Darwin's Black Box: The Law of Irreducible Complexity.

All of the credit for this concept goes to Michael Behe, a brilliant Lehigh University biochemist and author. His most famous work was "Darwin's black box." This is highly recommended reading to anyone who is searching for the truth or looking for material to debate against the ever-eroding theory of evolution.

Behe's most notable idea is what he calls "Irreducible Complexity." This idea theorizes that "a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." I know this can be hard to digest initially, but bear with me. Darwinian evolution says that today's animal world (including the "human animal") is the product of "numerous, successive, slight modifications" over countless millions of years. If this were true, at any point in the evolutionary process living things would contain systems and characteristics at all different stages evolution. BUT if these characteristics could only function at full development, how does the organism survive until evolution finally gets it right? That's easy; It's impossible! According to Darwin's own idea of "Natural selection" any characteristic that is not necessary or does not function correctly is discarded!

Consider a mouse trap. If you were to remove the platform, lever, spring, striker, or bait, the mouse trap would no longer be a mouse trap. It would be a collection of parts that had no function. Take Behe's example: the Bacterial Flagellum. You remember that little single-celled organism with that long hair-like tail. That tail is called a "flagellum." The bacteria cannot survive without the flagellum because the bacteria relies on movement to move food in and waste out. If we apply irreducible complexity to the bacteria, we see that the flagellum is a complex system involving the tail itself and the motor to drive the tail's motion. If it took thousands or even millions of years for the flagellum to evolve before it became a working model, how did the bacteria survive all those years without it? Irreducible complexity basically says that the bacteria would have died and become extinct because it's very existence required a fully-functioning flagellum. Darwin's idea of numerous, successive, slight modifications over incredible periods of time simply does not have an answer for irreducible complexity.

If you do some Internet research, you'll find a few professors and scientist who are brave enough to even acknowledge the idea of irreducible complexity. Most evolutionists conveniently don't talk about things they can't explain. Sadly, those that are still clinging to the idea of evolution don't make an honest effort to diamante the idea of irreducible complexity or even offer an original counter-idea themselves. They rely on the good old "Red Herring" defense. They mock, they call names, and they scoff, but none of them offer a reasoned defense. Like my favorite professor used to say, "A scoff does not amount to a refutation." (Thane Ury)

If you are resolved to enter into the discussion on evolutionary theory you will be subjected to vicious personal attack. I believe there are one of two reasons for this: 1) even the most brilliant scientists can become most irrational when confronted with something they can't explain, so they sling mud. 2) So many are committed to the Theory of Evolution because it eliminates the need for God, which is a convenient idea for anyone who does not like the idea of a higher power telling them how to live their lives.

The Apostle Paul exhorts all of us to "always be ready to give a defense" for what we claim to believe (II Timothy 3:15). There is a huge difference between accepting something to be true and really believing something to be true. How can you tell if you really believe something? Try explaining it to someone else.

If you can't articulate what you believe, then do you really believe it???

Be careful what you wish for. (Revival part II)

With my morning espresso at my side and the kids happily numbing their minds with Dora and her cousin Diego, all I have to do now is try to regain my train of thought to continue what I started earlier in the week.


Here's just a tiny bit of my background that might help to understand my perspective. I spent 5 years after high school and before college on the mission field in numerous different countries. Much of that time I was involved with a branch of our organization that partnered with Billy Graham Crusades in coordinating large evangelistic campaigns. We call them campaigns because the crusade is an event while the campaign is a massive (1+ years) effort to network with local churches to make the fruit of the crusade last. There are many stories that could come out of that subject, but that is for another post. The subject of revival is not only of personal interest to me a Jesus-follower and member of the church universal, but revival was the central mission of my vocation. I have studied the subject in detail and I have seen revival first hand around the world. I don't want to hurt any one's feelings, but I do want to put a crack in your worldview with this simple statement: Americans generally have a different view of what revival is; different from the rest of the word and different from history. Americans seem to view revival in this way:

1. a mostly emotional experience,
2. usually happens in church or a church related venue,
3. involves a drawn out time of worship through song,
4. includes only members of the church
5. usually lasts a few hours.
6. Tragically, they come back to church, or camp, or retreat, or conference with no fundamental difference in their lives.

It is important for me to add the following disclaimer. There isn't necessarily anything wrong or unhealthy or fake about those experiences in and of themselves. The problem is perspective, or Worldview. First, we call those experiences revival. For the most part, they are not. Second, and the American church is notorious for this one: these experiences leave no lasting effects on our lives. Here is where this blog's title comes into play. We do not know what revival really is so we don't know what we're asking for when we pray for it. I dare say, if we understood what revival really means, many would no longer pray for it.

I have always written like this. I used to drive my profs nuts in college. I spend a half or two-thirds of the entire project setting up the subject and very little on the actual subject. In this case, it is appropriate because the obvious question that needs to be answered is quite simple: So what is revival? From the first church in Acts to the Welsh Revivals and the Great Awakenings to the revival that is raging right this moment in China and South Korea, revivals in history have always contained the same basic elements: They are preceded by prayer, marked by repentance, and proven by permanently changes lives. In contrast to the typical American church view of revial, true revival is:

1. a excercise of the will,
2. is not restrained to the traditional church venues
3. involves drawn out periods of anguished confession, repentance, and labored prayer.
4. affects everyone in the community
5. lasts indefinitely because
6. Most involved are marked by permanent change in the course of their lives.

At this point I strongly recommend the book "Revival Fire" by Wesley Duewel. The book is a compliation of short accounts of the great revivals in modern history. There are other good revival books out there, but this one is particularly apropriate because these revivals occurred in the world we are familiar with. There is nothing like reading the stories of real revivals to kindle the passion in your heart for something more. I would be delighted to refer anyone to many excellent resources I have discovered over the years.

My next post will attempt to address the question: So how do we acheive genuine revial in our lives?

Don't pray for revival.

Okay, so this is my first blog post ever and I've already fallen prey to the classic article-writing temptation: throw out a controversial title as an attention grabber. I'm guilty, now let's move on. This subject of revival has been on my heart for more than half my life, but my perspective on the subject has changed considerably. This will have to be a multi-post subject because I have to get ready to go to work in half and hour.
My life is surrounded by worship songs. I am a worship team musician, my wife is a worship leader, my kids sing worship songs all day, my truck's radio is permanently fixed on a Christian station. Occasionally I run into songs that make me wrinkle my nose and think. For a time, the theme of "more" was terribly popular in modern worship songwriting. "More love, More Power, More of You, More, More, More..." I do not question the heart or motives of these blessed songwriters, but the worship-participant's perspective can ascribe a different meaning to the song than the songwriter originally intended.
To me, if my mind takes the position of singing "God, give me more," then I am operating on the assumption that God is holding something back. My Bible tells me that "His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness." (2 Peter 1: 2-4) If He has put everything at my disposal, then the onus is really on me if my spiritual life is not what it should be. Perhaps instead of asking God for more love, more blessing, more power, more of His Spirit, I need to ask God for more conviction of sin, more strength to combat the flesh, more spiritual discipline, more trials that produce perseverence, etc.
Pehaps we have a skewed understanding of what revival really looks like. It's very likely that many of us have never seen or experienced real revival. I suspect that most Christians think revival is a predominantly emotional experience with lots of tears and hugging and feel-good moments. Not that this is entirely wrong, I would suggest from my study of great revivals in history that true revival involved the mind and the will more than it employs the emotions. Revival is the product of choices to allow God to root out the sin and faulty thinking in our lives. Spiritual growth will not .....cannot.....be built on a flawed foundation. To the Christian, a proper foundation is a Biblically correct "Worldview." Worldview is what we employ to answer the big questions of life. Worldview determines how we evaluate our world. The Apostle Paul understood Worldview to the be the key element in the life of the believer when he wrote that transformation came from the "renewing of your minds." Not hearts or emotions or behavior......the Mind. If God can get you and I to think like He does, everything else will fall into place.
Of course, this begs the question: "What does that look like?" That is an equally big subject, which will be perfect for my next post. Time to get ready for work.