Tag: DESIGN

THINKING ABOUT THE BRAIN

I have to apologize for my title – a greater brain could have conceived a better one…

Scientists aren’t allowed to consider even the possibility of design or creation, under threat of ostracism, ridicule, and loss of livelihood. Consequently such bafflingly complex design features as the human brain are just blindly accepted as being another product of chemicals plus a convincingly long period of time. It’s that baffling complexity which got my own brain thinking about itself recently.Neuron_Cell_Body(This post is another in my “blast from the past” series posted while I concentrate on writing a book. It was originally called “Brains, Sense and Nonsense”)

An average healthy human brain contains some 200 billion nerve cells connected to one another through hundreds of trillions of synapses, so that a single human brain has more information processing units than all the computers, routers and internet connections on the earth. One brain’s memory capacity, even by a conservative estimate, is at least a petabyte, equal to the entire world-wide web. Weighing only three pounds, it is super-energy efficient. The brains internal communications occur at light-speed.*

So if we’re part of the onward and upward evolution of life, why is it that even the most talented and intellectual among us only use a fraction of their brains’ potential? Does that make sense to you? Shouldn’t it be the other way around-that the most intelligent are pushing the boundaries of their brain so that their offspring will have greater brain power, given the additional requirement of an incredibly fortuitous mutation?

Someone may protest that the history of man demonstrates evolution clearly: just look how we’ve developed technology and travel in the last few decades alone. That’s not evolution, that’s development. It’s the result of a snowballing God-given thirst for knowledge, in conjunction with times of relative freedom from war, factions, disease and starvation. You could take a man from what is a very backward tribe, still a reality in some remote parts of the world, assuming that he could stand the shock of the change in lifestyle, and put him through school and university. He has brain power too, and it’s not that of an ape-man.Great_Andamanese_-_two_men_-_1875Historians-secular historians-find remarkable the rapidity with which the first civilization in Mesopotamia developed writing, literature, mathematics, geometry, astronomy, business and technology. People weren’t morons crawling out of the trees or muddy fields and making a few marks on a piece of rock or banging two sticks together, one for yes and two for no, in order to communicate. As far back as real history goes, man was intelligent-he just hadn’t got around to building a computer or an airliner yet. He did manage to build such structures as Stonehenge, the Mayan temple and the Pyramids-structures so big and so cleverly put together that we still haven’t figured them out. Some imaginative people have put such structures down to aliens-because, they’re convinced-early man was brainless and clueless. They aren’t allowed or willing to consider the possibility that humans have always had that brain-power potential, right from their creation.

However, some people even in past millennia were able to recognize what professors and educators of today are missing by intent, which is that we humans have been created physically complete and ready to function, and designed by a mind far above our own:

I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.

(Psalm 139:14 NIV).

* http://www.icr.org/article/human-brain-beyond-belief

TOP DIAGRAM: NEURON CELL BODY, BY BRUCE BLAUS

 

 

THE LARGEST EVER SINGLE SELL

Evolutionists cite similarities between various animals, and between various plants, as evidence of our ancestry from single-celled creatures. The “evolutionary tree of life” depicts us all descending from the same one-celled creatures as jellyfish, elephants, butterflies and Venus fly-traps. FISH

Apologies to anyone reading this repeat of my post from last year-I’m quite proud of it so it’s getting a second airing. Apologies also for the re-appearance of my five-legged fish for the same reason. I’m working on a book which is taking up all my writing time, so expect a few blasts from the past in lieu of some fresher material.

According to the tree of life, which is, of necessity, nothing more than a diagram: an “artist’s interpretation” or “artist’s impression”, the more structural and genetic similarities organisms share, the more closely related they are and the closer they are on the Tree of Life (NOTE 1). Four-legged creatures are very closely related, as are two-legged varieties such as the “Great Apes” which classification includes humans.

But we all come from the same Designer: the same Creator. Some design features are common in similarly-shaped animals because they work well and because they have the same designer. What do evolutionists expect to see: five legs? Three eyes? Square hips made of wood? Two heads?

Experts have assured us that we humans have very similar DNA to chimpanzees, and that we and chimps are therefore closely related. This claim has been chipped away and exposed by creationist scientists who found bias in the use of data (see note 2 below).

Somewhat more distantly, two-legged, four-legged and no-legged animals are all related. Yes, your distant cousin is a jellyfish. So don’t be surprised if he has no back-bone.

Anyway, as the saying goes, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Is the conviction as great as the claim? I haven’t yet heard of any evolutionists marrying chimps, have you?

The “FIVE-LEGGED FISH” picture above is my own creation, © Nick Fisher.

NOTES

1 http://naturalhistory.si.edu/exhibits/darwin/treeoflife.html

2 http://www.icr.org/article/human-chimp-dna-comparison-research

http://www.icr.org/article/new-research-evaluating-similarities

 

SEEING DESIGN

Truth marches on for those who love it, no matter what its opponents do…

File:Calliphora sp Portrait.jpg (Image by JJ Harrison)

I was listening to an interview with Dr. Stephen Meyer, who was talking about the fact that many secular scientists are now quietly-and some not so quietly-questioning Darwin’s theory of evolution, and looking for an alternative one which actually fits the evidence. Meanwhile hundreds of millions of people are still taught and assured that Neo-Darwinism, in an age when nothing is absolutely true, is gospel.

Meyer, illustrating the growth of the Intelligent Design movement, or ID, told the story of a former adherent to Darwinism, who had been rather famous in his own right as an evolutionist. Gunter Bechly was the curator of the natural history museum in Stuttgart-equivalent to London’s natural history museum. He was a world- renowned insect paleontologist.

In 2009 Gunter was curating a special exhibition in celebration of Darwin’s 200th birthday and the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s “Origin of the Species”. He had one exhibit in which many books of ID proponents were on one side of a scale, opposite Darwin’s work. “Origin” was outweighing all the design proponents’ works put together, as a mockery of their views and research.

However, one of Gunter’s colleagues suggested that he perhaps ought to know more about the books and authors he was mocking, so he proceeded to read some of them in conscientious preparation for anyone who may question him about them. Gunter’s mockery turned to amazement as he read and realized that the authors had been totally misrepresented by scientists and reviewers wishing to do away with them, and to bury their unwanted notions. Gunter, over time, made contact with ID proponents, and finally announced that he had adopted their understanding of origins and rejected Darwinian evolution. Later he became a Christian, although not all ID proponents are Christians.

As a result of Gunter’s rebellion against the establishment, he lost his position as curator at the museum, and more recently, Wikipedia deleted his page. He received abuse and ridicule for his decision. Gunter is now pursuing his own research within the ID movement. There are others of his standing who are having second thoughts about their views of origins and life, says Meyer, though quietly, for fear of losing grants, tenure, degrees, jobs, and acceptance by the establishment.

 

BEAUTY AS A REFLECTION OF ITS CREATOR

 

Cascades In Winter

Human nature praises and rewards beautiful people, as though they had made themselves beautiful…*

Being aware that one day soon just finding a woman attractive may be deemed “sexual harassment”, I will take this opportunity to say that some of them do look rather fantastic. And to balance out this “sexist” remark, I also wish to observe that some men look pretty fine too. Come to think of it, before you begin to feel your inferiority complex coming on as I do, I hasten to add that well, everyone, when you look at them in a certain way and in a certain mood, has an appealing and winsome side to them.

Most of us with children spend many hours watching them, admiring their fresh and appealing appearance and their ways. Even the parents of Adolph Hitler probably thought he was a darling little baby. And our attraction isn’t limited to people. We surround ourselves with pets which we cuddle, talk to, caress, stroke, kiss and praise; we spend huge amounts of time and money growing gardens of striking color and variety, and we travel hundreds and thousands of miles to look at buildings or scenery. There’s something in us which makes us find some things beautiful: an aesthetic sense causing us to gravitate towards things we think look nice.

Beyond sight, our thirst for beauty employs all five of our physical senses. I love to listen to music, and I often imagine the sounds “tickling” my brain cells, sparking all kinds of emotions and feelings. How blessed we are to have such an appreciation for life, the universe and everything.

But before long there always seems to be something to spoil or tarnish our view of the thing or the person we admire. There’s a deception of some kind, a disconnection between natural beauty and behavior. That “beautiful” woman may actually turn out to be shallow, selfish and cold-hearted. The man we admire for his looks and strength may be arrogant and self-centered. A cuddly cat, playful and covered in soft fur, may have just caught the prettiest little bird and ripped it to pieces, and an area of natural beauty may be ruined by giant wind turbines.

Ultimately physical beauty is also temporal. All of nature, including the beautiful woman, the handsome man, the cuddly cat, the stunning scenery, is nothing more than a finite physical creation, a work of art.

We’re looking at the creative power of God, “fallen” though it may be. We mistakenly admire the creature, and forget the Creator. The beautiful woman didn’t make herself beautiful, and the handsome man didn’t choose to be born handsome. The child didn’t create his own glowing fresh young skin or his infectious giggle, and the mountains didn’t decide to make themselves collossal and wild in order to be photographed and featured in glossy magazines. Beauty is provided, imputed, loaned, conferred by its original designer and creator, not acquired by merit or effort.

When we look at a painting and marvel at how well it represents someone or something, we naturally praise the artist, not the picture for creating itself. And what we’re really looking at is a talent given to man by God, whether the artist knows it or not, along with the ability to appreciate it. A piece of music which moves us body and soul is really a reflection of the creative power of God, whether the composer acknowledges it or not. Yes, we can appreciate and admire the composer who may have worked hard to develop his gift, and we can enhance the beautiful woman by dressing her up and putting her under the right kind of lighting…

…but let’s give God the glory.

*This is a re-write of a post from many moons ago-apologies to anyone who may have read it already

 

THROWING PAINT FOR THE GLORY OF GOD

Family Portrait by Me
Family Portrait by Me

This is a continuation of a pseudo- series of mine which I could almost title “The Top Ten Things Christian Ministers Say Which I Disagree With”. The list may have to be expanded to twenty, or fifty, or five hundred. Not that I’m anti-minister, or anti Church: I’m not at all. Many ministers are doing a fantastic job, and I do believe that the true Church is the eternal bride of Christ. But there are just some things that ministers, authors and radio and TV celebrities say which should go unanswered no longer.

I’ve heard this one too many times, and it always gets my back up:

“People just throw paint onto a canvas and call it art.”

This criticism is always in reference to “modern art” which in the eyes of the Christian critic is anything deemed by his own range of tastes to be un-artistic and un-godly. That is, it’s not a virtual photographic reproduction of a mountain scene, a bunch of flowers, or Christ on the cross.

Once again, in such a sweeping, crass generalization, all Christians are painted (excuse the pun) with the same brush-that is, we’re all  lumped in and made to look like we have no imagination or semblance of individuality. Christianity is once again included with the likes of the Nazis in Germany, who destroyed a huge number of important works of art across Europe because they were considered to be “un-artistic”, or unpatriotic, or in opposition to true Aryan manhood. We’re all expected to have an appetite for the mundane, the expected, the predictable, the clichéd…the boring.

Contemporary art is now sometimes referred to as being “post-modern”. So what? We’re talking about pictures, not issues which affect salvation. Throwing paint onto a canvas is not going to make me deny my faith in Jesus, neither is it going to allow demons to inhabit me.

Where in the Bible are we told that a picture has to look like anything at all? Who says that a picture has to look like anything familiar to us? Isn’t the important thing, Biblically speaking, our attitude and our motives? Where in the Bible is our imagination-a God-given power and blessing- controlled or tempered apart from motive and the need for godliness?

“So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31 NIV).

So, if I want to “throw paint onto a canvas and call it art”, and do it for the glory of God, what’s it to you, Mr. Boring?

The phrase in question here (throwing paint etc.) is itself a cliché. So, to fight fire with fire (and to mix my metaphors), I will use a cliché of my own liking, and say that some of us actually want to think “outside of the box”, because we get tired of all those squares. Oh Lord…deliver us from the thought police!

I will agree that all that is called art is certainly not worthy of time or consideration or respect. But art pioneers are the ones who sometimes create things which are considered at the time to be a mockery of art, or even destructive. Such was the attitude of many towards the early Impressionists, who, rather than trying to create a photographic reproduction of a bunch of flowers, wanted to capture something else in their work: light, time, movement…reality. Now you can see the influence of their imagination even in many churches, because the style has so permeated the “normal” view of art in our present world. They enriched our lives, because they refused to bow to the small, narrow-minded criticism and mockery of those around them who had no imagination and no desire to have it.

467px-Van_Gogh_-_Country_road_in_Provence_by_night

The same principle applies to music. If there is any experimentation at all in Christian music, it’s never allowed to reach the ears of those of us who would like to hear it. It’s strangled at the source because it doesn’t fit the mold. The Christian world is today allowing into its consciousness some of the sounds and rhythms and styles that the secular world created thirty years ago, and actually has the nerve to consider itself to be “contemporary”, while the secular world has already moved on ahead.  Modernity is not synonymous with evil: its God who gave man the power to be creative-not Satan. Although I will agree that the devil and his kingdom makes use of it, that’s no reason or excuse to abandon it.

So if you can’t understand it or appreciate it, why shouldn’t I? Why should I be limited by your imagination? I’ll tell you now-I refuse to be!

Please please give me something fresh, something creative, something new, something thought-provoking, something which compliments, feeds and fully employs my God-given appetite for all that is possible, and not just what satisfies the accepted norms and what Mr. Boring has for me.