There is a magnetic thingie on our refrigerator that says “Lord, help me today to be the person my dog thinks I am.” I swear that, once as I gazed at those words, Twister, our black Lab, gave a dog chuckle, the muttered “Fat chance.” I know that’s what he said because we “get” each other.
There is a serious question to be considered here, though, and that is this: Are we humans “special” in any sense that sets us apart from dogs, cats, buffalo, ants or any of the other of the billions of animals on Earth?
J. Warner Wallace, author of “Cold-Case Christianity” and NBC “Dateline” cold-case detective, addresses this question in response to a student’s recent question.
I will tell you now that Wallace gets it completely wrong on the issue of how smart are Labs, but the rest of his analysis ought to make you think seriously about your place in the world.
Right at the outset, let me make it clear that, being a journalist by profession, I stake no claim to expertise in physics, astronomy or any related science. So I could be totally off-base here. But let’s give it a shot anyway, okay?
Material processes function according to either known laws, or laws to be discovered in the course of credible scientific investigation. So how to explain this exo-planet’s apparent avoidance of being consumed by the Red Star into which, according to space.com, it was being drawn?
If you remember or have seen the 1993 movie “Groundhog Day” with Bill Murray and Andie McDowell as the two lead characters, you know he’s local TV reporter, she is his producer and he becomes trapped in a day-long time loop.
If the physical universe that we see, smell, hear, feel and taste is all that exists, how can we account for the fact we all have thoughts and emotions that are just as “real” to us as any of our senses?
This might initially seem like an odd question, but in fact it “points” to one of the most important questions any human being can ever ponder: If the non-material (i.e. thinking, consciousness) is as real as our five material senses (which can be explained merely by physical factors), how do we explain the origin and ultimate significance of the non-material?
J. Warner Wallace, NBC “Dateline’s” cold-case detective, addresses this issue in chapter five of his superb book “God’s Crime Scene.” There he observes this:
What is “beauty?” Is it really just “in the eye of the beholder?” One happy, contented person’s beautiful blue sky is nothing more than another depressed, lonely individual’s empty, meaningless expanse of … whatever?
This may seem like a trite question to begin with, but, if you think about it carefully, something extremely important is illustrated by the fact that people disagree on what is and is not beautiful. That’s what this brief, thought-provoking video is about.
Dr. Sean McDowell is a professor of apologetics at Biola University and, with his father Josh, co-author of the latest edition of “More Than A Carpenter,” the classic presentation of evidence for the literal resurrection of Jesus Christ from the grave. Enjoy!
“The first question smart gamblers ask is, ‘What are the odds?’ There’s good reason for it; playing the odds gives them the best chance at winning.
“However, the odds for many things we see in our universe coming into existence without any intelligent input or intentionality are so mind-numbingly improbable it requires an irrational dose of blind faith to even consider them.
“How mind-numbing, you ask? I’ll give just one brief example. Take living cells and the biological proteins that compose them. If we consider just one simple living cell consisting of only 250 short proteins, and those 250 proteins each consist of only 150 amino acids (they can consist of up to 30,000 amino acids), the odds that these 37,500 amino acids (250 proteins X 150 amino acids) could all arrange themselves into a sequence where the cell could actually function is only one chance in 10 to the 41,000th (that’s a one followed by 41,000 zeros.
“That’s a lethal problem for atheism. Even if the universe were 14 billion years old (that’s the oldest estimate even the most ardent atheists give it), there hasn’t been nearly enough time for 10 to the 41,000th attempts at anything. Not by a long shot! And that’s only one example out of countless others we could offer.” — Tom Hammond, What Time Is Purple, pps 16-17
Philosopher Kenneth Samples gives the answer AND poses a huge question about chance and design
“Advancements in science, technology, and medicine over the last century or so have benefitted virtually all people. Scientific progress has lengthened human life spans and improved quality of life.
“These great strides prompt a provocative question: Why does science work? That is, why is the scientific enterprise so effective in delivering critical, reliable information about the natural world that can inform and benefit humankind?
“I have posed this question to many scientists I’ve met through the years. The answer I usually hear is something along this line: ‘It just does. Science is unique. It works.’
I think the reason that most scientists struggle to tell me exactly why science works is … Go here for the answer.