There came a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a
witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him. He
was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light. There was the true
Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. He was in the world,
and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to
His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. But as many as
received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to
those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of
the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word became flesh, and
dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the
Father, full of grace and truth.[1]
There is all the pathos in the world in the simple saying: “He
came to His own home—and His ,own people gave Him no welcome.” It. happened to
Jesus Christ long ago— and it is happening yet.[2]
This passage from John’s gospel is a poignant reminder of
humanity’s inability to recognize the Creator. The failure of first century
Jewish leaders to recognize their Messiah was tragic in the sense that the Son
of God was presented to the “people of God. Within their sacred scriptures prophecies
of Jesus abound. Promises of the Messiah’s coming were a source of comfort and
anticipation. John states a fact: his comments are not indicative of any
surprise by God. The statements of John were an indictment on the nation of
Israel, through whom the Messiah was to come. Israel was God’s holy nation, his
chosen people, nurtured and defended by God for centuries. The history of
Israel reveals how God protected his promises, pruning and purging evil from
Israel. The twelve tribes of Israel were united under Saul, David and Solomon.
Solomon through his many marriages invited foreign gods into Israel’s religious
core. God would have torn the kingdom from Solomon had it not been for his
previous promises. Ten tribes were given to a king not of David’s family. Known
as Israel, the ten northern tribes were destroyed, and captives exiled among
the nations of the world. Judah was reigned by monarchs of David’s descent. It
too sinned and was destroyed, with captives taken to Babylon. From exile in
Babylon a remnant representing all the tribes of Israel returned to rebuild the
temple in Jerusalem. Israel was the custodian of the promises made to Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob. The Jews should have known their own Messiah, but to their
minds he was beyond recognition. They had travelled so far down roads of their
own choosing that very little to do with the God of heaven was meaningful to
them. The Jews were religious; they had a highly developed system of rites and regulations.
The Jewish religion of the first century was the problem, its ritualistic focus,
and institutional leadership, blinded participants to truth. The religious
elite openly and violently opposed Jesus. They mocked his claims, and were
jealous of his acceptance among common people. The high priest and Sanhedrin
held tentatively to what power was vested in them by Rome –at a cost. They were
obliged to placate the whims of governors and those who belonged to Rome.
And all the prophets, as many as have spoken, from Samuel and those
after him, also predicted these days. You are the descendants of the prophets
and of the covenant that God gave to your ancestors, saying to Abraham, “And in your descendants all the
families of the earth shall be blessed.” When God raised up his servant, he sent him
first to you, to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways.[3]
In the parable of the unjust tenants[4]
Jesus told of caretakers refusing to give the owner the proceeds of the
vineyard. The Pharisees who were listening understood that the parable referred
to them. They were the evil tenants, spending the proceeds of the vineyard on
themselves. They and the leadership of Israel abused their positions of
authority by ignoring God’s requirements. They were in it for themselves, enjoying
the material benefits of managing Israel, not concerned about the people of
Israel.
What if anything does the gospel of John have to do with the
modern world? From the point of view of Atheists, Agnostics, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, followers of
Confucian, or people just not interested –not very much. In western societies “causes”
and “clubs” often take the place of religion. The people of God in the
first century were accused of rejecting Jesus their Messiah, the modern world
is equally culpable of rejecting God and Jesus.
Those who deny the existence of God set themselves up as
“knowing” what is true. Their position is that people who believe in God, are
less intelligent, and more gullible than people who don’t. Deniers of God claim
that evidence proves their theories. They point out that science supports the
theory of evolution, and that there is no place for God. Arrogant and bombastic
scientists mock believers, there is however a fairly large contingent of
scientists from various disciplines, which accept a theory of design. When
compared to the situation in the first century the modern word has more
evidence of God available to it than people did at that time. The documentation
of Jesus’ life and the Christian movement in its beginning, are better known
today than in any previous time. Consider the statement by F. F. Bruce;
There is no body of ancient literature
in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New
Testament”[5]
With all the evidence supporting the existence of God, and the
soundness of textual integrity related to Jesus the Son of God, the modern
world is even more guilty of rejecting God and Jesus than those in the first
century. Evidence is interpreted according to one’s belief. No one can prove
God exists, despite the abundance of evidence. We believe God exists, and we
believe he sent his Son into the world. Yes, there is evidence to back that up,
but accepting God and Jesus is still a faith-based decision. Evolution and the
non-existence of God are also faith-based beliefs, established on unknown
events, accidents and great gaps in evidence.
Although
evolutionary scientists will deny vehemently that their position is faith-based,
it requires considerable adjustment to the “evidence test” to allow the
evidences of evolution to be stated as fact. The evidence for evolution when
ignoring glaring voids appears reasonable, but there is no way to replicate results.
It takes a huge leap of faith to bridge the gaps which are plentiful in the
evolutionary hypothesis. And, just because a bunch of scientists ignore the
question of design in favour of an unfounded hypothesis, doesn’t make it fact
–it is faith-based. When comparing faith-based evolution to faith-based
creation, I will go with creation since basically, I have to believe in one
unprovable element –God. Evolution on the other hand has to believe in numerous
unknowns, and numerous unexplainable events. Unfortunately for evolutionists,
life will end with a big bang rather than start with it.
If we apply the fourth point of Daubert’s test of scientific
evidence, which is, “The extent of
general acceptance by the scientific community,” to the discipline of religion,
it would read, “The extent of general acceptance by the religious community,” obviously
science has to agree that the evidence for the existence of God is sound. As
far back as one can go in history people have believed in a supreme being. For
over three thousand years Jews have accepted the existence of God. For almost
two thousand years Christianity has existed in some form, both Jews and Christians
recognize the evidence of God. There is no unchanged scientific theory that has
been accepted by so many for such a long time. Scientific evidence is accepted
when the scientific community agrees it is evidence. The evidence of design is
accepted by people from every discipline, not just the religious community.
Jews and Christians have for thousands of years acknowledged God as the
designer and Creator.
While the phrase "scientific proof" is often used in the popular
media, many scientists have argued that there is really no such thing. For
example, Karl Popper once wrote that "In the empirical sciences, which
alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not
occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever
the truth of a theory,"[6]
Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science.
Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions,
whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The
primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence,
not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and
parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better
evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs
are not the currency of science.[7]
Empirical laws and scientific laws are
often the same thing. "Laws are descriptions — often mathematical
descriptions — of natural phenomenon," Peter Coppinger, associate
professor of biology and biomedical engineering at the Rose-Hulman Institute of
Technology, told Live Science. Empirical laws are scientific laws that can be
proven or disproved using observations or experiments, according to the
Merriam-Webster Dictionary. So, as long as a scientific law can be tested using
experiments or observations, it is considered an empirical law.[8]
Definition of empirical
1 originating in or based on
observation or experience <empirical data>
2 relying on experience or observation
alone often without due regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for
the theory>
3 capable of being verified or
disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>
Note: “So, as long as a scientific law can be tested using
experiments or observations, it is considered an empirical law.”[10]
The evidence of God is therefore based on empirical law. God’s creation of the world
can be tested in the same way as “the big bang theory”; as long as both theories
are subjected to the same laws.
It is not surprising that definitions among scientists have
become somewhat malleable. The term “general acceptance” applies to a group of
scientist who for whatever reason agree with a theory. That group then claims
to represent “true science” regarding its theory, at the same time denigrating
and maligning scientists who do not get on board with the group’s proposal. In
defense of their position “true scientists” blacklist scientists who do not
agree with the group’s decision. It seems to me that the more fanatical the behavior
of the group, the more unreliable its theory is bound to be. There are at this
time two great fallacies parading under the banner of “true science”,
evolutionary theories, and environmentalism. Evolution is a faith-based theory,
there is no doubt about that. Environmentalism is an emotional movement based
on a smattering of truth and an abundance of bad science. Doing what we can to
alleviate pollution is wise, however, we are living the story of the king’s new
clothes –somebody needs to tell the king he’s naked.
…in the 1960s, scientific historian and
philosopher Thomas Kuhn promoted the idea that scientists can be influenced by
prior beliefs and experiences, according to the Center for the Study of
Language and Information.[11]
'Normal science' means research firmly
based upon one or more past scientific achievements, achievements that some
particular scientific community acknowledges for a time as supplying the
foundation for its further practice.[12]
'Normal' science, in Kuhn's sense,
exists. It is the activity of the non-revolutionary, or more precisely, the
not-too-critical professional: of the science student who accepts the ruling
dogma of the day... in my view the 'normal' scientist, as Kuhn describes him,
is a person one ought to be sorry for... He has been taught in a dogmatic spirit:
he is a victim of indoctrination... I can only say that I see a very great
danger in it and in the possibility of its becoming normal... a danger to
science and, indeed, to our civilization. And this shows why I regard Kuhn's
emphasis on the existence of this kind of science as so important.[13]
Karl Popper in his quote provides the answer to why there are
so many followers of evolution; most people are evolutionist, because it’s the ruling
dogma of the day. It has nothing to do with evidence.
In a BBC article it is suggested that the universe has a
diameter of 93 billion light years; that’s big. Considering that one light year
is roughly ten trillion kilometers; that is really big! The universe according
scientists is expanding. The more appropriate vastness of the universe should
be written as the mathematical symbol for infinity. The order and precision of the
universe enables scientists to research and predict with accuracy where a
heavenly body will be in order to intersect with it at some future point. The
laws which permit such calculations are fixed, they do not vary. Many
scientists see precision and order as the result of a vast cosmic accident. There
exists in the universe proof of constancy and predictability; Rather than leading
back to a random event which changed chaos into order, observations and calculations
point to design. Strange that people use the intricate design of the universe
to conduct research, and yet deny the designer. For me, it’s simple, I believe
that God exists and that he created the universe in which we live. God is responsible
for the intricacies of the universe and wonders of the earth.
The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims
his handiwork. Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night declares
knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words; their voice is not heard;
yet their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of
the world. In the heavens he has set a tent for the sun…[14]
[1]
Joh 1:6-14
[2]
The Gospel of Saint John, Volume 1, William Barclay
[3]
Act 3:24-26
[4]
Mat 21:33-46, Luke 20::9-18
[5]
Evidence that Demands a Verdict, by Josh McDowell p. 50
[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence
[7]
Common misconceptions about science: “Scientific proof”, Satoshi Kanazawa.
Psychology Today
[8]
Empirical Evidence: A Definition By Alina Bradford, Live Science Contributor
[9]
Merriam-Webster Dictionary
[10]
Empirical Evidence: A Definition By Alina Bradford, Live Science Contributor
[12]
Thomas S. Kuhn
[13]
Karl Raimund Popper
[14]
Psa 19:1-4
