. 2008. The feasibility and implications of Nuclear georeactors in Earth's core-mantle boundary region. South African J. of Sci. 104:111-118.

  He, F., X. Zhang, B. Chen, and M. Fok. 2010. Calculation of the extreme ultraviolet radiation of the earth's plasmasphere. Science China. 53(1):200-205.

  Meshik, A. P. 2005. The workings of an ancient nuclear reactor. Scientific American. 293(5): 82-91.

  Paleo Group. Available online (May 2013) at www.dinosaurc14ages.com or "fossil carbon dating and paleochronology."

  Rubin, A.E. 2013. I pity astronomers. Scientific American. 308(2): 36-41.

  Schweitzer, M. H. 2010. Blood from stone. Scientific American. 303(6):62-69.

  Stober, D. 2010. The strange case of solar flares and radio elements. Stanford University News. (Available online, August 23).

  Stokstad, E. 1996. Earth's heart is in a spin. New Scientist. 2039:18.

  Wang, B., S. Yan, B. Limata, M. Aliotta, H. W. Becker, J. Cruz, N. De Cesare, A. D'Onofrio, and Z.Fulop. 2006. Change of the 7Be electron capture half-life in metallic environments. The European Physical J. A-Hadrons and Nuclei. 28(3):375-377.

  Xu, Y. and A. Butt. (2005) Confirmatory experiments for nuclear emissions during acoustic cavitation. Science Direct. Nuclear Engineering and Design 235(2005): 1317- 1324. Available online at www.sciencedirect.com.

  Zimmer, C. 20001. How old is it? National Geographic. 200(5):78-101.

  Darwin - Truth in Detail

  Theories of the wholly natural/materialist evolution of species are not new. Durant (1933:72-75) reported that Greek culture produced pre-Darwinian evolutionists 2,500 years ago. Anaximander (610-540 B.C.) posited multiple universes and evolution of land animals from the sea:

  ...astronomic history periodically repeated itself in the evolution and dissolution of an infinite number or worlds...that life had first been formed in the sea, but had been driven upon the land by the subsidence of water; that of these stranded animals some had developed the capacity to breathe air, and had so become the progenitors of all later land life...

  Furthermore, Anaxagoras (500-428 B.C.) speculated that man's intelligence was linked to the development of the "opposable digit" or "the power of manipulation that came when the fore-limbs were freed from the tasks of locomotion." Anaxagoras was apparently an evolutionists who attributed ultimate causes to intelligent design. Plutarch (46-51 A.D - 120-130 A.D.) recorded that Anaxagoras: "was the first of the philosophers who did not refer the first order of the world to fortune or chance, nor to necessity or compulsion, but to pure, unadulterated intelligence..." (Eliot, editor 1909:39).

  Heraclitus (530-470 B.C.) hinted at evolutionary struggle, natural selection, and law:

  Where there is no strife there is decay: "The mixture which is not shaken decomposes..." In this flux of change and struggle and selection, only one thing is constant, and that is law.

  Empedocles (fl. 445 B.C., in Sicily) noted:

  Organs arise not by design but by selection. Nature makes many trials and experiments with organisms, combining organs variously; where the combination meets environmental needs the organism survives and perpetuates its like; where the combination fails, the organism is weeded out; as time goes on, organisms are more and more intricately and successfully adapted to their surroundings.

  Finally, Leucippus (fl.445 B.C.) noted that "Everything is driven by necessity" and Democritus (460-360 B.C.) taught that "there is no design; the universe is a machine." Thus, we see that Darwin's ideas were not new and that those old ideas and assumptions persist today in the minds of philosophical materialists and in the publications of some popular magazines.

  For decades, National Geographic has been a champion of Darwin's model on evolution of species, at least in theory. Today, authors still line-up the "ancestors" of modern man (Homo sapiens) in an ascendant fashion to illustrate Darwin's model of phyletic, gradual evolution (Fischman 2011). They show H. erectus coexisting in time with Australopithecus boisei, A. robustus, A. sediba, H. rudolfensis, H. habilis, H heidelbergensis, H. neanderthalensis, and our own species H. sapiens. Of interest, some paleontologists continue to place H. rudolfensis and H. habilis in the more primitive genus Australopithecus. The point is that all those hominid species, "ancestors" and modern man, coexisted with our proposed ancestor H. erectus. Coexistence of progenitor and descendant species does not fit Darwin's model of macroevolution.

  Aside from the non-Darwinian aspect of H. erectus co-existing with its predecessor and descendent species, the fossil evidence does not allow us to reasonably place in direct lineage coexisting species. Wood (2014:45) noted:

  The presence of multiple evolutionary branches at any one time makes it much more difficult to identify direct ancestors of modern humans than paleontologists anticipated even 20 years ago.

  Supposedly, modern humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor some 5 to 8 million years ago. So, how many species could we compress into those few million years if we had to line them up in direct lineage leading from tree-dwelling simian to human being? Tattersall (2014:56) noted that most mammal species persist for around 3 million years. Thus, we could squeeze two or three species between the common simian ancestor we share with chimps and ourselves.

  That is not gradual evolution and it is not reasonable, until proven otherwise, to think that random gene mutation is capable of accomplishing such evolutionary leaps. As Behe (2014:179) observed: "...random mutation cannot take multiple coherent molecular steps." This is not to say that speciation does not occur through mutation but rather that undirected, random mutation has shown itself to be severely limited in what it can do. See "mutation" in "Definitions/Notes" at the end of this essay. Mutation that is not random falls into the category of design or programming.

  In the fallacious alignment of our "ancestors," evolutionary biologists and paleontologists have thrown in a few new players; e.g. H. heidelbergensis between H. erectus and H. sapiens (Wong 2012) and a possible want-to-be or two. Neanderthal man has fluctuated between being a separate species and a subspecies of modern man. However, no investigators argue with the coexistence of H. erectus with its ancestor genus Australopithecus and its supposed descendent species that included modern man. Paleontological speculators and some evolutionary biologists continue to ignore the fact that these kinds of information are in direct opposition to Darwin's theory of
the gradual evolution of populations into new species and they ignore the confusion that reasonably should follow the fact of multiple evolutionary branches coexisting. They fall back on the speculations of rapid evolution of species in isolation. We'll tackle this issue in the discussion of "punctuated equilibrium" and "epigenetic niche match" later on in this essay.

  Darwin believed that speciation through geographic isolation occurred rarely but that the gradual evolution of whole populations into new species best explained the origin of species. The problem with speciation of isolated, small populations was that microevolutionary changes based on existing gene pools could be rapid and small areas lacked the variable landscape features needed to stimulate variation in the species. Species changes in small, relatively simple habitats suggested mysterious, non-Darwinian saltation processes. Rather, natural selection acting on random variation within a large, wide ranging population required innumerable, infinitesimally small steps to account for the production of and coordinated changes in complex organs, structures, and functions. Complexity conjoined with abrupt appearances of complexity smacked of mind and active planning and conflicted with Darwin's agenda to render the origin of species a wholly natural, mindless process.

  At the college level, I found the origin of species of relatively minor importance because my education focused on ecology and population biology. My interest and concern was primarily with extant populations in the context of their environments. Evolutionary biology was an ethereal sideline and theories on the origin of species was of interest but not critical to my function. My job was to identify and quantify how members of a living species survived and prospered or failed to do so. One can manage environments and populations to benefit or deter species without speculations on their origins. However, I did understand Darwinian gradualism as a theoretical explanation for the possible origin of species. And that is why I chuckled when I read in National Geographic that our "ancestors" coexisted with us and with each other.

  As a Christian, I had few problems with evolutionary theories because the complexity of nature and my own sense of self-awareness spooked me well beyond a need to explain away God. Aside from early questions tied to materialist evolution and philosophy, the investigations of numerous individuals; e.g., Behe et.al. (1999) and Behe (1996 and 2014), Meyer (2009 and 2013), (Stanley (1998), (Strobel (2004), Wells (2000), and Woodward (2006) have shown that Darwin was incorrect in the specifics of his claims for the origin of species. These authors presented a lot of information that refuted the hopes and claims of those trying to hold on to some semblance of Darwinian gradualism.

  Another reason Darwinian gradualism posed no significant threat to my faith in God was that I saw no conflicts with species of plants and animals developing from other species of plants and animals through random and nonrandom evolutionary processes. I noted that Genesis did not explain the processes God used to make life from the elements of the earth and that God made various "kinds" of organisms that were equivalent to our present classification of organisms at the family and subfamily level. That the family or subfamily produced numerous genera and species did not differ with the biblical rendition of creation.

  Furthermore, the biblical record noted in Genesis 2:2: "And on the seventh day God finished the work that he had done..." I speculated that God rested from his project, not because God needed rest, but because he had completed the information systems and hardware planning for the Earth project. He wanted to take a moment to admire his completed work and he wanted to set an example for laboring mankind. Take time and pleasure in the work of your hands and mind and of his "hands" and mind...and "smell the roses."

  Some Christians have argued that God quit working after creation and therefore creation does not change/evolve. However, in response to accusations against Jesus for "working" on the Sabbath, Jesus said in John 5: 17b: "My Father is still working, and I also am working." Could it be that what God finished in Genesis 2:1 ("Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all their multitude") referred to software/information programming? In like manner, when Bill Gates finished the software program "Windows 95" in the mid-90s, he completed it. Of course, the whole purpose of the finished program was that it was usable for investigating numerous new possibilities and for manipulating, generating, storing, and sharing information.

  I suggest that in initial creation, God established the hardware and software plans for running the Earth project and for subsequent creation, replication, and sustaining of life in all its complexity and beauty. By definition, "evolution" simply means ordered development like the opening of a flower, all programmed and planned by God in detail. God's software program was designed to provide biological life and ultimately the arrival of choice, developed to the highest degree in us human beings. This concept of God's completion of complicated software to operate within the confines of his natural laws fits well with the observed complexity of operations from the functions of living cells to the fine-tuning of the universe with the specifics required for life to exist. Part of this programming and fine-tuning we observe in the genetic variation that allows species to adapt to changes in their environments.

  We observe, for example, change in body form, as did Darwin, in the production of domestic varieties of plants and animals. It would never occur to us, as it did to Darwin, that God did not create pigeons because domestic pigeons develop from wild pigeons. Darwin's thoughts now appear ridiculous because the appearance and retention of varieties within the species, though based on random mutation and selective breeding, does not produce new species. Notably, even the HIV virus which has an enormous mutation rate and has over the last few decades produced a hundred billion billion (1020) copies of itself, remains "a complete stick in the mud," having "developed nothing significantly new and complex" (Behe 2014:137-139,155). One may therefore rightly question Darwin's imagined conflict between the production of varieties/breeds of species through domestication processes and the biblical rendition of creation.

  God said in Genesis l: "Let the earth put forth vegetation..." and "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures..." and "Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind..." Obviously, God did not mention any processes but he did produce organisms at the "kind" or "family" level that could produce thousands of species within the boundaries of each "kind". Some theologians assume God's designation of "kind" is the same as our designation of "species". But, like Darwin, they are incorrect in that assumption. The biblical "kind," as noted above, was most often used for the general classification of species groups, sometimes at the "family" or "subfamily" levels of current classification.

  We note in the Law of Moses (Leviticus 11:22) God's list of edible insects:

  Of them you may eat: the locust according to its kind, the bald locust (long-horned grasshoppers) according to its kind, the cricket according to its kind, and the grasshopper according to its kind.

  Obviously, in this reference, the Bible does not equate "kind" with "species" because there are numerous genera and species of crickets and of grasshoppers. For example, the Bible considers the locust a "kind" and the grasshopper a "kind" of animal. Modern taxonomists classify both of these "kinds" as members of the short-horned grasshopper family Acrididae. Matheson (1951:161) stated that the family Acrididae contains an estimated 8,000 different species. Similarly, the single class "cricket" and single class "bald locust" (long-horned grasshoppers), which the Bible classified as individual "kinds" are equivalent to the modern insect families Gryllidae and Tettigoniidae, respectively.

  In like fashion, God said (Genesis 1:24):

  ...let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind: cattle and creeping things and wild animals of the earth of every kind.

  In this reverence, one of the "living creatures of every kind" is the classification "cattle". Modern taxonomists place all genera and species of cattle into the family "Bovidae". Thus, the biblical "kind" in this reference refers to a family of mammals, not to a specie
s. In Genesis 1:25, the Bible says that God made the wild animals of earth of every kind and the cattle of every kind..." The latter "kind" referred to bovine categories within the family Bovidae but possibly above the species level. Leviticus 11:29 refers to "...the weasel, the mouse, the great lizard according to its kind." Each of these animal groups could be considered a "kind" at classification levels above that of our current designation "species". Note that the Bible does not refer to "kinds" of cattle, mice, or grasshoppers, a demarcation we might take as a reference to our current classification "species".

  Thus, the biblical "kind" refers to classifications often above the genus level; at the level of subfamily or family. Certainly, Noah would have had a relatively easier time of boarding on the ark one "kind" of deer, bovine, canine, feline, etc. rather than thousands of individual species. The "kinds" of animals could later microevolve numerous sister genera and species as programmed. The point is that speciation was planned and logic suggests that programming requires a Programmer.

  I for one, think it reasonable to believe that God is responsible for the complex programming observed in the functions of biological life and in the fine-tuning of the universe. And, I suspect that Darwin's simplistic view of the functioning of biological organisms and his love of the materialist philosophy are largely responsible for his materialist, evolutionary theory. I suggest that the acceptance of his theory has played well with certain segments of society primarily because of its simplicity of explanation and because of its apparent ability to explain the origins of life without consideration of a supreme being. You might say that Darwin pushed the envelope on application of "Occam's razor"; that is, the simplest explanation with the fewest new assumptions is probably the best one. He basically and simplistically began his work On the Origin of Species, for example, with the simple assumption: "Once upon a time in the warm sea, there was a fully formed, functioning cell..." Darwinist Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) in like manner described the cell as a "simple little lump of albuminous combination of carbon" (Behe 2014).

  Darwin assumed the cell was simple and he assumed that the first 1-celled organism displayed the mechanistic laws of nature because the cell appeared, in his opinion, without the help of a designer... because wholly natural mechanisms produced all life forms. That was the simple, circular thinking characteristic of assumptions that appear repeatedly throughout the Origin.

  Darwin's work does appear simplistic now, particularly when one looks at details in the Origin. In lieu of simply relying on statements from theoretical, evolutionary biologists and other true believers, I decided to make an analytical page-by-page study of Darwin's On the Origin of Species and decide for myself if Darwin's views had merit. Darwin's ideas, though presented in rambling, flowery language in his original work are fairly easy to understand and any biology student at the college level, assuming he/she has a great deal of patience, can understand and evaluate the Origin. One of the reasons for the simplicity of Darwin's work was that he did not have access to highly specialized information as we do today. He based his ideas on every day observations of the natural world, interpretations of which are open to question by the average observer.

  For discussion purposes, I referenced the same topical captions used by Darwin in the Origin. First I will address Darwin's reason for writing the Origin, will provide generally accepted definitions for "species" and the biblical "kind," and will discuss the tautological (see Definitions/Notes at the end of this essay) character of Darwin's persistent designations of "laws". I will then proceed to select representative examples of Darwin's arguments from each section and follow each with a critique. For this review and critique, I used The Origin of Species. Signet Classics. September 2003. New American Library, Penguin Group (USA) Inc.

  Darwin's Purpose

  As a philosophical materialist, Darwin's goal was to provide a materialist, mechanistic explanation for the origin of species. Thus, he addressed competing explanations, those forced upon him, that failed to comply with his set purpose. He frequently used numerous anecdotes, personal observations and opinions, highly questionable logic, abundant tautologies, and generalities as though they produced "facts" and invented "principles", "rules" and "laws of nature" to support his materialist assumptions. He assumed the role of a crusader-attorney in passionate efforts to push his case.

  Sound experimental science is based the testing of hypotheses and on repetition of experiment with control and test conditions for comparison. The Origin by contrast is the product of a historical scientific investigation. Such investigations rely on the formulation of competing hypotheses and adopting those inferences that lead to the best explanations (Meyer 2009). Historical sciences include such disciplines as paleontology, archeology, cosmology, geology, forensic science, and criminology. Investigators, in the light of known processes, examine current evidence and hypothesize on past events (causes) that could have produced that evidence.

  In the case of On the Origin of Species, I have taken Darwin's opinions and hypotheses and offered some of my own and those of others to show how easy it is to derive logical but contrary opinions to Darwin's interpretations, tautologies, anecdotes, "facts", "principles", "rules," and "laws of nature". Because the average biology student at the college level can do this, one wonders why the world was so ready to embrace Charles Darwin. Why do many still strive and strain to save Darwinian gradualism?

  "Species" and "Kind" Defined

  A species is a group of individuals having many characteristics in common and differing from all other forms in one or more ways. The individuals of a species are all derived from a common ancestry, are related by "blood," and can breed with one another to produce fertile offspring that resemble the parents. As a general rule separate species do not interbreed, though hybrids between species do occur occasionally. (Storer and Usinger, 1957:232).

  Another definition from Ernst Mayr (1997:129):

  A species ...is a group of interbreeding natural populations that is reproductively (genetically) isolated from other such groups because of physiological or behavioral barriers.

  The biblical "kind" of plant or animal referred to a classification of organisms above the species level and equivalent to the "family" or "subfamily" class used by modern taxonomists. Of interest, Behe (2014:218) mathematically calculated that random mutation could not account for the origin of complexity in organisms above the classification of either genera, families, and/or orders.

  Tautological Nature of "Laws of Nature"

  Members of every discipline regularly violate the rules of logic by using tautological statements. As explained under Definitions/Notes at the end of this essay, a tautology is a restatement of a concept in different words to produce the illusion that the author has thereby provided additional information when in fact he/she has not. Darwin regularly "discovered" new "laws of nature" and affirmed them tautologically throughout On the Origin of Species. When it comes to tautologies, Darwin would be classed as a frequent flyer. Watch for them.

  One of the best ways to recognize a "law of nature" as opposed to a tautology is to question whether or not the "law" describes repetitive phenomena that can be expressed in precise mathematical terms. For example, the laws of motion, gravitation, conservation of energy, and thermodynamics can be mathematically expressed and have calculable and predictable values.

  By contrast, Darwin often did and other philosophical materialists frequently do imply that their repetitive observations fall under the veil of "scientific laws," implying both causal relationships and a kinship with the mathematical precision of the law of gravity. I will illustrate this ruse with an illustration.

  Cell biologist Stuart Newman of New York Medical College has proposed that unattached, individual cells may have the power to self-organize into groups in different ways to produce new body plans (Newman and Bhat 2009, Meyer 2013:301). This process occurs under the direction of "regulatory genes" that quite fortuitously and inexplicably hold vast amounts of genetic in
formation within the unattached cells. Newman hypothesizes that the unattached, disorganized cells get together and form new body plans through self-organizing, epigenetic processes absent of the neo-Darwinian processes of gene mutation and natural selection.

  In his theoretical illustration, Newman describes how certain epigenetic processes proceed by specific stages, reminiscent of the programmed development of a fertilized egg. What Newman glosses over is any physicochemical origin/source of the specified, functional information required for his hypothetical model of self-organization to work. Of course, the development of a fertilized and undifferentiated egg into a human being in nine months requires a cataract of stages, mind-boggling in both number and complexity, guided by specified epigenetic and genetic sources of biological information.

  Because digital information is the basis of cellular function, any valid model for evolution must address its origin, source. Rather, Newman designates developed stages, implying understood processes, to give the impression that he has addressed and explained basic causal operations at the cellular level. He has therefore confused his hypothesized, proximate results ("observed" stages) with explanations for the origin of the ultimate controls/causes of cellular functions; that is, biological information.

  I am going to compare Newman's "Dynamical Patterning Modules" (Meyer 2013:301) with my "Darwinian equivalents". My "Darwinian equivalents" are the kinds of tautological phraseology Darwin was fond of using to give the impression that a biological process or stage was understood in detail and explained in materialist terms. I suggest that my "Darwinian equivalents" contain as much information as Newman's "explanations" for complex developmental stages, be they real or hypothesized:

  Newman's Dynamical Pattering Modules

  Stage l - Causes adhesion among a group of unaggregated cells, allowing for multicellularity. ("Darwinian Equivalent"- Law of loose cells sticking together.)

  Stage 2 - Takes a group of aggregated cells and allows co-existence of alternative cell states within the group. ("Darwinian Equivalent" - Rule of differentiated cells still-sticking together.)

  Stage 3 - Takes an aggregated group of different types of cells and allows separation of cells into multilayered tissues. ("Darwinian Equivalent" - Principle of tissue-forming.)

  Stage 4 - Takes a group of aggregated cells and causes formation of interior cavities. ("Darwinian Equivalent" - Law of hole-making.)

  Stage 5 - Takes an aggregated group of cells and causes elongation of tissues within a plane. ("Darwinian Equivalent" - Rule of cigar-shape formation.)

  Stage 6 - Takes an elongated tissue and chemically induces oscillation of cell patterns allowing segmentation of a body plan. ("Darwinian Equivalent" - Principle of the chemical formation of body divisions.)

  As can be clearly seen from the rather comical effect above, sets of words can produce the appearance of sense and the appearance of the details of a step-wise process. However, simply putting a name or several names on observed stages of embryonic development or hypothesized stages of some imagined biological process produces only the appearance of a causal connection within and between stages. The question is not that aggregates of cells go through stages during embryogenesis but what ultimately causes them to do that? Without information on the origin of digital information that guides cellular processes, why would anyone assume that complex and fully functional body plans appeared rapidly through some process of unguided, spontaneous generation?

  In like fashion, Darwin's adding the word "law" or "rule" or "principle" to identify a repetitive occurrence provided no information on ultimate causes of and regulation of any process. His word "law" was simply an iteration to affirm his materialist philosophy that wholly natural processes produced all life forms and to leave the impression that the causes of the process were understood/explained. Nor does Newman's hypothesized model of self-organization for the production of new body plans address the origin of the specified, functional information required for his model to work (Meyer 2013: 300-309).

  Protein

  This essay refers repeatedly to the complexities of the cell and to the DNA digital code required to produce proteins. Therefore, it is important to have some knowledge of proteins and their functions and their origins in order to grasp the significant gap between what really happens in the cell and the simplistic assumptions of Darwinian gradualism. This write-up will provide a brief overview of a few cellular functions required to produce proteins in that factory that is the cell.

  Protein is a basic nutrient important in the development and maintenance of the human body. You can get the protein your body requires by eating meat, eggs, beans, and dairy products. And, if you are not squeamish, you can get protein from eating crickets and grasshoppers, too. Those kinds of proteins are what we are talking about here but I want to emphasize their important functions in living organisms. This will be a simplified presentation for two reasons: 1) the simplified version is all I understand and 2) proteins and their functions are recognized but not fully understood by the experts.

  Proteins are what make the cell work. Virtually everything the cell does, various kinds of proteins accomplish. Bruce Alberts, President of the National Academy of Sciences, introduced this issue with an article entitled. "The cell as a collection of Protein Machines" (Behe et al, 2000:66). In his article Alberts stated:

  We have always underestimated cells...The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines...Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts.

  If you go inside a factory that makes automobiles, you will find all kinds of tools and parts and numerous machines and robots and computerized systems full of information for ordering the assembly of vehicles. Intelligence is required for building all the tools and machines and for all the electric wiring and energy inputs and for the creating of all the various computer programs that guide the robots and control other machinery. In like fashion, the cell, which is much more complicated in its operations than any automobile factory, uses a wide variety of proteins and combinations thereof to carry out all the functions of the cell, including self-replication.

  Just as the particular shape and constituent parts of a hammer or screwdriver or engine block or engine part determines its effective use, each protein has its specific shape and molecular and chemical composition in order to function individually or in unison with other proteins. DNA provides the specific digital information required for making all the proteins the cell requires to function and to replicate.

  The DNA code is in the sequential form of four chemical compounds called nucleotide bases; that is: guanine (G), adenine (A), thymine (T), and cytosine (C). The specified sequence of these nucleotide bases on the DNA molecule is what determines ultimately the shape and chemical constituency of a particular protein. The production of a relatively simple protein requires the specific sequencing of about 150 nucleotide bases. Making a more complex protein may require a specified sequence of 250 or more nucleotide bases. Of interest, there is no explanation for the origin of the specified sequences of nucleotide bases along the spiraling DNA molecule. The chemical properties of the nucleotides nor of corresponding amino acids determine a single genetic code (Meyer 2009:248).

  The cell makes proteins by application of the DNA code. A molecule called the "messenger-RNA" goes over to a section of the DNA and copies the particular sequence of nucleotide bases in the same medium, that of nucleotide bases. The messenger-RNA then travels over to the ribosome in the cell and delivers its sequential information there. The ribosome is a molecular machine that translates the sequence of nucleotide bases into 3-letter "codons". Each codon consists of three bases and directs the cell to attach a specific amino acid to its growing chain of
other amino acids (Meyer 2009:103). Once the DNA code is translated into the specific sequence of amino acids by the ribosome, the specified sequence of amino acids (polypeptide) then takes the right functional shape to form the specified protein. This protein then takes its place in the translation, transcription, and replication processes required for the cell to function. Thus, proteins are not just meat you eat but are shaped and constructed to be the tools and complex molecular machines and housing the cell requires to function. On to the critique of Darwin's work.