BookPastor >> "Conscience" (Andrew David Naselli and J.D. Crowley)

This review was first published at Panorama of a Book Saint on April 18th, 2016.

conrade

---

TITLE: Conscience: What It Is, How to Train It, and Loving Those Who Differ
AUTHOR: Andrew David Naselli and J.D. Crowley
PUBLISHER: Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016, (160 pages).

It is not often that the Church talks about conscience, let alone sermons. What is the meaning of a "clear conscience?" How relevant is conscience for Christian living? What is the role of conscience with regard to Church unity? What does bringing our conscience under the lordship of Christ really mean? These questions are covered in this unique book about the inner workings of a person with regard to critical issues of life, relationships, and faith. In this book, authors Andrew Naselli and JD Crowley aim to bring back the topic of conscience to the Church, believing that such awareness will bring about greater church unity, empowers evangelism and missions, improves relationships, and minimizes misunderstandings among servants. It is also hoped that this book on conscience can even strengthen our spiritual maturity.

In chapters 1 and 2, the authors show us what conscience is and is not. In it, we learn that conscience is more than shoulder angels/demons. Animals do not have a conscience. Our consciences reflect the image of God and for us is very personal. Two simple principles apply. First, God is lord of conscience and second, we need to obey our conscience. The word conscience in the New Testament is "syneidesis" which occur 39 times in the Greek New Testament. It is used positively in two ways and negatively in six ways. Positively, it means being blameless and clean. Negatively, it means being weak, wounded, defiled, emboldened to sin, guilt, and seared. Conscience can lead us to witness, to judge, and to act upon. With such powerful links between conscience and behaviour, Naselli and Crowley highlights four challenges to be covered in the later chapters.

• What do we do when our conscience condemns us?
• What does it take to calibrate our consciences with God's will?
• How do we relate to people whose conscience clash with ours? 
• What about clashes between consciences and cultural differences? 

The Language of Nature

Amazing fungi. What we lack is the communication needed to understand the intelligence in life.



c

BookPastor >> "40 Questions About Creation and Evolution" (Kenneth D. Keathley and Mark F. Rooker)

This review was first published at Panorama of a Book Saint on March 9th, 2015.

conrade

---

TITLE: 40 Questions About Creation and Evolution (40 Questions and Answers Series)
AUTHOR: Kenneth D. Keathley and Mark F. Rooker
PUBLISHER: Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2014, (432 pages).

Is there a conflict between science and faith? Is there a way to understand both? When is the beginning of the world? What is the origin of the human species. How did the world come into existence? These questions have challenged people through the centuries. From archaeology to philosophy; humanistic thought to theology, the questions about the beginning of the world and man continue to fascinate. In this book, forty questions are posed with regards to creation and evolution. All of the questions are categorized in 6 major parts.

Part 1 - Doctrine of Creation
Part 2 - Creation and Genesis 1-2
Part 3 - Days of Creation
Part 4 - Age of the Earth
Part 5 - Fall and the Flood
Part 6 - Evolution and Intelligent Design

BookPastor >> "The Shallows" (Nicholas Carr)

TITLE: The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains
AUTHOR: Nicholas Carr
PUBLISHER: New York, NY: WW Norton, 2011, (286 pages).

Is the Internet a boon or a bane? Are the hidden consequences of using (or overusing) technology? What if we fail to distinguish the limits of technology? What if we lose our ability to discern what can or cannot be handed down to technology to do? Author Nicholas Carr's concern can be summed up as a key point in the dark prophecy of Stanley Kubrick's 2001, a Space Odyssey:

"As we come to rely on computers to mediate our understanding of the world, it is our own intelligence that flattens into artificial intelligence." (224)

His concern has been shared by many authors. Marshall McLuhan's famous work, Understanding Media argues that technology effects can alter "patterns of perception steadily and without resistance." Hal the supercomputer takes away control from words into humans. The pathologist, Bruce Friedman confesses that reading long articles on the web or in print has become more difficult because he has grown accustomed to skimming articles. People click more than read. Their brains are being changed from the inside out as they become used to new powers of technology. Scientifically, it is proven that the human brain has plasticity that diminishes the older one gets. Carr begins to introduce the benefits of literacy, affirming like Walter Ong, that "writing heightens consciousness."I find chapter 4 particularly fascinating as Carr describes the "deepening page" of how people's literacy is aided by writing platforms. The Sumerians etched words into tablets of clay. In 2500BC, the Egyptians manufactured papyrus by pressing down wood fibers so that writers can scratch or put words on paper. Wax tablets enable the writing and erasing, thus enabling the reuse of tablets for multiple usage. With the invention of the printing press, force is exerted to transfer ink to paper. People in those days also read slowly and laboriously, just like Ambrose who read silently. Deep reading facilitates deep thinking. Carr comments on reading as follows:

Science is Reductionistic

In our world of electronic gadgets, an Internet era of smartphones and social media, we elevate science and technology through the latest and the greatest paradigm. What's new today will be old tomorrow. Tomorrow will be outlived by the day after tomorrow. Technology when we look forward is poised to turn our present existence and possessions into an artifact, relegated to a small memory in history.

As I was reading the late Chuck Colson's daily devotional (Week 17, Tuesday, p101) in A Dangerous Grace, I was struck by how reductionistic science can be. Colson was reflecting on an article in the Boston Globe that was trying to explain tragedy from the standpoint of science.

• Presumption: The bloodbath in Bosnia is because of something in our genes
• In biopolitics, politics can be explained by the scientific branch of biology
• Since biology can explain politics, it must be able to explain evolution.
• Biopolitics justify the need to exist, by ethnic conflict and aggression (natural selection)
• Aggression is actually an "evolutionary advantage."

Colson was apparently appalled at the way the journalist tries to explain violence and aggression through evolution in a manner that is distant, impassioned, and impersonal. No moral dimension was discussed. People become victims due to their genes. What is right or wrong is simply blamed on natural phenomenon. By linking warfare, violence, and ethnic cleansing to something as normal as our natural food chain and evolution, the whole idea tries to reduce man into a helpless pawn in the universe of human selection.

One of the basic tenets of science is the law of thermodynamics. In the second law, it states:

"Heat does not flow spontaneously from a colder region to a hotter region, or, equivalently, heat at a given temperature cannot be converted entirely into work." (Reference: Britannica.com)

In other words, there is a reduction of heat from a hot to a cold region. There is no such thing as an increase of 'cold' for cold is simply a loss of heat. Trying to use science and evolution to explain human behaviour or morality is simply not using science correctly. Science after all depends on assumptions. It does an excellent job in explaining how things work, but is like a fish out of water when it attempts to explain morality, philosophy, and even the arts. My point is, science and morality are completely different domains of understanding. While morality can be used to explain the use of science, science cannot be used to explain the human morality. Is there an evil gene? Is there a happy gene? When such things happen, the homosapiens species will have been reduced to a gene or a scientific piece of data. Not only is it reductionistic, science when used this way will eventually reduce the human being into a zero, just like the person who dies, and the body decays and ultimately perishes into the ground. It is appealing but the whole idea is downright deceiving.

Atom

Is there a "freedom" gene? Is there a "criminal" gene? By identifying and subsequently blaming one's behaviour on genetics, one faces even greater questions of life. What then controls these genes? What is the intelligence behind the genes? If the reductionistic feature of science is extrapolated to the intelligence arena, man will be somewhat less and less intelligent over time!

The logic is mindboggling. Colson then brings up his alternative. Call the violence and aggression as sin. Call the overall purpose of living as not reducing the whole explanation into a theoretical premise, but to see it as an opportunity for redemption of mankind. Science reduces matter to the lowest entity, like the half-life constant decline of chemicals. Science reduces a machine into its parts. Science when used on human behaviour is ultimately reductionistic.

Christ came to earth to redeem the world. He comes to give us life and life abundantly (John 10:10). Science is reductionistic. Christianity is redemptive. If one uses science to interpret human behaviour, the goal is eventually an atom, a molecule, a gene or a DNA. If one looks from the eyes of faith, and from Creation of God, the human person is not only redeemed, the human person is free to achieve his/her highest potential, as God has made us to be.

conrade

Book Review: "The Mysterious Epigenome"

TITLE: The Mysterious Epigenome: What Lies Beyond DNA
AUTHORS: Thomas E. Woodward and James P. Gills
PUBLISHER: Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2012, (160 pages).

Here is my review that I have posted at Amazon entitled "Every genome points to an Intelligent Designer." A fuller review is available in my book blog here.



*******

If the human genome is the tip of the iceberg, the epigenome is the rest of the iceberg. This sets the tone for the entire book that argues for the case of an Intelligent Design, created by an Intelligent Designer. Science alone cannot answer all the questions of life. This book is an opportunity for readers to see that science, health, spirituality need to work together to paint a fuller picture of the human genome, genetics, and the purpose of it all.

We can try to dichotomize life into various compartments. Yet, it is not possible to separate life into spiritual and non-spiritual categories. Everything in life is spiritual. It is like how possible is it to separate our work from our feelings? We are not robots. Every act, every thought, every plan, stems from an intentionality that begins somewhere. Whether we are writing a book, planning a project, or studying for a course, there is a certain intention. The authors ask four basic questions of life that involve the interface of all aspects of life, be it science, health, or spirituality.

• What is life's purpose? 
• What is the point of the universe? 
• Why is there something rather than nothing? 
• Why is humankind brilliantly equipped to pursue such questions - to analyze the conundrum of creation? 

These are questions that can only be addressed when we consider spirituality. Science can explain the 'whats' and to some extent the 'hows.' Spirituality extends the quest to include the 'whys.' I agree a lot with the authors with regards to Intelligent Design. Unfortunately, I feel that the authors could have engaged alternative views more openly, instead of an outright dismissal. What is more helpful is to present an unbiased view and then to offer their interpretations, instead of interpreting for the readers right from the start.

That said, I highly recommend this book for its ability to weave spiritual insights into scientific research. I like the convictions of the authors. I like the clear storylike explanations of the various concepts and terms. I like the integration of scientific research and the constant asking of what does it mean for us in practice throughout the book. This book is clearly a book arguing for the existence of God. It is another piece of evidence that the atheistic position is less and less tenable. It requires more faith on the part of the atheist to believe that such intelligent design and workings of the genome 'simply happened.' For me, there has to be a God behind such intricacies. If you are not convinced about a Creator God behind such Intelligent Design, at least, this book helps keep a posture of being open about it.

Rating: 4.75 stars of 5.

conrade

---

I am grateful to Kregel Publications for supplying me a free copy of the book, without any obligations for a positive review. The opinions offered above are freely given without expectation of any financial compensation.

Light Up the World

This amazing story is about how the simplest solution can solve one of the most pressing problems. In the Philippines, millions of people struggle with the lack of light inside the house. Even on a bright and sunny day, the inside of the houses tend to be dark. This is because many people do not have the latest electricity infrastructure, or money to buy batteries for modern lamps and electrical devices. Enters the 'solar water lamp' where a simple plastic bottle, water, bleach, and some creativity brings light into a world of darkness. Watch the video clip here and be impressed. Apparently, I understand that this idea has an MIT connection.



There is currently a project to light a million homes in the Philippines by 2012. For more, you read read here.

conrade

Church of England & Its Apology to Darwin

In 1859, the British biologist and naturalist, Charles Darwin published a classic work called: "The Origin of Species." The core argument of the document is:

"I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgment of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained—namely, that each species has been independently created—is erroneous. I am fully convinced that species are not immutable; but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are linear descendants of some other and generally extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged varieties of any species are the descendents of that species. Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the main but not the exclusive means of modification."

A fairly readable analysis of Darwin's work can be found here.

The year 2009 marks the 200th year of Darwin's birth. It will be a memorable landmark for a man credited with the theory of evolution which many pro-Darwinian supporters say is an affront on Christian accounts of creationism. It is also a challenge to traditional Christian interpretation of creation via the Genesis narrative in the Bible. The Church of England recently made an apology for the years of attack on Charles Darwin and the theory of the origin of species. Rev Malcolm Brown of the Church of England, in a surprising offer of apology argues that "Good Religion Needs Good Science." He even calls the Church attack against Darwin as an 'error.' Here is the full apology:

Charles Darwin: 200 years from your birth, the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still. We try to practice the old virtues of 'faith seeking understanding' and hope that makes some amends. But the struggle for your reputation is not over yet, and the problem is not just your religious opponents but those who falsely claim you in support of their own interests. Good religion needs to work constructively with good science – and I dare to suggest that the opposite may be true as well.

In order to understand this latest action, we need to look back at 2006, where the Episcopal Church resolution A129 which made an ammendment from "in no way diminishes the centrality of Scripture in telling the stories of the love of God for the Creation and" to "entirely compatible with an authentic and living Christian faith"SUPPORT FOR THE LATEST COE ACTION
The basis of the Church of England announcement is consistent with what is going on in the Episcopal Church in America. Reporting for the Episcopal Life Online, Rev Mary Frances Schjonberg reports the more embracing creation with evolution trend as:

"There is no reason to doubt that Christ still draws people towards truth through the work of scientists as well as others, and many scientists are motivated in their work by a perception of the deep beauty of the created world," Brown writes in his essay, adding that "for the sake of human integrity -- and thus for the sake of good Christian living -- some rapprochement between Darwin and Christian faith is essential."

On the Net, atheists are wild over the latest action, claiming victory for evolution and ridicules the Church for their age-old resistance of Darwinian theory. Scientific American followed up on this apology by saying "Better Late Than Never." It was also reported that there are two reasons behind the Church of England action. Firstly, the COE wants to 'distance itself from fundamentalist organizations.' Secondly, they want to imitate what the Vatican did for Galileo, by doing something for Darwin, which they castigated over the years.

CRITICISMS AGAINST THE APOLOGY
The Daily Mail calls the latest Church of England action as 'ludicrous' in its article published 13th September 2008. A highly critical Ann Widdecombe, previously from the Church of England, now a Roman Catholic said: "It’s absolutely ludicrous. Why don’t we have the Italians apologising for Pontius Pilate?" The Roman Catholic Church officially said that there is 'no need' for an apology, as creation is not incompatible with Darwin's theories. Moreover, a descendant of Darwin, Andrew Darwin asks the Church not to even bother, saying that the action is simply a way to make the 'institution' (aka COE) 'feel better.'

Even secularists and some Christians agree that the Church of England's gesture is 'ridiculous.'

MY COMMENTS
What disturbs me is the Church of England's actions as being too-rush, too-rash for comfort. Firstly, is there really a need for such an apology? Is the Church of England apologizing for its initial move to denounce Darwin, or are they also apologizing for the consequences of anti-Darwinian activists since the initial denouncement? Secondly, the theory of evolution is a scientific hypothesis, that is, it is something that is not directly proven but is based on assumptions that are drawn from human observations over time. As such, a scientific hypothesis needs to be resilient against scientific criticisms. If evolution is allowed to flow into arguments about God, it becomes a scientific ideology, that forces people to exercise their faith based on a set of assumptions. Hence, there is a popular belief that science and religion do not mix. That said, why should any institution that uphold traditional religious values be so worried about a science that cannot adequately play itself out in the theological realm? Can oil really mix with water? No. Thirdly, while it is one thing to apologize for any atrocities committed against innocent people in the pro-Darwin camp, it is yet another to compromise traditional beliefs itself, which is not based on assumptions but on the revelation of God. This is to say that apologizing for 'implementation mistakes' does not mean apologizing for the belief. Just like a parent wanting to punish a child who stole something, but used the wrong punishment approach. The parent can apologize for the inappropriate manner of discipline but that should not neutralize the need to mete out proper correction in due course.

Fourthly, if the Church can make a turnaround so readily, what makes one so sure that it will not turn around other beliefs as easily? Will they then start to question the deity of Christ? Will they compromise the gospel narratives? Will they then work on archaeological findings to re-interpret all aspects of the Bible, even though the Bible is not specifically a scientific book? Where will it end?

The Church of England has done something that is totally unnecessary. In Rev Malcolm Brown's statement, I can gather the intention as follows:

• People make mistakes (of course, who doesn't)
  
• The Church of 1860s have wrongfully attacked Darwin (nothing was specified, but could this form of attack been the best possible way at that time to prevent something worse?)
  
• Science does not necessarily contradict Christian teaching (true, but the way it is used can)
  
• We should not prevent honest scientific investigations (of course! but do not let such investigation be used by an atheistic wolf under the sheep's clothing of science)
  
• The reaction then may seem to have been 'misguided' (but one is looking at such misguidance from the year 2008, 200 years later.)
  
• social misapplication of Darwin (certainly. all are guilty, both the religious orders and the scientists)
  
• avoiding dualistic education where students learning biology have to take evolutionary theories as 'truth' even if they have opposing religious beliefs (i think the crux of the matter is the unwitting mixing of science and religion)
  

You do not need to come out to say that evolution & creation is compatible/incompatible. Truth does not contradict. What perhaps is susceptible to disputes and controversies are the WAYS in which people argue against/for any of the theory/beliefs mentioned. The other difference is in the basic assumptions that people have. Perhaps there will always be grey areas in this life. Probably, some things will never be explained thoroughly or satisfactorily to all. If that is the case, let science be science, and let scientific hypotheses be scientifically proven using scientific means and measuring devices. As much as science cannot prove the existence of God, it cannot prove the non-existence of God either.