Take a Tip from Columbo {from, reasons.org}
 
By Gregory Koukl
 
Have you ever taken a verbal beating when trying to talk about Jesus? If so, try this simple approach to stop challengers mid-punch and make them take a close look at their gloves. It’s called the Columbo tactic.
 
Lieutenant Columbo was the 1970s bumbling TV detective whose remarkable crime-solving success was based on a simple inquiry: “Do you mind if I ask you a question?”
 
The key to this strategy is to shift the burden of proof to the other person by asking carefully selected questions. It can even be played out Columbo style—halting, head-scratching, and apparently harmless.
 
The Columbo tactic is most powerful when you have a goal in mind. If you see some weakness in another’s view, instead of plainly pointing out the error, expose it by asking a question in a disarming way.
 
Though there are literally hundreds of ways to do this, the Columbo tactic offers tremendous advantages. For one, it’s interactive, inviting the other person to participate in dialogue. It’s good to use on the job, too, because no preaching is involved. This approach allows you to make good headway in presenting and defending your view without actually stating your whole case. More importantly, a carefully placed question shifts the burden of proof to the other person where it may belong.
Burden of Proof
 
Christians tend to listen politely or take the burden on themselves to refute every fantasy a skeptic can spin out of thin air. Why let challengers off so easily, though, when they’re the ones making the claim?
 
On a popular secular radio program in Los Angeles I stated the case against evolution. When a caller tried to use the big bang theory to argue against a Creator, I pointed out the big bang worked in my favor because any big bang needs a big “bang maker.”
 
The caller disagreed. The big bang doesn’t need God, he claimed. Then leading off with the phrase “One could say . . .,” he spun a lengthy science fiction tale for the audience on how everything could come from nothing.
 
“You’re right,” I responded. “‘One could say’ anything he wants. But giving good reasons why we should believe the story you just told is another thing altogether.” It wasn’t my job to disprove his fairy tale. It was his job to demonstrate why anyone should take his musings seriously.
 
Remember, the one making the claim shoulders the burden of proof. For far too long skeptics have contrived fanciful challenges, then sat back and watched Christians squirm. If someone tells the story, it’s his job to defend it, not my job to refute it.
Three Key Questions
 
Sometimes when I’m not sure how to proceed, I ask open-ended questions. The most effective open-ended question I’ve found is some variation of “How do you know?” Kevin Bywater of Summit Ministries has developed a three-step formula that can keep the dialogue going with even the most belligerent antagonists.
 
The first step is asking a clarification question: “What do you mean by that?” This question accomplishes several things. First, it immediately engages the challenger in an interactive way. Second, it’s friendly because you’ve expressed a real interest in knowing more about the other’s view. Third, it forces him to think carefully—maybe for the first time—about exactly what he believes. Fourth, it gives you valuable information about the roots of the person’s thinking. So pay careful attention to the response.
 
Here’s the second question: “How did you come to that conclusion?” This is a gentler variation of “Where did you get your facts?” Though it’s similar in content, it has a kinder tone, assuming the critic has not just made an unsubstantiated claim, but has actually done some thinking.
 
The additional data puts you in a better position to assess and respond to the person’s view. You now know what he thinks, and you also know how he thinks. He’s also tipped you off about the way he reasons, giving you valuable information on how to proceed if you choose to.
 
I say, “If you choose to” because you may detect that it’s not the time to move forward, nor are you automatically obliged to. Depending on your personality you’ll face the temptation to be over-eager or under-eager. Remember, you don’t always have to hit a home run. Sometimes just getting on base will do, and the first two questions accomplish that.
 
If you do proceed, your third question suggests an alternative. Ask, “Have you ever considered . . .,” and then finish the sentence in a way appropriate to the issue. Offer an option that gently challenges the person’s beliefs, possibly exploiting a weakness you uncovered in the answers to your first two queries.
 
The tone of these three questions is probing, but still amicable. They also employ the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Keep in mind that if you ask these questions you must be willing to have that person ask the same questions of you.
 
Christians don’t have to be experts in everything. In fact, God can use believers effectively despite a lack of knowledge if we learn to ask good questions.
 
When someone says to you, “The Bible’s been changed so many times,” or “No one can know the truth about religion,” or “All religions are basically the same,” you don’t have to retreat in silence. Instead, simply raise your eyebrows and say, “Oh? What do you mean by that?” and then, “How did you come to that conclusion?”
 
You might be surprised to find that many critics aren’t prepared to defend their “faith,” or lack of it, when asked some basic questions. As Lt. Columbo demonstrated so well—asking the right question frequently settles the case.
 
Greg Koukl is the founder and president of Stand to Reason and hosts his own radio talk show advocating clear-thinking Christianity and defending the Christian worldview. He is the author of Relativism—Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air (Baker) and over 100 articles, many of which can be found at www.str.org.
Book Reviews: Speculations on Origins
Investigations
 
By Stuart A. Kauffman. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. 336 pages, indexes. Hardcover; $30.00.
 
Reviewed by Tony N. Rogers
 
Why, in spite of entropy, nature’s imperative to overall disorder, does life on Earth become so much more complex and biochemically diverse as time passes? Investigations asks this question while attempting to bring Stuart Kauffman’s concepts of self-organization into mainstream science. A recipient of the Mac Arthur Fellowship, Kauffman has one of the keenest minds in the naturalist camp. He is a founding member of the Santa Fe Institute, where he conducts research into the emerging science of complexity. His more well known books include The Origins of Order and At Home in the Universe.
 
Though it addresses the question of increasing complexity, Investigations contains views that are speculative and often incomplete. Kauffman himself terms the book’s subject matter “proto-science.” In this context, Kauffman proposes a new “fourth law of thermodynamics” that governs the actions of autonomous agents. Within this framework, he explores the origin of life from complex reaction networks, the coevolution of autonomous agents in biospheres, the operation of complex economies, and even the development of the cosmos. The overarching principle governing these seemingly disparate processes is termed the “adjacent possible,” which Kauffman describes as those things one step away from what currently exists. The book offers an example of a mixture of precursor molecules one reaction step away from forming a set of more complex organic molecules.
 
The origin-of-life question has clearly driven Kauffman’s scientific inquiries, particularly in view of the scant progress made by evolution’s advocates. Kauffman notes that Watson-Crick base-pairing in polynucleotides (such as the “RNA world” model) is the prevailing view of how self-replication began in the molecular world. However, subsequent efforts to synthesize such a system capable of self-replication have failed. Not deterred, Kauffman brings the concepts of autocatalysis, self-organization, and the “adjacent possible” to bear on the origin-of-life problem. He considers it likely, if not obvious, that self-reproducing molecular systems will spontaneously form in any large and sufficiently complex chemical reaction mixture.
 
Kauffman proposes an alternative model for the origin of life: a self-reproducing peptide system. In this model, no molecule would catalyze its own formation, but the system would collectively catalyze its own formation from smaller peptides. Investigations takes the potential for collective autocatalysis in complex peptide systems to be all but inevitable. However, the book never suggests how such a reaction system would spawn a genetic code or isolate itself within a membrane to sustain displacement from equilibrium. Kauffman has no ready answers to these questions at this stage of his research.
 
Given his assertion that life has “bootstrapped” its way into existence, Kauffman follows through with some novel ideas about the development of a biosphere. He views the proliferation of life forms in Earth’s biosphere as the natural tendency of existing entities to self-organize and coevolve into structures of increasing complexity, each agent altering the fitness landscape of the rest. But why should Earth’s biosphere become more diverse chemically as time passes? According to Kauffman, self-constructing agents attempt to expand, as rapidly as is sustainable, into the “adjacent possible” by acting on their surroundings to maximize the number of types of events that can happen next. Kauffman thinks an evolutionary strategy is robust if it contains alternative ways to do things in case the primary way is a dead end.
 
Investigations strikingly reveals how little progress naturalists seem to have made in bridging the gap between molecular systems and information-laden living organisms. In all observed naturally-occurring instances of increasing biochemical complexity, a mechanism with an overall entropy increase is the foundation. However, Kauffman’s proposals don’t yet offer a mechanism to explain how life’s complexity, as measured by its vast information content, came to be.
 
In the end, it seems that the alleged “new fourth law” is a glitzy repackaging of the old familiar laws of thermodynamics. Perhaps a more fitting term for Kauffman’s key concept might be the “adjacent improbable,” as applied to the origin-of-life question. Only those structures and events that are permitted by the laws of chemistry and physics will be viable, and some will be far more likely than others. Kauffman fails to show how to overcome daunting statistical improbabilities in naturalistic origin-of-life scenarios. He hints at a general biochemistry (or “astrobiology”) in which a generic catalytic toolkit exists, with each function performed by many possible chemical agents. However, the opposite is being observed in terrestrial biological systems: precise protein folding to achieve 3-D “lock-and-key” structures, a genetic code optimized for error recovery, and true molecular machinery.
 
As he develops his ideas of self-organization, Dr. Kauffman takes the reader on a grand tour of the cutting edge of modern science, often pursuing tangential details with little or no prologue. Even those with a good science background will find this book challenging in concept and delivery. A working knowledge of cell chemistry, mathematics, thermodynamics, and evolutionary theory is necessary to appreciate Investigations. Casual use of technical jargon such as “hyper-dimensional fitness landscapes,” “dimensional compactification,” and “Calabi-Yau space” may cause the reader’s eyes to glaze over. Fortunately, Kauffman incorporates an engaging style that brings the reader back for more.
 
Kauffman’s careful treatment of his scientific proposals, and his lucid presentation of admittedly difficult subject matter are thought provoking and educational. The scientifically literate FACTS for FAITH reader who is interested in the current research status of the naturalist paradigm will enjoy Investigations.
 
Dr. Tony N. Rogers is an associate professor of chemical engineering at Michigan Technological University (MTU). Prior to working at MTU, Dr. Rogers was a senior research engineer in the Center for Process Research at Research Triangle Institute. He specializes in the areas of thermophysical properties, chemical process design and simulation, and multi-criteria process optimization.
 

Nature, Design, and Science: The Status of Design in Natural Science
 
By Del Ratzsch. Albany, New York: State University, 2001. 220 pages, indexes. Softcover; $18.95.
 
Reviewed by Michael J. Behe.
 
Were the universe and life purposely designed by an intelligent agent? Many say yes and are content to take the conclusion as reliable and build on it. But the sometimes dangerous, sometimes dreary, job of academics is to probe seemingly reliable truths, no matter how obvious, to see if they are solid or not. Dangerous, because one might consciously or unconsciously set out to show that an obvious truth is false. Dreary, because one can devote the better part of life to showing that, to nobody’s surprise, an obvious truth is true.
 
In Nature, Design, and Science, Del Ratzsch, professor of the philosophy of science at Calvin College, has addressed in an even-handed, thorough, scholarly manner the question of whether science can properly study the prospect of the intelligent design of nature. Since science depends on the laws and regularities of nature, would embracing a theory of design be a poison pill for science, undercutting those regularities and allowing ad hoc design explanations? If so, then design must be ruled out from the beginning, even before the evidence is considered. Ratzsch’s ultimate answer is that design need not be detrimental to science and indeed may be beneficial. Like a fine philosopher, he covers the many distinctions necessary to reach a precise and reasonable conclusion.
 
The next question Ratzsch addresses is how to recognize design. His answer is to look for something he calls “counterflow;” that is, where things are arranged in a manner they wouldn’t be if nature had been allowed its normal course. Counterflow by itself, though, doesn’t reliably indicate intentional design—a person absentmindedly whittling a stick leaves counterflow marks, but no intended design. So in addition to counterflow, the result must match some understood pattern. If the whittling produced a replica of the U.S.S. Constellation, one could reasonably conclude it was intentionally designed. Although the idea of counterflow sounds straightforward, Ratzsch addresses many objections and what-ifs along the way.
 
Human intervention or design in nature produces counterflow, like a whittled stick or a bulldozed landscape. But things get trickier when one considers supernatural design. What if nature itself were designed? If counterflow is defined as what nature wouldn’t naturally do, then it seems nature itself can’t supply us with any instance of counterflow. Nonetheless, Ratzsch argues, people can still apprehend design in nature by secondary marks.
 
He further considers the main question of his book: can science legitimately test a theory that life and the universe were intentionally designed? He brushes away attempts to exclude supernatural design from science by definition. After examining various definitions of science, he concludes that design can be a legitimate theory in science and can even pose questions that would not arise with other theories. But like other scientific theories, design must stand or fall on the evidence and its ability to make sense of nature.
 
In a lengthy appendix Del Ratzsch goes over some technical differences he has with William Dembski, author of The Design Inference, on what goes into a conclusion of design. To a nonphilosopher the differences seem minor. Both Ratzsch and Dembski agree that people suspect design when they see something complicated (“complex” in Ratzsch’s lingo; “small probability” in Dembski’s) that can be recognized as fitting some special pattern (“mind correlative” to Ratzsch; “specified” to Dembski). Both also agree design is a rational conclusion that can be addressed by science. Those areas of agreement are almost the whole foundation of intelligent design. It’s probably good, however, that the two disagree to some extent, since disagreement often sparks more intellectual progress than agreement.
 
Nature, Design, and Science is a technical monograph (it’s published as part of the SUNY Series in Philosophy and Biology) that will be appreciated by philosophers, theologians, and pastors interested in the nitty-gritty of arguments over design in nature. The larger public, who have limited patience for books with subheadings such as “Supernatural Nomic Agency, Evident Counterflow, and Artifact Recognition,” will nonetheless appreciate that Ratzsch is using his formidable intellect to defend an obvious truth on academic turf.
 
Michael J. Behe is professor of biological sciences at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, PA, and the author of Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.
A Stellar Array: An Interview with Dr. David Rogstad
 
By Amy C. Jung
 
Dr. David (Dave) H. Rogstad serves as executive vice president of Reasons To Believe with the goal of developing effective teamwork. An accomplished scientist, Dave earned his Ph.D. in physics from the California Institute of Technology (Caltech). He conducted research there on galaxies for over ten years, interrupted by a two-year stint in Holland doing related research in radio astronomy. From Caltech, Dave went to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) to supervise teams working on such projects as the Galileo mission and on Hypercube concurrent computation. Before retiring from JPL, he published over twenty scientific papers on various aspects of aperture synthesis and interferometric techniques, as well as reports on experiments in radio astronomy and related fields. Currently a consultant for JPL, Dave is cowriting a book on an antenna array technique developed by his team for the Galileo program. In this FACTS for FAITH interview, Dave speaks of his background, his involvement with Hugh Ross, and his zeal for living a successful Christian life.
 
FfF: How did you become interested in science, Dave?
 
Dave: My dad wasn’t an educated man. He was a cabinetmaker—a woodworker. But, his interest in science and reading, and his example of being self-educated influenced me.
 
I understand you attended Caltech for graduate studies. After graduate school, what was your next professional step?
 
Although I was a graduate student in physics, when it came to actually doing research, I went into radio astronomy (astronomy that researches radio waves received from outside of Earth’s atmosphere). At that time, astronomers didn’t do radio astronomy—the physicists and engineers did. I’d been interested in astronomy as a kid, so this fit. I earned my Ph.D. doing research on neutral hydrogen gas in external galaxies. This gas is found throughout the universe, especially within galaxies. It radiates at a unique frequency called the 21 centimeter hydrogen line and can be used as a probe to discover how things move within a galaxy. Using this hydrogen line, I was able to determine how galaxies rotate and what their masses were.
 
How long did you work with the hydrogen line observations in galaxies?
 
I spent five years as a graduate student and then stayed on at Caltech doing further research in this field. When an opportunity turned up for me to work in Holland continuing this research in radio astronomy, my family moved there. For two years, we lived near the Westerbork radio observatory where I helped set up a new instrument.
 
Is that the reason you went . . . to help set up this instrument?
 
Yes. I was asked to help build an array of telescopes to do interferometry-type measurements, because of my experience with interferometry at Caltech.
 
Interferometry?
 
That’s a special radio astronomy technique. An interferometry technique is where two or more antennas work together to give information that you wouldn’t get if you only used one.
 
You mentioned living in Holland for two years. What brought you back?
 
Being in Holland was fun and educational, but we returned to the United States partly because it was important to me to be able to share my faith and participate in Christian ministry. In a foreign country, this can be difficult unless you’re there as a missionary. That, plus the value we placed on the influence of our extended family in the lives of our children helped make our decision. Also, I was given the opportunity to further my work at Caltech as a senior research fellow.
 
What was that opportunity?
 
I made observations of external galaxies using the hydrogen line as a probe—as a means to measure different characteristics of the galaxies. We had improved observing techniques so we could actually make maps in this hydrogen line and compare them with what can be seen through optical telescopes. These enabled me to make different discoveries and write papers on the subject.
 
What prompted your move from the Caltech campus to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL)?
 
In 1974, JPL organized a project using a radio astronomy technique to do spacecraft navigation. The technique is called VLBI, which stands for Very Long Baseline Interferometry. Radio astronomers use this technique to measure the position of radio quasars and to get details about these very distant radio objects that radiate in the radio region. Then these quasars are used as a framework for measuring the position of spacecraft. Because of my background in radio astronomy, I was considered an expert in that field. So when I decided to leave Caltech and look for other jobs, a friend of mine encouraged me to put in an application at JPL.
 
How did your personal relationships help determine the direction you chose?
 
I began thinking about how to evaluate different opportunities from a Christian perspective. What were the most important things in my life? Having a nice job was, of course, important, but further up the scale in terms of priority was my relationship with God. I asked myself, “Is where I’m going or what I’m going to do giving me a greater opportunity to grow in my relationship with God and to serve Him?”
 
Next was my wife, Diane. “Will where I’m going and what I’m doing enhance my relationship with her and help me fulfill my responsibilities in our relationship?” The third priority was my four children. “Will this improve my opportunity as a father to influence their lives and help them grow into responsible young men and women?” The next priority was ministry opportunities.
 
JPL was the best choice in terms of those priorities. I didn’t want to come to the end of my life and say, “I’ve written numerous papers and been to countless conferences, but my kids are out on the streets taking drugs—or rejecting faith in Christ.” Realizing that a poor choice could produce that kind of result, I pursued the job with JPL and have had no regrets whatsoever. I started there in 1974 and stayed until retiring last year to come to work at RTB. Diane and I have been married for about thirty-six years. The oldest three of our children are married and, to my joy, all four of them actively express their faith in Jesus Christ.
 
How would you describe your experience at JPL?
 
It was great. I enjoyed the projects I worked on and the people I worked with. The thing I liked most was that I could do what I liked to do as a scientist and as an engineer.
 
In about 1980, I became supervisor of a group at JPL and had many opportunities to share my faith. One of the key things I learned was that there’s more fulfillment, more joy, in making someone else successful than in making myself successful. How could I make these people that I’m responsible to lead successful in what they do?
 
Another principle I learned is from the Old Testament. Abraham lived in the land of Canaan as a stranger, but God blessed him. His neighbors didn’t want him to move away because they saw that God was with him and they reaped the benefits. That whole idea intrigued me. I prayed this would be true of me —that even though the people in my group at JPL might not be Christians or take an interest in anything I shared, that they would know they were being blessed because of God’s presence in my life. And I saw God answer that prayer over the years.
 
Can you cite a specific incident at JPL in which you saw God work?
 
One particular project entailed my team helping to “save the Galileo mission.” Galileo was the spacecraft that went to Jupiter. The antenna was shaped like an umbrella, but it wouldn’t open up and thus couldn’t be used. NASA could hardly talk to the spacecraft. The communication rate was only about 10 bits per second as opposed to the 137,000 bits per second they could receive with the big antenna. So my team tried to help solve that problem.
 
I told the team that I was praying God would make them creative and able to work efficiently because we were on a very tight schedule. The spacecraft was going to arrive at Jupiter in two years and we had a lot of work to do. A spacecraft doesn’t wait for you. When it’s there, it’s there—and if you’re not ready, well, too bad. The project was really very challenging.
 
Did your team complete the task in time?
 
Yes. The spacecraft arrived at Jupiter in 1995. The mission has been successful since then, in part due to my team’s contribution. I continue to go back to JPL once a week as a consultant and am coauthoring a book on the antenna-arraying technique that we developed.
 
What brought you to Reasons To Believe?
 
I’d served on the board since the ministry’s beginning in 1986. Hugh had asked me at various times whether I’d be willing to leave JPL and work for Reasons To Believe. He wanted me to do the same kind of apologetics work he does. I did a little, but didn’t feel that was my strength. Yet, as I observed the organization, I saw the need for someone who could be a scientist as well as a team leader. I never thought of myself as an administrator, but always had this idea that maybe sometime I’d leave science and get involved in ministry.
 
The group at JPL would have liked me to stay there. We typically ate lunch together. One day I wasn’t there and heard afterward that one team member said, “The real reason that Dave’s leaving here is not that he doesn’t like the job, or that he’s taking a better job and going to get paid more.” She went on, “This is a faith thing. It’s the fulfillment of a faith-type goal. So, this is what we need to do. We need to go and say, ‘Dave, I’ve been thinking about some of these things you’ve been sharing about your Christian faith over these years. And I really feel that you need to stay here longer in order to answer some of our questions.’” I went to her afterwards and said, “Nice try!” But, I was glad that their understanding of what I was doing was correct.
 
How did your Christian faith become so strong?
 
I grew up in a Christian home—a very serious Christian home. My dad was strong in his convictions and study of the Word. So was my mom. I grew up observing my sibling’s reactions to our parents and their emphasis on Christian ideas and the study of God’s Word.
 
I was a “good boy,” in the sense that I didn’t rebel against any of my family’s values. But on the other hand, I didn’t have a personal faith. I attended the Church of the Open Door in Los Angeles with my parents. The pastor was J. Vernon McGee, a tremendous Bible teacher. But as I reflect back, while there was a lot of teaching of God’s Word, it didn’t get my attention much. I attended Sunday school and even won a trip to junior high school camp by memorizing Scripture, but the experience didn’t have a deep impact on me.
 
As an undergraduate student at Caltech, I remember sitting in Sunday school class and noticing that many of the students I’d grown up with were interested in studying God’s Word. They had a knowledge that I didn’t have. I was jealous. I kind of figured I was smarter than they were, and yet I didn’t know as much about the Word. They marked in their Bibles and interacted with the teacher. So for graduation I asked my parents for a study Bible, thinking maybe I would do a little study and get smarter.
 
Did your parents give you the Bible?
 
I got the Bible and didn’t read it. I just kind of set it aside. But the following year, as I started graduate studies, my motivation changed. I was curious and figured I should find out what it meant to be a Christian. I started with the more readable parts in the New Testament—the Gospel of John—and it began to get my attention. Living at Caltech at the time, I went home on weekends and asked my dad questions. And my dad, who normally had a lot to say . . . didn’t. He just answered my questions. If he had said more, I might not have continued in the same way.
 
My dad gave me a booklet to read called the Judgment Seat of Christ. It was a little study on the passage in 1 Corinthians 3:10-15, which talks about people standing before the Lord and giving account for their lives. The Lord used it to bring awareness of past failures in my life. I came face-to-face with my need for a Savior and the need to give my life to Jesus Christ as my Lord. I spent a lot of time reading every night, and began attending a church closer to Caltech. I also joined the college group there.
 
One of the most important things I needed to do was clear my conscience from the failure of having cheated while a student at Caltech. I had violated the honor system in the class of an English professor who was a pretty strong atheist. This professor would read things that questioned faith and he told about his aunt who on her deathbed didn’t sit around reading the Bible. Instead she read Shakespeare and other great works of literature in her last days on Earth. So after much struggle, I decided that if I wanted God’s blessing in my life, I had to be willing to humble myself and go talk to him.
 
Early one morning I knocked on the professor’s door and told him how I’d violated the honor system in his class, but since becoming a Christian, this thing bothered me and I was coming back to confess. Well, he was very gracious, commended my willingness to take the steps that I did, and said, “There’s nothing we can do about it now.” I must admit I was very grateful.
 
During that next several years, I grew as a scientist and Christian. Then, an interesting fellow showed up on the scene. Hugh Ross had completed his degree at the University of Toronto in Canada and had gotten a post doc research position at Caltech in radio astronomy.
 
Dave stands in front of his 1965 Volkswagen. Green acrylic enamel supplied the finishing touch to this “Bug.” Dave fully restored four others—giving a labor of love to each of his children—but this one’s his.
 
What do you remember about meeting Hugh Ross?
 
I remember thinking he was kind of odd, but then of course as a scientist I was used to people being sort of odd. Hugh was very intense and highly focused on certain kinds of research. He came into my office one day because he needed information about the instrument we used, and I remember thinking as he left the office, “Well, it takes all kinds to make a world!”
 
Maybe a month later, I happened to go into his office and noticed on his desk a copy of a popular Christian book. I had no idea that he had any interest in Christianity so I asked him if he had read the book. He said, yeah he’d read it and thought it pretty accurate. I was kind of amazed that not only did he have an interest in Christian things, but he read books and was knowledgeable enough to check their accuracy. And I thought, “Wow, that’s impressive.” Even after being a Christian for a number of years, I didn’t feel prepared to make that kind of statement. So I asked Hugh if he was a Christian. He said “yes,” and I was delighted.
 
Why motivated you to change careers and come to RTB?
 
What excited me about the Christian life was not so much the apologetics as what it means to live as a Christian. I was tremendously challenged to understand the application of the Gospel. How do I have the presence of God in my life day-by-day so that I can live a successful life? How do I walk in the joy and victory it promises? I wanted to overcome the problems we all have with anger, bitterness, and forgiveness. I wanted clear purpose. I love being motivated to study the Word and apply it to life circumstances and relationships.
 
Of course, the scientific evidences and proofs that we have for our faith intrigue me. But I think the real challenge that I personally feel in sharing that scientific material is how to communicate it in a way that is understood by the interested noneducated person. Some of these people may have been too poor to afford college. Some may have gone to jail or escaped from drugs—so they don’t have an education. Many of them are very bright and if they’d had the opportunity could have been highly educated professional people. They’re interested in things related to science, but I need to be able to communicate in a way that’s understandable.
 
In a way, it’s similar to what motivates me to take the things that are in God’s Word and make them very practical and understandable by everyone, not just intellectuals. The same challenge is to take science and my understanding of scientific issues in the Bible and make them practical and understandable.
 
What does the future hold?
 
Well, I’m excited about the opportunity at Reasons To Believe to help build a team. The main thing I want to do is help Hugh so that he doesn’t have to worry about the details of running an organization. That’s not his strength. I hope he feels he has someone trustworthy who doesn’t have an agenda to develop his own career. I’m here to serve. Helping Hugh Ross and Reasons To Believe be successful in their mission is what I’m excited about and what I view myself doing until I can’t do it anymore.
A New Direction for Stem Cell Research
 
By Fazale R. Rana
 
Linda’s daughter has heart disease, Sylvia’s husband Alzheimer’s. Joe’s neighbor has Parkinson’s, Jesse’s nephew is paralyzed. All of these people long for medical research to develop cures for debilitating disease and injuries.
 
In light of this longing, people want to know, Should stem cell research be allowed or shouldn’t it? Did President George W. Bush make the right decision in allowing federal funds to go toward research on already existing embryonic stem cells? And, what other types of stem cell research can be done? Conflict and perplexity characterize discussions of this ethical quagmire.
 
The news media typically portray those who value human life as human life from the moment of conception as radicals opposed to scientific advances and indifferent to human suffering. What kind of response can bridge the gap between those in favor of virtually any form of biomedical advance with the potential to alleviate suffering and those who recognize that biotechnology has the potential to devalue and abuse human life? Can Christians participate in the stem cell debate in a way that expresses care and compassion—a way that might appeal to skeptics and seekers?
 
No thoughtful response is possible without an understanding of the basic science behind stem cell research. The following paragraphs offer a brief overview, and a ray of hope.
 
More than two hundred different types of cells make up the human body. These different cell types interact to form the wide range of tissues found in the human body. Specialized tissue cells develop from more generalized cells through the process of cell differentiation. Generalized cells that give rise to differentiated cells are called stem cells.[1] When a stem cell divides it produces two daughter cells: one a stem cell and the other a cell that develops into a specialized cell. This characteristic of stem cell division makes stem cells “self-renewing.”
 
Scientists know of three types of stem cells: unipotent stem cells capable of developing into a single specialized cell type; pluripotent stem cells capable of developing into a few closely related cell types and totipotent stem cells capable of developing into any cell type found in the adult organism. The presence of stem cells in an adult allows some tissues to regenerate throughout a human’s lifetime. Unfortunately, some adult tissues lack stem cells, and, therefore, cannot regenerate when impaired or in response to aging. After a heart attack, the damaged cardiac muscle cannot be replaced since adult heart tissue lacks stem cells.
 
Scientists have long regarded unipotent and pluripotent stem cells as the only stem cell types in adults. Totipotent cells are found exclusively in the early stages of embryonic development immediately after fertilization occurs. After fertilization, the zygote (the fertilized egg), rapidly divides several times. The resulting cells, called blastomeres, all have the potential to develop into the various tissues comprising the human body.[2] They are totipotent. Shortly after this embryonic stage, the cells begin to differentiate, sealing their developmental fate to a specific cell type. The only cells capable of developing into all tissue types are blastomeres.
 
Biochemical researchers looking for treatments for devastating conditions such as heart disease or spinal cord injuries are pursuing cell replacement therapies—the implanting of healthy tissue in place of damaged tissue. Few sources for replacement tissue currently exist. Researchers hope that totipotent blastomeres can be cultured in the lab and coaxed to develop into the different tissue types needed for tissue replacement. However, state-of-the-art techniques result in destruction of the embryos supplying these blastomeres.[3]
 
Herein lies the source of controversy in the stem cell debate. Many people view the destruction of the viable embryos from which totipotent blastomeres are harvested as nothing less than the taking of human life. They question whether this end truly justifies the means. Biomedical researchers, on the other hand, see no other source of totipotent stem cells. These scientists, especially those who do not necessarily share the perspective that man is made in God’s image, become frustrated by ethical objections that delay important experiments necessary to develop technology capable of alleviating human suffering. Even more perplexing to them are objections to the use of “leftover” human embryos produced by in vitro fertilization. After all, embryos no longer needed for the procedure are slated for destruction. Many Christians do not see this use as an acceptable compromise. They see it, instead, as utter disregard for “unwanted” but immeasurably valuable human life.
 
Some very recent scientific advances have the potential to virtually dissolve this ethical quagmire. Until now, developmental biology has regarded adult stem cells as having only restricted capability to develop into specific tissue types. Scientists have viewed cell differentiation as mostly irreversible. However, current work suggests that this paradigm will soon be overthrown.
 
A team of scientists from Canada’s McGill University recently isolated a unique type of stem cell from the skin of adult and juvenile mice.[4] The McGill scientists coaxed these stem cells to develop into neurons, smooth muscle, and adipocyte (fat) cells. This work holds twofold significance. Biomedical researchers previously thought that adult stem cells could only develop into cell types of the same tissue lineage, but these cells developed into cell types representing different tissue lineages. Though not totipotent, these stem cells manifested developmental potential beyond that of typical pluripotent stem cells. Secondly, these unique multipotent stem cells derive from the skin making them easily accessible. The human scalp may actually possess this type of adult stem cell.
 
Another team of scientists has recovered adult stem cells from the bone marrow of mice—cells that developed into lung, skin, stomach, and intestine cells.[5] Yet another team has isolated mouse brain tissue stem cells with the capacity to develop into nonneural tissues.[6] These studies usher in an important paradigm shift in stem cell research that may well eliminate the demand for embryonic stem cells.
 
Another mouse study overthrows an additional long-held paradigm in developmental biology—namely, that some tissue types lack the capacity to regenerate after injury. Investigators from the Wister Institute in Philadelphia discovered a mouse with the amazing capacity to regenerate heart muscle tissue.[7] In mammals, damage to cardiac tissue leads to the formation of nonfunctional scar tissue. Yet when their hearts were damaged, these mice displayed limited scar tissue buildup and produced replacement cardiac tissue. Understanding the molecular and genetic framework for this remarkable property holds potential for pharmaceutical treatment not only to repair damage from heart disease, but perhaps to repair damaged nerve tissue as well.
 
These thrilling advances, as well as new ones anticipated in the future, will likely lead to a shift in the focus of stem cell research. While continuing to oppose destruction of human embryos, the Christian community can and should aggressively support additional funding for stem cell research with the same goal as the scientific community—alleviating human suffering.
 
Daughters, husbands, neighbors, and nephews—loved individuals—all deserve compassion and the best of ethical research. On this common point of human dignity everyone can agree.
References:
 
[1]Harvey Lodish et al., Molecular Cell Biology, 4th ed. (New York: W. H. Freeman, 2000), 1062, G-16.
 
[2]Scott F. Gilbert, Developmental Biology, 6th ed. (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2000), 98-99.
 
[3]For a primer on stem cell research posted by the National Institutes of Health see http://www.nih.gov/news/stemcell/primer.htm [23 August 2001].
 
[4]Jean G. Toma et al., “Isolation of Multipotent Adult Stem Cells from the Dermis of Mammalian Skin,” Nature Cell Biology 3 (2001), 778-84.
 
[5]D. S. Klause et al., “Multi-Organ, Multi-Lineage Engraftment by a Single Bone Marrow-Derived Stem Cell,” Cell 125 (2001), 369-77.
 
[6]Rodney L. Rietze et al., “Purification of a Pluripotent Neural Stem Cell from the Adult Mouse Brain,” Nature 412 (2001), 736-39.
 
[7]John J. Leferovich et al., “Heart Regeneration in Adult MRL Mice,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 98 (2001), 9830-35.
After Death I.D.—Will I Still Be Me?
 
By Ronald Nash
 
Most Christians are convinced that people will know each other in heaven. This belief brings great comfort to believers as they watch loved ones pass on. But as popular as this belief may be, many Christians would be hard-pressed to produce much support for it. The tough question is this: How can Christians be sure that people will know each other in heaven? What kind of support, biblical or otherwise, can be found for the widespread belief that believers will recognize each other in heaven?
 
First it is necessary to establish whether humans retain their identities after death. Whether at the final judgment or in heaven, will we be the same people that we were in this life?
 
A good theological support for the idea that we will be the same people is based on the justice of God’s judgment at the end of history. At the final judgment, every human being will be raised from the dead and stand before God. It is clear that each person God judges at that time must be identical with the person who performed the deeds being judged. How can God be just if those He punishes are not the same people who actually committed the sins? How can God be just if those He rewards are different from those whom He chose before the creation of the world and saved by His free grace (Romans 8:28-30)?
 
One important biblical support for the belief in personal identity after death comes from Mark 12:26-27 where Jesus said, “Now about the dead rising—have you not read in the book of Moses, in the account of the bush, how God said to him [Moses], ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?’ He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” Jesus explained that even though these patriarchs had been dead for centuries when God spoke to Moses, God meant that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob still existed as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob during Moses’ time. God’s words further imply that these men still exist as themselves today. Abraham and the others retained their identities after death. Even after physical death, they kept the relationships with God they had enjoyed during their earthly existence. Jesus therefore assured believers that death does not end human existence or personal identity.
 
In Luke’s account of Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration, Peter, James, and John saw that “the appearance of [Jesus’] face changed, and his clothes became as bright as a flash of lightning. Two men, Moses and Elijah, appeared in glorious splendor, talking with Jesus” (Luke 9:29-30). Not only were these prophets still spiritually alive, but they also retained their identity as Moses and Elijah!
 
Additional biblical support for a belief in the continuation of personal identity after death is found in the accounts of Jesus’ appearance to His disciples following His resurrection. When Jesus appeared to the disciples on the evening of His resurrection, He spoke to them and showed them His wounds (John 20:19-23). John 20:20 says that “The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.” The risen Christ the disciples encountered in the upper room was the same Jesus they had known before His death on the cross.
 
These Scripture passages demonstrate that humans survive physical death with personal identity intact. Thus, we can reasonably infer that people will know each other in heaven.
 
Dr. Ronald Nash is professor of philosophy at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, Florida and at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. He has published over thirty books including Life’s Ultimate Questions and When a Baby Dies, many of which are available from www.amazon.com.
Creedal Controversy: The Orthodoxy of "Days"
 
By Kenneth Richard Samples
 
Should a specific view of the nature and duration of the creation days of Genesis be considered a part of the Christian creed? Does an “orthodox” position on the creation days exist, as it does for the Trinity and the Incarnation? Over the past few years a number of theologically conservative denominations (for example, Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Presbyterian Church in America, and the United Reformed Churches of North America) have discussed and debated the controversial questions of how to understand the Genesis creation days. Recently, both the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) and Westminster Theological Seminary, one of evangelicalism’s most conservative and well respected theological institutions, released statements announcing their conclusions. In light of the statement set forth by Westminster Theological Seminary (WTS), a number of reasons emerge for resisting the push to make the nature and duration of the creation days a test of orthodoxy.
 
Within conservative Reformed theological circles, and among conservative evangelical scholars as a whole, four popular and distinct interpretations presently dominate discussions concerning the Genesis creation days (though of course others exist). These positions include the Calendar-Day interpretation, which treats the days as six consecutive twenty-four hour periods; the Day-Age Interpretation, which views the days as six consecutive long ages; the Framework Interpretation, which considers the days as topical rather than chronological, unspecified in duration; and the Analogical-Day interpretation, which sees the days as merely analogous to the human work week. All four views appeal directly to Scripture for support. All four views are held by staunch advocates of scriptural inerrancy and supernaturalism. All four views reflect exegetical strengths and weaknesses. None of the views, however, deserves to be labeled an ad hoc capitulation to modern evolutionary theory.
 
More important than the exact nature and specific length of the days of creation is the factual nature of the events mentioned and described in the first three chapters of Genesis. Scripture describes a divine creation ex nihilo (out of nothing), Adam and Eve as actual historical persons, a real time-and-space fall of mankind into sin, and a divine promise of redemption. All four of the interpretations affirm, in principle, these non-negotiable biblical truths. While some of the views make a more substantial account and explanation for the biblical data than do others, the worst accusation one can legitimately levy against any is that it may sometimes be inconsistent in its affirmation of biblical truth. However, even if inconsistent, not one of these interpretations undermines the very truth-claims of Christianity through actual heresy.
 
Some scholars hold that any view of the creation days as other than six consecutive twenty-four hour periods must be labeled heretical, not explicitly, but implicitly. They argue that reading the days of Genesis as anything other than twenty-four hour periods undermines orthodoxy because it allows for the possibility that Earth is billions of years old. This idea, in turn, allows for the possibility of animal and plant death (not human death) before the Fall. Such an idea, they assert, compromises one or more of the non-negotiable doctrines of the faith. However, many well-respected evangelical scholars see no real logical or theological support for such an assertion. Some of these same scholars have raised doubts as to whether the Calendar-Day view itself can be squared with biblical inerrancy.
 
Christianity’s greatest theologians and biblical scholars, including Augustine, Calvin, and Warfield, expounded a diversity of views concerning the nature and duration of the creation days. From the time of the church fathers, through the Reformation, and up to the present, various views have prevailed, some more broadly represented than others, but none was ever considered the definitive, or the only, orthodox biblical position (see the WTS statement).
 
If indeed the nature and duration of the creation days cannot rightfully be considered a test of orthodoxy, then for church bodies to split over such issues not only hurts the unity of believers but also damages their reputation among non-believers. Christians have a divine imperative to stand up for the truth and against false doctrine. The issues worthy of such a stand do not include the length of God’s creation days. For nearly 2000 years Christian martyrs all over the world have chosen death rather than deny the essential doctrines of the faith. May God grant His church the wisdom to know which issues to fight and die for, and which to acknowledge as needing further study.
 
 
{God's 'Free Gift' of Salvation, through 'JC' awaits!; the Only, if Not insignifigant barrier, is {I dare say}, 'fallen' mans' Stubborn Pride!..'Zk's summation, of sorts}.