Both were mathematicians who, at the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology in Philadelphia in 1966 argued that mathematical difficulties with neodarwinism.  They were not convinced that a random shuffling of a one-dimensional genetic code could produce a “highly coordinated multidimensional organism.”

Pierre Grasse (Evolution of Life)

Argued in the 1970s that neodarwinism had, as yet, explained nothing and that “it is possible that in this domain biology, impotent, yields the floor to metaphysics.”  He served for a time as head of the French Academy of Sciences. He supported the idea of directed evolution, or “vitalism.”

Michael Polanyi (Personal Knowledge: Toward a Post-Critical Philosophy)

Converted to Christianity after reading Dostoevski’s The Brothers Karamazov.  He argued that personal, subjective insight was what guided the most successful scientists, and not dispassionate objectivism.  Was one of the first to point out that DNA had both complex order, which like a fractal could occur naturally, and information content, which is produced by no known natural mechanism.

Thomas Kuhn (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions)

Developed the idea of the “paradigm shift” in 1962, that scientific revolutions do not occur gradually as information develops, but rather in step-wise fashion.  Science is “conditioned by history, society and the prejudices of scientists.”

Brandon Carter (Large Number Coincidences and the Anthropic Principle in Cosmology)

Was one of the first to argue against the Copernican principle of human mediocrity, and in favor of the privileged human position as observers.  Once said “what we can expect to observe must be restricted by the conditions necessary for our presence as observers.”  Was not a theist, and not happy with the way his views were used by those arguing for design.

John Leslie (The Sharpshooter Argument)

Although a Platonist, believes that design is one valid interpretation of present data.  Argued that whether we accept design or a multiverse solution, the question of anthropic privilege cannot simply elicit a “so what?”  Used the “sharpshooter” illustration of a man saved from a firing squad when all fifty shots miss.  Who would walk away from such an experience unmoved or unchanged?

From By Design: Science and the Search for God by Larry Witham, 2003: Encounter Books, San Francisco.

God is not dependent on our persistence.  Rather we are dependent on God’s.  Jonah is called to Nineveh, determines not to go, and is “rerouted” by God.  Now He calls the prophet “the second time.”  The only message he proclaims is law.  This does suggest that the law can, indeed, create repentance.  Although at this point there is now “salvation,” per se, for the people of Nineveh have nothing in which to place their hope.

1 Corinthians 7:29-31

An exceedingly short reading dealing with the end times.  In other words, now.  A lot of ridiculous paradoxes: married people living as though unmarried, those dealing in the world as if they weren’t.  All because the present “form” of this world is passing away.  A suggested translation of 7:31 is “those using the world as not abusing it.”  This life is only a dress rehearsal, a small shadow of a greater life being prepared for us.  What kind of lives should we live, knowing that our current life is a fleeting and temporary thing?

Mark 1:14-20

This pregnant time has now come to its fulfillment.  Repent, and believe the Gospel.  This is the driving force behind our lives in this present age.  Jesus takes those involved in the mundane tasks of this world, relieves them of that work, and gives it a new meaning.  Andrew and Simon, John and James become “fishers of men.”  Simon and Andrew are called immediately, John and James respond immediately.  There is urgency to this work.  Have we lost our sense of urgency today?  John and James are in the process of preparing their nets, but even so they abandon their work to follow Jesus.

There are real limits to any formal reasoning system attempting something in the nature of a mathematical proof.  Science and faith share a common belief that what we see as normal reality is not actual reality; the observable has something more fundamental hidden behind it.  This may be part of the reason a compelling proof of God’s existence or non-existence may not be possible.  Certainty in this world may not only be unknowable (to use Chaitin’s term) but is also unavailable.  This does not mean that an argument cannot be rational and plausible, but perhaps it cannot compel one to choose in a certain direction.

The result of these deeply embedded undecidable fundamentals in mathematics and all formal reasoning systems is that everyone has to make Pascal’s Wager or Kierkegaard’s leap of faith.  There are no exemptions.  Because abstention is a vote, agnosticism is not a real option.  Everyone lives and dies with a faith, whether the faith is theistic or naturalistic.  This is the way our reality appears to be structured, and everyone ultimately makes a choice, whether that choice is passive or active. (p.183)

Overman bases a good chunk of his argument on concepts of mind and consciousness related to quantum mechanics, and to the ideas derived from Godel’s incompleteness theorem in mathematics.

Heisenberg’s “Uncertainty Principle,” that the product of the change in position and the change in momentum of a subatomic particle will always be greater than Planck’s constant divided by 4 times pi.  In English, one can know the position of a particle but only by sacrificing any knowledge of its momentum, or speed,

Wave-particle duality, or the notion shown through experimentation that “photons” of light can behave either like a particle or like a wave depending on whether an attempt is made to observe the individual particle,

Schrodinger’s wave equation, describing the specific quantized “wavelengths” available to the electrons of an atom in order for it to be stable,

The Einstein-Podolski-Rosen (EPR) effect, sometimes referred to by Einstein’s colloquial phrase “spooky action at a distance,” which implies either nonlocality (a fancy way of saying the particles are behaving in a way well outside of classical interactions), or the existence of some as-yet-undiscovered hidden variable, which led to

Bell’s Theorem, an attempt to determine whether the heretofore unexplainable behavior of subatomic particles could be governed by some as-yet-undiscovered “hidden variables.”  Experiments testing what are now known as “Bell-type inequalities” have born out conventional quantum mechanical theory and ruled out hidden variables, and

The Copenhagen Interpretation, which is the view that the quantum world does not have any true physical reality; physical reality is established by macroscopic measuring apparatus interacting with the microscopic world.

All of these, summed together, suggest that the behavior of particles on the subatomic level changes under observation.  Now one can see where the ears of theologians and philosophers might perk up.  So after establishing the basic physics, Rae explores how some have chosen to deal with this current state of physics. There are some, such as Sir Karl Popper (a philosopher) and Sir John Eccles (a Nobel-prize winning neurologist) who see in these ideas some evidence for a soul, or at least a distinction between the mind that observes the world and the brain by which it is observed.  Call this the “Consciousness Interpretation” of quantum mechanical theory.  The universe exists because conscious entities observe it.  Rae has difficulties with this interpretation, but does present it fairly well.

There are, obviously, those who would rather keep theology out of physics altogether.  Many in this group hold to the “Many Worlds Interpretation” of quantum observation, the idea that each observation spawns a universe in which every possible experimental outcome occurs simultaneously.  While this has the benefit of getting around talk of God, souls, and consciousness, it is (in Rae’s oft-quoted phrase) “cheap on assumptions but expensive on universes.”

The view which Rae prefers is that proposed by Ilya Prigogine, and flows from the concept of time’s arrow, or the notion that certain types of occurrences are  observed to happen in one direction only.  Watching Humpty Dumpty fall from the wall into a state beyond repair is easy to visualize.  We do not, however, observe broken eggs reassemble themselves to be re-situated in a state of high potential energy.  French scientist Henri Poincare suggested that this “arrow” of time was in fact an illusion, since subatomic processes do not see to be bound by this same restriction.  He suggested what is now known as a Poincare recurrence, the concept that given sufficient time the Second Law of Thermodynamics will be observed in certain cases to have been merely a suggestion.  We might call this the “Hebraic Model,” where the universe asks us to accept it as fundamentally dynamic and not static.

Prigogine proposed that in fact is it the seeming reversibility of subatomic processes that are the illusion.  The universe is less something that “is” and more something that “is becoming.”  In fact Prigogine’s book on the subject is called “Being and Becoming.”  Certainly this idea has its own philosophical and theological implications which are worth exploring.

Rae, Alastair.  Quantum Physics: Illusion or Reality?  Cambridge University Press: 1986

Genesis 1:26-27 is a poetic statement of how the Creator imprints his image within his creation.  Man is made in the image of God.  Yet man, the unity, exists in two genders: male and female.  Together, they are human.  And so the man and the woman come together and form one flesh.  Even Augustine saw this as a manifestation of God’s triune nature within creation when he analogized the Trinity as “the Lover, the Beloved, and the Love between them.”

Jesus’ incarnation reveals another unity in multiplicity.  He is one person, yet having two natures.  He is both fully divine and fully human, yet one.  Jesus does not marry a single woman, however, because his desire is to marry the One Woman who is His Church.  That One Woman is herself made up of many members.  So all who are in Christ become One New Woman, married to Christ, who then unites this One Woman with God through Himself.

Sin takes that which belongs together and separates it, forcing us to see the Other as a figure of opposition rather than as a compliment that with us makes a unitary whole.  Marriages that are meant to be the reflection of God’s unity separate.  Churches schism because members forget that they are members, and some attempt to set themselves up as heads in distinction to Christ the True Head.

God is the one who delights in making one out of many, because God is one in many Himself.

“Par la grâce que vous êtes sauvés par la foi. Et ce n’est pas votre propre fait, c’est le don de Dieu.” Ephésiens 2:8 (ESV).

Il ya à peine un figure qui est plus représentatif de la période de Noël, outre Jésus Christ, que le Père Noël. Certains chrétiens croient que, y compris l’histoire d’une «vieille nain joyeux” qui vit au pôle Nord et offre des cadeaux aux enfants sages est une partie inoffensive de célébrations de Noël. D’autres excluent délibérément le Père Noël entièrement, faisant de lui un antagoniste du jour férié, un spoiler pour Jésus, qui devrait être la vraie raison de la saison.

Mais il ya un fond solide, historique et chrétienne de l’histoire du Père Noël. Le nom due Père Noël en anglais, «Santa Claus», vient d’un pasteur du 4e siècle grec nommé Nicolas. Nicolas est né vers 270 après Jésus-Christ dans ce qui est maintenant le pays de la Turquie. Ses parents sont morts tandis que Nicholas était encore jeune, et il fut élevé par son oncle qui était lui-même pasteur. Il ya de nombreuses légendes raconté au sujet de Nicolas, et beaucoup d’entre eux ont à voir avec donner des cadeaux aux pauvres ou d’autres qui se trouvent dans des situation désespérées. Au fil du temps, l’idée d’un donateur de cadeau qui visite des maisons en secret s’est attaché à la célébration de la naissance de Jésus.

Tous les chrétiens devraient être en mesure de convenir que tout ce que nous faisons pour célébrer Noël, il doit mettre l’accent sur le Don de Dieu pardessus de nos cadeaux. La raison d’être de donner des cadeaux à Noël est le grand don qui nous est donnée par le Père, notre Seigneur et Sauveur Jésus-Christ. Que ce soit le Père Noël, Nicolas, membres de la famille, ou des amis, personne ne doit supplanter l’objectif réel de Noël, la célébration de la naissance du Christ.

Père, dispensateur des dons bonnes, aidez-nous à Noël à rendre grâce pour le don de ton Fils. Amen.