The giraffe

Brian Daniel and I were discussing the giraffe while at the zoo the other night. This, which comes from Evolution: A Fairy Tale, is for you Brian:

The giraffe is an unusual animal that contains an interesting design mechanism. Did you know that a full grown giraffe's heart weighs over 24 pounds and pumps 16 gallons a minute? Because the giraffe's heart is much larger than his head, a series of special one-way, back-flow preventer valves are needed in the neck to regulate the flow of blood to the head, especially when the giraffe is bending down to get that much needed drink of water. Without these valves, the immense blood pressure coupled with gravity would make for one nasty headache and other such repercussions. Elastic blood vessels in the giraffe's head allow harboring of enough blood to prevent the giraffe from passing out when bent in this position.

The creationist points out that this intricate design mechanism is, you guessed it, a design! The evolutionist will have you believe that this system evolved with time, that eventually a giraffe mutated merrily along until the valves properly formed in the neck and the elastic blood vessels sufficiently formed in the head (along with other details left out here).

If evolution is true, the struggle for the Giraffe to survive must have been one ugly sight! Let's take a look at one possible outcome...

TV and Romans 12:2

Romans 12:2 says, "Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—His good, pleasing and perfect will."

When Paul exhorts his audience to NOT be conformed to the pattern of the world but to be transformed by the renewing of your mind, he's saying, "Don't engage in mind-numbing worldly activities, but immerse your mind in the Word of God." Read and study the Scriptures, because it is in them that we have life.

It seems that, if not the whole world, then America at least, is "united" in the pattern of TV watching. We watch half-hour situation commedies and hour-long dramas and are entertained. But after a while those get dull, so in comes reality television for our amusement. "Think" about this (that is to say, use your mind): the word amuse, by which we get amusement, is made up of "a," which means "against," and "muse," which means "think." So when we are watching TV for amusement, we are turning off our brains and encouraged not to think. TV watching is by definition against thinking. It's the exact opposite of Paul's exhortation to be transformed by the (daily and continuous) renewal of your mind.

I've lived without cable tv for 9 months now. My only tv in the house gets only one channel, ABC, which is arguably the worst of the 4 major networks. I might watch an hour a week, if that. And it's such a change from the period of time before cancelling cable. I spend the additional time working on the house, spending time with my wife, studying the Bible, and reading extra-Biblical non-fiction. There was a time of withdrawal, and I can always take advantage of the tv (or let it take advantage of me) if I really need to turnoff my brain,but I am to the point of loving life without television. I think I'll miss it once the NFL season starts, but really, which is more important: a-musing football or my mind to the glory of God?

Concurrence

Concurrence: The point at which the human will intersects the divine will.

This is an important doctrine in Christian Theology. It serves to answers questions related to God's sovereignty and human accountability. For example: How can God be truly sovereign if I have the freedom to do contrary to what He wants? Or on the other hand: How can my choices be truly free if God has predestined, or predetermined, the outcome for my life?

Here are just three of a multitude of pasages that touch on this issue:

Genesis 45:4-8, 50:19-20

Joseph said to his brothers, "Come close to me." When they had done so, he said, "I am your brother Joseph, the one you sold into Egypt! And now, do not be distressed and do not be angry with yourselves for selling me here, because it was to save lives that God sent me ahead of you. For two years now there has been famine in the land, and for the next five years there will not be plowing and reaping. But God sent me ahead of you to preserve for you a remnant on earth and to save your lives by a great deliverance. So then, it was not you who sent me here, but God. He made me father to Pharaoh, lord of his entire household and ruler of all Egypt... Joseph said to them, "Don't be afraid. Am I in the place of God? You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives."

Notice the one act (Joseph being sent to Egypt). Notice the two actors (God and Joseph's brothers). Notice the motives of the two actors (God had a good motive - to save many lives; Joseph's brothers had an evil motive - to harm their brother out of envy). This is concurrence.

Isaiah 10:5-7, 12-13, 15

God said, "Woe to the Assyrian, the rod of My anger, in whose hand is the club of My wrath! I send him against a godless nation, I dispatch him against a people who anger Me, to seize loot and snatch plunder, and to trample them down like mud in the streets. But this is not what he intends, this is not what he has in mind; his purpose is to destroy, to put an end to many nations... I will punish the king of Assyria for the willful pride of his heart and the haughty look in his eyes. For he says: 'By the strength of my hand I have done this, and by my wisdom, because I have understanding. I removed the boundaries of nations, I plundered their treasures; like a mighty one I subdued their kings...' Does the ax raise itself above him who swings it, or the saw boast against him who uses it? As if a rod were to wield him who lifts it up, or a club brandish him who is not wood!"

Notice the one act (Assyria attacking Israel). Notice the two actors (God and Assyria). Notice the motives of the two actors (God had a good motive - to discipline His people and to punish the evildoer both in Israel and Assyria; Assyria, in arrogance and pride, had an evil motive - to destroy the nation of Israel). This is concurrence.

Acts 2:22-23; 4:27-28

"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a Man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through Him, as you yourselves know. This Man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put Him to death by nailing Him to the cross... Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed. They did what Your power and will had decided beforehand should happen."

Notice the one act (the crucifixion of Jesus - arguably the most sinful thing ever to take place). Notice the two actors (God and the men involved in putting Jesus to death). Notice the motives of the two actors (God had a good motive - to save His people from their sins by propitiating His own wrath against them; the men involved in putting Jesus to death had an evil motive - to conspire against and murder Jesus). This is concurrence.

A sound understanding of concurrence brings the conclusion that man's freedom is neither violated nor destroyed. That is, the human will does not fall victim to coercion; God works out His divine will in and through the choices made by the human will; and this is done not through mere foresight, but through fore-ordination. At no time does He reduce humans to the level of impersonal or non-volitional puppets who can move and act only as their strings are pulled externally. We are free but not autonomous. We don't so much have free will, but we are volitional creatures.

Perhaps on another day, we'll discuss Jonathan Edwards' treatise, "The Freedom of the Will," alongside Martin Luther's, "The Bondage of the Will." The two works come to the same conclusion, despite having contrary titles. Nevertheless, know this: that everything you thought, said, and did yesterday was completely done by you freely, yet it was also fore-ordained by God for His sovereign and eternal purpose. And that is also the case for today and tomorrow, though it gives us no excuse for our sinful behavior and no reason to boast in our successes. This is concurrence.

Evangelize the Lost

How certain are you that when you die you'll be with God in heaven?

If you did die today and found yourself standing before God, and He said to you, "Why should I let you into heaven?" what would you say?

Most folks I deal with answer the first question in the mild affirmative. That is, they say, "I'm pretty sure that I'll go to heaven when I die." There's an element of confidence there, but there's also an element of doubt - doubt which, if the answer the the second question is Biblically accurate, should not be present.

And that brings us to the second question. Most folks I deal with are baffled by the second question. It's just something that is not often discussed, nor does it even enter the mind. When an answer other than, "I don't know," comes out, it generally falls under a "faith plus works" motif. Perhaps it's, "I've done the best I can," or "I've lived a life in which my good works outweigh my bad ones." Perhaps we might consider a couple of closer-to-true answers as, "I know I've done some bad things, but I believe in a merciful God who will forgive me," or better still, "I believe in God and Jesus!"

Close only counts in horseshoes and hand-grenades - certainly not in theological matters dealing with the God of the universe who never changes and cannot tolerate wrong. Thus the main thing wrong with the above answers to question # 2 is that they all begin with "I." What would you say to God? "Jesus died for me to bear the punishment price for my sins and remove Your wrath from me, and He was raised from the dead for my justification." That's the only reason anyone is going to be with God in heaven. And we can be sure of this! The apostle John, to whom Jesus was closest, gives us the reason for answering question # 1 affirmatively with assurance in 1 John 5:12-13, "He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life."

A couple thought-provoking articles

In this first one, notice the multiple ethnicities of the Jewish people living in Israel.

Here's an excerpt:

"At the Russian-language bookstore next to the post office... Another rocket exploded in a northern suburb of Haifa just after 2:45 p.m., hitting a compound of temporary housing for 450 Ethiopian immigrants, 230 of them children. The missile...caused no casualties despite spraying shrapnel and dirt..."

Consider the multiple ethnicities - Russians, Ethiopians, etc... - of the Jewish people living in Israel. We should be in prayer for the Jewish people all over the world - not only the ones in the physical country of Israel.

In this second one, notice the foolishness of the expert-scientists in their comments on the snake / primate race to evolve more favorably in order to save themselves from one another. Absolutely ridiculous.

I can't resist posting a few excerpts from this article, just so you don't miss the humor:

"Primates went a particular route," Isbell told LiveScience. "They focused on improving their vision to keep away from [snakes]. Other mammals couldn't do that. Primates had the pre-adaptations to go that way." Harry Greene, an evolutionary biologist and snake expert at Cornell University in New York, says Isbell's new idea is very exciting. "It strikes me as a very special piece of scholarship and I think it's going to provoke a lot of thought," Greene said.

It's as if the primates justed "willed" their own evolution. Wouldn't it be great if you and I could "focus on improving our vision" to see spiritual truth more clearly? Notice that "other mammals couldn't do that. Primates had the pre-adaptations to go that way." It's as if the scientists really do think that primates decided to enhance their vision by sheer "will." And don't you love the expert opinion: Harry Greene, an evolutionary biologist and snake-expert, is struck by this new theory. He calls it thought-provoking and avery special piece of scholarship. It's a very ridiculous piece of nonsense.

"The [snakes] had to do something to get better at finding their prey, so that's where venom comes in," Isbell said. "The snakes upped the ante and then the primates had to respond by developing even better vision."

Since primates were so successful at "willing" their vision improvements, the snakes decided to "will" their own improvements. Can you believe that they "upped the ante" and "willed" the evolution of venom? I wonder if they had the pre-adaptations for this. Where did those pre-adaptations come from? And notice that the primates responded in this evolutionary poker match by calling the snakes' bet and raising it with an additional vision improvement. Who won th hand? Snakes and primates are still in business, so I guess neither was busted in that round. I wonder if scientists think that primates and snakes are continuing to play this game. What will the snake "will" next? Wings? Hands? What will the primates "will" next? How about venom to strike back at the snakes? Oh, wait, they don't have the pre-adaptations for that. I forgot.

"Snakes and people have had a long history; it goes back to long before we were people in fact," he said. "That might sort of explain why we have such extreme attitudes towards snakes...

Way back when people weren't people, people who weren't people didn't like snakes. I wonder if Adam and Eve had a fear of snakes after they exited the Garden of Eden.