Following is the fourth in a series of Scriptural Science Segues. You can find the others at “GUT”, “Sustainer”, and “Made of”.
Human Designed Information System.
Computers operate off of a binary (base 2) number system which we designate as 0 and 1. The actual workings within the computer chip are tiny transistor junctions (switches) that are either on, 1, or off, 0. This one piece of information is called a bit. Eight bits constitute a byte which is the amount of information used to code for numbers, letters, and symbols on the keyboard (example: 00111010 = Z). The computer binary system is a simple information system that can control complex operations. This information system and functioning code requires much intelligence to design.
Biological Information.
The biological world has a more complex quaternary (base 4) information system of four molecules within the large molecule, DNA. We designate these four options for coding by the first letter of the molecules’ names: A, T, G, and C. Any combination of three of these letters constitute a triplet which codes for an amino acid. In the human body, specific combinations of anywhere from 234 up to 34,350 amino acids in very specific orders make up the thousands of functioning proteins which do the work of the cell. The DNA molecule stores information, is copied, read, and self-correcting for the purpose of directing all biological processes. The biochemical mechanisms within the cell that accomplish all of these functions are more complicated than a computer and frequently likened to the workings of a large city, though far more complex.
Intelligence Is Behind Information.
Since a computer needs an intelligent designer to program it and maintain it, the far more complex biological systems must also have had an Intelligent Designer. We know of no information system that exists that does not have its origin in intelligence. That God is the Intelligent Designer is not only a reasonable scientific hypothesis, it is the only idea that fits the evidence.
Continuity of Information.
David said about his own origin, “For You created my innermost parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb. I will give thanks to You, because I am awesomely and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, and my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from You when I was made in secret, and skillfully formed in the depths of the earth; Your eyes have seen my formless substance; and in Your book were written all the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them.” (Psalm 139:13-16) God had already created the DNA code system from which He formed David and all living things. “God said, ‘Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them’; and it was so” [day 3], “God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind” [day 5], and “God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind” [day 6] (Genesis 1:11,21,25). Take note of the fact that these did not progress from one to another in any evolutionary scenario. God created them within their kind to then reproduce according to the DNA code of their kind.
Derived from the Source.
“Who has put wisdom in the innermost being or given understanding to the mind?” (Job 38:36) Our systems of information are all derived from existing systems. We did not create binary code or language, but discovered and used them. They are gifts of God from “Christ Himself, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” (Colossians 2:3) Language came from the fact of “God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness’” (Genesis 1:26). There must be an intelligent source of information, making it hard to logically deny that He is the Source of all things.





Basis of Civil Debate
Posted in Change, Civil Debate, Cultural commentary, Fears, General, Implications, Respect, Society, tagged Being heard, Civil Debate, Discussion, Fear, Open-mindedness, Respect on June 2, 2020| 3 Comments »
What is the way forward for our country in this time of crisis?
Awhile back I was having a discussion with two people, who we will call Mr. L and Mr. S, that turned into an argument. They were on one side of a position and I was on the other. I do not like to get drawn into arguments for reasons far deeper than the immediate discomfort, but I dislike even more when truth is being trampled. Well, from my perspective, things got worse, because I was no longer concerned about the statements being made. I agreed in principle with them, but I did not like the fact that I was never heard. Mr. L and Mr. S would tell you that they fully understood me and could see that I was patently wrong, but that is simply not true. The evidence I would give is that I was never allowed to state my point, so that I was never truly heard, and therefore, they could not have known if I was wrong or not.
And this is the reason for this blog entry*. The basis for civil debate is the requirement that the views of the parties** in the debate be heard, truly heard. If not, there has not been debate, but there has been monologue, haranguing, putdown, and dismissal. This does not mean that the two or more parties must come to agreement, though that would be a further needed step for legislative progress. But they must hear each other in such a way as to believe that the other party, at the very least, thinks that their position is reasonable. The end result will be some change in all of the parties. They will have seen, I mean really seen, that is heard, another perspective. The result may well be that they have more evidence for why they don’t agree, but it might also mean that they come to see a reason to modify their own position, even if ever so slightly.
This basic tenet of civil debate and discourse has another underlying prerequisite. In order to really hear someone, you must have some minimal respect for that person or party. When that is lacking then the monologue and so forth commences. I highly suspect from watching this scenario play out numerous times and being party to this mis-step myself, that the reason for the lack of respect, and therefore lack of listening, is essentially fear. If you believe that the other party holds some wicked position or intention that will undermine your worldview, status quo, or comfort, you are apt to attack it vociferously. But if you are confident that the truth will win out, either in the short-term or long-term, you may feel at ease enough to hear the other party out for the purpose of learning or modifying your own position.
Take note that those who least hold to what is true most vehemently avoid listening to their opponents. And be doubly aware of those who feign listening but never really hear what their opponents say.
What I have essentially just defined is open-mindedness. Some who claim to be the most open-minded, the kind who will not hold to one or any particular point of view, listen the least and are the most closed-minded. Why? Frequently they are unwilling to commit to a position, not because they don’t know (agnostic), but because they don’t want to know (stubborn). Other people wear closed-mindedness as a badge, thinking that they uphold the “real” truth. Their fear of straying from their understanding of the truth causes them to cling to a shallow truth at best. These two problems reign on both extremes of political and belief perspectives and in the middle as well. In reality, their close-mindedness is of no value to anyone, including themselves. And I do not ascribe to the definition of open-mindedness that believes that there is no truth, and therefore everyone has their own truth. That is counter to Western thought, logic, and any view of the society that works.***
A listening ear is not a rejection of truth, but a confidence that there is truth and that it appears in surprising places and can instruct and benefit the hearer from wherever or whomever it comes, and that it will win out in the end.
In summary, here are the points I made: 1) Civil Debate requires that all invested parties are really heard. 2) Really hearing someone requires a little respect for the person, even if not for their position, 3) Lack of kindly respect for your debate opponent points to fear that your position might be overcome, and 4) Open-mindedness is good and beneficial for debate.
I hope that you have heard me and benefited.
*What happened to Mr.s L and S? Stay tuned. That description will come soon, but I do not want to distract from my main point.
**Modern liberal thought that absent parties must be in the debate don’t work since that means that people no longer alive, non-citizens, non-vested interests, and others not party to the debate run the debate. Equity is not that non-parties to the debate rule the debate, but that they be allowed to become parties to the debate through involvement in the process and vested interest in the debate. That involves allowance to include other parties and commitment on the part of all parties to be involved and invested. Certain parties cannot be allowed into the conversation, because their purpose and presence is disruptive.
*** Why society without truth will not work is a topic for another day, but a worthy one.
Read Full Post »