Care Bear Stare

I don't usually read opinion columns, but I'm here in my native hometown in Kansas, and I picked up a copy of the Wichita Eagle. I ran across this piece about how people ought to respond to major issues. He brings up the idea of the Care Bear Stare vs. actual reflective thought. It's a very short, well-written article, so I will stop now and just say if you've got a minute, read it.

FSM

My wife happened upon an interesting article in Sunday's Denver Post. She alerted my attention to it when she asked me if I knew anything about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I was intrigued. Apparently, it all started in May of 2005, when the Kansas State School Board was discussing whether or not to teach Intelligent Design alongside evolution in science class. Oregon State grad student Bobby Henderson wrote a letter to the board, proclaiming that if they taught Kansas kids ID, then they should by all means teach his alternative ID theory that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. He even included a picture of the Monster, or FSM to his friends. He also pinned the cause of global warming on the dwindling number of pirates in the letter, which I actually thought was pretty funny. He has since established a "church" and the FSM has followers called "Pastafarians". All in all, in perusing the FSM website, I think that Henderson has actually done a fairly creative job with it. And I do find the FSM pretty good-looking, for a deity.

Of course, as amusing as it is, there is but one small problem. Unfortunately, that problem is the entire foundation of the argument. Here it goes:

1. There is no scientific evidence for an Intelligent Designer.
2. Therefore, Intelligent Design is not science.

Did you miss it? Here, let me try this again:

1. There is no naturalistic scientific evidence for an Intelligent Designer.
2. Therefore, Intelligent Design is not science.

Let's try it one more time, just for fun:

1. Science, which (since around 1850) by definition only allows for completely natural causes in a closed system and therefore disregards the very idea of an Intelligent Designer a priori, finds no evidence for an Intelligent Designer.
2. Therefore, Intelligent Design is not science.

Anybody else have a problem with this logic? I see this very much as the attempt "to have one's cake and eat it, too". Science has cordoned off any talk of the supernatural because of its philosophical presuppositions of naturalism--which, by the way, are not scientifically verifiable. Anyone who decides to cross this arbitrary line (scientifically speaking) is condemned as a heretic who is despoiling the virgin Truth that is Science.

Does this mean that I want kids in public schools everywhere learning about the universe by reading Genesis 1-3? Not really. I'm not so sure I want the church to team up with the government to begin with; after all, what kind of track record does the government have going for it at this point? What I would like to see is kids (and adults) everywhere thinking critically about what they are told. Does the idea of naturalism make sense? Are the arguments I am presented logically coherent, and do they reflect what I see in real life? Or more broadly, does the naturalistic worldview equate to reality (or any other worldview, for that matter)?

If one thinks critically and interacts intellectually with what one is told, what is the harm in learning about evolution, whether one believes it or not? Perhaps we Christians especially have been fighting the wrong battle all along.

Commentaries, Community and Craig Blomberg

Today in class my professor, the well-known and well-respected Dr. Craig Blomberg, asked a pretty good question. We were discussing 1 Peter 3:18-22, a passage in which Peter discusses Christ preaching to the spirits in prison during the time of Noah. In exegeting this text correctly, one must look at the cultural knowledge of the story of Noah and the Flood in Asia 2000 years ago, dig into syntax of the passage in the original Greek and have an understanding of 1 Enoch, an inter-Testamental apochryphal text. Even with that knowledge, it’s still a very difficult passage. If I am a typical churchgoer, what am I to do? How can I interpret the text correctly without all of this superfluous, archaic knowledge readily at hand? This was the question posed by Dr. Blomberg.

After some thought and class discussion, however, I took issue with the question itself. The issue I have with it is its use of the first-person singular pronoun “I”. How can “I” interpret the text correctly? What do “I” do? There is a time and place for personal reflection and study of scripture, but there is also a time and place for community discussion. In cases like 1 Peter 3:18-22, a community discussion is vital to understanding and edification. This in and of itself is not very earth-shattering, but then it hit me: Christian commentary authors are part of the community of believers, too. As are archaeologists, textual critics, and any other type of scholar you care to mention. We are not all going to know the ins and outs of 1 Enoch or unearth ancient coins bearing Noah’s image, but because there are followers of Christ who know and do these things, we should thankfully engage them as fellow members of the community and learn from them by reading what they have to say.

Taken this way, a good commentary becomes much more than a dry book of boring facts and trivial details; it becomes an active dialogue with a brother or sister in Christ. It furthers the community that we (and the world) desperately need.

Love Addict - Family Force 5

My pastor recently told me about RadioU, a radio station that streams actual, good Christian music online. Here in Denver, there is a dearth of such music, which I largely believed to be mythical since the demise of dc Talk and good Audio Adrenaline. (For non-Christian readers out there, those two bands used to rock!) Anyway, RadioU has pleasantly proved me wrong. There is good Christian music out there, after all. Let me give you an example.

Family Force 5 is a band out of Atlanta, Georgia. They are comprised of three brothers, sons of 80s musician Jerome Olds (anybody actually know who this is? I sure don't), and two of their friends (presumably brought in because Family Force 3 just doesn't cut it). I am not sure how to describe their music, other than...awesome. Why do I like them?

1. They sing and play with emotion. It's almost like they're passionate about God! (Don't tell K-LOVE!)
2. They know their audience. They interact with the culture while retaining their core message.
3. They prominently feature the guitar. (Yes, as everyone knows, I adhere to Phil Keaggy's philosophy: Love one woman...many guitars.)

See for yourself.



Awesome. And really weird. Just my cup of tea!

Death of a Fellow Runner

This morning, Ryan Shay, who was one of America's top distance runners, died during the U.S. Olympic Trials Marathon in New York. It is believed that he suffered a heart attack at around the five-mile mark. He was transported to a nearby hospital where he was pronounced dead.

This is a sad day for the sport. Though I am not running at present, I did used to be one of the better runners out there. In fact, I ran against him in 2003 at the U.S. Championships Half-Marathon in Kansas City. Well, he won the race, while I barely cracked the top 20. Nevertheless, runners share a special bond, and my heart goes out to Ryan and his wife. Runners are a special breed, and he will be missed.