Connecting with Girls

There is something special about the bond a father has with his daughter. I don't have anything deep to say about this except that I've noticed lately that when I spend time really listening to my daughters, instead of hearing them as annoying buzzing sounds — they use talking like it's a sporting event — I sometimes hear their hearts. And they respond to me differently after I really listen to them. It's weird, can't explain what that is. They want to be physically near me afterward and do whatever I am doing.

I suppose this reaction isn't exclusive to girls. I know that when I listen to a little boy, he wants to be near me as well, and do what I do. But there is some qualities that are different. Boys want me to be more daring and adventurous with them than girls do. Girls do want physical contact, but it is of a different nature. Again, can't explain it.

Just a thought.

Simple Truths

There are those moments of clarity. They may happen all of a sudden, after a long period of learning, or after a life-changing experience. We call those moments epiphanies. Those times when deep truths, once hidden from us, suddenly reveal themselves in such clarity, we wonder why we never saw them before. They can be quite simple, but at the same time, quite profound.

I want to list some of these I've experienced not too long ago. They are deceptively simple truths, and are easily missed in day-to-day living — and are often ignored as if we already live by them. Here's an example:

• We can't spend what we don't have. Whether it's money, time, or relationships we cannot give or use what we don't already have in our possession. Yet, we live like this isn't true. We make promises we cannot keep. We buy things we cannot afford. We own things that own us. We give away what isn't ours to give. We want what we cannot have. And we complain that our lives are not working.


• Our lives are not our own. Christians are more likely to agree with this statement. We sort of understand that life comes from God, and God will call everyone into account for how we use it. But at a deeper, fundamental level, this is practically true. We can't control when we will die. We can't even control that fact that we will die. We don't know what our lives mean. And when we spend our lives, we don't know what we are spending them for? We make up reasons, but they don't mean anything unless the One who owns it tells us what to do — or rather, we listen to the Owner.


• God created beauty. What is the scientific reason for beauty, and the capacity to appreciate it? It says in Genesis 2:9 that God made trees, not only for food, but just for their beauty. Wow! God is a God of beauty. The aesthetic of God is as valuable as utilitarian creation such as for food.


• Moses listened to his father-in-law. This may seem like a small matter, but think about it: God spoke directly to Moses, not to anyone else, and not in a way even the previous fathers experienced. And here comes Moses father-in-law, Jethro, who hadn't experienced the exodus of the Israelites and God's mighty deeds at the hands of Moses. He comes and tells Moses what to do about how to organize. And Moses listens, and sees that it is a good idea! I don't know many who would do such a thing today. I honestly mean that.

I could go on, but I'll save for another post.

Darwin Where Art Thou?

Darwin's birthday just past and there are several articles discussing the merits of his general theory of evolution. But there seems to be a lot more heat than light in these articles.

First of all, we need to be honest about our terms. There is a sort of evolution that is supported by verifiable facts. Within each species there have been various changes and adjustments observed due to environmental factors. This sort of micro-evolution is observable and repeatable. However, the real debate is not concerning small changes over time, but macro changes from one species into another. And that all variety of life emanated from a single non-living event (abiogenesis). Even Darwin doesn't know how that could have happened successfully. This is called the theory of general evolution (GE).

Following, the fact is that there are no fossil records demonstrating the formation of one species into another. It is speculated as to what happened, but speculations are not scientific facts. True, stories have a purpose in explaining an hypothesis. But stories are not evidence.

The intelligent design theory (ID) on the other hand, makes the claim that stories are not sufficient to explain the diversity and complexity of life. They make arguments for an intelligent causal agent from a biological (irreducible complexity to DNA information) and a cosmological perspective (balanced universal forces to earth's unique positioning and environment). ID accounts for the laws of thermodynamics and says we can't contradict them like GE does (e.g. order coming from disorder). The role of science is to not only search for what is true, but to allow the evidence to form reasonable conclusions. It is more reasonable to believe that a bed of flowers that spell out the words, "I love you, Melissa. Will you marry me?", was planted and arranged by someone, than to believe it happened by random chance.

Some say that science cannot speak to those conclusions. When you do so, you must evoke the existence of God. But the problem with that notion is that you are begging the question. You have stacked the deck. By eliminating with prejudice any conclusion other than natural causes, you create a blindness to evidence that contradicts naturalistic conclusions. Therefore, the freedom to follow the evidence to wherever it leads cannot be allowed to exist. This makes it impossible to consider the role of intelligence, even when it is reasonable to come to that conclusion. (For example, the flower bed with a message could not have been designed because to consider it would evoke the existence of an intelligent cause.)

In forensic science, death is either determined by natural causes, or by premeditation. In other words, does the evidence demonstrate that death occurred by natural processes or by intelligence. We trust forensic science to make that determination, therefore it is reasonable to believe that science can speak to issues of intelligent causes. Therefore, science actually can (and does) consider the question of intelligence when it comes to causes.

If science can consider our origins from a biological perspective, as Darwin believed, it is reasonable to conclude that science can consider whether our origins are from an intelligent agent or natural causes.